From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Aug 12 18:47:18 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 SAA25497 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:47:18 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA09091 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:53:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:53:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199808122353.SAA09091@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 #910 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 Wednesday, August 12 1998 Volume 01 : Number 910 In this digest: Re: IN> The Contessa of Envy IN> More FotM grumbles RE: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] Re: IN> Dissonance question [FotM SPOILER Alert!] Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) IN> Lilim Resonance IN> Malakites and burning villages Re: IN> Angelic Hearts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:02:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> The Contessa of Envy On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Julian Breen wrote: > Relations > > Allied: Andrealphus, Mammon > Associated: Valefor, Haagenti > Hostile: Belial > Enemy: Saminga No Malphas? I would've thought him Associated at least... A very good writeup. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Official Martyr of X-Day! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:55:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "York H. Dobyns" Subject: IN> More FotM grumbles Having seen a lot of griping, and gone out and gotten the book myself, I'm forced to agree. Fall of the Malakim is a disappointing product -- not the book as a whole, but the title adventure. Contradictions of explicitly stated mechanics in prior supplements, plot holes galore. It simply isn't up to the standard I expect from SJG. o The excuse that the APG describes things angels believe, rather than the underlying reality of the game-world, has been used to explain Malphas' ability to create an artifact that would shatter a Heart in Heaven. If this is so, though, Maximilian's sentence becomes impossible. The final segments of the APG make it very clear that no one in Heaven *knows* for sure if Malakim are really immune from Falling, or if the established fact that none ever have is because they police themselves so thoroughly and in particular pursue so vigorously any of their Choir who manages to become Outcast. Given this uncertainty among *angels*, it is flatly inconceivable that a Malakite Archangel would "punish" one of his choir-mates by putting to the test his ability to soak up endless Dissonance. o The description of Malakim *in the core rules* makes it clear that your Superior's orders take precedence over your oaths, or at least over the "Suffer not an evil to live" oath due to its phrasing. Maximilian has no business taking dissonance for failing to fight the demons of LA; he has been explicitly *ordered* not to do so, and the core rules explicitly declare that this does not cause dissonance. o Bright Lilim are repeatedly described as both rare and precious. Others have already pointed out that Mira has no business in her current assignment. What I want to know is, why does her Superior -- a Cherub Archangel, after all -- not hold her as an attunement, or direct one of the more powerful Cherubs in her service to do so, with the specific intent of rescuing her whenever her Geas gets called in? Given the scarcity of Bright Lilim, Mira might be the only one in Blandine's service, after all. o The firmness of demonic control in LA is taken as a given. New Celestials are expected to identify themselves, and new angels get hazed. Now, this has been a somewhat iffy matter in other supplements, but it's never been as blatant as in this case. How does the demonic hierarchy *know* when a new celestial arrives? The core rules harp endlessly about the extreme difficulty of distinguishing an embodied celestial from a mortal. An angel who went to LA, restricted itself to actions that cause no celestial disturbance, and carried no Dissonance or Discord should be able to proceed anonymously for an indefinite span. One Elohite or Mercurian with a well-established Role could wander into town and cause no *end* of hassles to the resident demons' plots without ever revealing its celestial nature. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:13:08 +0100 From: "Bene-Elohim" Subject: RE: IN> Dissonance question > > Let's start with a simple question. Can an angel gain Dissonance by > doing something that is evil, but not "against his nature" in the sense > of violating his Choir attunements or the rules of his Superior? > Demons are inherently selfish, angels inherently selfless. Can you hit an angel with dissonance for being selfish? Could you, for example, say that to massacre a village for the sake of one minor demon, was selfishly elevating the importance of a task (kill the demon) above the importance of many lives. If the answer is yes, it all becomes very hazy when you think beyond this to the massacre of a village to take out Legion. Perhaps these two scenarios are cut and dried, but somewhere in-between you have to draw a line. Of course reasoning like this could have been the reason for Michael's trial. It could add an interesting moral system to the game if angels have to weigh everything they do, against the cost, and always act for the greater good. Which may involve finding radically different solutions to problems that must be solved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:48:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > I'm sure I've said this before, but I think lilim should have to offer the > bargain up front (as in, I have this thing you need and you can have it, but > I'll want a favour from you in return). At least that way, anyone who > accepts it genuinely does deserve what they get... If they phrased it > subtly, they could still trap angels, and it fits all the folklore about > never entering into bargains when you don't know what the other side is > going to be. Hm. I think if I made that change I'd remove the chance a victim has to avoid the geas with a Will roll minus the level of the geas. (I always thought that was a bit kludgy, anyway; it means that someone has a better chance of resisting a geas/1 "Give me $20; now *I* want to buy a CD." than a geas/6 "Turn off your father's life support machine; I want to see if the hospital staff get here in time to save him." > The way it works now, the geasee is always tricked into the > bargain unwittingly. It just.. sits wrong with me. I'd like lilim a lot > better if they didn't strike me as being so unfair. Lilim are, after all, demons. > ps. Come to think of it, I rather like the idea that geases might vanish on > redemption. It would give Lilith a _really_ big incentive to make sure her > frees didn't go angelic, It's canon (in _Fall of the Malakim_) that she doesn't seem to mind. I rather like it that way; she is the Princess of Freedom, after all, and as long as it was a free choice.... > and would explain better why Asmodeus allows free > lilim to wander without hearts anyway. I'm not sure why that follows. If a Redeemed Free Lilim loses all the hooks her Mother had on her, that seems like a good solid reason for Asmodeus to clamp down *even more*. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 13:57 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] >>p117. Why would opening an Angelic Tether kill Natalie's vessel? Just a >>dramatic plot thing? Or some part of Tether Canon we haven't seen yet? > >A bit of both, really. Re-opening Tethers is rare, and can do some >interesting things. (Yes, that's going to be in the Tether book.) Tethers have a lot of energy kicking around, and most of them are quirky in various ways. I'm not sure there's a specific reason why this might happen, but it's at least plausible. Certainly being *celestial* in an angelic Tether can be fatal to demons, though not immediately. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:55:15 -0700 From: "Akira" Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Eeyore wrote: >The dissonance is acquired by violating one's >nature, absent any question of whether or not the actions that >caused it are right or wrong. (This was worded as though it were an oversight or fault in the system.) I personally feel that this is a completely intentional aspect of the system. It allows for tragedy and questions of morality within the game. To have made all the resonance's 'morally' right would have been simplistic and limiting in its scope. Morality by its nature is not right or wrong except in relation to those involved, and in this case we're dealing with Archangels and to an even greater extent God. Just as in some cultures we would consider their moral standings as wrong, they are not inherently immoral. Right or wrong is completely subjective and dissonance is not. So if the question arose to do something immoral or wrong in the persons view but avoid dissonance, than the wrong thing would be a more viable option although not set in stone. It's a character thing and an area that the game designers have left to individual play groups. If the action were morally right in the characters eyes than perhaps they would take the dissonance. . . and learn. I personally don't tell my players that they have done something dissonant until they do. No warning bells or "ummm, are you sure", asides. Just BLAM, the Symphony takes a big wind up and kicks you in the a$$ you call a soul! So would the LiIim do something moral or immoral to her own guidelines to avoid dissonance, looks that way. . . but( this is a general statement here and without direction to anyone ) - ----- if someone creates something, uses their imagination and does the work to see it through and you haven't. . . than where are you coming from? Let's have a little respect for artistic freedom shall we. > They >certainly would never have one living unsupervised in a city controlled by >demons. ( in reference to bright Lilim owing to a DP ) This is questioning the knowledge of the AA's from the game designers point of view who are liken to God... or Yves at least, so it's probably a moot point. Dissonance is not morality!! It's like playing Mozart at a Bach concert. Mozart isn't 'wrong' it just doesn't make sense at a Bach concert. A demon meanwhile is playing Korn! :) Perhaps, in not so many rul-- errr I mean words, the belief on behalf of the Malakite and his impending doom is what allowed the whole fiasco to go down. When one loses faith in what they are, they become very malleable to the wills of others. 'Will' being the key word here. >>The problem here is that you have a case of clear violation of the rules >>without any real consideration of the impact on the game world. Impact on the game world? I thought the next supplement dealt with the APOCALYPSE!!! How's that for impact on the game world?! I'm certainly going to break alot of rules when armageddon comes a knockin' on my door. Hell, even Novlis will send out her Malakim, maybe as a celestial Red Cross. he! he! So, it's annoying that the FotM is a precursor to another book. Oh well. As far as I know The Final Trumpet is at the printers so campaigns that don't like hangers just wait for the release and play as if FotM never came out yet. Geases are a matter of honor and upholding your agreement. I suggest those who don't understand the nature of a geas look into the real life accounts of the stupid things that people did to save face. World mythology and history is full of them. Remember, a bright Lilim is someone who has returned from Hell. Being bad but not dissonant isn't going to get you back to there. However, being dissonant and good is. Life sucks don't it. > People have pointed out >time and again that Lilim are power munchkins, because they can get you >without you needing to know about it. On the other hand, forcing them to >bargin seems to level the playing field somewhat. Level the playing field? It's my knowledge that this is a descendant of the gal that walked out of Eden due to a loophole in the experiment! If her momma could dupe God, you don't think they could manipulate humans like clay and angels to a lesser extent ( if they're smart ) ? Lilim are and always will be a wild card. Subtle use of them can greatly affect any situation, as we have seen!! So in summary, I think alot of the banter that's gone on has been in the adventure not the rest of the book. Adventures aren't canon in my opinion. They're stories to use and abuse till your little shattered heart's content. Akira-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 14:01 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] > Unless, of course, Dominic resonates on them when they tell >the story, in which case the whole truth will come out. Come to think of it, >he might do this if they come back and say that Max wasn't there. What then? >Seraph Archangels are a real pain if you're trying to run a mystery. Of course, Seraphim don't get the entire Truth all the time; there *are* mysteries they can't get past. Also, there are two Superiors on the other side who are presumably opposing any attempts to get at the real Truth. This may be sufficient to foil even Dominic's resonance. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 14:08 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts >I haven't read the book yet but this has brought up something I was curious >about. We know that celestial hearts can't be taken out of the celestial >realms, but would it be possible to steal a heart and take it directly from >hell to heaven, or vice versa? (Assuming that you had a way to travel >directly from one to the other) I would say not, at least in my game. Their nature is very much tied to the place they were created in -- they probably can't be taken elsewhere. On the other hand, Wind Servitors might be prone to steal people's Hearts in Heaven and hide them in odd places, just to stir up some of the more stick-in-the-mud angels, like Laurence's and Dominic's. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:12:51 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question At 12:48 12/08/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >> I'm sure I've said this before, but I think lilim should have to offer the >> bargain up front (as in, I have this thing you need and you can have it, but >> I'll want a favour from you in return). >Hm. I think if I made that change I'd remove the chance a victim has to >avoid the geas with a Will roll minus the level of the geas. Yep. I agree. Once you have agreed, you give up your right to resist whatever the lilim decides to ask for. >> The way it works now, the geasee is always tricked into the >> bargain unwittingly. It just.. sits wrong with me. I'd like lilim a lot >> better if they didn't strike me as being so unfair. > >Lilim are, after all, demons. Well yes, but I meant unfair as a GM, in comparison to the other demons. All demonic resonances can be unfair to the victim, but lilim are worse because it is an angel's nature to understand generousity of spirit and find selfishness difficult to comprehend. I don't want to run a game in which every time you ever accept anything from anyone (even if it is part of their job, like being a chef) you might lose your soul. That kind of unfairness I can live without. And I'm not even going to mention the poor impudites again :) >> and would explain better why Asmodeus allows free >> lilim to wander without hearts anyway. > >I'm not sure why that follows. If a Redeemed Free Lilim loses all the >hooks her Mother had on her, that seems like a good solid reason for >Asmodeus to clamp down *even more*. It is because as things stand, Lilith almost seems to encourage it. The worst she can get is minions who will have lots of useful contacts on the Other Side. If Lilith had a really strong reason for not wanting them to go bright, then she'd do a lot of Asmo's work for him. It would also mean that there were 2 ways for a free lilim to be totally free of geases, and one of them involved total submission to an archangel. I like that as the GBS style of 'There is only one true freedom; where you are free to choose and choose to serve,' but that's just me ;) jo - --- O Lord, grant that we may always be right, for Thou knowest we will never change our minds. -- Old Scottish Prayer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 14:20 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] >One possibility which would make the artifact make more sense would be >changing the nature of the artifact so that it didn't break the Heart; it >made the Heart more fragile so that it would break when Maximilian did >something that caused him to take dissonance. This would also remove the >need for careful timing so that Mira breaks the Heart when Maximilian is >on film. > >This still involves a Heart breaking without the angel necessarily >Falling, but there's no way around that. Note also that this is an angel who has earned so much dissonance that he almost certainly *would* have Fallen, if he hadn't been a Malakite. His Heart is very likely to be much more fragile than any ever seen before. It's not all that implausible to me that it might be broken by a special artifact purpose-created by Malphas himself. Note that the timing isn't as critical as supposed -- no, he hadn't Fallen during the videotape episode (and indeed, Dominic, or probably any Judgment Seraph, would have known he only *thought* he had, which was not Truth). It was sufficient that the Heart be broken shortly *after* that; he might have decided to join the other side, thinking he was already damned -- *that* would have accounted for the Heart shattering happening later. And there was no one to question about the Truth of that, unless one of the direct principals (Max, Mira, Malphas, and Kobal) could be found and questioned directly. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:41:14 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) At 8:35 PM -0400 8/11/98, Nana Yaw Ofori wrote: >At 11:39 AM -0400 8/11/98, Walter Milliken wrote: > >>The other dirty trick is to render the host unconscious and drag it into >>a Tether (Cel. Motion is good for this). The Shedite will start frying >>when it comes out of the host (as it will be forced to within 30 >>minutes). > >Isn't a Shedite only forced out of a Dead host, not an unconscious one? Nope. Unconscious for 30 minutes, and the Shedite is evicted. >Manifest Celestial Form, without leaving the Host. Praise the stars, a *Shedite* cannot do that, in canon. (A Kyrio can, though.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:23:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Akira wrote: > I personally feel that this is a completely intentional aspect of the > system. It allows for tragedy and questions of morality within the > game. You're probably right; it was probably intentional. It works for me as long as dissonance produces pain, inconvenience, shame, etc., but not when it produces falling. > Right or wrong is completely subjective and dissonance is not. Ahem. This is a game about *angels* and *devils*. Subjective morality? What ARE the PCs but freestanding lumps of personified morality (or immorality)? > Impact on the game world? I thought the next supplement dealt with > the APOCALYPSE!!! How's that for impact on the game world? And, if the apocalypse is being run by game characters, it should run according to game rules > Dissonance is not morality!! But Falling or Redeeming is. Therefore, they should not depend on dissonance if dissonant acts are not necessarily moral or immoral. > Adventures aren't canon in my opinion. Granted, but they're written by the same team that writes canon, for the people who are assumed to be using canon. Surely, it makes no sense to *expect* the reader to break canon or modify the adventure in order to use it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:25:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts > On the other hand, Wind Servitors might be prone to steal people's > Hearts in Heaven and hide them in odd places, just to stir up some of > the more stick-in-the-mud angels, like Laurence's and Dominic's. Walter, you can't hide Hearts from the owners. Maybe from the Archangels, but not from the servitors they are bound too. The heart 'calls out to them' and 'acts like a beacon'. They might _move_ them, but they cannot be _hidden_, not even in Hell. Re: Core Rules. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:44:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Note that the timing isn't as critical as supposed -- no, he hadn't > Fallen during the videotape episode (and indeed, Dominic, or probably > any Judgment Seraph, would have known he only *thought* he had, which > was not Truth). It was sufficient that the Heart be broken shortly > *after* that; he might have decided to join the other side, thinking he > was already damned -- *that* would have accounted for the Heart > shattering happening later. And there was no one to question about the > Truth of that, unless one of the direct principals (Max, Mira, Malphas, > and Kobal) could be found and questioned directly. Well, in the adventure Dominic *is* confident that Maxmilian has Fallen. I got the definite impression that Maximilian has hysterics on videotape saying that he's Falling, and then that he had Fallen *because* his Heart had just broken. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:48:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts > > Adventures aren't canon in my opinion. > > Granted, but they're written by the same team that writes canon, > for the people who are assumed to be using canon. Surely, it > makes no sense to *expect* the reader to break canon or modify the > adventure in order to use it. Oh, see, here, I disagree. It strikes me that these 'Major Adventures' are supposed to 'define the game world' and as such, be coupled into the game rules and statistics which are considered the 'canon rule set'. I may be incorrect, but if this were not the case, why would we care if Furfur showed up in say, the Final Trumpet or not? It strikes me that these 'cycles' are supposedly interdependant on each other, and the adventures were designed to define and flesh out a certain world for the players to interact in. Minor Adventure are, theoretically, not part of any world universe, and they're just sandboxes for players to play in. But the Major Adventures, like FotM or Night Music, strikes me as being considered in that manner. I would not be surprised if, 15 books down the line (if the line lasts that long) there is a reference to the blowing of Gabriel's Horn in FotM/FT. Which reinforces one of my theories, but that's another story. I'm not saying this is approach is particularly successful, or that I particularly care for it, as it requires one to buy all the previous books to get the most out of the newest one, but this is the impression that I have somehow received - which could be wrong. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:10:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts [FotM SPOILER Alert!] > Well, in the adventure Dominic *is* confident that Maxmilian has Fallen. > > I got the definite impression that Maximilian has hysterics on videotape > saying that he's Falling, and then that he had Fallen *because* his Heart > had just broken. And just wait until he finds out that Malakim have been demons all along! I mean, why else don't they fall and pick up dissonance like a demon... Sorry, sorry, wrong conversation. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 15:24 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question [FotM SPOILER Alert!] >The problems are: > >1) Only someone familiar with the Hearts like a caretaker, the Superior, >or the victim can innately find the Heart. (I dunno if this is _canon_ >per se, more like extrapolating logic.) Actually, I believe the core rules imply that angelic friends often know where they are (so they can look in on their friends), or even have them in their safekeeping. I don't believe there's anything in the FotM that implies this is the case here, but it's not as far-fetched as it might otherwise be. >2) David's Catacombs are infinite in size. (H&H) The Hearts could be >hidden anywhere in the Catacombs (core rules, H&H). But if she's a friend, this may not be a problem, she might know the way. It's also possible that, using the "Heart = Celestial" bond, the Heart could be tracked down using the Song of Affinity, by getting a sample from Max (the Malakite) via someone with access to Max himself (and plenty of demons saw him regularly). >3) The person who is not Stone has just walked into a den of militant >neo-nazi biker punks looking for someone's Heart, which is sort of like >walking into a skinhead camp and asking to use the bathroom. Again, if she's a friend, this isn't a problem, I don't think. >4) Only the victim or the Superior can break the Heart. (APG). I think the APG is just wrong here -- it overstated the case a little, perhaps. It wouldn't be the first error in the APG.... (The fact that the Malakite's Heart was to be broken was known in the Cycle plot outline, I think, so the APG should have been consistent with it.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 15:31 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question >Yeah, well I have some problems with geases anyway. In this particular game, >I dislike powers which coerce people to do specific things, as it seems too >easy for a demon to force an angel to fall IMO. I don't feel that falling is >something which should be coerced quite that overtly, just because some >lilim had a geas/2 on a seraph and made it lie about something (for >example). Actually, I believe the expanded Geas guidelines in FotM require a pretty high level of Geas to force dissonant actions on someone (I think it's about a Geas/4 that's required). > It never worried me too much with Vampire, because in a sense >that's all about control and puppeteering, but this is a different type of >theme. Well, I don't think it's all that strange for *demons* to be all about control and puppeteering. It's a little more unreasonable for angels, but it may be that they're just a bit more subtle about it. >If I were the divine inquisition (a bit of a stretch, I know) and I had >evidence of even one case in which something similar had happened, and 'It >was a geas, I couldn't help it' was the excuse given, I would simply order >that any angel with geas hooks should report them immediately, and assign >cherubim such that as soon as a lilim showed up to collect its geas, they >could be ambushed and soul-killed. In our campaign, we presume that all redeemed demons (or at least any with Geases on them) have Cherubim of Judgment attuned to them. They do slip up sometimes, and we also presume that a Superior can block the resonances of any non-Superiors when they feel like it (which is usually). > Any angel with a hefty geas on it >probably shouldn't be allowed out of heaven until the lilim has been located >and disposed of. Why take those risks? It depends on how short-handed Heaven is. And sometimes you have to take risks to accomplish your goals. It *is* a War, after all, even if it's a cold one. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1998 14:41:22 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question >>>>> "ED" == Emily Dresner writes: [Joanna Hart wrote] >> I'm sure I've said this before, but I think lilim should have to >> offer the bargain up front (as in, I have this thing you need and >> you can have it, but I'll want a favour from you in return). At >> least that way, anyone who accepts it genuinely does deserve what >> they get... ED> Actually, I like this more then my previous rant. People have ED> pointed out time and again that Lilim are power munchkins, because ED> they can get you without you needing to know about it. On the ED> other hand, forcing them to bargin seems to level the playing ED> field somewhat. Another house rule to make Lilim less munchkinful is to make the relationship between Bright Lilim/Dark Lilim resonances more analogous to that between Elohim and Habbalah. That is to say, take away from Bright Lilim the ability to impose geases, and leave them with only the ability to recognize needs. One of the complaints I've seen about Bright Lilim is that even though they're so scarce and precious as to exist mainly in rumors, every gaming group seems to have two or three. This house rule makes Bright Lilim less appealing and IMO makes more sense since presumably Bright Lilim should be selfless. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:51:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question > > Any angel with a hefty geas on it > >probably shouldn't be allowed out of heaven until the lilim has been located > >and disposed of. Why take those risks? > > It depends on how short-handed Heaven is. And sometimes you have to > take risks to accomplish your goals. It *is* a War, after all, even if > it's a cold one. Yes, and in cold war, you don't go ahead and expend your precious one shot reserves on something foolish because you might not get another chance. The trick is to build up your weaponry reserves so you are sitting about even, so no one takes a first shot. So that works both ways. And Heaven, shorthanded? Isn't this the same place where there are Superiors who can create servitors, and have ranks of experienced angels on reserve? No, they don't have more then Hell does, so they can't just send angels into suicide, but we're talking millions of celestial beings. And maybe a dozen Bright Lilim. And theoretically the power structures of both sides are holding about even, or else one would have moved politically or militarily to finish off the other. So that 'shorthanded' argument doesn't work. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:57:28 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question At 14:41 12/08/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Another house rule to make Lilim less munchkinful is to make the >relationship between Bright Lilim/Dark Lilim resonances more analogous >to that between Elohim and Habbalah. That is to say, take away from >Bright Lilim the ability to impose geases, and leave them with only >the ability to recognize needs. Oooh! I like this. And take that ability away from Dark Lilim. Make them guess what the victim needs, but be able to force them into geases when the lilim provides it. Teh bright can't force geases, but can read genuine needs from people... jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:37:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question > >Another house rule to make Lilim less munchkinful is to make the > >relationship between Bright Lilim/Dark Lilim resonances more analogous > >to that between Elohim and Habbalah. That is to say, take away from > >Bright Lilim the ability to impose geases, and leave them with only > >the ability to recognize needs. > > Oooh! I like this. And take that ability away from Dark Lilim. Make them > guess what the victim needs, but be able to force them into geases when the > lilim provides it. Teh bright can't force geases, but can read genuine > needs from people... I like this too. (me too! me too!) I was running through it in my head, and it would make the Dark Lilim far more of the seductress. Since they cannot read needs, they have to guess, and why bother guessing when you can manufacture them? And what's a better way to manufacture probable Needs then showing up in a Charisma +3 body and laying all over the corporate manager/major artist/movie star or someone else with a giant ego? This reminds me of that movie TO DIE FOR with Nicole Kidman. Her goal was to become famous at any cost, so she used two kids to murder her husband. You can watch the progression of Needs/Geasa, where she uses her geasa to reinforce the next set of more powerful needs. Take just the male kid character: Show the boy attention: Geas/1. Buy the boy some nice stuff: Geas/2. Get the boy on camera and 'make them famous': Geas/3. Entice the boy with sex play - dancing, teasing, etc.: Geas/4. Oral sex of one form or another: Geas/5. Have complete intercourse: Geas/6. She doesn't know what they Need, but she guesses to start them out (ignored by schoolmates, few friends, poor, etc) and works up the ladder from there. By the time she's at a geas/4, she's already manufacturing the Needs herself and the last of it comes naturally. And she can use the previous ones she has to sap the will and entice the victim into getting themselves hooked higher and higher. When she has the Geas/6, she tells her victim, "No more until he fulfills x nasty job." Which, of course, he goes off and does. I like this. It forces the Lilim to really work with her human victims, to really ensnare them instead of just getting on big geas/6 because they saw the Need and went for it. It makes Lilim more nasty and... smarter. And I like smart demons. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 17:47 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question >> I'm sure I've said this before, but I think lilim should have to offer the >> bargain up front (as in, I have this thing you need and you can have it, but >> I'll want a favour from you in return). At least that way, anyone who >> accepts it genuinely does deserve what they get... If they phrased it >> subtly, they could still trap angels, and it fits all the folklore about >> never entering into bargains when you don't know what the other side is >> going to be. The way it works now, the geasee is always tricked into the >> bargain unwittingly. It just.. sits wrong with me. I'd like lilim a lot >> better if they didn't strike me as being so unfair. > >Actually, I like this more then my previous rant. People have pointed out >time and again that Lilim are power munchkins, because they can get you >without you needing to know about it. On the other hand, forcing them to >bargin seems to level the playing field somewhat. Actually, given the potential dissonance that invoking a Geas can cause, many Lilim may bargain anyway: "Why don't we save us both a lot of trouble, and you do this for me, and I won't invoke this Geas to have you do something you *really* don't want to do, and we'll call it square, okay?" Personally, I don't see the Lilim Geas ability as any more (or less) of a compulsion as many of the other demonic resonances. They all tend to get a Will roll to resist; humans generally fail these, and angels generally succeed. The only real issue is the penalty Lilim get to apply to the victim's Will roll, based on the size of favor (or total number of favors) they're done in the past. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 18:03 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) >>The other dirty trick is to render the host unconscious and drag it into >>a Tether (Cel. Motion is good for this). The Shedite will start frying >>when it comes out of the host (as it will be forced to within 30 >>minutes). > >Isn't a Shedite only forced out of a Dead host, not an unconscious one? I'm pretty sure it's unconscious (it's in the main book section on Shedim somewhere). They are, of course, forced out of dead ones also. >A nasty Shedite trick in return... ... >Manifest Celestial Form, without leaving the Host. Sorry, no can do -- only Kyrios can do that. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 18:06 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Shedim Problem (Re: Why not spread the Word) >> The other dirty trick is to render the host unconscious and drag it into >> a Tether (Cel. Motion is good for this). The Shedite will start frying >> when it comes out of the host (as it will be forced to within 30 >> minutes). > >I don't have the book with me, and can't remember how that works. How does >the frying work? I believe there's a comment in the section on Tethers in the main book; it's being expanded upon in the Tether book. Essentially, demons in celestial form are "burned" if they stay in an angelic Tether for any length of time. Think of it as a *really bad* sunburn. The main book merely says that demons *can't* go into angelic Tethers in celestial form -- the expanded discussion is the explanation for that comment. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:09:35 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Lilim Resonance I, too, like the idea of Lilim not being able to read needs, though mostly from a role-playing rather than a game mechanics perspective. It does mean, though, that a number of the Choir Attunements need to be reworked. The Lilim of Lust attunement, for instance, is meaningless if Lilim can't read Needs. Others provide a bonus for activating the hook, Belial's and Kronos' for instance. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:32:37 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: IN> Malakites and burning villages Regarding the "kill the villagers to slay the demon" scenario: every person killed was actively prevented from reaching his destiny. This should give angels a pause before they try Mai Lai "tactics". Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 19:33 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts >> Right or wrong is completely subjective and dissonance is not. > >Ahem. This is a game about *angels* and *devils*. Subjective morality? >What ARE the PCs but freestanding lumps of personified morality >(or immorality)? Morality has almost nothing to do with it -- in the official IN universe, there *is* no objective morality; there's just selfishness and selflessness. Angels are perfectly capable of doing things most humans would consider immoral. That's the way the game was designed. Remember, in IN, angels are not automatically "good" and demons are not automatically "bad", though it's fairly common in both cases, at least as most people define those words. "Good" and "bad" are present as imporant game elements, but often they can be ironic ones. >> Dissonance is not morality!! > >But Falling or Redeeming is. No, they're not. They're dependent much more on selfishness and selflessness, as well as following one's nature. > Therefore, they should not depend >on dissonance if dissonant acts are not necessarily moral or immoral. You are essentially trying to define the game as working differently than it does. Which is fine, for your campaign. But it's not a canon viewpoint. In canon, the critical distinction between the two sides revolves around selflessness and selfishness, not morality. Morality does play a role, but it's secondary. >> Adventures aren't canon in my opinion. > >Granted, but they're written by the same team that writes canon, >for the people who are assumed to be using canon. Surely, it >makes no sense to *expect* the reader to break canon or modify the >adventure in order to use it. The adventures *should* fit canon, and every effort is taken to make sure they do. But with so many writers working independently, there are going to be occasional problems. And there will be differences of interpretation, as is going on here with the discussion of exactly what dissonance is, and how it works on the actions of the celestial. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #910 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.