From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Aug 13 12:47:12 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 MAA00566 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:47:12 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA27660 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:55:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:55:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199808131755.MAA27660@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 #912 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, August 13 1998 Volume 01 : Number 912 In this digest: Re: IN> Malakites and burning villages Re: IN> Malakites and burning villages IN> Gladius Dei - Heaven's elite corps Re: IN> Kerzog, Demon Prince of Weaponry IN> Loose Forces? [FotM Spoilers] Re: IN> Dissonance question Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> Demon Conception Re: IN> Angelic Players' Guide (FotM spoiler) Re: IN> Demon Conception Re: IN> The Contessa of Envy IN> Lilim power IN> FotM (spoiler) adventure discussion Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> FotM's supposed Flaws (Spoilers aplenty!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:42:23 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Malakites and burning villages At 08:00 13/08/98 , you wrote: > Personally, I kinda like the idea of overzealous angels. It's easy to >be confused by trees if you're used to see the forest. A newly earthbound >angel might very well forget that the Big Picture is composed of lots of >Little Pictures (assuming this *isn't* a Servitor of Destiny), and decide >to take a My Lai-style action. I don't really believe any superior will send such ticking bombs to earth. After all, their actions will reflect on the Superior, and no superior wants to look bad just because an imbecile servitor couldn't find a demon, and torched the nearby village. IMC, I view angels as having >very clearcut notions of their duties and goals, which don't always gel >with human ideas, or even other angels'. I think the actions of the Host >should be as terrifying and savage as the Horde's...every once and a while. So do I; but with the exception of Jordi, I don't believe angels actively support the death of innocent humans. The actions of the Host should be terrying, yes - the massacre of 37 Hellsworn and their demonic superiors should be horrible to watch, if you're human - but the killings have a reason, and a good one. The massacre of every person in a mall just because one of them happens to be a demon, and you can't find him, is just mindless violence. And, besides, it is too munchkinistic. It's too easy a solution. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:29:53 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Malakites and burning villages At 04:52 13/08/98 , you wrote: >> 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". >Yes, it *should*. But if it doesn't, then what? Considering that the Malakite in question can't Fall (though I am tempted to make an exception in such cases), I'd say he'll superior will destroy him, and give the act as much publication as possible. Keep thy camp pure. Malakites are supposed to punish the guilty; quoting from memory, "a human in the presence of a Malakite can relax; in five minutes he'll be either out of whatever jam he's in or on his way to the next life". The wicked are punished, the rightous defended - that's what the angelic host is all about. Personally, I'd make Mai Lai (how do you spell that name, anyway? I've seen references to it, but generally only in Hebrew) a tether of Baal, just as the beaches of Normandy are a tether of Michael's. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:47:53 +0200 From: "Donato Ranzato" Subject: IN> Gladius Dei - Heaven's elite corps Hello, Below is a write-up of an elite group of soldiers serving Heaven. To be honest the idea of this group comes from a similar named group from White Wolf Games, but I have adopted it for use with In Nomine. Comments and suggestions are, as always, appreciated. The Gladuis Dei (elite soldiers of Heaven) This corps d'elite, the "Sword of God", is the most distinguished order within Heaven. They are the honour guard of Laurence and one or more Gladius Dei will always escort him to wherever Laurence goes. Its membership is by invitation only and only open for Malakim, and is comparable to a knighthood within human society. Its members are, in many senses, the ideal angel; loyal without fault, zealous, courageous and capable. Members of Gladuis Dei may be joining other groups of angels, but may be called together to perform the most dangerous missions which Heaven may plan. Members of Gladius Dei are hand selected by Laurence, the Master of the Armies of God himself and act under his direct authority. Unfortunately, invitation to join this corps is often also an invitation to join the ranks of glorious martyrdom, but it's members are the most respected and effective Malakim - while alive. Members of Gladuis Dei may orginally come from any Superior and are not required to end their affiliation with him or her. Upon joining the corps, however, connections with their (former) Superior and other groups often dissolve - particularly where such connections might cause strife within Gladius Dei. Loyalty is inevitably transferred from other allegiances toward Gladius Dei. Some members operate together as cenacles. Gladius Dei's members are cocky, even a tad arrogant, but with good reason - no auto-da-fé (a call for destruction) called by Gladius Dei has ever been a failure. Their critics refer to the order as "God's Little Army". Even more cynical critics sometimes wonder whether Gladius Dei is nothing more than an ecclesiastical bully, picking fights that it knows it will win. Some auto-da-fé that would seem to be perfect for Gladius Dei have been ignored, giving some credence to these critiques. Most critics will still grudgingly acknowledge Gladius Dei's effectiviness, but its reputation lacks the pristine quality it once had. Members of Gladius Dei often wear a ceremonial badge: a gold sword lapel pin, worn blade down so that it resembles a simple cross from a distance. This pin is a reliquary which can store up to 5 Essence. Game Master Tips Remember that Gladius Dei is sometime seen as the supreme representation of Heaven; accordingly Gladius Dei stories will tend to be more intense, and probably more combat-oriented. GM's may wish to give players extra character points at character creation to represent the extra experience usually necessary before induction into Gladius Dei. Character Information Gladius Dei is an elite membership within Heaven, representing the most talented, experienced, and promising Malakim. Members of Gladius Dei are hand-selected by Laurence, and are often called on for specific, usually quite dangerous, missions. Roleplaying Tips You are bold and brash. While you are smart, you do not always stop to think about your actions past their glamour-potential. Your enthusiasm is enviable, and your goals formidable. You want nothing more than to be among the best, fighting the good fight alongside your fellow Gladius Dei. You take the biggest risks, make the boldest boasts, and are generally convinced of your superiority. Quotes "An easy kill, thanks be to God." "Let's go kick some ass!" Equipment Sunglasses, M1911 .45 auto, Colt Python, two Mini-Uzis, laptop computer, razor-sharp broadsword (+5), kevlar vest (5 points armor), ceremonial badge (see above). More about the Gladius Dei will follow..... Greetings, Donato Ranzato mail: mailto:donato@netgate.nl Internet: http://people.a2000.nl/dranzato ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:08:53 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Kerzog, Demon Prince of Weaponry Akumsa@aol.com wrote: > I also wrote Kerzog as STILL being Subserviant to Baal, but Weapons arent > always used in a war. Gangs, Thugs, Cops, even some security guards use > weapons all the time. Hence his somewhat minor Independance from Baal. Question: If he is still subservient to Baal then why is he a Demon Prince? Shouldn't he be a servitor, although a highly placed one? Point: (more of a nitpick really) Baal is not interested in just any war. He is interested in The War. IMC Baal couldn't care less what humans are doing unless it is involveddirectly in the War wittingly or not. Peace, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:17:49 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Loose Forces? [FotM Spoilers] I recently bought Fall of the Malakim, and just had a quick glance through the playtest of the Songbook, and am puzzled by a new development - "Loose Forces". Are these two books the first to mention "loose forces"? Some thoughts: 1. The idea of "Loose Forces" seems imply that Superiors at least, and possibly celestials in general, can numerically quantify(*) forces in a person (in particular, six force vs five force humans). This, I think is a good thing - although I like a non-quantifiable sense of essence. 2. For those gamesters who want to have mechanics for Archangels, perhaps they can accumulate "loose forces" much like normal celestials accumulate essence. You'd need a suitable force:essence conversion. The number of forces an Archangel generates per day could be related to the strength of their word (I'd be surprised if this idea hasn't been thought of before). [Plot seed: Converting essence to forces takes one less essence than converting forces to essence - the Symphony will eventually end!!] I imagine that even Core AAs and DPs only get around ten or so forces per day (Saminga probably getting the most - possibly inefficiently) 3. Whether or not you want mechanics as described in 2, Superiors can create Angels/Demons from these "loose forces". Why then, are constructs considered so dangerous? Because human created ones do not disturb the symphony? (I might read the bit about constructs again). SurturZ Dissonant Elohite of Stone, Angel of the Illuminati (*) Okay, who's the demon of Redundant Tautology(**)? (**) Okay, who's the demon of Redundant Tautology? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:23:00 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Dissonance question Doug Muir wrote: > You can pick holes in this example, of course. But the question still > remains. Can an angel get Dissonance for "generically evil" actions? > > My vote is yes... at least sometimes, when the action is *clearly* evil. > After all, being "good" is part of all angels' nature... it's the common > substrate of all the Choirs. But canon, I think, is silent on this > point. You can interpret IN like this if you choose. I do not. I consider Angels and Demons a bit beyond what we humans consider morality. Morality for them is acting according to their natures in a selfish/unselfish way. IN is not about Evil and Good but about Selfish and Unselfish. This is an important distinction. In IN the use of the terms good and evil is something like using horseless carriage for car, it is technically correct but not terribly precise. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:11:01 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] David Streeter wrote: > >Dissonance should be for "evil" actions > > I disagree. I agree that it is more fun to play if dissonance results > from choices the character makes. However, take a step back with me from > the role-playing and look at the whole game. It is probably more > interesting to occasionally put the player (not the character) in a > position where they can do the "right" thing and get dissonance, or do > the "wrong" thing and not. As the person who started this question, I think I need to reiterate what I said, despite Earl's excellent summary thereof. I never said that dissonance should be picked up ony for evil acts. I absolutely agree that dissonance ought to be acquired for going against one's nature in the way prescribed by the rules. Please don't misunderstand this point. What I did say was that _Falling_ (not even becoming Outcast, just Falling) shouldn't be a process that is purely mechanistic and inconsiderate of how the dissonance was acquired. There are times that dissonance can be acquired when an angel chooses to act, to use the term that seems to be preferred, selflessly but contrary to it's dissonance conditions; the two halves of its nature are in conflict in these cases. I still think that dissonance should be acquired in these instances, but that it shouldn't lead to Falling. This requires a judgement call on the part of the GM. For those that aren't afraid of a little more bookkeeping, I would say that you keep a seperate tally of dissonance picked up in these circumstances (there probably shouldn't be very many of them). It is treated as dissonance for all purposes except when making a dissonance roll while already Outcast. I'd also say that when you remove dissonance, notes from this special category are the first removed. > There have been some asking why Mira isn't stopped for having discord in > Heaven. Aren't Geases the only tolerable discords in Heaven? I'm sure I > remember the phrase "..although it does imply that the angel can't be > trusted to fulfil an ordinary promise". It's in the core book, I > believe. As I read the rules, it's that owed geases aren't necessarily held against an angel. In fact, non-Superiors won't even notice them. Active geases are an entirely different matter. Mira should have stood out like a searchlight to certain angels as she was on the mission. > >Lilim get stripped of outstanding Geases upon redemption > > Nonono. Much more fun if they keep them. More fun, perhaps. But it makes no sense when you look at it from the point of view of an Archangel. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:23:01 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Demon Conception Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >At 12:51 PM +0100 8/12/98, Kevin Walsh wrote: > >>I'm not sure about the use of Humanity. You have to pay Essence every day >>in order to maintain the human state (IIRC), and don't get any Essence >>while doing so. > >It's not clear if you can't be *fed* daily Essence, though, by >someone else. (Gamesters get 2 per day, and Humanity only needs 1.) This statement implies that humans can have Rites. (I had only seen undead have them in the book, and wasn't clear if that generalized to real humans.) Anyway, Humanity has a lot of problems with it, or at least consequences I don't understand. So I'd like to see what other people think. o Does the essence spent on maintaining Humanity cause a disturbance? If so, how does that jibe with someone who gets a "6" on the disturbance detection check digit -- which would normally reveal what the Essence was spent on? o How does Humanity and the Seraph resonance interact? If a seraph asks a demon with Humanity active whether he's a demon, and the demon says "no", then what will the seraph realize at each check digit? - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 11:35 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Players' Guide (FotM spoiler) >Well, my first problem with Mira being able to break Maximilien's Heart >seems to have been decided in favor of the APG being pretty unreliable. >If this is the case, would the Powers That Be at least consider doing an >errata list for it? For my $18.00, it'd be nice to know which parts are >reliable. There is an errata list at: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata/angelic.html However, that doesn't cover all the stuff that's cropping up as later books are coming out -- there are too many minor comments in it that are causing later problems, that shouldn't have become canon. (Elizabeth has been muttering about errata'ing the entire Falling section....) The problem is that there are major chunks of it that should simply go away (expanded Kyrio and Mercurian resonances come to mind), or be rewritten. But that's not going to happen any time soon. And errata'ing that much stuff is infeasible -- it really needs a second edition (as does the main book, but for organizational reasons, mostly). One major problem was that there was no Line Editor for the APG (or Marches, or Heaven & Hell), so consistency with the rest of the line was very hit-or-miss. Generally, if there's a conflict between something in the APG and any other book, I'd assume the APG is wrong. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with Marches and Heaven & Hell. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 11:43 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Demon Conception >>It's not clear if you can't be *fed* daily Essence, though, by >>someone else. (Gamesters get 2 per day, and Humanity only needs 1.) > >This statement implies that humans can have Rites. (I had only >seen undead have them in the book, and wasn't clear if that >generalized to real humans.) Huh? No. I think she's saying that you have another demon give you some of his Essence -- there's nothing that forbids celestials from transferring Essence to humans. (Though <6-Force humans can't transfer Essence the other way.) >Anyway, Humanity has a lot of problems with it, or at least >consequences I don't understand. So I'd like to see what other >people think. > >o Does the essence spent on maintaining Humanity cause a disturbance? I would say yes. > If so, how does that jibe with someone who gets a "6" on the disturbance > detection check digit -- which would normally reveal what the Essence > was spent on? They'd pick it up -- I'd rule that it's worn off momentarily, and you have to start it up again. So there's a tiny window of vulnerability while it's being renewed. >o How does Humanity and the Seraph resonance interact? If a seraph asks a > demon with Humanity active whether he's a demon, and the demon says "no", > then what will the seraph realize at each check digit? To be sure, I'd have to go reread the attunement. But off the top of my head, I'd say the answer depends on exactly how the demon phrases the answer. As you give it above, I believe the Seraph would catch the lie on any success -- the person *is* a demon, just masquerading as human, and the demon knows this. On the other hand, if the demon stated "I'm human", I'd only let a 6 CD catch him out -- the statement is true enough at the time, and the fact that he's *also* a demon is an omission, which only a very high CD should pick up. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:47:43 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> The Contessa of Envy In message , Pee Kitty writes >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... > Egads! My bad. Allied I'd say, with a tendency toward Association, circumstances permitting. Thanks for pointing this out, rev. :) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 12:12 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Lilim power >>>Yep. I agree. Once you have agreed, you give up your right to resist >>>whatever the lilim decides to ask for. >> >>We actually use this in our game -- if you actually *admit* that you owe >>a Lilim, she gets a full Geas on you, not just a "hook" that may or may >>not work. So the sneaky little demons often try to get you to admit >>it.... > >Fine by me :) I like that as a house rule. Can the lilim trick someone into >doing this when she hasn't done anything for them at all? :) (I'd say yes, >actually...) I think I'd allow that, though it would probably depend on the exact circumstances. It would have to be a clear case where the person *felt* they owed the Lilim something (for example, where the Lilim takes credit for someone else's actions that benefited the person), or where the person at least *feelingly* swears to do something for the Lilim. A causal statement (say, for politeness) probably isn't good enough -- there needs to be sincerity to the statement. > The prob with lilim, to me, is that a subtle one can resonate >a need and then do a favour for someone without them necessarily realising >who is behind it or having any chance to refuse it or stop the lilim from >doing the favour. You don't have to walk up to someone and hand them >$40,000 with an IOU attached, you could just fake a letter from the >national lottery or a deceased aunt or some vaguely believable excuse, such >that the recipient could start to make use of the 'gift' innocently and >then have the lilim turn up and pick up the geas with the -6 (or so) >penalty to the victim's will roll. In my own opinion (which, as far as I know, isn't directly supported by canon), the Lilim must be able to plausibly claim personal responsibility for the favor. Indirect favors like the above probably don't work, or at least I'd allow a big bonus to the Will roll. I base this on the Geas mechanics, which seem to imply that the Geas "hooks" the victim by the level of indebtedness (the Will penalty) they feel toward the Lilim for her favor. I'd also give them a chance to reject the favor when the Lilim comes to claim the Geas, though that's clearly trickier for a GM to handle reasonably. Actually, a much stickier case would be a Lilim with a Role as a nurse - -- she resonates the family of people with severe illnesses, who are almost certain to be desperate for their loved one to recover, and uses the Corporeal Song of Healing/6 to cure them. However, I'd again say she'd have to visibly be the cause of the cure; otherwise the potential victims will merely think it was modern medicine that did the cure, and wouldn't feel any debt to the Lilim. > (And just how many geases can a lilim pick up from any one action on >her part? If it was something a lot of people needed...?) If she's clever, probably a fair number, though the canon on the Haagenti attunement implies that a degree of personal involvement is required. (This doesn't seem to be in the FAQ, though I think John ruled a while back that a Lilim of Haagenti can't simply cook a banquet and hook everyone who eats it.) >If it was just the resonance, or just the geas then it would be fine. If >they needed some sort of implied personal acceptance then that would be >fine. It's the combination of both. The demon knows exactly what you need, >and can force you to do stuff (admittedly with a will roll to resist, but >at a penalty) for them when they find any way at all of arranging it for >you, and they don't need your compliance to do it. One of the mitigating circumstances here is that the victim can blow Essence to resist, which they're likely to do if asked to do something really nasty, and the Lilim will get dissonance for it. So it's to their advantage to avoid pushing too hard on the return favor. Admittedly this won't help humans all that much, but it should work well enough for celestials, most of the time. >I actually think that working such that only Brights have the need sensing >ability could explain a lot about their psychology. If you know what >someone needs, you can still choose to do it for them as a favour with no >hope of anything in return. The fact is that most people will be grateful >at that sort of show of generousity, particularly if it was something they >genuinely did need, and decent ones will try to respond in kind or at least >with a friendly or favourable reaction. Especially if you suggest that >although you don't want payment, the best way for them to show gratitude is >by trying to do the same for someone they meet in the future who seems to >need it. A bright lilim could easily get into an 'upwards spiral' of >encouraging charity and generous acts amongst mortals it deals with -- how >might it feel if you had spent your whole life believing that no-one does >anything without hope of gain, to suddenly be in the business of realising >that actually.. people do... That's all quite consistent with how I perceive Bright Lilim psychology, but I'd still allow them to create Geases if they wanted -- they just aren't all that likely to, except where it's needed for some reason (i.e., to get a demon to do something). > A dark lilim might have to work hard to create >needs and get very miserly and possessive about them -- a bright will just >read them like a book, and will realise that of them are so small and >simple that she can do them for her friends easily. (And I'd figure that >its the small needs that can sometimes be hard to guess). Actually, I think a demonic Lilim would be able to find plenty of people with obvious, small needs: giving a bottle of cheap wine to the wino, or an alibi to the street punk who just stabbed someone, or a ride to a hitchhiker, etc. The nurse example I mentioned above is perfect for picking up small, obvious needs, such as the need for a painkiller, or to feel better. Yes, it's a bit more work, and not as powerful, but a lot of the resonances are pretty powerful -- I don't see Lilim as a serious game-balance problem. (There are plenty of other places where character power varies a lot that I don't think this one is particularly significant.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 12:33 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> FotM (spoiler) adventure discussion >> And those dozen are probably most effective on Earth. Leaving them in >> Heaven makes them essentially useless. Not quite, but close -- they're >> most effective in contact with humans. Stuck in Heaven they're just as >> much out of the War as they would be if they were killed (though not >> Fallen). > >But we're not talking about just letting them serve on Earth (at least >I'm >not). We're talking about having a Bright Lilim (rare) with a >high-level geas >(which according to your reading is almost impossible to evade) owed to >a Demon >Prince (who can use said geas to make her do something very destructive, >like, >say, trying to destroy an angel's Heart) serve in a city (for six years >straight) in which not only can demons get at her pretty much whenever >they >wish, but her Superior can't assign some sort of guardian (like a >Cherub) to >keep a close eye on her to make sure this doesn't happen. After re-reading the section on Mira, I don't see this as *terribly* implausible. She's actually more effective in LA than most angels, because the demons tolerate her better (though presumably they're trying to turn her back to the dark side). As far as the demons getting to her, they apparently aren't affecting her psyche much -- she may be having more effect on them (or at least so she and Blandine would probably hope), and all they could do to her really is kill her vessel. I agree she should probably have a Cherub attuned to her, but, because of the situation in LA, the Cherub probably would get kicked out by the demons in power -- they'd have more chance to affect Mira if she didn't have a support network. Yes, it's an exposed, risky position, but if she can do some good there, where there's so little angelic presence, would a Superior really think that protecting Mira came before promoting their Word in a way that would otherwise be close to impossible? I admit it's dicey, but so are a lot of situations in IN canon -- look at Druriel in Night Music, or the Cherub in the vignettes in the main book. Angels, in canon, do *not* appear to be risk-averse, and Superiors often seem to give out difficult jobs. > All it says is that she's confident that >Mira will pass her test. Henh? With geases being that hard to resist? The question, as I see it, isn't whether Mira will resist the Geas, but whether she can avoid Falling in the process. As a general rule, the amount of evil a single Geas/5 could cause would likely be outweighed by the long-term good Mira would do. The biggest danger was for what happened -- that the DP the Geas was owed to would simply destroy her on the spot. But that can happen even for angels who *aren't* under Geas - -- the Geas just raised the probability of encountering a DP to certainty. Also, in most cases, Mira would have the opportunity to rectify the damage performing the Geas would cause. (And she's not dead yet... quite.) >I can accept a scenario based on one of these premises, but to have two >of them >in the same place at the same time is a bit much. I'll agree they're implausible, and I probably wouldn't have done something that far-fetched, myself, but there are a lot of implausibilities in IN already -- it *is* a cinematic setting, after all. Once you toss away realism for drama, there are going to be issues of whether the suspenders of disbelief have reached the snapping point for most people. It appears that the FotM adventure goes over the top for the majority here. Personally, I'm iffy about the adventure -- I can see it as more or less consistent with Derek's other IN writing (mostly in the vignettes), but it's probably more cinematic than I'd go for, myself. (On the other hand, my own games tend more strongly to the realism side than most people's -- one reason I'm a die-hard GURPS fan.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 12:52 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] >What I did say was that _Falling_ (not even becoming Outcast, just Falling) >shouldn't be a process that is purely mechanistic and inconsiderate of how >the dissonance was acquired. There are times that dissonance can be >acquired when an angel chooses to act, to use the term that seems to be >preferred, selflessly but contrary to it's dissonance conditions; the two >halves of its nature are in conflict in these cases. I still think that >dissonance should be acquired in these instances, but that it shouldn't lead >to Falling. This requires a judgement call on the part of the GM. They way I handle this is that the angel gets to choose to handle the dissonance by converting it to Discord, *without* danger of Falling. It makes the angel less effective, but Superiors can remove Discord as well as dissonance, and this is exactly the kind of case where the Superior should tend to forgive the dissonant act that led to the Discord, and hence be willing to remove it "for free". Falling, the way the mechanics are set up, comes from the deliberate decision to try to handle the growing dissonance load by oneself -- a very dubious mindset for an angel, in my opinion. > For >those that aren't afraid of a little more bookkeeping, I would say that you >keep a seperate tally of dissonance picked up in these circumstances (there >probably shouldn't be very many of them). It is treated as dissonance for >all purposes except when making a dissonance roll while already Outcast. >I'd also say that when you remove dissonance, notes from this special >category are the first removed. This is another perfectly plausible approach. I've toyed with the notion of "good dissonance" and "bad dissonance", but never bothered to take it to this stage of formulation -- rather, I tend to note it as whether the Superior would ultimately approve of the dissonant action or not. (Using a screwdriver as a crowbar can damage the tool, but sometimes it's all you've got -- and you don't blame the screwdriver for not being a crowbar.) >As I read the rules, it's that owed geases aren't necessarily held against >an angel. In fact, non-Superiors won't even notice them. Active geases are >an entirely different matter. Mira should have stood out like a searchlight >to certain angels as she was on the mission. A promise a Lilim makes to bind herself to a future favor isn't a "hook", but a full active Geas -- she can't escape it with a Will roll. These are the types of Geases that Lilim normally have to promise to Superiors (and the kind that Free Lilim start with). The fact that the Geas has been "activated" isn't notably different, as I understand it. >> >Lilim get stripped of outstanding Geases upon redemption >> >> Nonono. Much more fun if they keep them. > >More fun, perhaps. But it makes no sense when you look at it from the point >of view of an Archangel. This was a major point of discussion back when the redemption section of the IPG was being written. There are arguments both ways, but the final decision was driven from meta-considerations -- it was thought that this was simply better from the point of view of the game. The game-world stuff was then adjusted as much as possible to fit this decision. Yes, given a choice, AAs would always prefer to be able to strip Geases from people. But this essentially rips the heart out of the Geas mechanism -- you could never get a Lilim Geasing an angel, because the angel would simply run home to Mommy and get the Geas stripped off right away. So if you do this, you might as well junk the whole Geas mechanism, since it now will only apply to humans, Outcasts, and Renegades. I prefer it as it is, though it is a bit of a wart. Geases probably shouldn't be listed as Discords, but rather an entirely independent mechanism -- they tend to be exceptions to most of the Discord rules, anyway. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] > Falling, the way the mechanics are set up, comes from the deliberate > decision to try to handle the growing dissonance load by oneself -- a > very dubious mindset for an angel, in my opinion. Well, Beth's comments on the Falling section of the APG are always very interesting, detailed, and filled with helpful commentary. :) :) :) Like previously mentioned, I'm all for tossing that entire section out as well and just having the new improved Falling section appear somewhere else down the line soonlike. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 13:35 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> FotM's supposed Flaws (Spoilers aplenty!) > Max's true nature by the end of the adventure is unknown. This is >the long and the short of it. If it is *not* revealed in _The Final >Trumpet_, then SJGames has a lot to answer for. I believe this question will be answered. > Even if he is Totally >Destroyed, some answer to the question of Can Malakim Fall must be >given. To pick nits, this question can only be definitively answered in the positive -- if Max *hasn't* Fallen, it still doesn't prove that it can't happen. Though, after what he's been through, it would tend to reinforce the belief that they can't.... Personally, I'd prefer this be left as Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. > How does Kobal get ahold of his vessel (or one approximating it)? As far as I know, there's nothing to prevent a Superior from duplicating the vessel of someone else. However, as I recall, it's actually Max's vessel in this case. Elizabeth will have to answer this question -- I don't remember the answer well enough to attempt it. There *is* an explanation, though I missed it myself the first time around and asked her the same question. >What happens to Max in the interrim? ("The real Maximilian disappears >from Los Angeles" is all the Timeline has to offer.) If these questions >are answered, then, yes, it was sneaky and underhanded to require both >books to get the answers, but it also creates a wonderful sense of >mystery that hopefully will be resolved with the last Revelations book. All should be revealed, in time.... (At least, I'm pretty sure this is wrapped up.) > It is unknown if Blandine is aware of the nature of >Mira's Geas, or that it is owed to her former boss, just as it is >unknown (or at least unmentioned) whether or not Cherubim (perhaps even >Blandine herself) are attuned to Mira. I would expect that Blandine (and Dominic, at the least!) would know who the Geas is owned to -- redeemed demons are debriefed heavily. > The real difficulty, as I see it, >with Mira's terrible Geas, is that the exact nature of Malphas' plan is >never explicitly stated. Geas level and difficulty of shattering Max's >Heart aside, it seems like more detail was warranted here. It's becoming quite clear that the adventure isn't. Clear, that is.... > Perhaps >Malphas gave her *two* artifacts, one to lead her to Max's Heart, the >other to destroy it. Or one with two functions, which is perfectly possible. However, I tend to think that Mira and Max would be friends (they were both angels together in demon-controlled LA for 6 years), and he might easily have asked her to look in on his heart when she was topside -- Max is clearly quite insecure about his state, and I could easily see him wanting reassurance that his Heart was still OK. This theory does compound the difficulty of Geasing Mira to destroy it, though. > These are >unique circumstances. Who knows what kinds of flaws Max's Heart has >developed over those tortuous years? I'd wager that no angel, Malakite >or not, has *ever* accumulated so much Discord (33 levels!) without >being destroyed. Perhaps it hasn't cracked as an Outcast's Heart cracks, >but structural weaknesses could very well exist. In talking to Elizabeth last night, I learned that some material that was cut (I think because of the APG stuff on Malakim) supported this notion. This part of it probably should have been added into FotM. > Regardless, more detail >could have cleared quite a bit up; a sidebar on the nature of Malphas' >request and his little tool could have done wonders. There's any number of little mysteries in FotM that could have been cleared up. Unfortunately, I think answering them all would have driven the page budget *way* over. > As to Mira's compliance with such a request, again detail would have >helped, but it useful to look at the overall themes here. "Go to Heaven, >let this artifact lead you to the proper Heart and let it do its work" >leaves out all of the explicitly nasty bits of Malphas' dirty deed--Mira >need not know whose Heart is the target, nor what the artifact will do >when it finds it (but she should rightly suspect *before* and feel >immense self-loathing *after* the fact). Good notion. After all, DPs are rarely free with information; they tend to just give orders without much explanation. > Being made Outcasts/Renegades is also a bit much--becoming >Outcast/Renegade is a choice, as most Superiors would just as soon zap >your Forces all over the Symphony as see you go into exile. Though the Grigori were exiled, so it's not without precedent. I think part of what's going on here is that Dominic is part of the "war party" in Heaven -- he'd like have Armageddon happen. If the PCs turned up with truths that might interfere with that, he *might* decide that getting them out of the way was more just than destroying them. Sacrificing the PCs (somewhat) to eradicate those who had evaded Judgment for so long (i.e., Lucifer & co.) is the sort of hard choice I can see Dominic making. It will be painful for him, but he lives with a *lot* of pain, I think. > In the final analysis, what "Fall of the Malakim" lacks as an >adventure, frankly, is space. Probably true. Though any number of people have griped here on the amount of space used by adventures so far.... > Such an earth-shattering adventure >deserves its own book, or possibly inclusion in a book with Final >Trumpet's adventures. The problem here is that it wouldn't have happened at all. SJGames has found in the past that adventure books simply don't sell well enough to cover the effort of making them. I believe this is one of the reasons for the format of the Cycle books. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #912 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.