From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Aug 14 17:58:12 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 RAA28269 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:58:11 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA28441 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:08:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:08:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199808142308.SAA28441@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 #917 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 Friday, August 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 917 In this digest: IN> IN: Songs of Tattoos Re: IN> Broken Hearts Re: IN> Broken Hearts Re: IN> angel atvantage Re: IN> angel atvantage Re: IN> angel atvantage IN> Angel Advantage and Plot Seed IN> Disgruntled Demon Re: IN> angel atvantage Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Lilim Traps (Re: Dissonance question) Re: IN> over page counts Re: IN> over page counts Re: IN> angel atvantage IN> Angel Advantage Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Angelic Hearts Re: IN> Cycle Books and Stuff (*No* Spoilers) Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] IN> IN writing & future books ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 05:41:26 -0700 (PDT) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: IN> IN: Songs of Tattoos i've been tinkering with this since Thursday morning when i was trying to get some sleep. i still don't have a Celestial version, and my copy of IN is at home, so any comments, criticisms, or suggestions (if somewhere within the real estate of Politeness) will be quite welcome. Note that most of the mechanics are rather vague at this stage. -=|horsefly|=- - ------------- The Songs of Tattoos Many celestials scratch their heads in wonder at the results these Songs produce. Once observers get past the idea that Kobal created them as a joke or that Eli was simply tripping that day--celestials on both sides tend to accuse the other of the Songs' creation--the Songs' usefulness is generally conceded. Corporeal: This Song brings to life any tattoo in the immediate area (singer's Forces squared in yards). The animate tattoos (each having 1 Force: 0 Strength, 4 Agility) can then be used to distract opponents while the singer either flees or attacks. This can, and often has, been used by both demons and Malakim to frighten opponents who have tattoos themselves, as the mere sight of artwork coming to life on one's skin tends to unnerve even the most blase`. Destroyed tattoos flash in midair, then return somewhat faded to the skin whence they came. Essence Cost: 1 minimum. Disturbance: 1 plus Essence spent. Ethereal: Whereas the Corporeal Song of Tattoos removes such creations temporarily from the flesh and uses them as a distraction, the Ethereal version strips mental conditioning (nefarious hypnotic orders, say) or acute psychological trauma (such as would be caused by watching one's family be slaughtered while one is helpless to stop it) from the subject of the Song. Alternately, the Song can be used to implant a single command, buried deep in the subject's psyche and branded there as a permanent change to the nature of the individual. The singer must declare which action he is attempting, then roll Will against a GM set difficulty; treat the Check Digit as a standard measure of success. Cost: 2 to remove or 4 to implant. Disturbance: 2 times the Essence spent. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:04:53 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Broken Hearts David Edelstein wrote: > The sentence "Only the angel's own actions can cause the final > destruction of his Heart" _does_ have to be taken in context, namely that > it is referring to his relationship with his Superior, as you pointed out. > The SUPERIOR may only allow the angel's own actions to result in his Heart > breaking. > > Yes, that is a little bit weaselly, and in general, Hearts should be > considered indestructible....otherwise demons would be making hit-and-run > raids on Heaven. But you can take it for granted, throughout the game, that > Superiors can usually do things that are supposedly "impossible" if they > really, really want to and put enough energy into it. Uhm, yeah, it is a bit weasely. The sentence doesn't say that Superiors may not break a Servitor's Heart. It says that they can not break it. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:08:30 -0400 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> Broken Hearts Eeyore wrote: > Actually, quite the opposite is said. Leading me to conclude that angelic > Hearts are different beasts than infernal Hearts. This is why I formed the > opinion (still held, by the way) that an angelic Heart is the symbolic > representation of an angel's relationship with God. So, as far as I'm > concerned, the sentence I quote above that you wrote, is the right answer. Actually angelic Hearts are constructs of a Superior to help bind a servitor to their word. They are created and manipulated by the Archangels at all times. If you leave the service of an Archangel and enter the sevice of another your Heart breaks and another is created in the Cathedral of the new Superior. If you are in service to this new Superior then your Heart is simply moved. From this it can be assumed that your Heart is a connection to you, not an actual piece of you, and that Archangels are perfectly capable of destroying a Heart as they see fit. They just don't because it isn't nice. Peace, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:51:50 -0500 From: The Bard Subject: Re: IN> angel atvantage I ment from a PC point of view. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:13:40 -0500 From: The Bard Subject: Re: IN> angel atvantage > Plus these Angels can't wander around Hell > slaughtering Demons, they have to sit where they are, and pluck out the > unworthy heading for Hell. I'm just saying I wouldn't want the enemy sitting at my front door. > If I recall correctly, Angels entering Hell sets off a Disturbance, Heaven and hell PG. 61 under heading angles in hell. First two sentences. > Operative phrase being 'If they wanted to.' The point is a deamon could not if he wanted to but he can't it is an unfair atvantage. >Lucifer wants them there, If he wanted to slay bthe Angels of Final > Justice, he could. If he wanted Hell-wide alarm klaxons going off every > time Angels set feather on the plains of Abbadon, he could make it so. Now this idea I like. The idea is that saten wants it like this. There is some plan thats he has almost like he is waiting for the angels to storm the place. (HEHEHEHE evil laugh) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:26:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> angel atvantage On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, The Bard wrote: > I have never liked the angle atvantage but reading heavan and hell I am > pushed over the edge. It seems evan at there own home thay can't relaxe. Well, It *is* Hell. Most demons *don't* relax there. Being on Earth is a coveted position for them, and they don't want to be back home. It's dangerous in Hell. Personally, if I were a demon and wanted a place to relax, I'd pick Aruba. Hell sucks. > 1. angels are watching the gates of heavan as well as hell. Yep. Of course, Lucifer may allow them to be at the Gates of Hell as a propaganda element: "See what the Host is like? See how they are forced to act against their own desires, just to satisfy the cruel whims of the Tyrant? Think about how much better off we are here. I do not force you to go against what you are. Only He does that." But why aren't there demons at the Pearly Gates? Numbers. Most demons have 7-8 Forces, and aren't up to the task. Those with enough Forces to stand at the Pearly Gates and maybe survive are busy on Earth, or are in Hell supervising their Domains and Words. Besides. Who in Hell would volunteer? An order to stand at the Gate into Heaven would result in derision and new Renegades (demons don't take orders well). Only Heaven has the loyalty necessary to command an individual into a lousy job. > 2. Demons entering heavan sound an alarm in hell angels sound nothing. Heaven is attached to the Symphony. Demons (who are trying to recreate the Symphony in their own image) are a jarring note there - something like 1 radio playing Nine Inch Nails at a Mozart concert. It gets noticed. Hell is a cacophony. Each demon has it's own personal symphony, and is broadcasting it in an attempt to make it more noticed, accepted, and powerful. All of the background noise interferes with their ability to notice that one or two individuals aren't broadcasting at all. > 3. Angels in hell don't get sucked back to heavan after spending just a > few hours downs there. Heck one could evan live down there if thay wated > two. Maybe that's what Lucifer wants. Maybe he *wants* them to visit Hell, get comfortable there, set up housekeeping, and go native. Why throw out potential new demons? > If I was saten the first thing I would do is move those two lugs at the > front door or cut a deal and put some demons at the gates of heaven. > (not combat wise just to keep things fair) I wouldn't. I'd maintain the status quo, and use it for propaganda purposes. I'd make a big deal about how *I* don't order *my* followers to do things which are so much against their natures, and about how *I* trust humans to make their own decisions and go where they feel they should go. I'd make the Host look paranoid, and I'd make them look like they don't believe humans have any intelligence at all. I'd eat them alive on the public relations front. I'd also get really chummy with the Malakim assigned to guard the Gates. I'm the most powerful Balseraph in existance; I can mess with a few Malakim. I'd get them to get comfortable. I'd make friends with them. I'd do them free favors. I'd loan them a few Lilim for company (in time - when I'm sure that they won't kill the Lilim, and after making promises to the Lilim). I'd sympathize with them about how bad their lot in life is, and about how rough a time they are having watching the Gates of Hell. I'd even feed them a demon or two, just to make them happy. Why would I (as Lucifer) do this? Because, if I can get them to go Renegade and sympathetic to Hell, I have two Malakim who think I am their best friend in the whole of creation. Better yet, if they Fall, I have absolutly terrified (and demoralized) Heaven. Either way, I've discredited Dominic and Judgement. Sounds like victory any way you slice it. > as a player of demons and a GM with many demons Chars. The disatvantages (in > short) suck. It is like SJgames doesn't want you to play demons. Nope. They just don't want you to play demons in Hell. The action is on Earth, after all. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:35:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Angel Advantage and Plot Seed On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, The Bard wrote: > I ment from a PC point of view. From a PC point of view, the advantage of angels being able to come to Hell is largely irrelevant because it's unlikely that PCs will ever do it. The angels standing outside the doors are intimidating, but rarely actually *do* anything; the PCs appear in Hell near their hearts and never come by the gates, unless you have a Free Lilim and have house rules that they can come in with the throngs if they don't have someone to follow to Hell. Plot Seed involving that house rule: a newly-born Free Lilim has just taken her first contract to Earth, working for Mom in a year contract as part of a project to end slavery in the Sudan. The Malakim resonates, discovers that the best thing she's done is help set thirty slaves free and the worst thing she's done was not send the money she'd promised to the slaveowner. (Add appropriate other information at 'as decent as a Free Lilim can get' level.) The Malakim decides that she doesn't belong in Hell. Of course, she *is* still a demon. And while Heaven won't have a problem with her ending slavery in the Sudan, the remaining 21 levels of Geas she owes Mom, plus whatever she owes her sisters, are a major problem. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:50:16 EDT From: Gruzzle@aol.com Subject: IN> Disgruntled Demon >I have never liked the angle atvantage but reading heavan and hell I am >pushed over the edge. >as a player of demons and a GM with many demons Chars. The disatvantages (in >short) suck. It is like SJgames doesn't want you to play demons. You have to remember that Angelic Celestials have God and the entire cosmos on their side, while Infernals are merely the underdogs (granted, that's arguable) rebelling against the rest of existance. Angels are supposed to be mightier than demons, Lucifer doesn't plan on fighting a one-on-one battle. The infernal strategy is to not rely on individual power as much as sheer mass numbers. And how can you possibly say SJGames is emphasizing Angles when the Infernal Players Guide is soooo much cooler and better written. Also<> Who ever said Hell was supposed to be relaxing? - -Twitch- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:20:44 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> angel atvantage The Bard wrote: > The point is a deamon could not if he wanted to but he can't it is an unfair > atvantage. I agree with a lot of the other responses, but on some level, you're right. It is a bit unfair. But them's the breaks. If you're rebelling against the guy who is at least thought by many to be omnipotent, you should realize that you aren't going to get everything going your way. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:34:48 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts No one has addressed this yet, so I'd like to... In a message dated 8/12/98 4:38:09 PM, milliken@BBN.COM writes: >>> 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. > (SNIP) Except for one thing. You're ignoring the definition of morality. A moral system is, simply put, an activated ethical or philosophical system. Under the In Nomine system, the dissonance conditions define (in-game) Angelic or Demonic morality. Additionally, there is a meta-morality explicit in the rules with the Selfless/Selfish dichotomy. This, with the Fate/Destiny dichotomy, defines the objective morality of the universe. Thus, humans may not *understand* what the objective morality is, but an objective morality exists in the universe. > >>> 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. > But you're (W. Milliken) redefining morality the concept. Selflessness _versus_ selfishness *is* an issue of morality. Falling or Redemption are moral issues revolving around a selfless creature becoming selfish (or vice versa), and striving towards Fate or Destiny. (SNIP) The main point I want to make is that in a game with Heaven and Hell, Angels and Demons, damnation and salvation, there will always be moral issues. In Nomine has game mechanics (dissonance, discord, outcasting, falling, and redemption) which reflect the objective morality of the game universe. It is nonsense to say that these mechanics do not reflect morality. It may be accurate to say that they do not reflect normative *human* morality, but don't say that morality has nothing to do with it. > >---Walter Mark (Note that this means that a dissonance-free demon is quite moral, in- game) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 11:15:14 PDT From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts This may be hard to read because it's a multi-level reply. > >>> 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. > > > (SNIP) > > Except for one thing. You're ignoring the definition of morality. A moral Exactly. Morality has been defined as: o The absense/presence of selflessness o Fate/Destiny (this is even more vague and seems to imply being genericly good/bad) This in the game mechanics have various effects because of poor/good moral decisions. > >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. > > Nope it does. Angels are pictured as good because they're selfless. The description of how humans have nothing to worry about around a Malakim because in five minutes he'll be dead or be helped out of whatever jam he's in almost directly implies that they're helpful(good). > Mark (Note that this means that a dissonance-free demon is quite moral, in- > game) > Well....I think its a little more complicated. A dissonance free demon would be upstandingly/correctly evil. Nick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:46:07 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim Traps (Re: Dissonance question) At 8:34 PM -0500 8/13/98, Eeyore wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> "I want this Lilim to understand selflessness, to know what it's >> like to hear the true Symphony, to feel love." >> >> And what do you do? It's completely within your power (maybe?) to >> change yourself, to break your brain and try very hard to fulfill >> this Need (which may be a 5 or 6, even). You could get there, >> you could do it. > >This is not true, if you rely on a tight reading of the rules. The level of >a Need is determined by how difficult it would be for the resonated to >fulfill, not the resonator. Exactly. And Elohim are expert brain-breakers. (So are some Destiny Servitors; we have the "Redemption Squads"...) Give one six months or a year to break a Lilim's brain, and she'll probably be broken... If the Lilim is helping, then she'll do it faster. At 4:10 AM +0100 8/14/98, Jo Hart wrote: >What if it was a demon-with-attitude and it /needed/ to get the lilim to do >something without having to pay a geas for it? :) (Maybe to add a notch to >its bedpost or boast to its friends or something) >(Don't laugh. I had a War balseraph NPC whose main ambition in life was to >sleep with a lilim without having to pay, because it would have been so >good for his rep.) I think the Balseraph has just gotten one of those Needs that a Lilim just *can't* fulfill. (Unless she can manage to maneuver one of her *sisters* into doing it as a freebie for the Bal?) At 11:38 PM -0400 8/13/98, Emily K. Dresner wrote: >> But if you did, you'd no longer want the hook it would bring. >> You *would* have *changed* yourself. Fulfilling the Need would >> make you other than you are, and that great hook on an angel -- >> would be given away instantly. > >And this becomes a goofy problem when you're hot on the Angel who >originally had that Need in the first place and was going around imagining >you in the buff with wings. :) (That's the thing about Lilim, they just look and see the most *embarassing* things...) >*heave a great sigh* >*put out more little Judgment traps consisting of notebooks with cool >paper and multicolored pens* (Those are more Lightning traps, you know -- they like their four-color pens. Judgment goes for simple black, blue, or pencil, with the occasional underlinings in red if explaining something to someone else.) >I blame it all on Eli and his Hostess Fruit Pies, you know. I agree. Utterly. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:46:14 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> over page counts At 8:35 PM -0500 8/13/98, Eeyore wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> No reason at all. Except that if it's going into a future supplement, >> it probably won't go online first. (I do have some notions as to >> where those 150 words might go, yes. I am saving them for that.) > >Promises, promises... What kind of Geas am I going to be hit with if you DO >fulfill this Need? Oh, just a *little* favor... O;> At 11:32 PM -0400 8/13/98, Emily K. Dresner wrote: >Why, it'll be to me if it is to go up on the INC if approved, and it'll be >a 6. I'll make you HTML-ize and post all 104 INC documents that are >sitting, waiting in the queue that I spent 4 hours on this morning - >work of which consisted laregely of me sitting at my desk, staring at the >pages going, 'my god, how am I going to reorganize some of this'. HAH! >I'm a slavedriver AND I'm mean. > >On the other hand, I wonder if there can be a new area set up for IN >outtakes or something. Hrm. Dunno. It wouldn't be my doing if it was, >although the INC is the most likely. Perhaps something like the Resources page? If we can get any kind of general permission from Scott, this might be very useful. A general question for y'all -- would you feel ticked if something that was an Out-take from one book (and therefore up on the web) got put into a subsequent book (in black and white and ink and paper)? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:39:14 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> over page counts Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > A general question for y'all -- would you feel ticked if something > that was an Out-take from one book (and therefore up on the web) > got put into a subsequent book (in black and white and ink and paper)? No, not at all. Where I would get bent would be if I paid for something "hard" and it then came out for free "digital". tom t. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:32:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> angel atvantage On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, The Bard wrote: > I have never liked the angle atvantage but reading heavan and hell I am pushed > over the edge. It seems evan at there own home thay can't relaxe. 1. angels are > watching the gates of heavan as well as hell. 2. Demons entering heavan sound an > alarm in hell angels sound nothing. 3. Angels in hell don't get sucked back to > heavan after spending just a few hours downs there. Heck one could evan live down > there if thay wated two. If I was saten the first thing I would do is move those > two lugs at the front door or cut a deal and put some demons at the gates of > heaven. (not combat wise just to keep things fair) > as a player of demons and a GM with many demons Chars. The disatvantages (in > short) suck. It is like SJgames doesn't want you to play demons. hey demon, you got a problem? That's just to bad. God plays for keeps, and you guys lost. Hell is where you guys belong now, and as long as you stay there we aint got a problem, do we? At least I don't. You think you can reject the symphony and expect to come out equal to those who except it? Be glad you weren't burned out of it. But seriously, yes demons have it tough, they are supposed to. If they didn't have it tough it wouldn't be fair, becuase there is more of them. Yes, individual pcs may not see it that way. I'd let demons get more help from buddies, but they are weaker, and need to be cunning. I don't hink Lucifer has control over hell to install angel detection, like heaven has. In heaven the symphony is strong, and so discordant voices are heard right away. In hell everything is discordant. It is where the symphony put everything that didn't belong. It's alot easier to hear a single voice out of harmony in a choir, than it is to hear a voice in harmony in a screaming match. mvg, Jasper Can we ever have too much of a good thing? Miguel de Cervantes -Don Quixote Chap. vi ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:57:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Angel Advantage On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Jasper Reijer Floor wrote: > But seriously, yes demons have it tough, they are supposed to. If they > didn't have it tough it wouldn't be fair, becuase there is more of them. > Yes, individual pcs may not see it that way. I'd let demons get more help > from buddies, but they are weaker, and need to be cunning. Really? I'd do it exactly the opposite way: make PC demons elite demons who are as powerful as the angels they come across, but get *less* help from their buddies -- because, well, Hell just doesn't cooperate as well as Heaven does. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 17:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts >>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. >> >(SNIP) > >Except for one thing. You're ignoring the definition of morality. A moral >system is, simply put, an activated ethical or philosophical system. Actually, "morality" has strong overtones of "conformity to commonly accepted behavior" (I checked the dictionary online at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm), and therefore tends to be very culturally-dependent. I'm also dubious about applying the concept of "morality" to beings in which free will may not exist -- i.e., this is all "hard-wired" in celestials, not learned or consciously-decided behavior. So applying the notion of morality to celestials may make as much sense as applying it to animals -- i.e., very little. >But you're (W. Milliken) redefining morality the concept. Selflessness >_versus_ selfishness *is* an issue of morality. Falling or Redemption are >moral issues revolving around a selfless creature becoming selfish (or vice >versa), and striving towards Fate or Destiny. But there's still not really an objective morality here -- there are two cultural ones, one for angels, one for demons. Each side defines "what is right" differently. And neither necessarily subscribes to any of the myriad versions of human morality, though there are areas of common ground. >The main point I want to make is that in a game with Heaven and Hell, Angels >and Demons, damnation and salvation, there will always be moral issues. I have no disagreement with that. > In >Nomine has game mechanics (dissonance, discord, outcasting, falling, and >redemption) which reflect the objective morality of the game universe. *That*, I disagree with -- I think it's more about conflicting notions of what morality is. Certainly God has a view of what is "right", and I suppose you can define that as "objective morality", but only by invoking His authority. But the demons would argue with that, and I think that's really what the game is about -- or what the authors intended it to be. > It is >nonsense to say that these mechanics do not reflect morality. Not an objective one, necessarily, though I guess you're probably correct with regard to each individual side's version of morality. If you want to say that dissonance conditions define morality for celestials, that's fine, but you've now got several dozen conflicting moralities, since each Word and each Choir/Band has a different set of conditions, which others do *not* have to adhere to. Even Falling/redemption reflects two different sets of accepted behavior standards, which I will argue is what "morality" normally stands for, and I believe the dictionary definition backs up. > It may be >accurate to say that they do not reflect normative *human* morality, This is certainly true. > but don't >say that morality has nothing to do with it. Certainly human morality doesn't, which I believe was what the original poster was trying to imply. In any case, I don't think it's particularly important what words are applied, as long as people understand what's *meant* by them. IN celestials are *not* driven by "traditional Christian values" (or the reverse), though there are significant areas of overlap. The differences are part of what's fascinating about the game, at least for me -- if IN angels were simply standard Christian ones, and demons likewise, I would find the game a lot more boring. As it is, the moral issues surrounding celestials are much murkier, and more complex, which adds a lot to the game, for me. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 17:53 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Hearts >> Except for one thing. You're ignoring the definition of morality. A moral > > >Exactly. Morality has been defined as: >o The absense/presence of selflessness >o Fate/Destiny (this is even more vague and seems to imply being genericly >good/bad) > >This in the game mechanics have various effects because of poor/good moral >decisions. I'm sorry, but I don't recall *anywhere* in the game mechanics that this is defined as "morality". It *is* defined as the distinction between the two sides, yes. But it is somewhat orthogonal to what morality means, as I read the dictionary definition. >Nope it does. Angels are pictured as good because they're selfless. The >description of how humans have nothing to worry about around a Malakim >because in five minutes he'll be dead or be helped out of whatever jam he's >in almost directly implies that they're helpful(good). If you're the human he killed because you cheated on your income tax, you might have different words for it.... I'm also not sure the statement there is exactly as you report it -- I vaguely recall that the second half is "out of danger", not "helped out of danger"; i.e., out of danger *from the Malakite*. But I could be wrong. I believe it's more intended to point out that Malakim see things in very black & white terms, and don't bother with shades of grey much. But what their threshold for "white" is varies.... In any case, this is an isolated point -- there's plenty of evidence in the books that angels aren't necessarily "good" by human standards, especially in the vignettes. Of course, many angels *are* "good" (by human standards). But by no means all. The game is quite deliberately set up to separate the notions of "good" and "evil" from "angel" and "demon". While it is common that angels are "good" and demons "evil", from a human perspective, there are definite exceptions on both sides. And an angel might do "good" one minute, and "evil" another, from the point of view of most humans, though he'll *probably* mostly be doing "good". >> Mark (Note that this means that a dissonance-free demon is quite moral, in- >> game) >> > >Well....I think its a little more complicated. A dissonance free demon would >be upstandingly/correctly evil. And in Hell, that's defined as "moral". "Immorality" there is wussing out and kow-towing to God. "Community standards" and all that.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 18:20 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Cycle Books and Stuff (*No* Spoilers) > (I'm going to buy a >small chunk of the available books soon including at least the first 2 of >the cycle though some of these posts are making me wary of the APG). The APG isn't *that* bad, just some pieces of it. There's still definitely good stuff in there, it's just got some problems, and some of it needs to be rewritten. There are basically a handful of real problems in there (I think Elizabeth cataloged them yesterday), the rest varies from "OK" to "quite good". However, by comparison with what it *could* have been, it gets knocked around a bit. You'll probably hear/see similar comments about The Marches and Heaven & Hell, and there are even some problems in Night Music (like the poison rules, and some minor confusions in the human section). > and as for the >settings, just another part of the fun, a Heaven and Hell book, were it >just on Heaven and Hell, I probably wouldn't have much use for right now. >My character are gonna be on Earth and not have a lot to do up there or >down there for a bit so, eventually i'd get it, but if it has an adventure >in it, and some superiors and neat stuff, I'd really feel I was gettin the >most for my money, plus the adventure gives you a headstart on how to make >good use of the setting. The adventure in Heaven and Hell doesn't really use Heaven or Hell, that I recall -- it's set in New York, actually, and mostly stays there, as far as I remember. This adventure is relatively mediocre, in my opinion, and is only peripherally related to the main plot line, as far as I know. The sections on Heaven and Hell are OK, and possibly useful, especially for background material. The Marches adventure (a) has nothing to do with the Marches, really, and (b), is pretty much of a dog, in my opinion. The section on the Marches itself is fairly decent (absent some historical errors -- Em will probably mention them again soon enough...). There's additional rules material on sorcerers (human mages who summon spirits) which is OK, but a little fuzzy here and there. Night Music and FotM have adventures tied to detailed corporeal settings, and are a bit better, though it seems most people here find the FotM adventure a little incoherent and/or too much of a railroad job. In general, the best things in the cycle books so far, for me, have been the Superior writeups. These are almost uniformly *quite* good. Additional rules material is a bit uneven; some of it very good, and some fairly sloppy, though I don't think I'd call any of it outright *bad*. > If page >restrictions get too much in the future, wouldn't it be possible for some >cycle books to be bigger than others? This would probably raise the price significantly. SJGames has done it with some GURPS books (like Discworld), but I believe they've found that the 128-page length is the most effective for them -- as the books get more expensive, fewer people buy them, which drives the costs per book up, which drives the price up.... >By the way, for anyone who's actually read through all this ranting, like I >said I'm gonna buy a bunch of books. I'm definitely gonna get the GM screen >and Night Music, if I was to get 2-3 other books, (I'll probably get Liber >Reliquarum too) I wanted to ask what would some top recommendations be for >someone who's going to be starting GMing it soon and who'll be starting off >w/original stuff and heading into the Revelations cycle soon afterwards? I would probably buy FotM next, though it would depend somewhat on which Superiors you like. The Songbook looks to be pretty useful (and good), and should be out in a few months, judging by the fact that it's up in playtest now -- I would plan on getting that when it comes out. The APG and IPG are both fairly useful; I'll claim (somewhat self-servingly) that the IPG is better-written, though. Both contain quick-reference guides in the back for assisting with character creation (for the appropriate side) -- this is pretty useful because character-creation using the main book usually means a lot of page-flipping. The Marches and Heaven & Hell are probably at the bottom of my list, except for the Superior writeups in them. If you want human wizards in your game, you probably want the Marches for the sorceror material. The adventures in both are pretty missable. The writeups on the realms are reasonable, but not particularly essential. > I >know there arent _that_ many books to choose from yet but thanks for any >sortof tips as to what anyone thinks the most useful stuff is. I suppose >getting the Revelations cycle in order is a good idea? I think you could do just fine with Night Music, FotM, and Final Trumpet. The adventures in The Marches and H&H are nearly irrelevant to the main plotline, as best I can recall. FotM and Final Trumpet are *very* tightly coupled, you probably wouldn't be happy with just one or the other. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 18:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] >Oh, and if Natalie does getr spontaneously Redeemed and slain by Eli's >Tether, won't she wake up in Limbo? In this rather odd case, she *might* get sucked up the newly-formed Tether, instead. As I've currently got the Tether proto-canon, it's hard to go anywhere *else* celestially than the other end of the Tether. Mh... this raises the question about celestials with Hearts who die in Tethers. I need to check and make sure I covered that.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 18:30 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fall of the Malakim Nitpicks. [Here there be Spoilers!] > Something about the fact that >Calabim get points for their Discord, and Lilim don't get points (at character >creation) for any potential Geases on them (like Mommy's). Actually, no one gets points for Geas Discords (yes, other characters *can* start with them, it's just required for Free Lilim). However, consider how munkinoid a Free Lilim character would be with 27 levels of automatic Discord, at 3 points/level. Or even one... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 18:47 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> IN writing & future books > Although it may not be possible considering the content of some of the books >(like the surprise twists of Cycle adventures), this is a great reason for playtesting >more IN stuff on Pyramid. Actually, I think the policy is that all stuff *except* the Cycle books will be put up for playtest. Because of the secrecy surrounding the future plot lines (and often a need to know the story arc for the Cycle), the adventures probably *can't* be posted for public playtest. Which is a pity. The non-adventure stuff in the Cycle books could be posted, but since it's mostly background material, there's much less need for playtesting on it. > This is the point where I would like to give those SJG writers who read and reply >to the list a standing ovation. I really appreciate the fact that Archangel Beth, >Walter, David, John and others take the time to listen and answer, and more >importantly, are *conscientious* about the work they do for In Nomine. Well, we're mostly players first and writers second, so we don't want it to be bad -- we have to live with the result.... > I understand >that my (and others') suggestions about What to Do about the Cycle Books may already >be old-hat, and that those writers are already wrestling with these issues, Suggestions are always welcome, as well as comments on what is and isn't wanted in the books. As it happens, most of the suggestions on new book ideas have already been thought of, but not necessarily all. As I recall, the Tethers book was first proposed by one of the list members, and it's now well into production; I don't think any of the "regulars" had thought of proposing such a book, but it's looking pretty good, somewhat to my surprise (I didn't think it was worth a whole book, originally). > You guys should >take a bow--and a breather...but let us (your loyal audience) know when you *have* >come to decisions about the next round o' books (assuming SJ let you :P). There are >many of us curious to know. Thanks. We certainly know what the next few books are, and so do some of you who attended Elizabeth's last chat session on Pyramid: Final Trumpet, Songbook (which sounds like it will actually be titled "Liber Canticorum"), and the Tethers book (final title still in flux). Beyond that, there's an outline for another Cycle, and a half-dozen or so "core book" ideas, all of which sound interesting. I've been arguing that we need to run a survey here to see which ideas people like the most. As far as I know, any or all of these projects could be started next, after Tethers. When (or whether) these will be announced, isn't clear. I expect Scott Haring and SJ will decide on the next book sometime fairly soon, though. And no, there really isn't time to rest much -- at a desired production rate of a book every month or two, most of us who work freelance on IN are being kept busy writing and/or editing, not to mention the SJGames people who do all the final editing, layout, production, and shipping. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #917 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.