From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Sep 3 14:47:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28181 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:47:55 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA18083 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:14:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:14:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199809031914.OAA18083@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 #937 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, September 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 937 In this digest: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> Lilith IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> The Word of Freedom (was Re: Wordhounds) Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> Broken promises etc. Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:13:28 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Andrew Frades wrote: > > Walter Milliken wrote: > > > - Compute the amount of noise (the modifier) as the book states > > > > - Roll against Perception + Noise - distance modifier > > > > ...where the distance modifier uses the distance modifiers for resonance > > CDs (but is applied to the target number here): > > > > +2 for touching the source > > +1 if within 1 yard (or is it foot?) > > +0 if between 1 and 10 yards > > -1 if between 10-50 yards > > -2 up to 100 yards, and an additional -1 for each 100 yards thereafter > > That's fairly similar to the hodgepodge system I have been using IMC. The > only addition that I would make is to use the range modifier as a check > digit modifier as well since for many disturbances that annoying check digit > of six shows up with most any angelic character. Good point! Automatic successes should not apply, IMO, to disturbance checks. Treat the highest possible TN as 12. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:19:26 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? Kevin Walsh wrote: > As an aside, if you absolutely must drop a nuke, get someone else to do > it. The disturbance is massive, even in a relatively small town. I > believe we worked out that the echoes from one incident lasted for over a > year under the existing disturbance rules, and were worldwide. (Thank God > it wasn't my character who did it.) I'm not sure if it could have been > heard on the moon, but it would be interesting to work out. I have a short story (that may see the light of day in a future supplement or a book of IN fiction) that has that as a major plot element. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:23:42 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > No. IIRC, the rules are conspicously *silent* on whether *instinctive* > "blowing all Essence" makes noise. I believe the implications is that > it is *silent* when done that way, and I think that's the way I'm gonna > canonize it. That's how I've answered it before (makes note to put it into the FAQ). - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:51:31 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 03:19:26PM -0400, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > > As an aside, if you absolutely must drop a nuke, get someone else to do > > it. The disturbance is massive, even in a relatively small town. I > > believe we worked out that the echoes from one incident lasted for over a > > year under the existing disturbance rules, and were worldwide. (Thank God > > it wasn't my character who did it.) I'm not sure if it could have been > > heard on the moon, but it would be interesting to work out. > > I have a short story (that may see the light of day > in a future supplement or a book of IN fiction) that has > that as a major plot element. > I presume you're talking about the nuke, rather than Celestials hearing it from the moon. (Though I could be wrong.) I remember that I argued that as my character was Traumatised during the disturbance her Forces should have been shredded. With a thousand point disturbance I wouldn't have so argued, but this was on a completely different scale. I like the character, so I didn't argue too hard. (I do this sort of thing constantly. I suggested that Furfur's IR sight might see through Mithredath's Ethereal Form, and reminded my GM on another occasion that an NPC Balseraph my character wanted to kill could affect multiple PCs at once with its resonance. That particular incident led to the following post-game comment "I believed she was a demon, but I didn't think there was anything I could do about it, so I didn't.") Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:43:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Masada On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Yossi Gurvitz wrote: > >However, the writeup mentioned that Zuriel was branching out, and could > >conceivably make Archangel within the next thousand years. > Where is this writeup? Final Trumpet? The INC, as I said before. http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Angels/Malakite.Zuriel.html > >> I may be wrong, but I thought that *all* Israeli soldiers took an oath that > >> Masada would never fall again. And, unless I've *really* missed something, > >I was under that impression as well. > It's a slogan, nut much used today. It's not part of the oath. (I know, > I took one...) Oh well. Still, in a game about angels and demons, some historical inaccuracies made in the name of drama and atmosphere are acceptable, methinks. > >I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Josephus wasn't at > >Masada. Yes, he was involved in a seige where the defenders committed > Most historians agree that he wasn't there. He went with Titus to > Antioch, and from there to Rome, and there's no indication that he returned > for a siege campaign that dragged on for three years. Besides, if he did, > he would have entered one of his own famous speeches... Yes, Antioch. That's what I was thinking of. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 98 16:40 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? > Heh. I like this suggestion... probably because >it matches one I was doing on my own! Yours is a bit cleaner, >though. I'd add a new row (mile), then have each additional >mile increment be another -1. I think that anything that >does 50 disturbance _should_ be heard about 50 miles away! ;) I considered this, but was trying to match the existing effects for mid-sized disturbances. Also, adding a "1 mile" entry at -3 would give high-Perception celestials rather obscene detection ranges for small disturbances. Miles are certainly easier to work with, at least for us US residents, though 100 yard increments will work more smoothly with players who use metric measurements, since they can use the 1yd = 1m approximation. For the benefit of the measurement-illiterate, I suppose we could add a line for "1 mile = -17, an additional -17 for each additional mile" to the table. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 98 16:43 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? > Good point! Automatic successes should not apply, >IMO, to disturbance checks. Treat the highest possible >TN as 12. I don't agree with this -- if you're close to the disturbance, or it's really loud, you should be able to pick up more than if you hear it as a mere whisper. On the other hand, applying the distance modifier to the CD may be appropriate, if a little complex.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:57:42 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? At 16:40 02/09/98 EDT, you wrote: > > >For the benefit of the measurement-illiterate, I suppose we could add a >line for "1 mile = -17, an additional -17 for each additional mile" to >the table. > Can you do it in metric also? ;) jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:11:45 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute Disturbance? Kevin Walsh wrote: > I presume you're talking about the nuke, rather than Celestials hearing it > from the moon. (Though I could be wrong.) Heh. That would be pretty amusing... lemme think on the moon thing. ;) Surely there's a story in there _somewhere_, yes? ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 98 17:14 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? >>For the benefit of the measurement-illiterate, I suppose we could add a >>line for "1 mile = -17, an additional -17 for each additional mile" to >>the table. >> > >Can you do it in metric also? ;) Gee, let's see... what's 100 meters divided into a kilometer...? - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:26:30 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Lilith Redneck wrote: >"Zee Schtachuu uf Liberte, she iz all planned. But, quelle materiel shoold >eet be zee made uf?" > >"(Make it of copper.)" > >"Fah! Coppair -corrodes!- Zee schtachuu, it will be un eyesoree." > >"(It will look distinguished... venerable... majestic.)" > >"Eet will look -green.-" > > [rest snipped] This was very funny, but I'll be boring here, and suggest that this story may be an example of convergent evolution. Lilith is already depicted as the Statue of Liberty in INS/MV. Perhaps the reason Lilim are green in our IN is because of this..? - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:02:25 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Tsayadim >>>Actually, while you're right about my suggestion voiding the benefit of being of Purity, so does yours, really. If you can't get more than one or two points of dissonance before your own comrades shish-kabob you, there isn't much of a chance of anything other than a Sudden Awful Experience making you fall without making you first Outcast.<<< The difference being that your suggestion makes the benefit of being an angel of Purity literally superfluous -- it's nonexistent. The way I see it, the "benefit" is that angels of Purity are _incapable_ of Falling....they're just so rigorously controlled that it's not a benefit any of them are likely to be able to take advantage of. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:02:13 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Lilith - -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > > [exhaustive snip of rather neat points] > >> Incidentally, Bright Lilim do lose the ability to lay geases IMC. > > so, what do they get as a Resonance? I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards leaving the Need-detection bit in place, but removing the ability to compel obedience. If I were going to go the whole hog, I'd remove the ability to detect needs from dark lilim, too. This would enable me to play up the 'deal with the devil' angle a bit more forcefully (and get mileage out of the contrast between how the human making the deal sees it and how the Lilim see it). This would also let me add some contrast between bright and dark lilim, too. But it's already established IMC that dark Lilim can read needs, so I can't do it. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 11:26:59 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Masada At 23:43 02/09/98 , you wrote: >> Where is this writeup? Final Trumpet? > >The INC, as I said before. Thanks. <"Masada will not fall again"> >> It's a slogan, nut much used today. It's not part of the oath. (I know, >> I took one...) > >Oh well. Still, in a game about angels and demons, some historical >inaccuracies made in the name of drama and atmosphere are acceptable, >methinks. If it works for your campaign, sure. Just make sure your players don't find out it has already fallen a second time.... (In 1948 - this was a 1930-1940s slogan, as I said). It might take the edge out of that oath. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 12:04 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Lilith >If I were going to go the whole hog, I'd remove the ability to detect needs >from >dark lilim, too. This would enable me to play up the 'deal with the devil' >angle >a bit more forcefully (and get mileage out of the contrast between how the >human >making the deal sees it and how the Lilim see it). This would also let me >add some >contrast between bright and dark lilim, too. But it's already established >IMC that >dark Lilim can read needs, so I can't do it. One distinction you could still make is the *kind* of needs a Lilim sees. Dark Lilim see the darker side of the human psyche, while the Brights would see those needs that are associated with higher aspirations. There would still be some overlap -- think of it as a sort of filter the Lilim looks through; what they see is tinged with their own prejudices. Really strong needs would still be visible to both. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:27:00 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Word of Freedom (was Re: Wordhounds) At 8:32 PM -0400 9/1/98, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>The power of one's own Word is dependant on how much one's Word is >>represented in the Symphony. Lilith requires at least a minimal amount >>of power to remain free herself. There are times enough when strict control >>would be more trouble than it's worth -- if you are exercising strict >>control, then you're tied down *doing* that! You can't be going off >>sunbathing and sipping drinks with cute guys. >> >>Conclusion: Lilith believes in Freedom -- mind you, when a Freedom >>of someone else treads on *her* toes, she'll deal with that, but >>otherwise? The more Freedom in the universe, the more power she has >>to remain free. > >I take demonic Freedom in a somewhat more expansive sense. To Lilith IMC, >freedom is the absolute and total absence of /any/ restraint on any >of her whims; besides the obvious restraints of custom and morality, >she is opposed to things like the laws of physics and the law of the >divided middle. (I can actually buy this. Of course, most of the time it's not worth her time and energy to try to break them in big ways, but it's always nice to be able to be free of gravity when you're in those six-inch heels. Dancing.) >It's only the tyrannical will of God that prevents her from having >absolute control *and* the time to pick up cute guys. He always was a partypooper!! > The limits imposed >on creation by God are the ultimate restriction, which must at the last >be shattered and cast aside. As long as there is any distinction between >what she wants and what actually is, she isn't /really/ free of all >control. Hm. I think I might take that exactly opposite -- she holds the Word, and therefore *she* *can* violate those limits *personally*, from time to time, etc. Gravity getting her down? Not with a small thought from her, and maybe a touch of Essence. Yes, she might want absolute control from time to time -- but I can't see it as holding her interest long enough to do much "dependable." More like, "I am in this room. Cater to my every whim. Okay. I'm bored now. I'm leaving." And I've just realized -- I think IMC, Lilith has *outgrown* some of her "BREAK ALL LAWS NO MATTER WHAT" and "Total Devotion To My Whims" moods. (Or at least cycled past them in the modern day.) I can *easily* see her at a younger stage, being that vicious about it. I can see her getting into a future snit-fit and going back to that stage for a few years/decades/centuries. But she's human. She gets bored. She cycles. The current favor that the concept of Freedom has may be a result (or cause!) of Lilith in a more laid-back mood. (Or it may be good PR from Nybbas. YMMV.) Which could let someone depict Lilith in *all* stages, from vicious baby-strangler to helping Michael depose a tyrant to assisting in the Central American revolutions to spitting on Central American revolutions because they're so often just exchanging one tyranny for another. It just depends on where she is in her centuries-long moodswings, and what she's bored with at the time. >This explains the origin of her power to geas IMC, actually. Thinking >of a geas as a trade is exactly backwards. Fundamentally, it is the >power to force someone to do what a Lilim desires regardless of their >own will. But before a Lilim can do this she needs a way into her >victim's soul. This is what fulfilling the Need does; if the victim >has acknowledged that the Lilim has changed the world to match their >desires, it opens a doorway that the Lilim can use to command her >victim. "You have changed my world. You have power to change my world. You have power over me." Interesting. I don't think that's the way that I'd look at it (there are too many subtle contradictions here and there in canon), but it's certainly interesting, and valid enough. (And it touches on some of my RL religious beliefs, which is even more interesting.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:29:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. At 2:03 AM +0100 9/2/98, Julian Breen wrote: >Elizabeth: >>At 8:51 PM +0100 8/29/98, Julian Breen wrote: >>>Anyone got any suggestions for which Prince the Words of 'Promises Never >>>Intended to be Kept', and 'Broken Promises' fall under? >>>I can't make my mind up :) >> >>Factions, both of 'em. After all, Factions likes isolating people, >>and promises are bonds -- bonds that should be broken as soon as >>convenient. > >Promises are not generally broken or, in fact, disregarded outright with >the express intent of engendering hostility though (although that can of >course be a side effect). They are more likely broken in order to spare >an inconveniance to the breaker. Read the Malphas writeup in Final Trumpet. Factions has a large dose of Isolationism. O;> (Also, check out the Impudite and Lilim attunements for Factions, which hint at this...) [Am I saying that's canon? Nononono. I'm saying that I think Factions is the right Word, and the reasons why are hinted at in one place and get explicit in another, forthcoming, place. Oh, and BTW, the Final Trumpet has a *lot* of very nice art in it. The cover is lovely.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:32:25 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. At 2:53 AM +0100 9/2/98, Julian Breen wrote: >Redneck Gaijin writes: > >>>>I'd say that's all part of the Game, myself. >>>> >>Well, maybe, and then.... >> >>Demon of Promises You Don't Intend to Keep- Andrealphus >> >That's a very limited interpretation of this Word though. Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Cogsworth, in response to what the Beast could do for Belle: "[You could give her] the usual: flowers, chocolates, promises you don't intend to keep..." >>Demon of Warranties- switches between Nybbas and Vapula >> >The Game in service to Media/Tech (Of course, "The Game in service to [x]" is just another term for "Known Spy Of The Game.") - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:50:25 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Walter Milliken wrote: > > > Heh. I like this suggestion... probably because > >it matches one I was doing on my own! Yours is a bit cleaner, > >though. I'd add a new row (mile), then have each additional > >mile increment be another -1. I think that anything that > >does 50 disturbance _should_ be heard about 50 miles away! ;) > > I considered this, but was trying to match the existing effects for > mid-sized disturbances. Also, adding a "1 mile" entry at -3 would give > high-Perception celestials rather obscene detection ranges for small > disturbances. > > Miles are certainly easier to work with, at least for us US residents, > though 100 yard increments will work more smoothly with players who use > metric measurements, since they can use the 1yd = 1m approximation. Very, very good point. > For the benefit of the measurement-illiterate, I suppose we could add a > line for "1 mile = -17, an additional -17 for each additional mile" to > the table. That's a good thought. One extra line and calculations go MUCH faster. ;) Of course, the metric users out there don't need this with the simple conversion from 100 meters to 1 km. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 15:15:05 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> A new way to compute disturbance...? Walter Milliken wrote: > > > Good point! Automatic successes should not apply, > >IMO, to disturbance checks. Treat the highest possible > >TN as 12. > > I don't agree with this -- if you're close to the disturbance, or it's > really loud, you should be able to pick up more than if you hear it as a > mere whisper. On the other hand, applying the distance modifier to the > CD may be appropriate, if a little complex.... You have a good point, but you get the situation where the variations in CDs among different characters is low (either no one can make a roll, or they all get a bonus large enough for a CD6). The problem for large disturbances and auto-success is that the actual perception score of the listener becomes largely irrelevant. I agree that everyone should notice a large disturbance event, but IMO it should be the highly perceptive ones that get more information from the volume. Unfortunately, very high TN bonuses hit the weakest part of the d666 system. At the cost of some added complexity, a auto-success CD cap could be implemented. For example, an auto-success boost to CD can't put it above Perception divided by 2. Yeah, it's a kludge, but it gives the highly perceptive more information, while still letting others can a little more data on loud events. If a low-perception listener happens to roll well on the CD, they still get more info.... hey, they got lucky. Examples of listeners to a very disturbing event Low perception/low CD rolled: low info Low perception/mid CD rolled: mid info Low percetpion/high CD rolled: high info Mid perception/low CD rolled: mid info Mid perception/mid CD rolled: mid info Mid perception/high CD rolled: high info High perception/any roll: high info - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #937 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.