From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Sep 4 13:36:29 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 NAA20006 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:36:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA15612 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:14:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:14:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199809041814.NAA15612@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 #938 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, September 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 938 In this digest: RE: IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> The Tsayadim RE: IN> The Tsayadim Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim RE: RE: IN> The Tsayadim Re: RE: RE: IN> The Tsayadim RE: IN> The Tsayadim IN> Re: Tsayadim IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: IN> Broken promises etc. IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Re: IN> Masada Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite IN> Changing Sides IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Re: IN> Changing Sides Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim Re: IN> Changing Sides ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:15:47 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: 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. Okay, so you're right: the way I expressed the bond between a Servitor and the Word they serve when the Word has no holder wasn't sufficient. However, I still like the idea that there _is_ a relationship between a Servitor and the Word they serve that _doesn't_ go directly through the Superior or superior. Does anyone else think this is interesting at all? Does anyone have any other ideas how it might be expressed _other_ than via the Dissonance conditions of the Word? I simply can't think of any way to implement this other than relating it to the Word's Dissonance condition. Perhaps the special ability of Uriel's people overrides this, so that they're simply special cases. Can't involuntarily lose their attachment to the Word of Purity, or somesuch phrasing. In any case, a very small issue. steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:34:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Tsayadim Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: > However, I still like the idea that there _is_ a relationship > between a Servitor and the Word they serve that _doesn't_ go > directly through the Superior or superior. Does anyone else > think this is interesting at all? Does anyone have any other > ideas how it might be expressed _other_ than via the Dissonance > conditions of the Word? Yes, I think it's interesting. How about those Rites for generating extra Essence? Those could remain after the Superior is gone. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:39:38 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Tsayadim > However, I still like the idea that there _is_ a relationship > between a Servitor and the Word they serve that _doesn't_ go > directly through the Superior or superior. Does anyone else > think this is interesting at all? Does anyone have any other > ideas how it might be expressed _other_ than via the Dissonance > conditions of the Word? Yes, I think it's interesting. How about those Rites for generating extra Essence? Those could remain after the Superior is gone. Nope. IPG 94 says that Rites go away, but that attunements and distinctions stay. I'm trying to figure out if the Dissonance condition goes away here, and if not, what the heck it means. :) steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 16:49 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim > Yes, I think it's interesting. How about those Rites for > generating extra Essence? Those could remain after the > Superior is gone. > > Nope. IPG 94 says that Rites go away, but that attunements >and distinctions stay. I'm trying to figure out if the Dissonance condition >goes away here, and if not, what the heck it means. :) I believe the dissonance conditions are kept, too -- they're still attuned to the Word (which is why attunements and distinctions stay). Rites actually require the Superior to actively do something, according to the current model for Rites, which is why they fail when the Superior is gone. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:59:08 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: RE: IN> The Tsayadim > Nope. IPG 94 says that Rites go away, but that attunements >and distinctions stay. I'm trying to figure out if the Dissonance condition >goes away here, and if not, what the heck it means. :) I believe the dissonance conditions are kept, too -- they're still attuned to the Word (which is why attunements and distinctions stay). Okay, but if you don't have a Superior to make you Outcast/Renegade/kill you, how do you _ever_ lose your Word? Only by choice? Action of another Superior? Comes off in the wash? Rites actually require the Superior to actively do something, according to the current model for Rites, which is why they fail when the Superior is gone. So Attunements are changes in you, Distinctions are changes in you and political power, Rites are the interaction of you and your Superior, and Dissonance is a function of your attunement to the Word you serve? steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 17:06 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: RE: RE: IN> The Tsayadim > > Nope. IPG 94 says that Rites go away, but >that attunements > >and distinctions stay. I'm trying to figure out if the >Dissonance condition > >goes away here, and if not, what the heck it means. :) > > I believe the dissonance conditions are kept, too -- they're >still > attuned to the Word (which is why attunements and >distinctions stay). > > Okay, but if you don't have a Superior to make you >Outcast/Renegade/kill you, how do you _ever_ lose your Word? Only by >choice? Action of another Superior? Comes off in the wash? Switching to another Superior will do that (which requires their action). The stuff in the IPG about switching Superiors also generally applies to angels (at least the basic mechanics, though not the politics). > So Attunements are changes in you, Distinctions are changes >in you and political power, Rites are the interaction of you and your >Superior, and Dissonance is a function of your attunement to the Word you >serve? Attunements are the result of your attunement to your Superior's Word, which is something your Superior does to you when you enter his service (usually at creation, but not always). Some parts of Distinctions are similar (those that aren't strictly political), and dissonance conditions are also related to your attunement to your Superior's Word. Only Rites are different. Lilith's dissonance conditions are more of a special case -- they're part of the geas bond for her temporary servitors, or so Elizabeth explains it to me. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:12:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Feldon Subject: RE: IN> The Tsayadim >So Attunements are changes in you, Distinctions are changes >in you and political power, Rites are the interaction of >you and your Superior, and Dissonance is a function of your >attunement to the Word you serve? Attunements are the result of your attunement to your Superior's Word, which is something your Superior does to you when you enter >his service (usually at creation, but not always). Some parts of >Distinctions are similar (those that aren't strictly political), and >dissonance conditions are also related to your attunement to your >Superior's >Word. Only Rites are different. Please note that the Orphans section in the IPG does say that Attunements and Distinctions stay around even after a celestial might move on another's service. Does this contradict anything? steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:12:44 -0500 From: Jim Bearse Subject: IN> Re: Tsayadim >>> However, I still like the idea that there _is_ a relationship >>>between a Servitor and the Word they serve that _doesn't_go >>>directly through the Superior or superior. Does anyone else > think this is interesting at all? Does anyone have anyother >>>ideas how it might be expressed _other_ than via the Dissonance >>>conditions of the Word? >>Yes, I think it's interesting. How about those Rites for >>generating extra Essence? Those could remain after the >>Superior is gone. >Nope. IPG 94 says that Rites go away, but that attunements >and distinctions stay. I'm trying to figure out if the Dissonance condition >goes away here, and if not, what the heck it means. :) It seems to me that serving a word is intrinsic to angels. There was a mention in IPG that most angels couldn't understand why Bright Lilim _didn't_ want to serve a word. So, in a sense, it is a key part of their nature to serve a word - so if an angel abandoned a word altogether, he'd gain dissonance regardless of choir. Which is why most switch to a new word when their old Superior passes on. Therefore, in the case of the Tsayadim, in order not to gain dissonance, they have to somehow be maintaining Uriel's Word of Purity by themselves, as if all of them put together equalled one archangel. So they would maintain the old dissonance conditions, and might even be capable (although not canon) of eventually making up their own rites. Which goes back to the discussion of angelic cults... JimB@dtdsob3.wpo.state.ks.us AKA Savage Wombat ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 17:12:00 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Hello All! Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: (1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a Balseraph? (2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? Fortunately neither of these situations has come up, but as the campaign continues... He's the _only_ diabolical in the campaign, there's also a Mal'akh of Eli serving Death (Azrael), a soldier of Death (Azrael), an Ofanite of Trade, a Cherub of Dreams, and a Balseraph of Fate posing as a Malakite. As a final question, what problems do you see me as a GM having to face with a Balseraph pretending to be Malakite? Thanks, - -Perry, Kyriotate of Flowers serving Creation and sometimes Tanniael, Archangel of Tea Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) There are souls which fall from heaven like flowers, but ere they bloom are crushed under the foul tread of some brutal hoof. -- Richter ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 18:18:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Broken promises etc. > > [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.] This is clearly a Shameless Plug (tm). :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 17:28:45 EST From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim >>So Attunements are changes in you, Distinctions are changes >>in you and political power, Rites are the interaction of >>you and your Superior, and Dissonance is a function of your >>attunement to the Word you serve? > > Attunements are the result of your attunement to your >Superior's Word, which is something your Superior does to you when you enter >>his service (usually at creation, but not always). Some parts of >>Distinctions are similar (those that aren't strictly political), and >>dissonance conditions are also related to your attunement to your >>Superior's >>Word. Only Rites are different. > >Please note that the Orphans section in the IPG does say that Attunements >and Distinctions stay around even after a celestial might move on >another's service. Does this contradict anything? > >steve Woah, so what if an angel falls from grace, does he get to keep his heavenly attunements? What about a demon redeeming? What about a soldier switching sides? - -Perry, Kyriotate of Flowers serving Creation and sometimes Tanniael, Archangel of Tea Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) "Remember, false hope is still hope." -Dilbert ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 18:30 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim > Attunements are the result of your attunement to your >Superior's Word, which is something your Superior does to you when you enter >>his service (usually at creation, but not always). Some parts of >>Distinctions are similar (those that aren't strictly political), and >>dissonance conditions are also related to your attunement to your >>Superior's >>Word. Only Rites are different. > >Please note that the Orphans section in the IPG does say that Attunements >and Distinctions stay around even after a celestial might move on >another's service. Does this contradict anything? It shouldn't, since I wrote that section.... Not having it with me, though, I can't be sure. I believe I actually had something in there about not being tied to too many different Words. My take on it was that you *can* be attuned to multiple Words, but adding a new Word tends to weaken your attachment to the old one. Also, most Princes would undoubtedly prefer that your only dissonance condition be theirs, so they probably weaken that aspect of the old Word attunement specifically. Another way to do it is to tie dissonance conditions to who created your current Heart (you normally get a new one when you switch Superiors, at least for demons). But I think that runs afoul of existing canon in some minor details somewhere. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 18:35 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite >Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating >the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: > >(1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a >Balseraph? I think he only gets the resonance, not the rest of the package, so I'd say he looks like a Bal in celestial form. >(2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? Again, he's not *really* a Malakite, so I'd say yes. >As a final question, what problems do you see me as a GM having to face >with a Balseraph pretending to be Malakite? Well, there's the one where all the angelic PCs find out and try to destroy him. Or any Malakite who looks at him -- he's *not* likely to pass their resonance.... I'd say that's one Bal with a short life expectancy, unless he's looking to redeem. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 18:43 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim >>Please note that the Orphans section in the IPG does say that >Attunements >>and Distinctions stay around even after a celestial might move on >>another's service. Does this contradict anything? >> >>steve > >Woah, so what if an angel falls from grace, does he get to keep his >heavenly attunements? What about a demon redeeming? What about a >soldier switching sides? Celestials changing sides lose everything *except* redeeming demons get to keep Rites -- that's in the core book. Soldiers are a gray area -- I'd say they could probably keep their attunements no matter who they work for. They don't go through the same sorts of changes as celestials when switching Superiors or sides. There's also the interesting question of a Demon Prince granting an angel an attunement or distinction, or an Archangel doing so with a demon. I'd allow that to work, but it would be *very* rare, and the celestial's true Superior will probably remove it when they find out. The one possible exception would be Free Lilim, who might conceivably acquire attunements from the angelic side in exchange for services. But not many AAs will offer that good a deal unless they think the Lilim is a redemption candidate, and most wouldn't, even then. However, any celestial changing sides becomes a blank slate in their new state, as far as attunement-like things goes -- all they have is their Choir/Band resonance and maybe some left-over Rites. They do keep any Resources they had, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:46:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Perry Lloyd wrote: > Hello All! > Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating > the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: > (1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a > Balseraph? Balseraph. > (2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? Yes. The Attunement description says "Kronos' Balseraphs, at character creation, may choose to emulate the resonance of any one Choir of *angel*. However, the resonance's prohibitions, as far as dissonance is concerned, also apply. For example, a Balseraph can have a Mercurian's resonance in addition to his own -- but if he kills a human, he'll generate dissonance just as a Mercurian does." The Balseraph *only* gets the resonance/dissonance pair. > Fortunately neither of these situations has come up, but as the campaign > continues... He's the _only_ diabolical in the campaign, there's also a > Mal'akh of Eli serving Death (Azrael), a soldier of Death (Azrael), an > Ofanite of Trade, a Cherub of Dreams, and a Balseraph of Fate posing as > a Malakite. > As a final question, what problems do you see me as a GM having to face > with a Balseraph pretending to be Malakite? The imitation Malakite must have four oaths, including the standard Malakim oaths: "Never suffer an evil to life when it's your choice" and "Never surrender in a fight or allow yourself to be captured by the forces of Lucifer." You can, if you want to, rationalize the fact that he isn't committing suicide as he was ordered not to, so it's not his choice. However, Kronos had better have given him very specific orders about that oath, or every time he visited Hell he'd need to kill all the demons, gremlins, imps, etc. that he could. Also, that not being captured by the forces of Lucifer is tricky for a demon. You'll have to work out exactly what generates dissonance here; you can argue anything from 'not going Renegade' to 'only when he's taken into the direct custody of demons.' At a minimum, though, getting killed is dissonant: returning to your Heart in Hell and being helpless until you get out of Trauma is *certainly* being captured by the forces of Lucifer. You also need to figure out what the other two oaths are. You might want to make a house rule that Balseraphs of Fate with Malakite resonance must take four dissonance oaths but *don't* need to take the two standard Malakim ones. It would make this character a lot more playable. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:14:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite At 5:12 PM -0500 9/3/98, Perry Lloyd wrote: >Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating >the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: > >(1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a >Balseraph? Balseraph. (From the FAQ, a Bal with the Kyrio attunement appears as a Balseraph, not a stunning-with-appearance Kyrio.) >(2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? ...... Good question. Probably he should, since he gets the *resonance* -- as a BalKyrio can't stun people with his celestial form, so does a BalMalakite not get automatic wakeup. But the GM could always choose otherwise. >As a final question, what problems do you see me as a GM having to face >with a Balseraph pretending to be Malakite? A 111 on his resonance roll the next time he assures someone he *is*...? - --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 19:16:51 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: RE: IN> The Tsayadim At 6:30 PM -0400 9/3/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >I believe I actually had something in there about not being tied to too >many different Words. My take on it was that you *can* be attuned to >multiple Words, but adding a new Word tends to weaken your attachment to >the old one. But SJ and I looked at it and said, "TOO COMPLICATED." So it's not in the IPG. *whew* O;> >Another way to do it is to tie dissonance conditions to who created your >current Heart (you normally get a new one when you switch Superiors, at >least for demons). But I think that runs afoul of existing canon in >some minor details somewhere. Not quite, I don't think. It's what my unofficial notions are... - --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 19:22:48 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite At 5:46 PM -0500 9/3/98, Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >The imitation Malakite must have four oaths, including the standard >Malakim oaths: Fortunately, according to the IPG, they *don't* have to have the standard 2, though they may have the "Never surrender or allow oneself to be captured by the Enemy" one. Just defining "Enemy" differently. - --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 19:06:23 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite Walter Milliken wrote: > > >Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating > >the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: > > > >(1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a > >Balseraph? > > I think he only gets the resonance, not the rest of the package, so I'd > say he looks like a Bal in celestial form. Agreed. 'Manner and Appearance' is a different section from 'Resonance'. > > >(2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? > > Again, he's not *really* a Malakite, so I'd say yes. Agreed. The avoiding Trauma is a cool ability of Malakim, but it's not in Resonance. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:01:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Masada On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Yossi Gurvitz wrote: > >> Where is this writeup? Final Trumpet? > >The INC, as I said before. > Thanks. Now you have to tell me how you like the character. ;) > <"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. I never said that Zuriel took that oath.... And under what conditions did it fall in '48? If it was part of a protracted siege, then its fall wouldn't cause Dissonance. Erk! Just looked it up and discovered there's no Dissonance requirement! Em, please add this to the writeup, would you? DISSONANCE It is Dissonant for Servitors of Masada to abandon something once they have committed themselves to its protection, be it a people, a cause, a fortification, a country, whatever. When the fighting starts, they cannot leave, even for defensive withdrawls; the angels stand their ground in valiant defense or die nobly (sometimes both). The angel can stop fighting only when the safety of the object is assured. Note that this does not have to be physical conflict -- struggling to keep a charity from going bankrupt qualifies as well. Also note that it is not Dissonant to be defeated, as long as the angel fought with all its might. - -- 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: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 21:40:09 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim Walter Milliken wrote: > There's also the interesting question of a Demon Prince granting an > angel an attunement or distinction, or an Archangel doing so with a > demon. I'd allow that to work, but it would be *very* rare, and the > celestial's true Superior will probably remove it when they find out. I'm not sure this is _necessarily_ the case. I can see a Demon Prince being talked into the idea that some feebleminded archangel gave you this nifty attunement that you can turn against him. Particularly if the DP in question is Kobal. ("No, no, Your Excellency. Get a load of this one! Dominic gave me the ability to sense dissonance in celestials, just like his Malakim. What a gas! Now I can tell who's likely to be set up for a Fall! Isn't that a riot?") It's all in the presentation. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 22:43:50 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph of Fate / Malakite On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Perry Lloyd wrote: > Got a question for ya. I've a Balseraph of Fate IMC and he's emulating > the Resonance of a Malakite. My questions are: > > (1) Should his celestial form be that of a Malakite or that of a > Balseraph? Oooh. Good question. I'd make him look like a Balseraph, with Malakite features. An evil-looking midnight black serpent with wings and six eyes. > (2) When his corporeal vessel is slain, should he suffer trauma? I'd say yes, unless the immunity to trauma is part of the Malakim resonance (I think it's just an extra ability, but I could be very wrong). > As a final question, what problems do you see me as a GM having to face > with a Balseraph pretending to be Malakite? The Balseraph getting torn apart by his former comrades when he is discovered. :) Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 21:45:37 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Changing Sides Walter Milliken wrote: > Soldiers are a gray area -- I'd say they could probably keep their > attunements no matter who they work for. They don't go through the same > sorts of changes as celestials when switching Superiors or sides. To take this on a somewhat different tangent, how would angels feel about an undead that wants to change sides? To some extent, I'm sure, it varies by Choir and Superior. But are they so repulsed by the nature of the creature in question that they don't consider the question of Redeeming? And to what extent is Redemption even possible for the undead? Zombis seem pretty concrete; the soul has been seperated from the flesh and what's left is simply an automaton. But mummies and vampires might be more complicated. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:51:14 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History - -- Telarin, Balseraph Duke of the Game, Demon of Rewriting History (OK, the word should probably be Revisionism but this trips off the tongue better) 'The world happened exactly as written in this history book which I re-edited this morning.' Telarin is a very old demon, who once held the word of History under Raphael before the Fall. In those days, he was concerned that a true and accurate account should be available for posterity, in order that the future might be able to understand the past and learn from it. Now he knows the Truth. History is a tool for political ambitions; writing and rewriting history is part of the Game. Who controls the histories, controls the past. Who controls the past, controls the future. He has significant favour (and some influence) with Factions and Media also. His work began very soon after Falling, when he was called upon to write 'A True and Accurate Account of Lucifer's Heroic Rebellion' as a primer for young demons; with a shorter pocket version to provide inspirational quotes for Baal's officer corps. Both are currently in their 792nd edition, and are reissued roughly once every ten years, to edit out references to any demons who have redeemed, slipped up, or fallen out of favour with the Powers that Be, and to add awfully accurate 'predictions' about those who are considered exemplary. He is a bookish demon, who enjoys spending much of his time in archives and libraries, making notes and slight alterations as necessary. He commands a legion of imps who report to him each evening to be told which local archives in Hell are to be rewritten by the following night, and in which way. Asmodeus has taken moves to assure that as many official sources of information as possible are under Telarin's 'document control,' which will tend to include all of the readily available ones. But even his Prince sometimes drags 'the whispering duke' away from his beloved books to do active service as an interrogator on particularly tough cases. Soft-spoken and reasonable, he is formidably capable at rewriting a victim's personal history for them. As well as this, he encourages mortal historians, especially those who write history books with the sole view of forwarding their personal or political goals, and dictatorial regimes who simply destroy the books with which they don't agree and commission something more palatable. Actively involved in almost every political struggle in the corridors of Hades, his presence is felt through subtle changes and references, and his name commands a grudging shiver of respect (for some obscure reason) for every balseraph below superior rank in Hell. Rite: Persuade someone to deliberately rewrite history -- 1 essence Attunement: 'The Red Pen' - Much as Nybbas' Balseraphs can control what someone sees in the media, a demon of rewriting history may control what someone reads in a history book by running an appendage (the red pen) across the words which require to be changed. Any future reader must make a perception roll in order to see what the words used to say. For every two points of essence spent by the demon, the perception roll is made at a penalty of -1. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:05:54 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Very cool NPC, could be a classic Villian. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:33:31 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Cute demon. Somehow reminds me of Screwtape, probably because of their mutual fondness for muddying the waters of intellect. (So I suppose they'd hate each other's guts.) In addition to having favor and influence with Factions and Media, I bet he *used* to have clout with Oblivion, but of course you'd never get him to even refer to that defunct Princess now, and you certainly won't find any documentation on her... On one theory of how Roles are generated, he is also probably at the top of some administrative hierarchy for creating the false paper trails for demonic Roles. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:42:12 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] Demon of Rewriting History Earl Wajenberg wrote: > On one theory of how Roles are generated, he is also probably > at the top of some administrative hierarchy for creating the > false paper trails for demonic Roles. I'm sure that all of the Demon Princes have their own organization to handle this kind of thing. But the Game will always be willing to help out whenever someone needs anything tricky; remember, Asmodeus has only your best interests at heart... J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 98 13:00 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Changing Sides >To take this on a somewhat different tangent, how would angels feel about an >undead that wants to change sides? To some extent, I'm sure, it varies by >Choir and Superior. A fair amount, probably, yes. This question has come up on the list and been discussed before, a little, but I don't think there was really much of a consensus on the answer. I think the canon answer is, to some extent, than it simply doesn't happen very much -- remember that the personal qualifications for becoming a mummy (or vampire) are such that the person would have to make a *really* big psychological turnaround to reach the state of wanting to switch sides. (One exception to this is the Coffin of Undeath in the Liber Reliquarum, which can turn an unwilling victim into an undead.) > But are they so repulsed by the nature of the creature >in question that they don't consider the question of Redeeming? I think that depends a lot on the personality of the angel in question. Most Malakim would probably just kill the person. Flowers, Dream, and Destiny Servitors would probably be very receptive, while Eli's might be rather repulsed (since they represent life, to some extent). Most of the war faction would probably have the same reaction as most Malakim -- kill them and put them out of their misery, before they change their minds. > And to what >extent is Redemption even possible for the undead? Zombis seem pretty >concrete; the soul has been seperated from the flesh and what's left is >simply an automaton. But mummies and vampires might be more complicated. I believe the official answer on that was that, like Soldiers, they *can* serve either side, more or less at will. But there's nothing that can be done about their state -- when they die, that's it. No Heaven. No Hell. Just *gone*. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 98 13:03 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> RE: IN- The Tsayadim >> There's also the interesting question of a Demon Prince granting an >> angel an attunement or distinction, or an Archangel doing so with a >> demon. I'd allow that to work, but it would be *very* rare, and the >> celestial's true Superior will probably remove it when they find out. > >I'm not sure this is _necessarily_ the case. I can see a Demon Prince being >talked into the idea that some feebleminded archangel gave you this nifty >attunement that you can turn against him. Particularly if the DP in >question is Kobal. ("No, no, Your Excellency. Get a load of this one! >Dominic gave me the ability to sense dissonance in celestials, just like his >Malakim. What a gas! Now I can tell who's likely to be set up for a Fall! >Isn't that a riot?") It's all in the presentation. True, you can probably get away with it some, at least on that side. I don't think any AA is going to be happy about a Servitor with a demonic attunement, though.... I think the main problem is that the Game would see such an attunement as some indication of collaborating with the other side. So if a Prince did allow it to stay, they'd want to keep the Game away from their Servitor -- or at least have plausible deniability on the matter. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 13:21:48 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Changing Sides Walter Milliken wrote: > I think the canon answer is, to some extent, than it simply doesn't > happen very much -- remember that the personal qualifications for > becoming a mummy (or vampire) are such that the person would have to > make a *really* big psychological turnaround to reach the state of > wanting to switch sides. (One exception to this is the Coffin of > Undeath in the Liber Reliquarum, which can turn an unwilling victim into > an undead.) I suppose I need to see more of a write-up on what it takes to become one of the undead, beyond some demonic Superior deciding to make him one. The goofball vampire in Night Music, for instance, doesn't strike me as a hardened fanatic of evil. > I believe the official answer on that was that, like Soldiers, they > *can* serve either side, more or less at will. But there's nothing that > can be done about their state -- when they die, that's it. No Heaven. > No Hell. Just *gone*. Is it canon that there is no Heaven or Hell in their future? Or might they pass automatically on to (usually) the lower levels of Hell? I prefer the idea that souls never completely cease to exist. Then again, did the soul pass on during whatever ritual turned the human into the undead? This will require some thinking on my part quite aside from any canon answer. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #938 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.