From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Oct 1 11:11:09 1999 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 LAA25562 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:11:08 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA07651 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:07:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:07:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199910011607.LAA07651@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1348 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, October 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1348 In this digest: IN> Alternate Systems for In Nomine Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance Re: IN> dark ages superiors IN> Andre... Re: IN> Andre... IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Sticky situation IN> --Free--Weight.Loss.Gift IN> --Free--Weight.Loss.Gift Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance Re: IN> dark ages superiors IN> Re: Theatrix Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> dark ages superiors IN> Seven Deadly Posters re: IN> WoD/IN crossovers re: IN> Re: Theatrix Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> Sticky situation Re: IN> dark ages superiors Re: IN> dark ages superiors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:26:42 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Alternate Systems for In Nomine >>>But...I'm curious as to why you say that Theatrix is especially suited for IN. Any particular reasons?<<< Look at the Ironwood supplement. Theatrix manages to handle a whole spectrum of high fantasy character types, from mundane humans to arch-mages to dragons, and can even handle them all as starting PCs. - -David (starting to feel more like doing a conversion) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:12:39 -0500 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance nope. it specifically states that the false appearance of caring is not only okay, but it's an accepted tool for using mortals for your own ends. - -Dennis H. Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11340261 "I think I woke up screaming, 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, ACF - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Milliken To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 12:24 PM Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance >At 12:10 -0400 9/30/99, Amo Nympham wrote: > >To some extent it's behavioral, and can be caught there. It is difficult, >of course, for the GM to tell if the PC *cares* about anyone (unless the >player confirms it), but the *appearance* of caring is easier to detect, >and also dissonant, if I recall right. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:45:02 -0400 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors Just so you know your context and so forth, Charlemagne was born in 742 where as 622 is the date given for the "birth" of Islam. So unless the trial of gabriel was the celestial equivalent of OJ simpson then Gabby is already awol. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:57:30 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: IN> Andre... What if a Balseraph of Lust says, in order to seduce someone. "Yeah, babe, of course I care!" While he's saying this, he believes it. He's a Balseraph. I'm assuming this is dissonant. It just seems somehow wrong that a Bal is not allowed to lie in order to get laid. Rev. Brian Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:15:14 -0600 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Andre... >What if a Balseraph of Lust says, in order to seduce someone. "Yeah, babe, of >course I care!" While he's saying this, he believes it. He's a Balseraph. >I'm assuming this is dissonant. It just seems somehow wrong that a Bal is not >allowed to lie in order to get laid. I'd say since they think they care, which is different from actually caring (in the dissident sense). Or better yet its a combination of Fast-Talking and Balseraph resonance, in which the Balseraph means they care about getting laid but the individual thinks they mean they care about them (or at least that's what the Balseraph thinks the second after it). Timothy, "Angel" of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:49:34 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Sticky situation The Malakim, as we all know, are allowed -- no, even encouraged -- to lie through their shining white teeth when dealing with demons. As the Big Book says, "If you see a Malakite telling a captured demon that he can live if he cooperates, you've just met a poor bastard demon who's condemned to die". So. Several angels have cornered a demon. They outnumber and outgun him, but they need his cooperation... so they push the Malakite to the front, and he goes into the "cooperate and we'll let you live" song and dance... ...but this demon is a wily old veteran who has dealt with angels before. So he points to the Seraph in the party (it's generally not too hard to pick them out, right?) and says, "Hey, Seraph. When he tells me I'll live if I cooperate... I want YOU to tell me that he's not lying." One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the only question is who... Thoughts? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:27:25 -0500 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation > One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye > each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the > only question is who... The Malakite wouldn't take any dissonance....and the Seraph would probably keep it's mouth shut...so no dissonance anywhere....just one dead demon Ben Chism angel in search of a word demon of utterly useless trivia(The hummingbird is the only bird that can fly backwards) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:22:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation At 11:49 PM -0400 9/30/99, Douglas Muir wrote: >The Malakim, as we all know, are allowed -- no, even encouraged -- to lie >through their shining white teeth when dealing with demons. As the Big >Book says, "If you see a Malakite telling a captured demon that he can live >if he cooperates, you've just met a poor bastard demon who's condemned to >die". > >So. Several angels have cornered a demon. They outnumber and outgun him, >but they need his cooperation... so they push the Malakite to the front, >and he goes into the "cooperate and we'll let you live" song and dance... > >...but this demon is a wily old veteran who has dealt with angels before. >So he points to the Seraph in the party (it's generally not too hard to >pick them out, right?) and says, "Hey, Seraph. When he tells me I'll live >if I cooperate... I want YOU to tell me that he's not lying." > >One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye >each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the >only question is who... > >Thoughts? > Malakite turns back and says "right." He then cuts off the Demon's leg at the knee and drives his own knee into the Demon's solar plexus. "Talk or suffer more than you could possibly imagine. We don't work for *you.*" Depending on the Malakite, of course. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:51:29 -0500 From: kiy37@clust.ch.cam.ac.uk (usyeris) Subject: IN> --Free--Weight.Loss.Gift Greetings from Physician's Weight Management, My name is Dr. Hinman. I am a physician and weight loss specialist. My studied base of 1500 patients has consistently proven - dependable and prompt weight loss. Many dieting patients have experienced results ranging from 1/2 to 1 lb. per day of body fat loss. Dieting patients should not be surprised to experience weight loss of up to 15 to 30 lbs. during the first thirty days. These results vary by patient, but significant weight loss is dependent on a program that is simple to follow, has demonstrated NO significant side effects, is all natural and is easy to use. Please reply by e-mail for further information and you will receive "The Doctor's 30 Answers To Weight Loss" for free, without obligation. Send an email to bord34@bigfoot.com with the subject "diet" To be deleted from our list, just email bord34@bigfoot.com with the subject line as 'delete' and we shall delete your address. *-*-Loosin lbs.....-*-* n3t ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:51:33 -0500 From: kiy37@clust.ch.cam.ac.uk (usyeris) Subject: IN> --Free--Weight.Loss.Gift Greetings from Physician's Weight Management, My name is Dr. Hinman. I am a physician and weight loss specialist. My studied base of 1500 patients has consistently proven - dependable and prompt weight loss. Many dieting patients have experienced results ranging from 1/2 to 1 lb. per day of body fat loss. Dieting patients should not be surprised to experience weight loss of up to 15 to 30 lbs. during the first thirty days. These results vary by patient, but significant weight loss is dependent on a program that is simple to follow, has demonstrated NO significant side effects, is all natural and is easy to use. Please reply by e-mail for further information and you will receive "The Doctor's 30 Answers To Weight Loss" for free, without obligation. Send an email to bord34@bigfoot.com with the subject "diet" To be deleted from our list, just email bord34@bigfoot.com with the subject line as 'delete' and we shall delete your address. *-*-Loosin lbs.....-*-* n3t ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:03:07 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors Ben Aldred wrote: >My proble with this is that IMHO angels are not as creative as >humans. >They may know more of the grand scale of things but they, at least >by my standards, lack the let's just call it free will to truly >create. That's pretty much how I see it. The main reason Vapula has been able to make up so much ground in only a few hundred years is that he's just better at getting humans to take on more of the creative workload in research (cruel people might call this 'stealing' or 'plagiarism'); where Jean tends to dismiss them as peabrains who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery without a celestial standing over them and telling them what to do! Also, all this wacky early-science/ magic stuff doesn't seem very rational to me. I'd give them more mathematical/ lightning related attunements, and not bother with the technical side of things until electricity was pretty much tamed by humanity. Vapula for the steam-punk, Jean for the telecomms . . . jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:19:43 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors From: Ben Aldred > > My proble with this is that IMHO angels are not as creative as humans. > They may know more of the grand scale of things but they, at least by my > standards, lack the let's just call it free will to truly create. Even Eli > in my opinion is more an inspirer than an actual creater. but that's just > my thing. > Ben > surely the archangel of creation not being creative would be a little like gabriel deciding to cool things down liam angel of quality tv ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 07:50:34 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance Amo Nympham wrote: > >I can see the reasoning behind the dissonance condition for servitors of >Lust, but I just don't see how you can monitor this in a PC. any >suggestions from experience? the only real answer I can come up with is >just being able to catch the PC's reaction and making a judgement call on >it. Sure -- just tell the player that they get to track dissonance all by themselves, since you-the-GM can't read their minds. IME, Andrealphus's dissonance condition is so wonderfully melodramatic that players can't wait to turn their PCs into bubbling puddles of either Discord or self-loathing, depending on whether they save or destroy the NPCs worth caring about. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:41:35 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> Andrealphus and Dissonance On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 07:50:34AM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >I can see the reasoning behind the dissonance condition for servitors of > >Lust, but I just don't see how you can monitor this in a PC. any > >suggestions from experience? the only real answer I can come up with is > >just being able to catch the PC's reaction and making a judgement call on > >it. > > Sure -- just tell the player that they get to track dissonance all > by themselves, since you-the-GM can't read their minds. My own opinion on this matter is that any player who's capable of feeling that their character will care for someone is not likely to be the type who'll ignore dissonance incurred. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "These roleplayers wouldn't know a convincing society if it hanged them under an obscure section of its legal code." Martin Lloyd. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:55:56 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 05:42:49PM -0400, Ben Aldred wrote: > My proble with this is that IMHO angels are not as creative as humans. Your evidence for this being? They are apparently creative enough to make new Songs, Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist), new attunements, and new artefacts. They can (and regularly do) think in symbolic terms. What, to your mind, is uncreative about them? > They may know more of the grand scale of things but they, at least by my > standards, lack the let's just call it free will to truly create. I find statements like this annoyingly humanocentric. Humanity has already been cast as, more or less, the decisive battleground of the War. Does it really need more importance than that? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "These roleplayers wouldn't know a convincing society if it hanged them under an obscure section of its legal code." Martin Lloyd. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:58:14 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: IN> Re: Theatrix jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) > >At 9:19 AM 9/30/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >>David Edelstein wrote: >> >> I'll be amazed if more >>> than 2 other people on this list have even heard of it, much less >>> own the rules. > >Heard of it. Own the rules. Own the (as far as I know) only supplement >publsihed for it. Like it lots. I own it too, and it's one of my absolute favorites. IMO it's probably the best game ever designed for the storytelling style. If you can dig a copy it up it's definitely worth a look. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:18:05 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 1:55 PM +0100 10/1/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 05:42:49PM -0400, Ben Aldred wrote: > > My proble with this is that IMHO angels are not as creative as humans. > >Your evidence for this being? They are apparently creative enough to make >new Songs, Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist), new >attunements, and new artefacts. They can (and regularly do) think in >symbolic terms. What, to your mind, is uncreative about them? Actually, technically they don't create new songs, they discover them. If there is creativity involved, it is the creativity of scientific exploration, not artistic expression. > > They may know more of the grand scale of things but they, at least by my > > standards, lack the let's just call it free will to truly create. > >I find statements like this annoyingly humanocentric. Humanity has already >been cast as, more or less, the decisive battleground of the War. Does it >really need more importance than that? Yes. I demand humanity be given butterscotch chips whenever humanity wants them. Also, humanity wants a bigger trailer and final cut. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:35:13 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:18:05AM -0400, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >Your evidence for this being? They are apparently creative enough to make > >new Songs, Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist), new > >attunements, and new artefacts. They can (and regularly do) think in > >symbolic terms. What, to your mind, is uncreative about them? > > Actually, technically they don't create new songs, they discover > them. If there is creativity involved, it is the creativity of > scientific exploration, not artistic expression. > I suppose they also 'discover' new artifacts. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "These roleplayers wouldn't know a convincing society if it hanged them under an obscure section of its legal code." Martin Lloyd. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:49:13 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 2:35 PM +0100 10/1/99, Kevin Walsh wrote: >On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:18:05AM -0400, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > >Your evidence for this being? They are apparently creative enough to make > > >new Songs, Vessels (which, once upon a time, didn't exist), new > > >attunements, and new artefacts. They can (and regularly do) think in > > >symbolic terms. What, to your mind, is uncreative about them? > > > > Actually, technically they don't create new songs, they discover > > them. If there is creativity involved, it is the creativity of > > scientific exploration, not artistic expression. > > >I suppose they also 'discover' new artifacts. Nope. I wasn't disagreeing with your thesis, just one of your supporting examples. Note, however, that "Discover" is *always* the word used when referring to 'new songs.' "Haagenti discovered the Songs of Hunger..." "Kobal discovered the Songs of Laughter when he was Archangel of Laughter..." "Christopher re-discovered the Songs of Laughter, which Kobal finds offensive as they're 'his.'" The Liber Canticorum is full of these descriptions. The implication is very strong -- Songs are a part of the Symphony. Angels can discover them. They can't create new ones. Either the Song is there, waiting, or it isn't. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:56:48 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors The middle ages dates, roughly, from 500 to 1500 -- the Sack of Rome to the Columbian discovery of America. This, in turn, often gets divided into halves. The first half is the "Dark Ages," and the second half is the "High Middle Ages." And these dating divisions apply to European history, not to the rest of the world. Jean's Word is presently on a logarithmic growth curve. Prior to that, his was a much slower-paced administration. (This might be why he regards humans as such pea-brains. They haven't displayed much interest in his Word until recently -- on his time scale.) During the Dark Ages, Jeanites were, I think, fighting a holding action (against the demons of Oblivion?) in Europe, trying to preserve technical and scientific knowledge more than advance it. There were a few things -- stirrups, codex-bound books, some advancements in architecture, and the like (all only if I recall correctly). But a Jeanite might be most concerned with preserving and extending a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and with saving as many classical texts as possible from destruction. They'd be busy guarding the Irish monks as much as possible, I bet. In Europe. In the Moslem and Byzantine worlds, things were very different. During the High Middle Ages, you *did* start to get clockwork, developed from millwork. You also got improvements in math and the whole circus of alchemy, both imported from the Moslem world as a side-effect of the Crusades. I'd think Jeanites could have LOTS of fun with alchemy. You also had the whole general flood of classical literature into Europe, including Aristotle and formal logic, which would involve them. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:06:50 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation >>...but this demon is a wily old veteran who has dealt with angels before. >>So he points to the Seraph in the party (it's generally not too hard to >>pick them out, right?) and says, "Hey, Seraph. When he tells me I'll live >>if I cooperate... I want YOU to tell me that he's not lying." >> >>One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye >>each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the >>only question is who... >Malakite turns back and says "right." He then cuts off the Demon's >leg at the knee and drives his own knee into the Demon's solar >plexus. "Talk or suffer more than you could possibly imagine. We >don't work for *you.*" Umm, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off. And look at it from the demon's POV. Cooperating with angels is a big no-no; it can get him in deep, deep trouble with his Prince if he's found out. He's only doing it to avoid Trauma. Once he knows the angels are going to kill him anyhow, he'll quickly decide to take his chances with Trauma. Finally, I seriously doubt whether torture will have much effect on a being that spends a lot of time in Hell. A demon's standards of torment are going to be way higher than most angels could match, I suspect... So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does the Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast go? Thoughts? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:18:56 GMT From: "Trey Reilly" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors >During the High Middle Ages, you *did* start to get clockwork, >developed from millwork. You also got improvements in math >and the whole circus of alchemy, both imported from the Moslem >world as a side-effect of the Crusades. I'd think Jeanites could >have LOTS of fun with alchemy. Took the words right out of my mouth. Especially considering the whole transformation aspect that's the last step of the alchemical process, and all the neat toys you get to play with to get there, I think this would be right up a Jeanite's alley. *And* you get to mess around with the symbolic language aspect, invocation of elementals, etc. What's better than that? For some supporting matierials: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/index.html - --Trey Cherub of symbology ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:26:39 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Seven Deadly Posters Straight from Nybbas. Go to: http://www.dumbentia.com/body_sins.html for seven "motivational" posters for the Pit. Earl ------------------------------ Date: 01 Oct 99 10:31:47 -0500 From: erisraven@crosswinds.net Subject: re: IN> WoD/IN crossovers Tried a private reply, and it got bounced. I'd love to see it. Thanks for offering! Eris Corax of Chaos > ** Original Subject: IN> WoD/IN crossovers > ** Original Sender: darkelf > ** Original Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:49:00 -0700 > ** Original Message follows... > > Whoever asked -- I found a conversion EDG did a few months ago for IN into > WoD. If you want it, email me privately and I'll send it on. > > Kat > -- > "We have vanquished evil with the sword of justice and the hammer of ... > not-bickering!" > -- The Shoveler, _Mystery Men_ > >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** > Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com ------------------------------ Date: 01 Oct 99 10:37:00 -0500 From: erisraven@crosswinds.net Subject: re: IN> Re: Theatrix This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --X-X-X-X-X-X--NeoPlanet-MIME-TEXTandHTML--X-X-X-X-X-X-X2257263-X-X Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit I'm assuming this is out of print. When you mentioned Ironwood, is that based off the comic? I used to read that, ages ago. I still have a few issues, somewhere. Any good suggestions on where to find a copy? Who published it? (And, don't sugggest it, I already checked eBay.) Eris Corax of Chaos erisraven@crosswinds.net > ** Original Subject: IN> Re: Theatrix > ** Original Sender: Neel Krishnaswami > ** Original Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:58:14 -0400 > ** Original Message follows... > > jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) > > > >At 9:19 AM 9/30/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >>David Edelstein wrote: > >> > >> I'll be amazed if more > >>> than 2 other people on this list have even heard of it, much less > >>> own the rules. > > > >Heard of it. Own the rules. Own the (as far as I know) only supplement > >publsihed for it. Like it lots. > > I own it too, and it's one of my absolute favorites. IMO it's probably > the best game ever designed for the storytelling style. If you can > dig a copy it up it's definitely worth a look. > > > > -- > Neel Krishnaswami > neelk@cswv.com >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** > Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com - --X-X-X-X-X-X--NeoPlanet-MIME-TEXTandHTML--X-X-X-X-X-X-X2257263-X-X Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit I'm assuming this is out of print. When you mentioned Ironwood, is that based off the 
comic? I used to read that, ages ago. I still have a few issues, somewhere.
Any good suggestions on where to find a copy? Who published it? (And, don't sugggest 
it, I already checked eBay.)

Eris
Corax of Chaos erisraven@crosswinds.net



> ** Original Subject: IN> Re: Theatrix
> ** Original Sender: Neel Krishnaswami <>neelk@cswv.com>
> ** Original Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:58:14 -0400

> ** Original Message follows... 

>
> jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman)
> >
> >At 9:19 AM 9/30/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote:
> >>David Edelstein wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll be amazed if more
> >>> than 2 other people on this list have even heard of it, much less
> >>> own the rules.
> >
> >Heard of it. Own the rules. Own the (as far as I know) only supplement
> >publsihed for it. Like it lots.
> 
> I own it too, and it's one of my absolute favorites. IMO it's probably 
> the best game ever designed for the storytelling style. If you can 
> dig a copy it up it's definitely worth a look.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Neel Krishnaswami
> neelk@cswv.com


>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

> 

Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com - --X-X-X-X-X-X--NeoPlanet-MIME-TEXTandHTML--X-X-X-X-X-X-X2257263-X-X-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:00:33 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation In a message dated 10/1/99 2:11:54 PM, douglas.muir@yale.edu writes: >So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does >the Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast >go? > >Thoughts? > How important is the task the demon will be set? If it's that important, the 'when it's my choice' portion of the oath will kick in. The Malakite might grumble, but the Seraph will (usually) outrank the Malakite, and take it out of his hands. The Seraph, of course, Will Not Lie. But woe betide the demon if the Malakite catches up with him later. Mark (Just my humble opinion) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:06:42 -0500 From: Lance Hunter Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 09:56 AM 10/1/99 -0500, you wrote: >During the Dark Ages, Jeanites were, I think, fighting a holding >action (against the demons of Oblivion?) in Europe, trying to >preserve technical and scientific knowledge more than advance it. >There were a few things -- stirrups, codex-bound books, some >advancements in architecture, and the like (all only if I recall >correctly). But a Jeanite might be most concerned with preserving >and extending a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and with >saving as many classical texts as possible from destruction. >They'd be busy guarding the Irish monks as much as possible, I bet. >In Europe. In the Moslem and Byzantine worlds, things were very >different. > Yep, I always pictured Jean just saying 'screw Europe' during the dark ages, after all there were MUCH more interesting things going on in China, India, and in parts of the Muslim world. (Of course, being an angel probably wouldn't impress an Eastern Mystic...) - -- Lance Hunter "I knew in my heart by pure logic that any man who calls himself a religious leader and owns more than one suit is a hustler as long as there is someone in the world who has no suit at all." -Lenny Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:18:38 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors From: Ben Aldred > Just so you know your context and so forth, Charlemagne was born in 742 > where as 622 is the date given for the "birth" of Islam. So unless the > trial of gabriel was the celestial equivalent of OJ simpson then Gabby is > already awol. curses. good point. i was planning on setting it in the early 740s, i think i had some vague notion of islam being founded in the 800s. guess i didn't pay enough attention in RE class liam angel of tic-tacs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:23:41 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors From: Jo Hart > > Also, all this wacky early-science/ magic stuff doesn't seem very rational > to me. I'd give them more mathematical/ lightning related attunements, and > not bother with the technical side of things until electricity was pretty > much tamed by humanity. Vapula for the steam-punk, Jean for the telecomms . > . . i dunno, i've always kind of pictured jean as Q from the bond films. i think he'd lose a lot of charm for me if i didn't include some gadgets liam angel of bad movies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:32:05 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation At 10:06 AM -0400 10/1/99, Douglas Muir wrote: > >>...but this demon is a wily old veteran who has dealt with angels before. > >>So he points to the Seraph in the party (it's generally not too hard to > >>pick them out, right?) and says, "Hey, Seraph. When he tells me I'll live > >>if I cooperate... I want YOU to tell me that he's not lying." > >> > >>One imagines an uncomfortable silence falling, as Seraph and Malakite eye > >>each other: one of them is going to take a note of dissonance, and the > >>only question is who... > > > >Malakite turns back and says "right." He then cuts off the Demon's > >leg at the knee and drives his own knee into the Demon's solar > >plexus. "Talk or suffer more than you could possibly imagine. We > >don't work for *you.*" > >Umm, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. > >The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do >something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this >sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg >would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off. Munchkin response isn't quite right. That's a typical *Malakite* response -- it's not particularly munchkinesque. Malakim do not, typically, coddle demands made on their demands. He sure as heck isn't going to take a note of dissonance for him. If "help us and die" won't work, therefore (I am positing), the Malakite will upgrade to "help us or really wish for death to come quickly." >And look at it from the demon's POV. Cooperating with angels is a big >no-no; it can get him in deep, deep trouble with his Prince if he's found >out. He's only doing it to avoid Trauma. Once he knows the angels are >going to kill him anyhow, he'll quickly decide to take his chances with >Trauma. All of which will affect the Malakite not at all. >Finally, I seriously doubt whether torture will have much effect on a being >that spends a lot of time in Hell. A demon's standards of torment are >going to be way higher than most angels could match, I suspect... *That* I disagree with, frankly. Remember, we're not simply dealing with torture, we're dealing with massive amounts of Hell-Propeganda about Malakim. A demon might be used to what the people back home might do -- heck, that's just self-interest. But those Malakim are *nuts.* They just don't *care,* and there's no appeasing or stopping them. But if you're going to insist on "who backs down and takes dissonance," my answer would be for the Seraph to say "I've not known this Malakite to be a liar. I have known him to keep his promises to kill demons, however. Which odds do you prefer?" Which, unless the Seraph has seen the Malakite specifically lie before, is the truth. I guess I don't believe in the Kobyashi Maru. >So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does the >Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast go? Oh, a Malakite *can* let a demon go to stop a greater evil without dissonance. Now, if that canny Demon *really* wants to save his hide (and knows the other is a Seraph), he would look at the Seraph and say "do you guarantee I'll be let go? To the point that you'll stop your bloodthirsty friend from harming me? I know better than to trust a Malakite at his word -- *honor* doesn't apply where he doesn't want it to, after all." At which the Malakite scowls and gets ready to horribly hurt the Demon, and the Seraph answers as the situation warrants. Assuming stereotypes all around, naturally. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:34:40 +0100 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> Sticky situation From: Douglas Muir > > The angels _need the demon to cooperate_. That is, they need him to do > something that will require some freedom of action on his part. So this > sort of munchkin response isn't going to work. If just cutting off his leg > would do the trick, after all, they would just have done that right off. > i wouldn't call it a "munchkin response". i'd call it a fairly straighforward malakite response to evil > Finally, I seriously doubt whether torture will have much effect on a being > that spends a lot of time in Hell. A demon's standards of torment are > going to be way higher than most angels could match, I suspect... > good point. still celestial pain and suffering is one thing, a demon may be unused to the more real and visceral sensations of corporeal pain. so torture might still do the trick. GM's call, i guess > So, back to the original point. We need the demon's cooperation. Does the > Seraph lie, or does the Malakite sincerely commit to letting the beast go? > i'd imagine the angels would have a serious discussion. if they _really_ need this demon's help, then that surely kicks in the "greater evil" clause of the malakite's oath. he'll allow this bad guy to get away if it means dealing with whatever this hypothetical major problem is. no dissonance for either angel. liam angel of harlem ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 11:41:11 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors Liam Astley wrote: > i dunno, i've always kind of pictured jean as Q from the bond films. > i think he'd lose a lot of charm for me if i didn't include some > gadgets Well, there's always relics and reliquaries, which are sort of Celestial Tech and fit nicely in the period (being, in fact, DRAWN from the period). There's still alchemical goodies, and, say, astrolabes or armillary spheres that produce horoscopes that actually work (thanks to some exchange students from Yves). Or take a page from the dwarves and let Jeanites provide ultra-quality swords and armor. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:03:49 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> dark ages superiors At 11:41 AM -0500 10/1/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Liam Astley wrote: > > > i dunno, i've always kind of pictured jean as Q from the bond films. > > i think he'd lose a lot of charm for me if i didn't include some > > gadgets > >Well, there's always relics and reliquaries, which are sort of >Celestial Tech and fit nicely in the period (being, in fact, DRAWN >from the period). > >There's still alchemical goodies, and, say, astrolabes or armillary >spheres that produce horoscopes that actually work (thanks to some >exchange students from Yves). Or take a page from the dwarves and >let Jeanites provide ultra-quality swords and armor. "Now -- pay *attention,* 007. I expect these to be returned in at least passible condition this time. Now, this may look like an ordinary sword. However, notice the basket hilt -- this will conceal your hand from immediate attack. Furthermore you will find the blade is longer than the standard crusader's sword and therefore usable from horseback. Ah -- now, this may look like an ordinary bow -- but notice the size of it and the curviature? Our labs call this a *Long* bow, capable of ranges close to thrice that which your opposition may be able to field. It is vitally important the *Long* bow not be allowed to fall into human hands. Finally, over here you see what we term the three field crop rotation technique...." Man, puts "The Medieval Machine" into a whole new perspective.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1348 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.