From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Dec 3 16:44:13 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 QAA17498 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:44:13 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id BAA29145 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:25:54 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:25:54 -0600 Message-Id: <199911170725.BAA29145@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 #1445 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 Wednesday, November 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1445 In this digest: Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. IN> INC: Interesting Questions RE: IN> Using Canon, Especially Bad Expanded Choir Resonances IN> Malakim Question Re: IN> re:Angelic Heredity Re: IN> Nasty Malakite Trick Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> Malakim Question Re: IN> Repeated use of resonance? Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. Re: IN> Malakim Question Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. IN> IN and GURPS IN changes Re: IN> Malakim IN> Quote Length (partial repost from sjgames.innomine) (Was RE: IN> Using Canon, Especially Bad Expanded Choir Resonances) Re: IN> Rewards and Experience Re: IN> Malakim Question Re: IN> The Late Great JC Re: IN> The Harrowing of Hell Re: IN> Malakim Question Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli IN> Re: >:(Fluff) The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli Re: IN> The good ol' Humanity attunement Re: IN> The good ol' Humanity attunement Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> Nylius, Angel of Rebellion Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> Malakim Re: IN> The Humanity Attunement [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:56:14 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli At 2:34 AM -0600 12/3/99, Matt W. wrote: [. . . Much snippage. . .] Good work! Really. Though I wouldn't have labeled it as 'Fluff'. Fluff is when one of us is being _extremely_ goofy, and having nothing better to do than skirt the edge of painful death (at the hands of the spambusting List-Admin). No, what you wrote is a brilliant twist on the overall plotline. . . And could do well as either as Plot-seed. . . Or join the ranks of the esteemed few who have made a name for themselves in the INC (In Nomine Collection; http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/). Where many good pieces of Fan-Fic can be found for all to enjoy. (EDG, like if you're paying attention. . . I think this article should go into the INC. Anyone else think so?) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://home.centurytel.net/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:01:38 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli I like, definetly worthy of going in the In-nomine collection. I always did think that Dominic showed sever lack of judgement. Nice work. 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:25:53 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli At 2:56 AM -0600 12/3/99, Shadowstar wrote: >At 2:34 AM -0600 12/3/99, Matt W. wrote: > (EDG, like if you're paying attention. . . I think this article should >go into the INC. Anyone else think so?) I concur. I might not use this IMC (and then again I might) but I think it's a great variant. - -- 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:23:18 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. At 12:10 AM -0600 12/3/99, Kris Overstreet wrote: >At 10:51 PM 12/2/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Creating a Power-3 (equal to a sword) bag of potato chips is one thing- a >good GM can explain this away and chalk it up to athmosphere. When a player >perverts (IMHO) the purpose of the rule by using it to beef up an >-ordinary- weapon, they (a) had better make it fit athmosphere for IN, and >(b) be fully ready to accept the possibility that the Power will go -DOWN- >as a result... Mm -- I tend to disagree (except for the last part. The Power may *well* go down by the result, or artifact-based power may add to any CD). I think the capacity to use *anything* in his hands as a weapon doesn't detract from most effectively using a real weapon. His perception roll and CD may point out that "a sword thrust through the neck will be the best way to do damage," is all.... >Redneck (Okay, Jonesiel, Smithiel is using you as a weapon. He got a 5 on >his check digit, so every time he swings your Vessel, he does that much >damage... of course, you take the same damage too...) You know all those angels (and some demons) with cat vessels? Heh heh heh heh heh.... - -- 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:34:36 -0800 (PST) From: The Alien Subject: IN> INC: Interesting Questions While the Interesting Questions (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/iq.html) are, indeed, interesting... Should they be labelled as not canon perhaps a bit more clearly? I only ask because one answer says (in part): "It is possible for Soldiers, Familiars and the like to gain forces. Once you gain your ninth force, you *are* a Celestial. Haagenti, the Demon Prince of Gluttony, got his power this way. Naturally, such ambitious mortals are watched very closely by other Celestials." I have always loved that list, much as I loved this mailing list. I've been lurking on and off for ... a long time. I rejoiced when the game hit stores after the Many Years I'd been waiting ... so it isn't that I disrespect the collected opinions of in_nomine-l. A brief mention that these are just collected Neat Ideas, which aren't necessarily or in some cases explicitly contradict canon, would probably help avoid confusing the new people. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:47:06 -0000 From: Meehan Anthony Subject: RE: IN> Using Canon, Especially Bad Expanded Choir Resonances >>>Make them wait their turns, seriously. Malakite rolls, you >come up with >>>the deeds. Elohite rolls, you say, "Hang on, lemme finish >with the bartender. >>>Now, your turn." >> >>I generally do; that was an example. If you don't come up >with this stuff, >>fast, on the spot, though, they *will* start climbing over >each other... >> >>And it's a continuing challenge to the GM's imagination. > >>One reason I was sure it worked on the Role, not the >underlying celestial, >>was that some otherwise the Merc's resonance would overlap with some >>attunements. >>>* Mercurian gets the Role to the extent the Role covers, the >reality after >>>that. >> >>Mm. Good in theory, hard in practice. Needs you to make >snap decisions >>>* Mercurian has to beat the Role level with his check digit; >if he doesn't, >>>he gets Role data. If he does, he gets true data. (This does >suggest that >>>he can't beat a Role/6 without being very close or touching >the target, >>>to boost his check digit a la p. 57 (I think that is?), with the CD >>>modifiers.) >> >>Which would be fine with me, actually. Roles are supposed to >give some >>protection, after all. >> >>Only problem with this one, as someone else noted, is that it's rather >>all-or-nothing. But that may not be so bad. > >>Subtracting the Role from the check digit Really Doesn't >Work. I foolishly >>tried this... once. What was I thinking? >> >>"He thinks very highly of himself. People around him like >and admire him, >>too." >> >>"Well, what about hobbies and stuff?" >> >>"You don't know." >> >>"Hey, I rolled a 4! Something funny going on here..." Thats the thing though. Characters don't have check dice. Players do. After all if a NPC tells your character that you want to tell him all the details about your plan, but you don't really want to and he GM says make a will roll. If you fail it and the GM tells you that it really sounds like a good idea and that you really do want to, _You_ know its a balseraph but your character doesn't. Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:39:53 -0500 From: "Jon Compton" Subject: IN> Malakim Question Here is an odd sort of query. The Malakim cannot 'suffer an evil to live' specifically demons. What if a Malakim (of Eli, if it matters) was assigned to L.A. (which is run by demons) and told by Eli, "Be cool for now, you'll get your chance later..." effectively meaning that the Malakim will be allowed to kill any demons he wishes in L.A. at a later time. Knowing that he will be able to fulfil his oath at a later time, would he still get dissonance? I am asking because I have seen the rules bent for dissonance on other angels in various suppliments, and wonder if this would be a legitimate bending of the rules as well. - - Jon Compton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:41:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> re:Angelic Heredity Given that celestials are, in their native state, incorporeal, I find it implausible that there are such things as "celestial genes." I doubt that the kind of heredity that makes celestial offspring be Children or Nephallim is the same kind of heredity that involves squiggly little helices of DNA; it's more likely the sort that goes: Genealogist: Yes, of course you're Jewish. Mr. O'Riley: What? How? Genealogist: Your maternal grandmother converted. Mr. O'Riley: But she was as Irish as I am. Genealogist: Yes, but she *did* convert, making your mother and you Jewish. It's spiritual heredity, which only sometimes runs parallel to physical heredity. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:47:00 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Nasty Malakite Trick Michael Mihallik wrote: > Out jumps a very pissed-off badger (the Virtue in another vessel - the > backpack is a Body Bag) who proceeds to take out his anger on the > hapless demons. Cute. Very cute. I might recommend a wolverine over a badger, but otherwise... As a vaguely related aside, the Pekinese dog was developed as a throwing weapon. You hide it up your voluminous manadrin sleeve when walking through bad parts of town, and, if assaulted, throw your dog at the attacker and run. (This explains a lot about the personality of the average Peke, by the way.) Pulling this back to IN, such Chinese throwing-dogs or similar life forms might make good vessels for Malakite-wannabe familiars. "I've got a Siamese cat, and I'm not afraid to use it!" Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:53:22 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Malakim I thought the Malakim of Creation attunement was the ability to, so to speak, cause freak accidents to their victims with whatever came to hand. Thus, armed with a single jellybean, the Malakite can throw it at the advancing Calabite, causing it to squish under the Calabite's heel at *just* the right time and place to make said Calabite slip and fall. (And, on a Divine Intervention, break its vessel's neck.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 04:09:37 -0600 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Question At 07:39 AM 12/3/99 -0500, you wrote: >Here is an odd sort of query. > >The Malakim cannot 'suffer an evil to live' specifically demons. >What if a Malakim (of Eli, if it matters) was assigned to L.A. (which >is run by demons) and told by Eli, "Be cool for now, you'll get your >chance later..." effectively meaning that the Malakim will be >allowed to kill any demons he wishes in L.A. at a later time. >Knowing that he will be able to fulfil his oath at a later time, would >he still get dissonance? I am asking because I have seen the rules >bent for dissonance on other angels in various suppliments, and >wonder if this would be a legitimate bending of the rules as well. IMC, it would work like this. If there is no choice in the matter- either through direct orders from a recognized leader or through circumstance (wanna kill Belial? Just try, Binky), then no, no dissonance. However, if there is a place for a decision to be made- or even a - -temptation- then IMC dissonance is in play. I would even -include- standing orders like 'Don't attack them' in this category- an angel can find some way of justifying breaking of orders, especially when the person giving orders isn't on the scene. The practical point here is, the Virtues are not named idly... but are not perfect. Their own nature can be a trap for the unwary among them (or, in the case of FotM, a careless oath or Superior). As incarnations of honor, each and every one of them will be personally hurt if they cannot fulfill one of their Oaths, -no matter the circumstances.- No Malakite likes to fail. For practical purposes, Mal PCs should be looking for ways they can - -fulfill- their oaths, not ways to dodge the dissonance they (inevitably) bring... and if they pick up Dissonance, they ought to be humble enough to either call up a Superior and make a full confession, or put in some time at the local Tether with the other troubled ones. Redneck (No excuses, sinner. If I can make a clean breast to Dominic, you certainly can...) Kris Overstreet, too many websites.... http://www.detnet.com/redneck/ - Personal homepage http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - Business webpage http://www.antarctic-press.com/ - Someone else's page ... not enough time - -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GO d-(++) s+:+ a- C++>$ U@ P?>++ L E? W++$ N+++ o? k- w O? M>+ V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t---(OS++) 5++ X-- R+(+++) tv- b+++ DI++ D- G e h+ r- y+ - -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:02:17 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Repeated use of resonance? Ben Glickler wrote: > > Can an angel, should he roll a low check digit, wait a few minutes and > invoke his resonance again on the same human? I'd allow it unless the resonance says otherwise. Eventually bad luck will catch up with a PC who overdoes this. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:04:58 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Or, the GM says, "You'll have to get in close to use that." The Malakite > says, "Sure!" and runs in to do the feinting and dodging and bobbing that > is considered to be part of the IN 5-second combat round, and then > you make your attack roll and actually _make_ it and your character > ducks under a roundhouse swing and shoves the swab into the guy's sinuses > and then weavs back out. The resonance only says how much damage the thing will do, not how sturdy it is. I'd allow most 'bizarre' item choices to work once and then the Malakite would have to find another cotton swab (or whatever). - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:15:58 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Question Jon Compton wrote: > > Here is an odd sort of query. > > The Malakim cannot 'suffer an evil to live' specifically demons. > What if a Malakim (of Eli, if it matters) was assigned to L.A. (which > is run by demons) and told by Eli, "Be cool for now, you'll get your > chance later..." Eli telling him not to kill demons allows the Malakite to avoid dissonance. It's not longer his choice, instead it's Eli's choice. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:07:29 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. Douglas Muir wrote: > Mal Black: Well, you had your chance. Afraid it's going to get ugly now. > (begins assembling items from around the room: blowdryer, duct tape, salt > packets, drumsticks, giant-size container of Velveeta Cheese). Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I was able to contain myself until we got to the cheese. =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:53:15 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> IN and GURPS IN changes At 19:55 -0500 12/1/99, David Edelstein wrote: >If the GURPS conversion is going to be canon for In Nomine rules (which >is an unbelievably bad idea, but anyway), it would be nice if they'd be >syncronized in some comprehensible fashion. Basically, we've had to clarify a lot of stuff, since GURPS players generally demand higher levels of rules detail than is characteristic in IN. This process has pointed out open questions in IN, which can be put in the FAQ, errata, and/or new IN material. The "restricted" notation for attunments started this way, I believe. There's no intent to bring GURPS rules conversions back into IN, as far as I know, but some of the effects of the powers simply aren't well-stated. In a *very* small number of cases, we've actually changed the power; these are expected to go into future IN revisions as well. The two cases I can recall where we've actually changed an IN power are Habbalah of Death, whose attunement just didn't make much sense as a Word ability (in GURPS IN, they can remotely-control corpses, sort of like temp zombies,), and Gabriel's Vassal of Fire distinction, which should have been described as game effects, not physics (GURPS IN uses a generally-similar GURPS fire-control power description now). Both changes are supposed to go back into the IN line. All the other power changes are things like the case that started this side thread -- places where the IN power description was just unclear about mechanics like range, Essence use, resistance, etc. Such things should be clarified in the IN line, and relevant bits are being passed on to, for example, the authors of the new Superiors writeups. An example of something that probably *won't* propagate back into IN is the way Songs are handled in GURPS IN -- they've been shifted around somewhat to better match the GURPS magic system, but there's no reason to try to push those changes back into IN. Another change that probably won't propagate back is that all the Will-resisted powers in GURPS use a Contest of Will, where some IN powers are merely negated by a Will roll. This change was introduced in GURPS IN because of differences in the average success rate with Will rolls in GURPS, and some compression of the stats range to fit celestials into that system -- powers (like the Bal resonance) that could be simply negated with a Will roll would have been much weakened. Since this change was due to mathematical differences between the systems, it shouldn't be carried back. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:00:44 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Malakim At 23:13 -0500 12/1/99, Matt W. wrote: >I do have a rule question, however. To quote from the Malakite of >Creation attunement: "Anything they pick up can be used as a weapon... >for the length of a single combat." > >While this makes sense for objects such as ladders, parking meters, >pairs of pants, etc., it makes less since that a single playing card or >jelly bean could be used in such a manner. That's stretching even the >cinematic nature of IN. I propose that while large, relatively solid >objects (parking meters, etc.) can be used like that, smaller objects >are thrown, etc. when they are used as weapons. Therefore, a Malakite of >Eli would need a handful of jelly beans, a deck of cards, etc. to use >them in combat. I'd probably run it that way, though I can see the possibility of using a playing card like a knife, sort of. Jelly beans, though, don't make plausible weapons except as projectiles, as far as I can see. One way to keep this ability in some reasonable check is to make the player give you some notion how he thinks the item is being used. In prior discussions on this list, people have also read this ability as using Perception to spot a suitable item to use, not that they can pick up just any random object and use it as a weapon. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:44:15 -0700 From: EDG Subject: IN> Quote Length (partial repost from sjgames.innomine) (Was RE: IN> Using Canon, Especially Bad Expanded Choir Resonances) At 12:47 PM 12/3/99 -0000, Meehan Anthony wrote: And that, right there, is my point. Please snip quotes, folks. It's really, honestly not that hard. I promise. An added benefit is that it won't piss people off. The message pane on my email client (Eudora) is, effectively, twenty-five lines high when I open it, and it's amazingly frustrating to see posts where all I can see is quoted text. I see this happen on Usenet, I see it happen in private newsgroups, and I see it happen here. It's gotten to the point where I've decided to stop reading posts where I can't see any new material in the message pane, regardless of how good the post is. If I'm following the thread, then I've already read the post - I don't need to read it, in its entirety, again before I see your post. Relevant quotes are good - they establish context. Quoting the entire post is bad - it establishes that you don't know how to use an email program. (This goes for usenet too - substitute "newsreader" for "email program".) Okay, so now you've given me at least /some/ new material. Take a look at how much you've quoted, though, especially in terms of how much new material you have. If you have more new material than quoted text, then you're good to go. If you have more quoted text than new text, think about trimming that quote some. There's a fine line between "establishing context" and "quoting too much". "Me too" is NOT an appropriate post. To conclude: Show me what you need in order to put your post in context. Do not show me the entire post in quotes, especially if you don't even go to the trouble of giving me more original material than posted material. Thanks, EDG who is again in a fairly nasty mood. On the other hand, CPS isn't taking the three-year-old, so I'm milder than I could have been. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 13:04:41 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Rewards and Experience In our game, we don't use experience points, but have a mechanic for advancement that is objective. If you used a stat successfully during a session, you get to make a "learning roll" on that stat. If you succeed, the stat goes up. During the session, you want to roll under the stat, on d100. Afterward, on the learning roll, you want to roll OVER the stat on d100. The result is that, at a steady rate of use, the stat starts out improving slowly, improves quickly, then tables off as you approach 100 in the stat. This is what learning curves really look like. Adapting this to IN, you'd make a learning roll by hoping to roll over the stat on 2d6. (Forget the d666 thing here.) If you succeed, you go up one point. Or, if that's too fast, you go up one point after, say, three successful learn rolls. This way, you improve only in those areas you actually exercise, and improvement is mechanical, not subject to GM decision. (Also saves the GM some bookkeeping.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:11:31 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Question From: "Jon Compton" > > The Malakim cannot 'suffer an evil to live' specifically demons. > What if a Malakim (of Eli, if it matters) was assigned to L.A. (which > is run by demons) and told by Eli, "Be cool for now, you'll get your > chance later..." effectively meaning that the Malakim will be > allowed to kill any demons he wishes in L.A. at a later time. > Knowing that he will be able to fulfil his oath at a later time, would > he still get dissonance? No, because he only gets dissonance if he *chooses* to allow an evil to live. If his Superior specifically directs him to allow an evil to live, or if a greater good can be served by allowing that evil to live, then he gains no disaonance. The second that he no longer *has* to allow the evil to continue its existence, however... *eg* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:20:07 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> The Late Great JC At 7:30 -0500 12/2/99, Richard Gant wrote: > I don't think that there's anything >resembling a list consensus, either. Here's some of the list's pet >theories, however: > >1) He's Eli. >2) He's God. Which explains why God hasn't spoken in a while - He's >still in trauma from the crucifixion. >3) He's a Soldier. >4) He's Gabriel's child. >5) He's a normal human with delusions of grandure. >6) He's actually who he says he is. > >I can't think of any others. 7) He's a Child of the Grigori. 8) He's a normal human (or maybe an exceptional one) with a lot of mythology wrapped around him. (This implies that nothing drew much celestial attention to him during his lifetime, and that the various miracles attributed to him were invented after the fact, or are distortions of less-supernatural historical events.) 9) He's the child of Eli. 10) He's really Elvis, who was stolen by time-tripping aliens. (OK, so maybe no one's proposed that one yet....) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 13:39:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Harrowing of Hell A very good incident to put into a Christian-specific IN campaign, as part of the background history. By the way, in the Inferno, Dante occasionally runs across traces of the trail of destruction left by Christ in the Harrowing. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:45:39 -0600 From: "Eeyore" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim Question Here is an odd sort of query. The Malakim cannot 'suffer an evil to live' specifically demons. What if a Malakim (of Eli, if it matters) was assigned to L.A. (which is run by demons) and told by Eli, "Be cool for now, you'll get your chance later..." effectively meaning that the Malakim will be allowed to kill any demons he wishes in L.A. at a later time. Knowing that he will be able to fulfil his oath at a later time, would he still get dissonance? I am asking because I have seen the rules bent for dissonance on other angels in various suppliments, and wonder if this would be a legitimate bending of the rules as well. - - Jon Compton Nope. No Dissonance. Not only is there a chance that he'll get to perform mayhem later, he received orders from his Superior to not do so now. The Oath is to not suffer an evil to live if it's our choice; in this case, Eli told him differently. The Mal won't like the whole set-up, and how good he'll be at "being cool," but he won't take Dissonance for doing so. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:56:06 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. At 17:10 -0500 12/2/99, Ben Glickler wrote: > This might be a useful >mechanism to prevent players from disabling demons with a stryofoam cup. But that's *simple*. First, you crush the cup in one hand, turning it into a short cylinder, and wave it at the demon like it's a knife. While he's trying to figure out if you're a) a Kobalite or b) a Malakite of Creation, or c) some human on hard drugs, you close on him and tickle him with your free hand. When he opens his mouth, you sucker-punch him and quickly ram the cup down his throat, whereupon he starts choking to death while trying to suck in air, lodging the ex-cup tighter in his throat. Aka, the reverse-Heimlich maneuver.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:00:46 -0600 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Fluff: The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli I'll agree, It should have a place on the INC. Only one thing I'd change about it...Have Michael backing up Eli also(He'd absolutly love to bust Dominics chops...wings...scales...whatever. Ben Chism Angel of War Stories Demon of Useless Knowledge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:06:13 -0800 From: "Glenn D. Brown" Subject: IN> Re: >:(Fluff) The End of Dominic, The Return of Eli Matt W's idea that Eli is gathering evidence against Dominic is interesting. I've also had thoughts along those lines. But if I may be permitted to add my own bit of fluff to Matt's fluff.... Scene Two After he'd confronted Dominic with the hard proof he'd acquired, Eli took a quick trip down to Earth. He needed to humor the person who'd helped him find all that damning evidence, and his partner demanded to be kept informed about how Dominic had reacted. And Eli needed to humor him, because he'd still need his help for some while yet, to get what Eli wanted. Eli prepared himself mentally for this meeting...it required a creative touch. Eli appeared in a small, brightly lit room filled with beautifully hand carved chess sets. The artist who's done the work on the sets put down a small tool, and asked, "Well, how did he react?" Eli's eyes glittered with an almost Imputite like quality. "Exactly as I predicted, Asmodeus. I told you my Malakite attunement could find a way to present Dominic's normal activities in the most damning possible way, didn't I? Anything can become a weapon. Anything. With your help, I could frame any member of the Seraphim Council." "I'm glad to see you're so confident. What's your next move?" "After we've gotten rid of Dominic, Novalis is next. How is the Game doing finding the information we need on her?" . Asmodeus smiled. "I already have the file here..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:17:08 -0000 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> The good ol' Humanity attunement From: Tim Groth > > Very, very, very dark and low contrast game. > *lol* "hey, that kid saw us use our supernatural powers!" "ah well. if she's good she'll go to heaven" *SPLAT* liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:18:52 -0000 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> The good ol' Humanity attunement From: Jeff Heinen > But thats not what he is saying. Sure, the players might guess. But the > character will only see "human". Even with 100 body hits and 10 essence, > no one will think anything but "human". It's a Bal lie that can not be > resisted and never fades in their mind. that's way too powerful. if it's canon, it's canon. but i wouldn't let a standard (and probably quite common) attunement be that hard IMC. that's more like something i'd expect for a third-level distinction liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:15:37 -0000 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim From: Ben Glickler > This means you're not going to get genre-defying and mood-destroying > weapons, but you will get an interesting character that can turn anything > remotely dangerous into a weapon. yeah, but the attunement isn't for turning "anything remotely dangerous" into a weapon. it's for turning *anything* into a weapon. i don't see why this is genre-defying, it's a supernatural ability - just like being immune to fire or being able to possess machines. as for mood-destroying, i guess it depends what kind of mood you're trying to create. maybe if you're playing IN as a serious, grim, horror-type affair then i suppose having the baddies get killed with a packet of crisps could spoil things. i don't see a problem with the attunement. it's a ninja thang. liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:45:17 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Re: IN> Nylius, Angel of Rebellion At 1:51 AM -0600 12/3/99, Matt W. wrote: [. . . Snippage. . .] Very Nice NPC. . . (non-canonical in some respects, but who cares about canon in your _own_ campaign?) *grin* I do have two comments though: First, _please_ remember to post to this list in plain-text format (not all our mail readers can process .html or pseudo-MicroSQUISH-html code). Thanks. *grin* Secondly, which of his Languages is the Default Language? (All Celestials get one language they know at a Default of 3 for free, IIRC.) (Though you are _not required_ to do so, unless you wish to write for the IN-line, you might also check out the stylesheet; which has the basics for creating ready-to-publish characters. You may find this sacred text here: http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/writers/in-nomine-style-sheet.html) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://home.centurytel.net/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:26:50 -0000 From: "Liam Astley" Subject: Re: IN> Eli's Malakite Attunement, and why it needs to be rewritten. From: Ben Glickler > It just defies the imagination. Okay, so the Malakite grabs a cotton swab. > He rolls, gets a 6 on the check digit. But how the heck can he hurt > someone? Does he stick it up both their nostrils? i see it as a ninja type thing. the attunement gives the malk the knowledge of how to use the object as a weapon. so maybe if you hold the cotton swab _just so_ and jab it _just there_ it could harm someone. remember, the attunement doesn't necessarily turn the object into a lethal weapon. i'd let a malk use a cotton swab as a weapon, but it probably wouldn't be doing as much damage as, say, a pencil. > It just leaves a lot of unanswered questions. It also doesn't seem to flow > very well with how Malakim seem to be, but as people have said, choose your > mood. Others may choose to have Malakim a little more slapsticky and > slaphappy, but the dark angel style they seem to embody doesn't jive well > with letting 'em kill people with a sunflower seed. why not? again, i see it as a ninja thing. you could play it as jokey, but you could also play it as being pretty scary that you're fighting some guy who can hurt you with _anything_. like i said before, it reminds me of bullseye out of daredevil. i wouldn't call him a slapstick character. also, we aren't talking about all malakim here. just malks of creation, who i doubt are very common > I'd assume the wording of Eli's Malakite attunement was just clumsy. Assume > you pick an item up *if* you make your roll. This makes the perception roll > make more sense, since you're *looking* for the most deadly item around. If > you fail, you don't find a thing. If you succeed, you find the *most* > deadly thing, as determined by your check digit. i saw the roll as being the malk searching his mind for the "hidden knowledge" of how to use the object creatively. liam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:51:33 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Malakim If people are worried about the attunement ruining the mood just don't have silly objects around. I mean if your running a gritty campeign there aren't likely to be many jellybeans and cotton swabs around, especially when a fight is about to break out. The GM determins what's in the room, and if there is a Malakite of Creation in the party they just have to be careful about what they decided to put in there. Also it is a supernatural power. I imagine when a Malakite of Creation grabs a fist full of M&Ms and throws them at a demon the things are going faster than bullets. I have a question to add to this entire thing, can this extend into celestial combat (letting them pick up bits of celestial things to use as weapons). I can just imagine a Malakite of Creation grabbing a demonling and using it to beat a demon to soul death. 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: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 07:54:24 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim The only IN campaign I ran had a Malakite of Eli. He used bar stools, bedpans, broken bottles and suchlike, and it fit the tone fine. It seems to me that this is a non-issue in many ways. If you want to run a serious-style campaign with a MoE, explain to the player the tone you're aiming for, and provide them with appropriate objects for the attunement. If you're running a more wacky campaign, then let the players get silly if they want to. It's a power that can be modified to fit the tone of the game, and tone is (in a perfect world) something that GMs and players agree on. (Even in an imperfect world, GMs can enforce a tone by simply controlling the MoE's access to inappropriate items.) - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia As I was saying, journalism is a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right and you can blow a kneecap off the world... - - Spider Jerusalem, TRANSMETROPOLITAN #3 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:13:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Humanity Attunement At 1:55 PM -0500 12/2/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 7:02 AM -0600 12/2/99, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>>(Now, everyone else can argue about how _they'd_ treat it, but that's my canon answer, and the only way I'm going to change it is if my Superior tells me to; is it really a big enough deal that I should bother him about it specially?)<<< >> >>Probably, because you're reading too much into it. > >Fine. I'll ask SJ. To quote SJ in reply to my question: "You're right. Period." Humanity is invulnerable to the five resonances and 15 attunements and Distinctions which might otherwise indirectly "blow the cover." Including, natch, Vapulan Impudite glasses. (I can get the list of things which would otherwise affect it, if anyone cares.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:47:34 -0500 From: Shadowstar (by way of Elizabeth McCoy) Subject: [none] Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:31:57 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: Origami as a Deadly Weapon (WAS: Eli's Malakite Attunement) At 6:48 PM -0500 12/2/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >And then there are some where the GM is better off saying, "You do u n >speakable things with the origami swan. The demon screams and clutches >his wounds. The Hellsworn stares and turns away to throw up." It gets worse when you're the Angel of Origami (a Malakite of Creation in service to Novalis). . . Okay, at least that's what I came up with for a pre-generated PC. . . Still, as EDG has pointed out, you do have to have some way of getting that deadly piece of folded paper into the target. That's why said Malakite has Fighting, and Throwing. If I were picky, I'd add in the Small Weapon (Origami) in as well. Remember this, if you're into details and realismn. The cinematic can ignore it, and go with what Beth's described. . . (No demon should ever have to witness such horrors. Hell is tame in comparrison.) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centurytel.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://home.centurytel.net/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1445 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.