From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri May 21 16:19:07 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 QAA17633 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 16:19:07 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA23718 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 16:18:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:18:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199905212118.QAA23718@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 #1233 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, May 21 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1233 In this digest: IN> The Gamemaster's Guide IN> Minimal Spirit Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1232 Re: IN> Brightness Settings et. al. Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness Re: IN> [Beth screams] Sneak Previews Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> The Gamemaster's Guide IN> combat rules request IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths Re: IN> Minimal Spirit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 05:09:45 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Gamemaster's Guide >>>I generally object on the issue of adding more terms to anything, anywhere, unnecessarily.<<< "Brightness" and "Contrast" aren't exactly official game terms, just a convenient reference. >>>And I find it odd to take terms off the mailing list and put them into writing. It feels a bit like digging, especially if it's expanded upon.<<< Discussing casting In Nomine in different shades and tones is certainly something that would have gone into the GMG in any event. I would have written a section on "dark" vs. "light" games and "sharp contrast vs. shades of grey" anyway -- I chose to borrow some terms from the list to use with those sections because I thought they were appropriate. >>> I suppose I feel like there's no real need. Do people honestly need spelled out to them that they can run the game any way they please?<<< First, yes, some people do. Bear in mind that not every GM has years of experience. And while most GMs, with even minimal experience, could probably figure out "Yes, I can run any kind of game I want," a lot of them (I think) will find it useful to see the different styles of In Nomine campaigns laid out for them. This particular section probably won't be very useful to you, Emily, nor would it be to me, because we are both experienced GMs who have no problem improvising, and can gleefully ignore the rulebooks whenever we feel like it. But the GMG is being written with the assumption that both experienced GMs and beginning GMs will read it. >>>On the other hand, I'm having a _really_ hard time caring either way, so do whatever you see fit.<<< Trashing a book about which you've only heard intimations about one section, and then declaring you don't care, is less useful than if you actually deigned to share your thoughts about what you think SHOULD be in the IN GMG... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 05:18:04 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Minimal Spirit Hmm, yes, come to think of it, I believe theoretically a celestial could be reduced to 1 Celestial Force and still be an angel or demon. One with no corporeal form and no memories or intelligence, but still executing its Divine (or Infernal) will. >>>So I didn't like that scene with the Trial. It seemed like they were sentencing her to be maimed and lobotomized, and then untreated for thirty years. Better just to kill her, but both she and her Archangel were relieved.<<< Personally (and I'm the one who wrote that vignette), I see the loss of all Corporeal Forces making you incapable of manifesting on the corporeal plane, but I never saw Corporeal Forces as making celestials more "substantive" in the celestial plane. Perhaps one does become more "indistinct" in appearance, since you have no corporeal substance to wrap an image around, but your mind and soul are still intact. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:02:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> WordBound not in Liber S (Re: Atheism in In Nomine) Rhodri James wrote: > > The Liber Verbi. > > Liber Verborum, surely? Okay, sure. If you have any Latin education whatever, you trump me. I was running on pure pattern-matching and hunch. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:47:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1232 > > Do people honestly need spelled out to them that they can run the > > game any way they please? Maybe they really do, but I find it a > > bit childish. > > (1) I thought that, even now, the market for RPGs was still pretty > youthful, albeit less so for IN, or so the warning label would > like to imply... > > But mainly: > > (2) People may not need to know that they can run it any way they > please, but it might help to see a listing of lots of ways, in case > there were some that they'd like but hadn't thought of, > > And: > > (3) It could be handy to have some details on HOW to play a > campaign lighter, darker, more contrasty, etc. What I'm reminded of is the Nephilim GMC, which came out when the game was starting to seriously flounder. One of the biggest sections in the book was "how to build and GM Nephilim campaigns", because people on the mailing list claimed that, while the game was "very cool", they couldn't figure out how to run it. The section, while sort of interesting, is extremely out of place in the context of all the other sourcebooks. In comparison to, say, MAJOR ARCANA or the LIBER KA, it definitely suffered. I was a tad put-off by an entire chapter on "how to run a game". I wanted something more, well, Nephilim. I liked the section, and I liked the very explicit instructions on how to build a campaign like an onion (complete with diagrams) but in honesty, I could have lived without it. See, I don't think people are having problems figuring out how to run In Nomine games, so making the explicit point which says "You can run it these different ways" seems not only out of place, but speaking to the lowest denominator. The game is very straight forward when it comes to coming up with plots, and I don't see the need for "author to GM" information on "how to run our game". It's distinctly what I didn't like about the Nephilim GMC, and what I'm afraid of here. I have an example of "how not to do it", and I don't have an example of "how to do it" when it comes to this specific point. I fear the manualization of the game: that having explicit instructions is going to straightjacket GMs. The response is the common one: people don't have to follow the advice or the instructions. But at the same time, there's a tendancy to point to books as the defacto. On the other hand, I bought the Call of Cthulhu GMC because it was chock full of bad book goodness and other fun toys. My views are likely tainted because of that book. I was so fond of it, I just want In Nomine to be every bit as cool. :) People can do whatever they see best, of course. And spotting problems of "too much control" is what playtesting is for. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:40:54 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Brightness Settings et. al. >From: Shadowstar > >Now if I can just get my really cool campaign idea about Jesus Christ >being > >Laurence and Lilith's love child into canon... > > > >-David (that was a joke, put down that hammer....) > > Now, keep in mind that Dominque currently holds control over the Mighty >Squeaky Hammer of Smitting !!! > > (Okay, it's semi-obscure. Hey, what can I say. . . That damned hammer >has a life of its own. . .) Wait! What is "to smit" ?? >Be seeing you, - -Number 6 perrylloyd@hotmail.com "I am not a a number! I am a free man!" _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:49:07 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >From: David Edelstein > >>>I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a >tremendous > >amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out there. >That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there.<<< > >Depends on what you mean by atheism. "Strong atheists" believe that there >is *nothing* we can't sense, period. "Weak atheists" (a term I dislike, as >I've mentioned before, but it is the "official" term) believe there is no >evidence for souls, afterlives, God, etc., and therefore no reason to >believe in them. It doesn't take "faith" to not believe in something I see >no reason to believe in, any more than it takes faith to not believe in the >Easter Bunny or pink space aliens living in my coffee. Ah. I've seen too much evidence myself, hence my faulty interpretation of atheism. >The distinction can be a fine one, but strong atheists are more likely to >be the Madelyne Murray O'Haire types who rail against religion and insist >that any religious beliefs whatsoever are simply, objectively wrong, and >stupid. Weak atheists, like me, can accept that you can't disprove God or >Heaven, and are willing to be shown evidence for same (making the >distinction between a weak atheist and an agnostic blurry at times), but >basically don't think it makes sense to believe in things without evidence. Yes, evidence is key. Of course, I've heard that the requirement of faith is belief *without* evidence for belief. >In Nomine relevance: In In Nomine, obviously, atheists are wrong. Can they >still go to Heaven? I wanted to say they're the ones most likely to >"unravel" at death, neither reincarnating nor going on to Heaven or Hell, >in the CPG....but it was decided to leave such things CDaU. Well, if H&H puts Native Americans in Heaven, despite the fact that they worship "the wrong god". I know there's the Happy Hunting grounds in The Marches (I believe), but I did see a reference to a Native American who, I believe, hung out in Jordi' Savanna. And the Bodisatvas (sp?) are Buddhists, but they're in Heaven. So, it looks like Heaven could possibly have room for Atheists, too. (They may have a hard time taking it at first, though.) Atheist: "Why didn't you TELL me?" Angels: "We did." >Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >would go in the LS. Hmmph!) Awesome. :) Balseraph? - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:50:43 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >From: Whistling in the Dark >>Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >>into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >>Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >>would go in the LS. Hmmph!) > >Awwwwwww.... > >I love Word-bound. I have yet to understand the Word-bound. :) - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:00:13 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Contrast and Brightness >From: Earl Wajenberg > >But what does it mean that reception gets better if you hold the >antenna? Have you forgotten? Without humanity, the war for the Symphony would have never been. Humanity is the key. Kinda sad, really. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Plots and Plans. What everyone should have to cook with." - Elizabeth McCoy (personal interview 3/23/99) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:43:58 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> [Beth screams] Sneak Previews At 7:19 PM -0700 5/20/99, -=|horsefly|=- wrote: >okay, so Night Music and The Marches are destined for obsolesence... does >that mean Gabriel, Beliel, and Furfur will be getting further expanded >write-ups, too? Gabriel and Belial -- again, do you really, truly, honestly think that we'd only do _four_ of the major Archangels and no one else? (Well, if we discover that Superior books are cash-wasting flops, maybe -- so get out there and buy lots of them when they hit the shelves!) Furfur -- probably, though he might be in a fairly far-back-on-the- schedule book, and would need an author who could make him _really_ interesting. The _adventure_ ("Demon Prince of Rock and Roll") and the _setting_ (Austin) are not currently slated for reprinting anywhere, though they're not on my list of Never Allow To See Print Again. > will these be done in terms of "things happening since >last time," or just a retcon deal? Generally about 30 pages, with All You Need To Know to GM, or play a Servitor of, that Superior. (Well, I _hope_ we can cram all that into 30 pages!) Lesser Superiors (e.g., Fleurity, Zadkiel) will get less space, generally. This will include the information from the main book and any previous expanded writeups, so that you don't have to book-flip all over the place. (There's also going to be notes on which Choir/Band Attunements are restricted to that Choir/Band, errata fixes, the expanded writeup attunements moved up with the rest of the attuements...) We're trying for a good mix of flavor and nice, solid information. I think people will be pleased with them. >further question: is The Marches going >to be revised and revamped in its entirety so the locale will be more >fully explained and explored? This isn't currently planned, per se, but I'm not ruling it out. On the other hand, that's _very_ far future -- I don't even have a revised Outline sitting in my head, let alone my hard drive or a table at SJ Games. Don't sell your Marches yet, in other words. O:> - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:09:43 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Atheism in In Nomine At 9:50 AM -0700 5/21/99, Perry Lloyd wrote: >>From: Whistling in the Dark >>>Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it >>>into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the >>>Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all >>>would go in the LS. Hmmph!) >> >>Awwwwwww.... >> >>I love Word-bound. > >I have yet to understand the Word-bound. :) > >-Perry For you are Perial, Angel of Not Understanding the Word Bound. You can't go into Word Conflict, after all. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:30:37 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> The Gamemaster's Guide David Edelstein wrote: > > >>>I generally object on the issue of adding more terms to anything, > anywhere, unnecessarily.<<< > > "Brightness" and "Contrast" aren't exactly official game terms, just a > convenient reference. Exactly. They aren't even game mechanics, but are more meta-meta-terms that are really only useful when designing a campaign, describing one, or talking to other IN nuts on the mailing list. =) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:34:50 PDT From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> combat rules request andrewr@primus.com.au Hail Eris! I'm a-running an In Nomine adventure as we speak and I'd appreciate some advice as regards the combat system. In other words could someone explain just what the problem is with it as I gather that the popular consensus is that its more broken than a Balseraph's promise (!). Er, so if anyone could help me out and point to a decent fix I'd be a happy camper. Martin "my solos are my trademark." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:01:27 -0700 From: "McCarthy, Douglas J" Subject: IN> Malakim and violent oaths I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim. There is a Malakite of Jordi in my campaign. Both he and I are relatively new at this; he's my first Malakite PC, and this is his first In Nomine character *ever*. We are trying to get his Oaths nailed down. There are the two standard ones, which are fine, but he wants his other ones to be: 3) If someone injures an animal, injure that person the same way. 4) If someone kills an animal, kill that person. (more or less; I don't think he is constantly going to go out and stick hooks through fishermen's cheeks, for instance.) There are a few problems I have with these. First, they sound almost too similar; #4 is just the logical extension of #3. Second, fulfilling these Oaths is going to create a *lot* of Symphonic disturbance. Will this necessarily lead to Dissonance? I know all this bloodshed would lead to Dissonance for a Mercurian, but what about other Choirs? And what about Malakim in particular? I don't want him to be in a "dissonant-if-you-do, dissonant-if-you-don't" position, but I don't want to be unreasonably lenient on him either. And these *do* sound like extremely Jordi-consonant Oaths. So should I let these stand? Should I make him pick Oaths that don't involve so much bloodshed? Or should I make him combine these into one Oath and come up with a new one? (I've already thought of a moral dilemma for #3 - have some weirdo run around and injure animals by cutting their tails off. :-) ) - -- Doug McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight... douglas.j.mccarthy@intel.com and artificial sky. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:24:15 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths At 11:01 AM -0700 5/21/99, McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: > I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim. > > There is a Malakite of Jordi in my campaign. Both he and I are >relatively new at this; he's my first Malakite PC, and this is his first In >Nomine character *ever*. We are trying to get his Oaths nailed down. There >are the two standard ones, which are fine, but he wants his other ones to >be: > >3) If someone injures an animal, injure that person the same way. >4) If someone kills an animal, kill that person. > >(more or less; I don't think he is constantly going to go out and stick >hooks through fishermen's cheeks, for instance.) Actually, if he's obeying his oaths, he _should_ -- at least if he's in the presence of a fisherman. And I'd say you're right -- #4 is just #3. >Second, fulfilling these Oaths is going to create >a *lot* of Symphonic disturbance. Will this necessarily lead >to Dissonance? No. Disturbance does not equal dissonance. >Should I make him pick Oaths that >don't involve so much bloodshed? It's your campaign. If you're not comfortable with this character, then don't let him in! You could, of course, decide that if the character is getting too messed up by his oaths, Jordi will come and change the oaths for him. (His Superior can do that, natch.) The _character_ would never dream of asking for changed oaths, but Archangels sometimes do things for their Servitors' own good. >Or should I make him combine these into >one Oath and come up with a new one? Yes. >(I've already thought of a moral dilemma for #3 - have some weirdo run >around and injure animals by cutting their tails off. :-) ) Heh. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:19:46 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: > First, they sound almost too similar; #4 is just the logical > extension of #3. Second, fulfilling these Oaths is going to > create a *lot* of Symphonic disturbance. Will this necessarily > lead to Dissonance? I know all this bloodshed would lead to > Dissonance for a Mercurian, but what about other Choirs? And > what about Malakim in particular? Creating Disturbance won't lead to dissonance, just attract attention. And it isn't dissonant for a Malakite to kill. It's more or less what they're for. This Malakite should logically go berserk it lots of situations involving food animals. Or stepping on ants by mistake. Or splatting bugs on your windshield. Or slapping mosquitoes. Do you want that? (These insectile ones are really hard to inflict on humans in symmetric revenge. *Step* on them?...) Unless your adventures involve few humans, I recommend you limit these oaths. Make it a matter of deliberate cruelty to birds or mammals, say. And he has to see the cruel act. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:25:50 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths - -----Original Message----- From: McCarthy, Douglas J > I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim. I did too, until I got the Angelic Players' Guide. If you haven't got a copy of the CPG, find one as fast as you can. > There is a Malakite of Jordi in my campaign. Both he and I are >relatively new at this; he's my first Malakite PC, and this is his first In >Nomine character *ever*. We are trying to get his Oaths nailed down. There >are the two standard ones, which are fine, but he wants his other ones to >be: > >3) If someone injures an animal, injure that person the same way. >4) If someone kills an animal, kill that person. #3 would be consistant with Jordi, but #4 wouldlead to far too much Dissonance, not to mention hideously loud disturbances if his character ever finds out about animals being killed for food. Actually, now that I think about it #3 will even lead to a lot of Disturbances, so you might want to reconsider that one as well. But I would definitely make him lose #4. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:39:13 -0700 From: Jeff Heinen Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths At 11:01 AM -0700 5/21/99, McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: > I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim. I don't think your the first. I've been working on a few and just can't get them just right. > There is a Malakite of Jordi in my campaign. Both he and I are >relatively new at this; he's my first Malakite PC, and this is his first In >Nomine character *ever*. We are trying to get his Oaths nailed down. There >are the two standard ones, which are fine, but he wants his other ones to >be: > >3) If someone injures an animal, injure that person the same way. >4) If someone kills an animal, kill that person. > >(more or less; I don't think he is constantly going to go out and stick >hooks through fishermen's cheeks, for instance.) There are a few problems I >have with these. First, they sound almost too similar; #4 is just the >logical extension of #3. First off, any servitor of animals will (or should) understand the food chain. I don't see him having any problem with humans fishing, as long as they eat it or release it. (I beleive there are some animals that "play" a catch and release type game for practice right?) As for violent oaths, I think this is where alot of people get stuck. I don't see malakim as a nessecarly violent chior, its just something they do well. I think starting oaths shouldn't be explicity violent, but just leave that as the most popular option. Second, fulfilling these Oaths is going to create >a *lot* of Symphonic disturbance. Will this necessarily lead to Dissonance? >I know all this bloodshed would lead to Dissonance for a Mercurian, but what >about other Choirs? And what about Malakim in particular? Nope, I don't think they will get dissonace, but you'll have a lot of people wondering what's going on. > I don't want him to be in a "dissonant-if-you-do, >dissonant-if-you-don't" position, but I don't want to be unreasonably >lenient on him either. And these *do* sound like extremely Jordi-consonant >Oaths. So should I let these stand? Should I make him pick Oaths that >don't involve so much bloodshed? Or should I make him combine these into >one Oath and come up with a new one? One oath I would suggest: "Never let [an assult|a crime|a violent or cruel act(pick one)] on an animal go un-punished." Yes, it allows a lot of wiggle room, but it allows other solutions, plus it means they have to deal with every little boy burning ants, investigate ever animal research facility, and every stray animal abuses/ignored by the populous. >(I've already thought of a moral dilemma for #3 - have some weirdo run >around and injure animals by cutting their tails off. :-) ) It leaves the question, what would resolve it? An injury that reduces the targets balence etc (ok, so I'm rusty on what tails do), like a big toe, or just removal of some other non-arm/leg appendage? - -Jeff - -- Jeff Heinen jeffh@spiretech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 20:40:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths On Fri, 21 May 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Unless your adventures involve few humans, I recommend you limit > these oaths. Make it a matter of deliberate cruelty to birds or > mammals, say. And he has to see the cruel act. I think this is a very good idea. If you don't include the cruelty clause he'll have to kill vets who do their best to help animals, since they sometimes kill them out of genuine compassion (which isn't allowed for humans, by the currently prevailing morals, by the way), and if it's just enough that he knows about it, he'll go berserk as soon as he finds out about killing animals for food. I also agree that making it just one oath is better. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:44:20 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths At 2:19 PM -0500 5/21/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >McCarthy, Douglas J wrote: > > > First, they sound almost too similar; #4 is just the logical > > extension of #3. Second, fulfilling these Oaths is going to > > create a *lot* of Symphonic disturbance. Will this necessarily > > lead to Dissonance? I know all this bloodshed would lead to > > Dissonance for a Mercurian, but what about other Choirs? And > > what about Malakim in particular? > >Creating Disturbance won't lead to dissonance, just attract >attention. And it isn't dissonant for a Malakite to kill. >It's more or less what they're for. > >This Malakite should logically go berserk it lots of situations >involving food animals. Or stepping on ants by mistake. Or >splatting bugs on your windshield. Or slapping mosquitoes. >Do you want that? (These insectile ones are really hard to >inflict on humans in symmetric revenge. *Step* on them?...) Vessel/1 -- Elephant. Squish! >Unless your adventures involve few humans, I recommend you limit >these oaths. Make it a matter of deliberate cruelty to birds or >mammals, say. And he has to see the cruel act. Mammals would be my recommendation. Which also gives him a direction for later service but doesn't have him getting people drunk and throwing them through windows. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:42:46 -0400 From: Hilary Hayes Subject: IN> Malakim and violent oaths >I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim.< IMGs, of which I've run several, mostly with people who've never played IN before, I tend to insist that all Malakim take at least one oath that =limits= the amount of downright violence they undertake. I do this because I don't like running IN as a high-violence game. Please note, I don't have a problem with high-violence RPGs, I just don't think IN is the best vehicle for them. >>There is a Malakite of Jordi in my campaign.<< One thing no one has mentioned yet - Malakim of Jordi are especially attuned to pack animals. I've used this in the past (when writing up Malakim of Jordi for convention scenarios) to give them a strong sense of community and responsibility towards those with whom they are working. >>3) If someone injures an animal, injure that person the same way. 4) If someone kills an animal, kill that person.<< As people have already said, 4 is a logical consequence of 3. The Malakite needs another oath. Personally I'd insist he took one that was consistent with the way I saw the game evolving. >> And these *do* sound like extremely Jordi-consonant Oaths. << In some ways this whole thing sounds almost more Gabriel (punishing those who are cruel to animals) than Jordi. Maybe he could take an oath that recognises that, in many ways, humans are animals too. >> So should I let these stand?<< If the campaign you have in mind can hold that amount of violence, go with the third oath. My partner (who is a wonderfully savage GM) suggests you could have him run into a group of well-armed hunters sometime when he's on his own...... >> Should I make him pick Oaths that don't involve so much bloodshed? Or should I make him combine these into one Oath and come up with a new one?<< He definitely needs a fourth oath. My personal inclinantion would be to make that fourth oath something that limited the violent consequences of the third one. >>(I've already thought of a moral dilemma for #3 - have some weirdo run around and injure animals by cutting their tails off. :-) )<< Surgical amputation of the coccyx - with or without an anaesthetic (Malakite's choice). Hilary omentide@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/omentide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:11:06 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths - -----Original Message----- From: Hilary Hayes >>I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim.< > >IMGs, of which I've run several, mostly with people who've never played IN >before, I tend to insist that all Malakim take at least one oath that >=limits= the amount of downright violence they undertake. Which is the sort of thing I did when creating my Malakim. In keeping with him being in service to Zadkiel, his third oath dealt with protecting his friends, and his fourth was "Never knowingly harm an innocent." This was also the character who managed to find a completely non-violent way of foiling a major Diabolical plot in his first assignment, but that would be another story... Azzur, Malakim of the Sword in service to Protection ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:10:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Benjamin Acosta Subject: Re: IN> Azariel the Habbalakite Sam Kington wrote: > > Benjamin Acosta wrote: > > > > Azariel the "Malakite"; Former Elohite of Fire, Now Renegade Angel > [snip] > > This habit, and the mindset he has makes it extremely > > unlikely that he would be percieved as anything other than a Malakite. > > And you know, maybe he is a Malakite. Can you tell the difference? > > First of all, let me say that I *love* this character, and he'll be > appearing in my game at some point. Thanks, he's the first character I've ever posted and it's nice to get compliments. Incidently, I'd love to hear how you or anyone else uses him. I made him primarily as an exercise on making a demon who could work with an angelic party but I'm sure there are plenty of ways he could generate adventures and complications. For example after Azariel has given the PC's help in several missions they get wind of the fact that some Malakim are in town to investigate what might be a potential Outcast Malakite. Could that be their friend? If so he's in trouble. Everyone knows how Malakim treat their Outcasts. How can they help him? To further complicate the matters one of Dominic's Triads is in town, wishing to interrogate this potential Outcast and all those who might have had contact with him. What's really twisted is that if the Triad actually catches up with Azariel he could pass their inquires with flying colors. SERAPH: Are you the Malakite known as Azariel? AZARIEL: Yes. (Unless Check Digit is a 5 or 6 he passes) SERAPH: Are you currently an Outcast? AZARIEL: No, I serve my Superior faithfully. (True unless CD 5-6, He believes God is his Superior) MALAKITE: I detect no dissonance in him, and his most noble act this week was protecting a priest from the attentions of a Calabrim. AZARIEL: Of course I have no dissonance. I've lived up to my oaths. (Absolute Truth) SERAPH: We're thank you for your time. I'm sorry we even suspected you were an Outcast. You are truly a credit to your Choir and Superior. AZARIEL: No need to apologize. We're all on the same side. That's what's important. (Absolute Truth) >One question, though: how does he > rationalise his resonance, both having the Habbalah resonance (which > incorporates parts of his old Elohite resonance, which he should have > lost), and not having the Malakite resonance for honour? I've thought of two different explanations for this: 1. He percieves his resonance as the Malakite resonance. If I remember the Infernal Players Guide correctly Habbalah can use the Elohim perception table if they take a penalty exqual to the check digit desired. So Azariel just always takes a -3 to his resonance roll, and if he's lucky not only find out what a subject is feeling, but why. He'd then interpet the results as honorable or shameful. If he resonates someone and finds their happy because they just mugged someone then that must be their most shameful act. The emotion-inducing aspect of his resonance is just his Choir Attunement as a Malakim of God. 2. God's Will. Hey, if other Habbalah can believe themselves to be Angels while living in the middle of Hell and swearing fealty to a Demon Prince then it should be easy for Azariel to believe that God thinks it's more useful to have a different resonance than other Malakites. The important thing to him is that he live up to his oaths, for it is those chains of honor which mark him as a member of the Choir that can't Fall. It is by his honerable state of existence that he knows he's a Malakite. Any evidence that suggessts otherwise is irrelevant. I haven't decided which one I like best. Anyone have preference? Ben, Elohite of Eli Angel of Neat Ideas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:47:45 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Malakim and violent oaths At 3:11 PM -0500 5/21/99, Prodigal wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Hilary Hayes > > > >>I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around Malakim.< > > > >IMGs, of which I've run several, mostly with people who've never played IN > >before, I tend to insist that all Malakim take at least one oath that > >=limits= the amount of downright violence they undertake. > >Which is the sort of thing I did when creating my Malakim. In keeping with >him being in service to Zadkiel, his third oath dealt with protecting his >friends, and his fourth was "Never knowingly harm an innocent." > >This was also the character who managed to find a completely non-violent way >of foiling a major Diabolical plot in his first assignment, but that would >be another story... Malakim "suffer" from what Paladins used to suffer from back in the days of First Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (and to a lesser extent in Second, and Malphas only knows these days) -- an overwhelming perception of what they *had* to be. They were always Lawful Good Warriors of God who were Holy Knights on a mission with their Holy Avengers smiting evil. For a long time in my AD&D phase I spent my time playing non-typical Paladins. I had one person everyone assumed was a thief who was a Paladin, who the DM agreed fully I was playing as a Lawful Good. I had a female character who identified herself as a Healer, who was a Paladin but who seemed to be something very other. I ran with the idea of Paladins as Lawful Good Embodiments, not religious icons (though LG deities happily took the credit for them). But then, I played Religion in AD&D not unlike In Nomine.... Malakim are perceived as jackbooted thugs fightin' for the LORD! I see them as the embodiment of virtue -- the uncorruptable expression of the Will of God, whoever he may be. I don't have a problem with an utterly honorable Malakite letting his conscience and resonance inform his actions even if it puts him in conflict with his Superior. They are the ultimate expression of the Ones Who Fight Evil. This can be with the really big shotgun of holy hurting, or this can be through the subtle removal of evil and selfish intent in mortals, orienting them to Selflessness. I think Malakim, who can resonate honorable intent, are likely the most common choir to recommend a renegade demon be Redeemed (whereupon other choirs might take over). Evil destroyed is so much more effective that way, after all.... (And of course, some Malakim just like to fight -- but still.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 22:16:05 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Minimal Spirit On Fri, 21 May 1999, David Edelstein wrote: > Perhaps one does become more > "indistinct" in appearance, since you have no corporeal substance to wrap > an image around, but your mind and soul are still intact. Optional rules: 1) Modify your chance of being perceived in celestial form on earth according to your corporeal forces (so relievers spend a lot of time jumping up and down in front of dense humans waving their arms). 2) You can't take a role at a level higher than, say, (2 + Corporeal forces), although remnants etc. might get to keep a role if their corp. forces drop. 3) If you have no corp. forces, you can't have a vessel, can still manifest on earth in cel. form, but if you do so you cause a constant disturbance instead of just when you arrive. Say an extra one point every minute or something, cumulative unless you keep moving. Any takers for any of those? Steve. - ------ Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1233 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.