From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue May 23 04:22:02 2000 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 EAA24525 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:22:02 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id EAA07441 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:19:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 04:19:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200005230919.EAA07441@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 #1640 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 Tuesday, May 23 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1640 In this digest: Re: IN> Words for all! Re: IN> Words for all! IN> Question - Vessels & death IN> Humans and words IN> Angels and Religeous Patronage IN> Re: Angels and Religeous Patronage Re: IN> Some Advice Please Re: IN> Baby Woes (Re: In Nomine Dice) Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1635 Re: IN> Question - Vessels & death Fwd: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1635 Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! IN> Redemption (Re: Baby Woes) Re: IN> Some Advice Please Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! Re: IN> Baby Woes (Re: In Nomine Dice) Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! (with apologies, for the last post) Re: IN> Words for all! IN> Losing Superiors Re: IN> Losing Superiors Re: IN> Losing Superiors Re: IN> Losing Superiors RE: IN> Losing Superiors Re: IN> some more gibberings... Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:33:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Words for all! Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Does anyone actively sell or support Nobilis? I developed an interest > in learning more about it but can't find it. The web site that > everyone points to doesn't mention it any more. They just changed publishers, to Hogshead. The author, as I'm sure you know, is R. Sean Borgstrom (who happens to be my coauthor on the EPG). Sooner or later, I'll get around to posting my In Nomine/Nobilis conversions. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:44:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Words for all! > Does anyone actively sell or support Nobilis? I developed an interest > in learning more about it but can't find it. The web site that > everyone points to doesn't mention it any more. > It was picked up by Hogshead a few months ago. The last I heard, they're doing a reorganization of the main sourcebook and then rereleasing it. I know she had all sorts of horrendous problems with Pharos and distribution, so maybe Hogshead will have more success with the game. Here's the press release: http://www.hogshead.demon.co.uk/NB_index.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emily K. Dresner -- http://www.nodonut.com/zenith Read No Donut -- Gaming, Politics, Conspiracy, Computers, and other fun stuff at http://www.nodonut.com/. Hitherby looks exactly like a butterfly in celestial form, except that she has fewer wings, no antennae, her body is shaped differently, she has no legs, she stuns mortals, she has lots of eyes, she has lots of hands and mouths, and she floats rather than flutters. Hitherby says "But other than that, the resemblance is remarkable." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:06:49 +0100 From: Dave Taylor Subject: IN> Question - Vessels & death Thanks for all the replies guys. As it goes, i'm going to opt for the vessel = corpse option, but with the following modifications at character creation, the PC may opt for a few 'extras' with their vessel for an additional 1/5 vessel cost (min 1), vessel vanishes immediately upon death (in an appropo manner, such as Servitors of Fire consumed by flames, Stone get swallowed by the earth, Death crumble to skeletons and then to dust) this gives a 'deniable' aspect to the servitors operations, but means they must be V careful about not dying in front of the public. for an additional 1/4 vessel cost, it does the above, but in doing so inflicts (Vessel Level)D6 body hits on anyone with Corp Forces feet. Anyone who's seen UK Channel 4's Ultraviolet will understand. for an additional 1/3 vessel cost, the vessel simply vanishes at the first unobserved opportunity (ie in a morgue freezer). Note on my campaign: Whilst not a high intervention campaign (see GMG) I tend to make the miraculous and supernatural, well, Miraculous and Supernatural. - -- Long is the way, and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light - John Milton - Paradise Lost ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:00:15 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Humans and words Here's my take on the humans with words debate.... Pro's: A:) A human with a word is not entirely unheard of in Catholicism as Saint Christopher is the Patron Saint of Travellers and George Patron Saint of England...and among other things...Dragon Slaying. My guess is that Saints are able to "aid" word bearers in a great deal of matters. Con's: Aside from what people said about consistancy of spirit (I sincerely doubt that) A:) Words are given to the oldest most proven angels... That basically means in most angel's case...several hundred years at the least of Good service to a particular concept. I doubt words are granted out every day...and if they are it's mainly because Dominic keeps such a consistantly spotless filing system of "Did goods" and "Did Bads" The whole mortality thing is a big turn off but after death...true not so much. B:) Are Angels actually part of the Symphony brought to life or are they seperate beings? This is a big question as it raises the point that Angels aren't so much "given" a word as they are "reinserted" in a particular place in the Symphony and allowed to keep their sentience. Like you are a generic "A key" but your now an "A" key after D minor. God is setting his symphony in order after someone had the band recruited from the local high schools. Thoughts? - -Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:12:19 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Angels and Religeous Patronage >Yes, I understand that K. backs G. The question was, does >he believe in the Qu'ran in the Library or the one on Earth? >Which version? No doubt if he supports Gabrielle he believes the one that she dictated to Mohammed. Otherwise she'd be like an angel whose word is "The Bible" who changes around the text to make it more patable to a modern audience (Jesus had a harem, his apostles were sword swinging knights, and he slew an army of vampires with a cute blonde sidekick) to Dominic. I wonder if Dominic supports the Yves version (I keep seeing Angels carrying copies of Bibles that say "Yves version" at the bottom ala King James) or is just using it as an excuse to mess with Gabrielle. Another note that Gabrielle also started *ANOTHER* religeon before Christianity and Judaism as Zarathustra supposadly had an angel dictate his beliefs to him as well....in my mind since Fire is such a component of Zorastrianism "Gaby" (she must hate that nickname) probably did that one too. Mithraism just screams Michael's interference and in my mind Michael *IS* Mithras....likely it was the warrior mysteries competing with Christianity that caused Dominic to try the old boy more than his trophy taking in my mind. I also think at least a few angels are Mormons and simply believe the angel Moroni was recalled to higher heavens... (though to be perfectly irreverent as many of my closest friends are mormons and the religeon truly has fostered great unity...the name of the angel stinks of Kobal's doing) - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:23:05 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Re: Angels and Religeous Patronage On this note I'm curious if anyone thought there might be developing Angels going to become the Patron of Vedic religeons or Buddhism or would such an endeavor be seen as heretical by Dominic and the rest of the Angels of judgement etc. Plus Pyramid discussing explerated articles pointed people like Martin Luther met a mixed reaction in Heaven when they emerged. I'm curious if Angels might be working towards to become the Angel of Reformation and the like (given Lawrence's devotion to Catholicism and the like-likely such a move was extremely unpopular in Heaven). Certainly modern day addiction to ideals against the orginal message of the Master also makes firm breeding ground for Habbalah stories..hmmm... I wonder if the Reformation began in Heaven at all... - -Charlemagne Non denominational Christian guy studying to be a minister and wondering just how to wrap his cosmology for his game up... Hi ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:39:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Some Advice Please - --- mink wrote: > Some Advice Please. > > Once more i have fallen down in my head and i'm stumped on a few > things, so > i would greatly appreciate some help from who ever can give it. > 1) can an Etherial go in to heaven or hell? Ethereals can't get into Heaven or Hell without a Celestial to take them there... at least, according to canon. > 2) if god was just a Ether that found how to use the > symphony/celestial > realm, then would it be possible for an Ether to find how to use a > new realm > of existance? i ask this because i'm thinking of running a campaign > in the > 'Digital' realm, the true Digital realm, not the internet etc as > we/they > know it. it would be a kind of In Nomine/Matrix cross over hash > together > thingamybob. Hmmm... interesting campaign concept. In answer to the question, canon states that the *Ethereals* believe that God is just an ultra-powerful Ethereal who created the Celestial Realm when He achieved his current level of power. If that is the way things work in your campaign, then a really buff Ethereal could create another realm. If you go by canon, though, it's probably not possible. > 3) has any one tred to run a game that started in the 'dark ages' > then > brought it forward by a few centuries each installment? Can't help you there, my campaign's strictly modern day. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all of its students." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:55:56 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Baby Woes (Re: In Nomine Dice) At 8:02 -0400 5/20/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >Canonically, the process of redemption, culminating in the realignment of >Forces into angelic form by an Archangel, takes "as long as it takes." > >The actual realignment process does not have a stated time -- it's >whatever suits the GM's plotline, probably. (I wouldn't make itmore >than a week, myself; it's not so plausible that a Superior _could_ >spend more than that much time, really. At least in my mind.) I've been assuming the actual realignment process doesn't take very long (probably similar to creating a new reliever/angel, which also doesn't have a canonical time that I'm aware of). If I had to think about it, I'd say it only takes a few minutes to an hour or so. It's just *very* difficult for the recipient, and probably seems subjectively like a century or two. My own vision of the process is that the redeeming demon suffers through seeing every one of his faults and selfish acts replayed, as their motivating flaws are "burned away" by the Symphony. And they remember all this afterward.... It may actually all happen in a single gestalt instant of epiphany, but can only be remembered serially, so it seems like forever. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:28:45 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1635 At 8:40 -0400 5/21/00, Mary wrote: >Alright, I'm a little slow. What are the (possibly grevious) canon >implications of a human getting a word? I thought it would just be >generally annoying if they died in about 50 yrs, and that could be solved >by judicious use of the corporeal song entropy. It also has little bearing >on immediate game play. But it has immense implications in the cosmology (at least if you don't have any other Word-bound humans around). For one thing, it raises a lot of questions related to Lilith and her power in Hell -- if any random human can be Word-bound, then is Lilith really all that special? If so, how? Right now, in canon, a lot of her power is derived from her uniqueness, particularly her monopoly on Lilim creation. Would a Word-bound human be able to create Lilim (or something equivalent)? If not, why not? If you go from one Word-bound human (Lilith) to two (Lilith and the PC), that's an event of major significance in the Symphony, and should have all kinds of political fallout. Of course, if you postulate there are Word-bound humans already on every street corner (more or less), then the implications aren't all that Earth-shattering. You *will* have to explain Lilith in a somewhat different way than canon, probably. (I expect the canon on her unique abilities will be tied to her unique position as the only Word-bound human. This is not in any of the published material that I'm aware of, though it may be glancingly alluded to somewhere.) The main problem with Word-bound humans is that it really starts to blur the lines between humanity and celestials -- a distinction canon works hard to preserve in many ways. To some extent, this is a flavor issue. If you *like* having more of a continuum between humans and celestials in your game, then you probably *want* to postulate that there can be (and have been) Word-bound humans other than Lilith. The same issue drives the canon that there are no real hybrids between human and celestial -- yes, you can have some crossbreeding, but the result is always some type of human (I think that's the way canon is currently set, though the main book implies otherwise). You *never* get any kind of celestial from cross-breedings with humans. For similar reasons (and also GM sanity), you can't have cross-breed celestials -- there's no such thing in canon as a half-Seraph/half-Kyriotate, and I expect there never will be. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:45:54 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Question - Vessels & death At 18:06 -0400 5/21/00, Dave Taylor wrote: >at character creation, the PC may opt for a few 'extras' with their vessel ... Cute notions, though I'd probably get rid of the proportional cost -- the fact that the vessel does these things really has nothing to do with its level, and the beneficial effect is pretty much constant. So I'd use fixed costs for all of these. I'd probably charge a minimum of 3 points for any of the options you gave. >for an additional 1/5 vessel cost (min 1), vessel vanishes immediately >upon death (in an appropo manner, such as Servitors of Fire consumed by >flames, Stone get swallowed by the earth, Death crumble to skeletons and >then to dust) this gives a 'deniable' aspect to the servitors operations, >but means they must be V careful about not dying in front of the public. Given that this is "unnatural", I'd probably count this as a disturbance equivalent to going celestial or switching vessels. I.e., equal to Forces. >for an additional 1/4 vessel cost, it does the above, but in doing so >inflicts (Vessel Level)D6 body hits on anyone with Corp Forces feet. I'd probably want to charge about 8-10 for this "explosive self-destruct" feature -- that's a pretty powerful (albeit one-shot) capability, and one Malakim and Cherubim would be likely to exploit frequently. And most demons would probably think, "Hell, if I'm going to die, I might as well *hurt* the guy who kills me." So I expect it needs to be a bit more expensive, both in points and in-game (to discourage Princes from giving it out routinely). >for an additional 1/3 vessel cost, the vessel simply vanishes at the first >unobserved opportunity (ie in a morgue freezer). I'd be tempted to make this be tied to a Role; if you have the "vessel vanishes on death" feature, and the vessel was in a Role at the time of death, then the Role effect would kick in to make the death less noticable to the Symphony. Also, if the vessel died "in Role", then the vanishing vessel would *not* make disturbance (as I suggested above) if the Role roll is made. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:16:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1635 >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Non-member submission from [Tim Groth ] >Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:52:52 -0400 >From: Tim Groth >Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1635 >X-Apparently-From: SdshowTim@aol.com > >>> Alright, I'm a little slow. What are the (possibly grevious) canon >>> implications of a human getting a word? I thought it would just be >>> generally annoying if they died in about 50 yrs, and that could be solved >>> by judicious use of the corporeal song entropy. It also has little >>bearing >>> on immediate game play. >> >>The Canon implication is this: >> >>If a Human gets a Word.... you're not playing Canon anymore. > >If Lucifer does it implies he has a (semi-)reliable way of giving humans >word. If the Seraphim council does it it means they figured out how to do >it. If God does it then it means that what ever Lucifer did it wasn't >something God wanted to never have happen. > >If they were also a Superior then people would be looking to see if they >gained a resonance and could make celestials like Lilith could. If they >were just a normal Word-bound people would expect them to not be able to >make celestials, but may watch to see how their Word powers manifest. > > > >Timothy, Angel of Rambling >Ofanite of Creation >ArchRival of Mathus > Here's the s-u-b-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-o-n data... send mail to with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe in_nomine-l your@address.here (Note, that's _your_ address. Someone tried to subscribe with _my_ address. It doesn't work very well that way.) You can also subscribe to other lists, by substituting their name for the in_nomine-l in the formula above. The others are: in_nomine-digest (digest form of the list) in_nomine_posters-l (which will allow you to post without being bounced; use this if you read the digest on the web, or if you post from different addresses. If you send the subscription request (for any of these) from an address other than the one being subscribed, I have to approve it by hand, and it will take longer. Otherwise, you should have the ability to post within an hour.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:26:56 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! At 11:22 -0400 5/22/00, Andrew Hackard wrote: >What y'all have to keep in mind is that SJ Games is not in the dice >business. Chessex can sell tons of different dice because . . . well, >because they can sell tons of different dice. Also because they make the >dice themselves. We're going to have to contract with someone else to make >our dice for us, which adds to the expense; therefore, we're going to have >to do everything we can to keep the costs down. That means that we're >probably looking at solid colors, not mottled or marbled or whatever, and >it probably means that it will be easier to do one design for all the dice. What about licensing Chessex to do the dice, as was done (I seem to recall) with the INWO dice set (actually a little package of several things useful in INWO, include a pair of dice)? I'd assume the main stumbling block would be whether they'd think the license was worthwhile (IN sales being what they are), and whether the dice would be "cool" enough to sell to non-INers. (Chessex certainly has a market for "weird" dice, so that might upsize the production run enough to be helpful. And they certainly have the technology.) >Incidentally, putting the same symbol on the 1 face for some dice and the 6 >face for others is a very bad idea from an in-game perspective. YES! I meant to comment on that myself, but forgot. "Is that a 1 or a 6 -- right, that's a green die, so it must be a 6...." This will become especially nightmarish if both types of dice are produced in multiple colors. >>Choir/band symbols as the pips might be cool, although >>getting them to look good that small would be difficult. > >You'd have to print them on the dice, not incise them. (Which, actually, is >almost certainly true of *any* icon we pick; the only one that *might* be >inciseable is the IN cross, and even that would lose some detail.) I thought all modern dice were done with some sort of two-stage injection process, like keyboard keycaps. Wear and tear is almost certain to obliterate any sort of printed symbols on dice, unless there's some kind of transparent overcoating of plastic (which would be roughly comparable to a two-stage injection process). Although now that I look at my Powerbook keyboard, it's clear that the letters there are printed on, not molded in, so maybe this can be done relatively durably these days. >Please remember that dice are SMALL; the symbols just can't be too >intricate or you'll lose all that detail when you reduce them to dice-size. Right. I was suspicious about the feather, for that reason. Unless you could do it in color (Chessex might be able to hack that), it would look kind of lame, I suspect. >All the dice will have the same faces. These will be: > >1: the IN cross (or the burning feather, though I doubt it'll look > good that small) >2-5: pips I'd be *very* tempted to use Skreetch Caps numerals, rather than pips. Lots of dice have pips, how many dice have funky font numerals? I'd expect that would have some effect on sales to non-INers, just for the coolness factor. >6: a suitably demonic-looking *numeral* SJ's "bal-6" would probably work OK, though I'd miss having the wings on the serpent. Another option would be a bat-winged "6" -- I think bat wings are sufficiently simply to represent that they'd be distinct at the size required. (And you might get some cross-over sales to the Goth crowd....) Another notion: it may be relatively easy to "layer" colors into a die, sort of like a parfait. Since the "1" and "6" faces are opposite, you could pour a thin layer of one color for the "1" face (maybe blue), a thick layer taking up most of the die, in a neutral color (gray, white, or maybe black), which would be the dominant background for the "2"-"5" faces, and a thin layer of a third color for the "6" face (probably red). A check die would use a different neutral body color. Or you could do three dice types (same mold): Angelic die: Blue "1" face, white main body, red "6" face check die: same, but gray main body Demonic die: same, but black body Or to save on multiple colors: Angelic die: Blue "1"-"5" faces, red "6" face check die: tri-color die with gray body, or (cheaper) a one-color gray die Demonic die: Blue "1" face, red for the remainder The second option above (2- and 1-color dice) would definitely require special symbology on the "1" and "6" faces for Interventions to be obvious; the tri-color dice could, in theory, be done with a standard mold, but they'd lose some "coolness factor". You might want to check with Ann DuPuis -- she had special dice made for FUDGE, and I don't think they were all *that* expensive. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:54:54 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Redemption (Re: Baby Woes) At 5:55 PM -0400 5/22/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 8:02 -0400 5/20/00, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>Canonically, the process of redemption, culminating in the realignment of >>Forces into angelic form by an Archangel, takes "as long as it takes." >> >>The actual realignment process does not have a stated time -- it's >>whatever suits the GM's plotline, probably. (I wouldn't make itmore >>than a week, myself; it's not so plausible that a Superior _could_ >>spend more than that much time, really. At least in my mind.) > >I've been assuming the actual realignment process doesn't take very long >(probably similar to creating a new reliever/angel, which also doesn't >have a canonical time that I'm aware of). If I had to think about it, >I'd say it only takes a few minutes to an hour or so. I'd probably include "redemption afterglow" in that -- the duration that a Superior spends waiting for the new angel to assimilate the experience enough to become at least mildly functional again. (Which may or may not include a hysterical sobbing after-shock reaction, etc., depending on the celestial and what he/she did; it almost certainly involves a period of "IT'S SO BIG!" (and/or "it's full of stars....") while the new angel adapts to the Whole Flipping Symphony using its celetial skull as its personal dance floor. (Some of my personal assumptions figure it's common for some redeemed (especially if it was a "rough redemption") to "pass out." I.e., be so taken up with the Symphony aferwards as to be unaware of lesser disturbances, such as PCs coming and poking them in the wings, going "Um, you okay there now?") - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap and no computer desk -- the keyboard shares the lap, and the trackball sits on a pile of GURPS books. I want the computer desk back! Moving is a hassle. (PS: may be typing with 1 hand, or even toe! Please forgive capitalization.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:45:04 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Some Advice Please At 17:39 -0400 5/22/00, Michael Walton wrote: > Hmmm... interesting campaign concept. In answer to the question, >canon states that the *Ethereals* believe that God is just an >ultra-powerful Ethereal who created the Celestial Realm when He >achieved his current level of power. If that is the way things work in >your campaign, then a really buff Ethereal could create another realm. >If you go by canon, though, it's probably not possible. It's *possible* by canon, but it will change things in some ways. In canon IN, it's *not known* whether God is a hopped-up ethereal or not. Celestials, in general, don't believe he is, but it *is* a matter of belief. Many ethereals do believe it, or at least like to profess that belief. So if that happens, it pretty much nails down the question, "Is God an Ethereal?" with the answer "Yes." Canon answers the question "We don't believe so" for celestials, and "Yes!" for most ethereal gods. The fallout from that probably *will* diverge the campaign from canon (which is going to refuse to answer the question definitively), but it's not *forbidden* in canon. The typical GM may or may not have decided the question in his own game (I haven't in mine, though I probably lean toward the notion that God is, indeed, what He claims.) A game where it's *not* true won't diverge much from canon - -- it's pretty much the status quo, except the ethereals are lying through their teeth, for the sake of their egos. (Which is what most celestials believe, anyway.) A game where it is true, and has been known to be true for a long time, will be *very* non-canon, since it intrinsically makes the War a three-sided thing, with the ethereal side very weak, and probably playing the two strong sides against each other. A game where it has been a matter of belief (God is not an ethereal), and suddenly becomes a matter of fact (that he is), should send massive political shockwaves through both celestial camps, and probably massive doubt and angst waves through the angelic side. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:59:23 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! At 7:26 PM -0400 5/22/00, Walter Milliken wrote: >I'd be *very* tempted to use Skreetch Caps numerals, rather than pips. >Lots of dice have pips, how many dice have funky font numerals? I'd >expect that would have some effect on sales to non-INers, just for the >coolness factor. Go A step further, just make a die w/ skreetch Caps? Might sell to many more people that way -- more generiv, but still IN. I still like the idea og an all-pips die w/ a halo arouns yje 1-dot, and a Bsalseraph face around the 6dots. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap and no computer desk -- the keyboard shares the lap, and the trackball sits on a pile of GURPS books. I want the computer desk back! Moving is a hassle. (PS: may be typing with 1 hand, or even toe! Please forgive capitalization.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:52:42 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Baby Woes (Re: In Nomine Dice) IMC, the demon has to literally let go of everything it has clutched to in its entire life. Every single little thing, every hidden part in it has to be bared to the true Symphony. And that hurts. A lot. I imagine it's like being torn apart, burned away or even _scraped_ until there's nothing left but the barest essence of ego and identity. If the demon can let go, they can survive. Otherwise, the tearing rays of the Light of Heaven leave nothing behind as the demon's forces cling to its 'personal Symphony'. It's very hard to throw yourself into a process that seems to be literally eating you alive when all your instincts say to get away, to protect yourself. I agree that the actual process, however, probably only takes a minute (or less, IMO). Kinda like in the movie, _Jacob's Ladder_ where the protaganist only spends a short amount of time on the operating table... - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:34:18 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! >>1: the IN cross (or the burning feather, though I doubt it'll look good that small) 2-5: pips 6: a suitably demonic-looking *numeral* So if you get three crosses, you know you rolled a 111. And the 666, well, there will be NO doubt that something bad has just happened.<< Nice. I vote for the feather. And I can live with pips given a 666 for the demonic number... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:30:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "David M. Barr" Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! >From: Elizabeth McCoy >>Walter Milliken wrote: >>I'd be *very* tempted to use Skreetch Caps >>numerals, rather than pips. >>Lots of dice have pips, how many dice have funky >>font numerals? I'd expect that would have some >>effect on sales to non-INers, just for the >coolness factor. >Go A step further, just make a die w/ skreetch >Caps? Might sell to many >more people that way -- more generic, but still >IN. I still like the idea og an all-pips die w/ a halo arouns yje 1-dot, and a Bsalseraph face around the 6dots. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:10:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "David M. Barr" Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! (with apologies, for the last post) having already made a statement of apology to our beloved and merciful list admin Djinn princess, allow me to take a brief moment to make a public apolgy for sending a message without new or meaningful content. It was a mistake I will work to make surenever occurs again. Elizabetth McCoy wrote: Walter Milliken wrote: >>I'd be *very* tempted to use Skreetch Caps >>numerals, rather than pips. >>Lots of dice have pips, how many dice have funky >>font numerals? I'd expect that would have some >>effect on sales to non-INers, just for the >>coolness factor. >Go A step further, just make a die w/ skreetch >Caps? Might sell to many more people that way -- >more generic, but still IN. I would suggest that that strikes the appropriate baance between IN specific Coolness and generic everyday gamer coolness that would make this a worthwhile (ie, saleable) product. Also, this does allow for different color combinations with a minimuim of fuss. Many color sets would be cool. >I still like the idea og an all-pips die w/ a >halo arouns yje 1-dot, and a Bsalseraph face >around the 6dots. Yeah, I agree. But are non IN gamers going to get the point / joke? I mean, in order to understand that, they would have to go out and buy the IN ruleboo... Oh. I humbly bow scrape and defer to the infinite wisdom and forsight of our Beloved Line Editor Demon ArchPrincess Iolanthes mommy. - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:13:48 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Words for all! Our spies report that on 12:49 PM 5/22/00 -0500, David Edelstein said: >Sean McCarthy wrote: > > > > Someone, I forget who, suggest a campaign where every Celestial > had a> Word. Be aware that we're taking a big left turn off the road of > canon here. > > >If you really wanted to run a more mythic sort of campaign where the >only celestials on Earth are major powers (i.e., Worded), I'd recommend >Nobilis more than In Nomine, actually. Valid point, I recently picked that game up. But I had a much more comical take in mind. Though it does occur to me now that it would make an excellent con game for Toon...but it could have possibilities with In Nomine itself --- it is just a lighter, sillier version that can use essentially the same rules. No serious new rules are needed to account for the kind of new-pc Words I had in mind. If there are many celestials and each is worded, many would (in this theory) have extremely trivial Words. That's why it doesn't work in canonical IN where giving a Word isn't done trivially in Heaven or /frequently trivially/ in Hell. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:10:46 -0400 From: "J. Michael Smith" Subject: IN> Losing Superiors What happens to a superior's servitors when that superior gets killed? (Especially when an obvious replacement is not available.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:52:19 CDT From: "Wade Hursman" Subject: Re: IN> Losing Superiors >What happens to a superior's servitors when that superior gets >killed? (Especially when an obvious replacement is not available.) In canon there are several options that I'm aware of. 1: They fall/redeem. 2: They go renegade/outcast. (The Tsayadim, Angels of Purity) 3: They hang loose until they fall/redeem or find a Superior that they like. 4: They continue to support the word that they had served, until they are forgotten, destroyed, etc. (One of Lucifer's servitors pre-Fall still cares for the Cathedral of Light). Wade Habbalite of Technology, Demon of Telemarketing ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:30:13 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Losing Superiors - --On Mon, May 22, 2000 20:52 +0000 Wade Hursman wrote: > 4: They continue to support the word that they had served, until they > are forgotten, destroyed, etc. (One of Lucifer's servitors pre-Fall > still cares for the Cathedral of Light). That sounds like a very, very lonely job. Marc. Just Marc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:37:07 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Losing Superiors >From: "Wade Hursman" > >>What happens to a superior's servitors when that superior gets >>killed? (Especially when an obvious replacement is not available.) > > >In canon there are several options that I'm aware of. > >1: They fall/redeem. >2: They go renegade/outcast. (The Tsayadim, Angels of Purity) >3: They hang loose until they fall/redeem or find a Superior that they >like. >4: They continue to support the word that they had served, until they are >forgotten, destroyed, etc. (One of Lucifer's servitors pre-Fall still >cares >for the Cathedral of Light). > I'd imagine that other superiors also step up a recruiting effort. Esp. if the deceased kept a very hierarchical structure, all you'd need to do is persuade a few of the highest ranking servitors to join you, and they'd bring most of their minions with them. It's a bit different for demons (who probably shout "Wha-hey!", break their hearts, and take extended holidays Earthside), but it doesn't come naturally for most angels to not have a Superior. If another one showed a sympathetic interest, many 'orphans' wouldn't need too long to think about it. jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:52:17 +1000 From: "Leath Sheales" Subject: RE: IN> Losing Superiors Jo wrote: > I'd imagine that other superiors also step up a recruiting > effort. Esp. if > the deceased kept a very hierarchical structure, all you'd need to do is > persuade a few of the highest ranking servitors to join you, and they'd > bring most of their minions with them. It's a bit different for > demons (who > probably shout "Wha-hey!", break their hearts, and take extended holidays > Earthside), but it doesn't come naturally for most angels to not have a > Superior. If another one showed a sympathetic interest, many 'orphans' > wouldn't need too long to think about it. As a side note, this will actually be happening in my game soon, with a twist. Belial learns from a source that Gabriel has weakened herself adn fled to an area in the Marches to recover. Being a selfish, angry being, he immediately cuts off all his servitors from their rites (so he can have all the essence to himself) and heads off to kill her. Unfortunately he disappears and Gabriel is seen roaming the earth again. Since the 'standard' way of telling if your Superior is gone is to check if your rites work, no Servitor of Fire has a clue what's going on. In the aftermath there will be a lot of earthside extended holidays and a power struggle in Hell to suck up as many servitors as possible. The demons of Fire will have a great time to begin, and will revel in destruction as L.A. suddenly burns to the ground, flocking there like flies to faeces. That is, until they learn that Gabriel and David have decided to destroy L.A. as an example to all demonkind and wicked humans. By the time Gabriel's finished, demons of Fire will be a rare breed indeed. All of which leads me nicely into Armageddon. Leath. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:22:37 +1000 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> some more gibberings... > > But there are many more demons than angels. > > Uh...other way around, by a two-to-one margin. No, there are many more Demons than Angels. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 05:20:52 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN Dice - reroll! At 6:10 PM -0700 5/22/00, David M. Barr wrote: >>Go A step further, just make a die w/ skreetch >>Caps? Might sell to many more people that way -- >>more generic, but still IN. >I would suggest that that strikes the appropriate baance >between IN specific Coolness and generic everyday gamer >coolness that would make this a worthwhile (ie, saleable) >product. >Also, this does allow for different color combinations >with a minimuim of fuss. Many color sets would be cool. Verily, yeah. >>I still like the idea og an all-pips die w/ a >halo >arouns yje 1-dot, and a Bsalseraph face >around the >6dots. >Yeah, I agree. But are non IN gamers going to get the >point / joke? I mean, in order to understand that, >they would have to go out and buy the IN ruleboo... >Oh. >I humbly bow scrape and defer to the infinite wisdom >and forsight of our Beloved Line Editor Demon ArchPrincess >Iolanthe's mommy. Exactly. The trick would be to have the dice look entertaining enough that people really wanted to know what game they were designed for -- but if their bump of curiosity was soft, they'd buy the dice anyway. (Move that stock, moveitout!) This version would also have the advantage that even if the printing wore off, it would still have pips to read. (My purse is a hostile environment for dice, y'see. Only the strongest shall survive, and they have incised numerals or pips, not printed.) (Heck, I cracked a die once. And you don't want to know what my poor Chaosium 20-siders look like. (Moulting Marbles...)) - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. But now with a computer desk! Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1640 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.