From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Jan 3 15:07:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA30581 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:07:46 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA13633 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:06:38 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:06:38 -0600 Message-Id: <200101032106.PAA13633@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 #2002 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, January 3 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2002 In this digest: Re: IN> New character- "J.I" Re: IN> The Angels of Math Re: IN> Whistling's Aeons Re: Whistling's Aeons (was Re: IN> I've got an idea...) Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone IN> Relics and Character Points Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Dead Presidents Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Re: IN> That weird pen-artifact... Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Dead Presidents Re: IN> Whistling's Aeons Re: IN> Relics and Character Points Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence IN> Fwd: Servitor Attunement Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone IN> The Media shows it's horns again... Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:05:30 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> New character- "J.I" Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:22:51 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> New character- "J.I" :- --- Charles Phipps wrote:> J.I.> :Soldier of Yves (for now) : Grrrrrr... once again, Moe comes up with something :that I wishI'd thought of. : Good work, mate. I liked this a lot. O:> Sorry, this one was Charles. True, he often manages to anticipate me, but this one was all his. BTW, I liked J.I. as well. :) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 11/25/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:09:13 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> The Angels of Math Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:20:27 -0500From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Angels of Math Subtle. When do we get to see the AA of Math? I vote for Elohite, myself (binary is so... straightforward). Kyrio for second choice (imagine possessing the entire Internet!): that way, you can call it Colossus or UNIVACiel or something... No, sorry, getting silly there. :) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 11/25/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:32:22 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Whistling's Aeons Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:24:11 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Whistling's Aeons At 1:27 PM -0800 1/2/01, Maurice Lane wrote:> >> >Aeons> >>I don't think that I saw this before. It's neat. :) >I'd never posted it. I was working on it as a >possible Pyramid article, and adapted it to some >private commentary. I'd tinkered a while with it, and >it was as developed as I was going to go with it. Put it to music and I'll sing along. :) >So, what's the parameters of this daily event?- -- Simple: look at the current date on the IN Calendar, muse on it for a while and see what it sparks. Anything goes, I'd say, as long as it's IN-related. If it's going to be the last IN published material that we'll be getting in the foreseeable future, _I_ for one am planning to wring it dry... Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 11/25/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:19:25 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: Whistling's Aeons (was Re: IN> I've got an idea...) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:22:45 -0500 From: "Eric Bertish" Subject: Re: Whistling's Aeons (was Re: IN> I've got an idea...) >>But you know who's happiest about the fact that >>there aren't any fallen ones? >>Saminga. >>After all, "when strange Aeons pass, even Death may >>die." >Okay, I'll hold Jason down. The rest of you can >pummel him senseless. What, you expect us to use blunt objects? Hmmm... people believe in the Necronomicon, now that I think about it. Not believe very much, I grant, but it does has some associated with it. I wonder if it could manifest as some sort of an ethereal... (brightly) Thanks, Jason! (/brightly) ;) Moe ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 11/25/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 22:14:16 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone "Rev. Pee Kitty" wrote: > > I dunno. I could see an angel of Stone grinning at a demon and pointing > > at his chin. "Go ahead....take your one free shot. Please." > > Yes, that's a clear case of the angel taunting the demon into a fight. > Seems fair to me, too. > > But the case listed was a bird that the demon would NOT know as an angel, > landing on his shoulder... and the demon harmlessly swats the bird away, > as anyone would do. That isn't taunting, or even baiting... that's total > deception, trying to find a loophole, IMO. > You are absolutely right; Indeed, that was part of the nature of my question in the first place. The dissonance condition states that they cannot throw the first punch... or, rather, the first attack. There is nothing in there about not acting with deception. This is, after all, not Lawrence nor Dominic (both of whom I think would have more issues with acting deceptively). But the question that remains unanswered, and largely unaddressed... Can a Kyriotate respond to an attack on one host with another, without incurring dissonance? Regardless of the circumstances of the attack, is the attack against the Host or the Kyriotate, for the purposes of dissonance? Now, let me suggest something else... A demon is walking down the street. A bird lands on its shoulder, and says* "hi, I am an Angel." Demon swats at the bird. Statue shows up, shortly, and says "...Serving the Divine Granite Master." and mayhem ensues. No deception, there. Is it Dissonant? - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:17:12 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: IN> Relics and Character Points I was trying to write up the Sailor Team, now that I've been happily reunited with my books, when a question came upon me: How am I going to pay for all this stuff? With normal GURPS equipment, it's generally simple for a starting character. Either it's paid for yourself, out of your starting wealth, or you got it, say, from a Patron, for 10 points added to the cost of the Patron. Or an Unusual Background cost, if the equipment isn't available in the standard game world. And granted, either or both of these could apply to a collection of teenage Soldiers fighting for the Heavenly Host against evil sorcerors on otherwise modern-day Earth. But in this case, things are a little... you know... wacked. Now, I could just abandon any possibility of making the Sailor Team point-balanced, and this may yet occur. But y'all have some realistic rules for character creation that I'd like to follow if possible, and this seems to me to be a hole, not only in G:IN, but the base system itself. Maybe the question's answered somewhere, in which case if you could just point me to it I'll be on my way: can starting characters get unusual equipment for expenditure of character points, and if so, what's the conversion? Example: I'd think Jean's communicators for the group are easy. They're two-way radios, and the benefits of being visual are matched by, say, only being able to hear the others in the set. So, convert into modern-day funds(say, $100), match against a teenager's normal budget as a "monthly income"(Serena's constantly spending -- or rather, having spent -- her allowance, maybe $10/week), and convert to character points re p. 83, for 2.5 pts apiece. Eli's henshin wands, on the other hand, are a lot harder to figure out. They're relic/reliquaries which can contain up to 2 Essence, and for 1 Essence(from within or externally) they use a preprogrammed version of his Transubstantiation attunement* to change normal clothing into a Sailor suit with all the characteristics of the Second Chance Hardcorps system, except considerably lighter and more flexible, (*deep breath* *counts commas*) or back. So... 30 pts. for Transub ..times, say, 10%*2 for being for two specified uses only ..plus being reliquary at 2 which the characters couldn't get if not Soldiers... I dunno, 10 points maybe? ..resulting in something slightly better than a $425 object in the available equipment list, for a person who makes $40/month and would spend 10.5 character points to get the basic object cash)... 30 points sounds good if I include the latter... 20 points if the resulting object isn't a consideration.** Now, the points for this specific group are not that big a thang. Like I've shown above, I have some rough estimates and feel okay with them and feel okay with not exactly point-balancing anyway. A lot of this post has mainly been rambling around the question which may, indeed, come into serious scrutiny as I play GURPS or G:IN - the value of starting equipment, with additional comments on equipment particular to IN (which probably have different difficulties to come by for Soldiers and celestials). That's what I'd like to hear about. William *I guess the armor's organic... dragon silk, maybe? **Am I obsessed? Of course. The question is, am I point-balanced? ***I think I need to get C1, any day now. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2001 06:31:22 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:01:35 -0500 Eric Bertish wrote: [snip] >Me, I'd rule it as baiting, and slap you silly with Dissonance. > >Yes, technically, you didn't attack. *Technically*. I don't see David as the >type who tolerates sea-lawyering. see, that's odd, because i see Stone as second only to War when it comes to taunting a foe into a fight, and i don't see it as dissonant--think of arrogant gangs facing off and tossing barbs until someone throws a punch. that's how i see 'em (them & Windies...). "Next to hydrogen, stupidity is the most common element in the universe." --Harlan Ellison ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2001 07:03:12 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 22:14:16 -0800 Daiv wrote: [snip] >Demon swats at the bird. > Statue shows up, shortly, and says "...Serving the Divine Granite >Master." and mayhem ensues. > No deception, there. Is it Dissonant? i don't think it's dissonant, no. highly amusing, though :) -=|horsefly|=- "It was a different time: a time of blood and guns and killings.... It was a time when killers needed saints, for so much of God's good work was being done." --SAINT OF KILLERS #4, Garth Ennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:33:28 -0800 From: "Phillip Des Jardins" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone > > But the case listed was a bird that the demon would NOT know as an angel, > > landing on his shoulder... and the demon harmlessly swats the bird away, > > as anyone would do. That isn't taunting, or even baiting... that's total > > deception, trying to find a loophole, IMO. > > > You are absolutely right; Indeed, that was part of the nature of my > question in the first place. The dissonance condition states that they > cannot throw the first punch... or, rather, the first attack. There is > nothing in there about not acting with deception. This is, after all, > not Lawrence nor Dominic (both of whom I think would have more issues > with acting deceptively). > But the question that remains unanswered, and largely unaddressed... > Can a Kyriotate respond to an attack on one host with another, without > incurring dissonance? Regardless of the circumstances of the attack, is > the attack against the Host or the Kyriotate, for the purposes of dissonance? > Now, let me suggest something else... A demon is walking down the > street. A bird lands on its shoulder, and says* "hi, I am an Angel." > Demon swats at the bird. > Statue shows up, shortly, and says "...Serving the Divine Granite > Master." and mayhem ensues. > No deception, there. Is it Dissonant? I'd say not, although I'd also say it's risking Choir dissonance if he does it too often. Demons can be powerful, after all. One of them might just total the bird. I imagine most superiors would dissaprove of hearing their Kyriotate servitor was using hosts as (pardon the expressioN) clay pigeons. -Phillip DesJardins, Mercurian of Eli in service to Novalis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 08:03:38 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone At 12:28 AM 1/3/01 -0500, you wrote: >But the case listed was a bird that the demon would NOT know as an angel, >landing on his shoulder... and the demon harmlessly swats the bird away, >as anyone would do. That isn't taunting, or even baiting... that's total >deception, trying to find a loophole, IMO. ... I'm sorry, but would you point me to the place in the rules where it says that the demon has to know I'm an angel before I can attack him? Although I find the concept of celestials going around with little stickers on their lapels reading "Hi, I'm a _Kyriotate_ of _Stone_", or whatever, I don't think it's particularly reasonable, and besides, not knowing who you're fighting sometimes is kind of part of the /point/ of the game, IMO. 1) Demons have to be careful. Never assume anything. What would happen if a man in the subway accidentally stumbled against a demon (because the train stopped suddenly, or whatever), the demon shoved the man away, the man shoved back, and a fight ensued - if the man were an angel of Stone? 2) Kyriotates can be real b*st*rds when they want to be. What if the angel-bird landed on the demon's shoulder, the demon attacked it (i.e. knocked it away), and the /bird/ attacked back? If there's no dissonance there, then why is there dissonance if the angel switches to a human host, or has one handily already inhabited? - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 10:34:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone I really don't see trickery as un-Stony. It may not be the kind of thing that readily occurs to David, but I don't see him finding it objectionable. As to whether a Stone Kyrio can use one host to retaliate against an attack on another host, I'd say absolutely. First of all, Kyrios gotta protect their hosts. Second, Stonies are, I believe, allowed to retaliate on attacks against teammates (solidarity being a big part of the Word), and your other host is AT LEAST a teammate. Finally, whatever body it is, it's still an attack on the Kyrio. My right hand is allowed to take umbrage on attacks on my left, after all. Earl ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2001 15:40:11 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:33 Phillip Des Jardins wrote: [snip] >I'd say not, although I'd also say it's risking Choir dissonance if he does >it too often. Demons can be powerful, after all. One of them might just >total the bird. I imagine most superiors would dissaprove of hearing their >Kyriotate servitor was using hosts as (pardon the expressioN) clay pigeons. agreed. i'd assumed in the example that if the Kyriotate's bird vessal was blasted, he'd use Corporeal Healing on the bird *first,* then switch to his human or stone or whatever other vessal(s) to retaliate against the demon. -=|horsefly|=- God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:55:00 -0500 From: "Jason F. McBrayer" Subject: Re: IN> Dead Presidents On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:56:02PM -0800, Maurice Lane wrote: > The front runner was, until quite recently, a spirit masquerading as > the martyred John F. Kennedy: he had made some inroads as an avatar > of the Sacred King, killed for his people and his blood shed to > rejuvenate the land. That's funny. It's especially funny if the original JFK is a bodhisattva. It's even funnier if either or both of them knows about NJ, Saint of War. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@carcosa.net | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:10:10 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Fatigue not-equal Essence. Essence is Essence, and Fatigue is > Fatigue. [...] > If that does not help, then I fear I'll need the question restated. No, it doesn't, so here's the restatement: A few weeks ago, I submitted a post on "Historical Magic" to the IN list. I thought I might work it up into an article and submit it to Pyramid. I thought it might increase the appeal of the article to make it more generalized, so I thought I would give the costs of the different spells in both IN Essence and GURPS Fatigue. So, to restate the question: What are typical spell/Song costs for low-, medium-, and high-powered SFX in IN Essence, GURPS Fatigue, and, while we're at it, D&D Spell Points? Thanks. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:10:44 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> That weird pen-artifact... At 8:10 PM -0500 1/2/01, William J. Keith wrote: >>Probably because one of my characters spends much of her spare time >>trying to forget the Ofanite of Revelation who's hanging around the >>area. That and the 666 she got when she lied and told him she was >>human. Because for several hours, till the 111, she WAS human... > >Now *this* is a darned interesting statement -- let me get it straight. An >Ofanite of Revelation lied, No -- the Lilim Renegade lied _to_ the Ofanite of Revelation, because she knew that Revelation Servitors can't keep their mouths shut, and she'd like to not be known as a Renegade demon in geased service to Lightning. (He's a very young Ofanite, and the notion that someone might _lie_ to him is kind of weird.) She rolled a 666 on her Lying skill, with the statment, "I'm human," and got bonged into a uber-powerful version of Asmodeus' Humanity attunement. She couldn't access her resonance, among other problems. And she was hungry. And had No Idea what the problem was. Then later she got a 111 and spotted a hitch-hiker. Eli. Who gave her a granola bar of goodness which apparently fixed things. >that there is actually a canon way that an angel can become human? She's not an angel (yet), and it's perfectly canon -- the GM gets to do what the GM feels is appropriate. Further, Asmodeus has the Humanity attunement already, and the GM felt that Lucifer's powers could easily extend to dumping something like that on someone himself. If she'd gone to sleep, the GM informed me, she would probably have been in Beleth's side. In a dreamscape. Eep, eep! Fortunately, the duration was only a few hours, because of the 111. (My first 666 and 111 for that character! In the same game! Within a real-time hour of each other!) - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:18:07 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone At 10:14 PM -0800 1/2/01, Daiv wrote: >"Rev. Pee Kitty" wrote: > Can a Kyriotate respond to an attack on one host with another, without >incurring dissonance? Regardless of the circumstances of the attack, is >the attack against the Host or the Kyriotate, for the purposes of dissonance? I believe the APG has something in it regarding Cherubim of Stone being able to respond to an attack upon their attuned -- I would not see this as any _less_ connected, so sure. A Kyriotate of Stone can respond to an attack in any and all hosts/vessels it has handy. It is, after all, one angel. > Now, let me suggest something else... A demon is walking down the >street. A bird lands on its shoulder, and says* "hi, I am an Angel." >Demon swats at the bird. > Statue shows up, shortly, and says "...Serving the Divine Granite >Master." and mayhem ensues. > No deception, there. Is it Dissonant? Probably only if the bird is killed, in my games. Other GMs are quite free to rule otherwise -- the duration of time between the swat and the statue might figure into their (and my) calculations of such, for instance. - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:55:32 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Dead Presidents At 8:56 PM -0800 1/2/01, Maurice Lane wrote: >January 2, 2001. I could have kept up -- I could have! -- but a particularly unpleasant bug has me doing horrible things in porcelin or half-sleeping in fever dreams. Not that the latter isn't good for IN inspiration, but typing is tough. So take it, Moe. And good luck. Nice seed. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:57:08 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Whistling's Aeons At 9:32 PM -0800 1/2/01, Maurice Lane wrote: >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:24:11 -0500 > > >Simple: look at the current date on the IN Calendar, >muse on it for a while and see what it sparks. >Anything goes, I'd say, as long as it's IN-related. >If it's going to be the last IN published material >that we'll be getting in the foreseeable future, _I_ >for one am planning to wring it dry... Ahhh... the calendar I don't have... they sold out at my FLGS, and promised to set one aside for me when they got more, but as of yet they haven't gotten more. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:22:05 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Relics and Character Points At 1:17 AM -0500 1/3/01, William J. Keith wrote: >I was trying to write up the Sailor Team, now that I've been happily >reunited with my books, when a question came upon me: > >How am I going to pay for all this stuff? [...] >on my way: can starting characters get unusual equipment for expenditure of >character points, and if so, what's the conversion? p. GIN169, Artifacts header. >***I think I need to get C1, any day now. Yes -- that's what's referenced, partly, on p. GIN169. - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:02:54 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone At 8:03 AM -0500 1/3/01, EDG wrote: >At 12:28 AM 1/3/01 -0500, you wrote: > >>But the case listed was a bird that the demon would NOT know as an angel, >>landing on his shoulder... and the demon harmlessly swats the bird away, >>as anyone would do. That isn't taunting, or even baiting... that's total >>deception, trying to find a loophole, IMO. > >... > >I'm sorry, but would you point me to the place in the rules where it >says that the demon has to know I'm an angel before I can attack him? I would rate the example as dissonant, because the demon wasn't actively engaging an attack. If he grabbed the bird and tried to wring it's neck, I'd let the angel attack. But reacting to a bird landing on it by swatting it away is a reflex action. David would also have been annoyed at first contact being the bird's. The threshhold of contact was the bird, not the demon. So that would be dissonant. A bird insult wouldn't have been. So, to quote Animaniacs, said Kyriotate just has to get good at poo-poo bombidiers.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:35:53 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence At 11:10 AM -0500 1/3/01, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> Fatigue not-equal Essence. Essence is Essence, and Fatigue is >> Fatigue. >[...] >> If that does not help, then I fear I'll need the question restated. > >No, it doesn't, so here's the restatement: > >A few weeks ago, I submitted a post on "Historical Magic" to >the IN list. I thought I might work it up into an article and >submit it to Pyramid. I thought it might increase the appeal of >the article to make it more generalized, so I thought I would >give the costs of the different spells in both IN Essence and >GURPS Fatigue. Ah-HA! That helps me understand what you mean. >So, to restate the question: What are typical spell/Song costs for >low-, medium-, and high-powered SFX in IN Essence, GURPS Fatigue, >and, while we're at it, D&D Spell Points? I have no clue about Spell Points. I don't play D&D. The basic answer with IN Essence vs GURPS Fatigue, when we did the Song conversions... we fudged, pure and simple. We generally kept the IN Essence costs, but noted which Magic Spells we were drawing on as inspiration for GURPS mechanics. (I.e., if you have a "what effects should I use" debate, which more-detailed spell might hold the answers. This was actually more relevant to the Songs section _before_ we went through and made Essence back into Essence and therefore brought the Song Essence costs back in line with how they're costed in IN.) Hrm. Let me give examples: For Affinity, I looked at Seeker and Trace. GIN Affinity is 1 Essence per hour. (It has a duration and cost to maintain; that simplified things, IIRC.) Artifacts is new, loosely based on Enchant. Attraction is based on Trace and Loyalty and is 1 per hour (except with Ethereal which has double or triple costing based on certain variables). Charm is (in Cor/Eth/Cel order): Fatigue, Frailty / Foolishness, Clumsiness / Dullness, Weaken Will. 2 to perform, 1 to maintain, duration 1 minute. Dreams uses Dream Projection and Great Hallucination as guidelines for Cor and Cel versions, respectively. (Eth Dreams is new.). Cost is 1/1 per dreamer affected/3. Entropy uses Youth, Age / Terror / Daze, Mental Stun. It's 1-10 / 1 / 2 to perform. Does that help? (I'd give the fatigue costs there, but I don't have the book handy at ALL.) - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. "I'm nursing a TROUT! With legs!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:40:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Fwd: Servitor Attunement >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:52:36 -0600 >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Non-member submission from ["Doctor Jekyll" ] > >From: "Doctor Jekyll" >Subject: Servitor Attunement >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:53:01 -0600 >How is the Servitor Attunement for Kronos entitled Temporal Projection su= >pposed to work? >Does it only last for a period of time or is the projection permanent? Is= > there a way to get the person or article back? The Infernal Players Gui= >de doesn't say. > >Thanks > >James Ligon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:50:28 GMT From: daiv@cruzio.com Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone >I imagine most superiors would dissaprove of hearing their > Kyriotate servitor was using hosts as (pardon the expressioN) clay pigeons. > -Phillip DesJardins, Mercurian of Eli in service to Novalis Most Superiors? I am not so sure of that.... Outside of the intrinsic issues with the Kyriotate Choir Dissonance Condition (and, for the record, I did envision that the Corp Song of healing would figure heavily into the plot, along with a good sized kipper for the Piegon (lot of work for a Kipper)), I am not sure that all the superiors would disapprove. Note, this is assuming that the Kyriotate in question is a Servitor of Stone, so the disapproval other superiors may not amount to much... Jordi would be furious, without question. If nothing else, expect to see a serious fallout in the form of a LOT of Piegon Pooped Statues. Micheal would probably approve. Eli would say something about the pattern of light and shadow and the interplay of cinamon...what was the question? And Yves would either approve or not depending on the fate and destiny of the piegon used. Just off the top of my head, and before i have had my morning coffee. - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:56:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone daiv@cruzio.com wrote: > I did envision that the Corp Song of healing would figure heavily > into the plot, along with a good sized kipper for the Piegon (lot > of work for a Kipper) Pigeons eat kippers? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:02:56 -0500 From: "Rolland Therrien" Subject: IN> The Media shows it's horns again... If I had any doubt that the Media was influenced by Hell, they exist no longer... Read this: http://members.boardhost.com/soniccentral/msg/189.html Then tell me if those bastard TV people deserve anything less then the maximum punishment allowed by the law... - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:02:26 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone At 12:56 PM -0500 1/3/01, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >Pigeons eat kippers? Pigeons eat *anything.* - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:42:13 -0800 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Do you still have a copy of that post, or remember the exact time that it was posted?(so I could check it up on the archives) I would like to have a look at it. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Earl Wajenberg To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:10 AM Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence > > A few weeks ago, I submitted a post on "Historical Magic" to > the IN list. I thought I might work it up into an article and > submit it to Pyramid. I thought it might increase the appeal of > the article to make it more generalized, so I thought I would > give the costs of the different spells in both IN Essence and > GURPS Fatigue. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:56:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence Bevan Thomas wrote: > > Do you still have a copy of that post, or remember the exact time > that it was posted?(so I could check it up on the archives) I > would like to have a look at it. This in reference to my post "Historical Magic." It was posted on 21 November 2000. I've forwarded a copy to you and would be happy to forward a copy to any other list member, or to re-post it to the list. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:22:32 -0500 From: "Eric Bertish" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" > I would rate the example as dissonant, because the demon wasn't > actively engaging an attack. If he grabbed the bird and tried to > wring it's neck, I'd let the angel attack. But reacting to a bird > landing on it by swatting it away is a reflex action. Thank you, Eric, for clearly stating what I was unable. > David would also have been annoyed at first contact being the bird's. > The threshhold of contact was the bird, not the demon. > That too. > So that would be dissonant. A bird insult wouldn't have been. So, to > quote Animaniacs, said Kyriotate just has to get good at poo-poo > bombidiers.... Wouldn't that count as a ranged attack? ;) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:26:55 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Fatigue and Essence At 11:10 -0500 1/3/01, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > I thought it might increase the appeal of >the article to make it more generalized, so I thought I would >give the costs of the different spells in both IN Essence and >GURPS Fatigue. > >So, to restate the question: What are typical spell/Song costs for >low-, medium-, and high-powered SFX in IN Essence, GURPS Fatigue, >and, while we're at it, D&D Spell Points? I don't know about the latter, but the former can't really be equated linearly. As a general rule, IN Songs are more powerful than GURPS spells, and the correlation between IN Essence powering a Song and a similar GURPS spell powered by Fatigue is often semi-random, and generally non-linear. I.e., few Songs take a *lot* of Essence, even though some of the effects are quite profound. The semi-equivalent GURPS spells are generally more linear between energy input and effect, and some of the more powerful spells cost a *lot* of Fatigue. If you want a rough rule of thumb, weak GURPS spells tend to cost 1 or 2 Fatigue. Reasonably high-powered spells tend to cost 5-10, and the really powerful spells usually cost 15+ (up to 300) Fatigue. The weaker IN Songs (1-2 Essence) tend to overlap with the mid-level GURPS spells, while the more expensive ones (3+ Essence) overlap with the high end of GURPS spells. I suppose a rough rule of thumb that would work OK would be 1 Essence = 3-5 Fatigue, though I think there are cases where it would be 10 Fatigue or more. It's difficult to really nail this down, since the different recovery rates for Fatigue and Essence change the situation a lot. GURPS mages aren't *terribly* reluctant to blow all their Fatigue on a single spell, since they can regain it in a couple hours rest (usually). The same isn't true of Essence -- recovering all your Essence may take a week or so, so it tends to be conserved a *lot* more. So you're comparing a case of frequent use of somewhat weaker spells (GURPS magic) to infrequent use of more powerful effects (IN Songs). D&D magic, unless they changed it a lot in the 3rd edition, runs more to the IN model of infrequent, powerful effects, so I'd suspect the cost curves would be more comparable there. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:27:09 GMT From: daiv@cruzio.com Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Whistling in the Dark" >>But reacting to a bird > > landing on it by swatting it away is a reflex action. > > Thank you, Eric, for clearly stating what I was unable. Landing on a persons shoulder is Not an attack. The corrolary situation would be if I tapped some on the shoulder, from behind. It is a contacy, yes, but there is no intent of harm, and no realistic expectation that harm will come from it. By the same token, simply landing on the shoulder of someone is, in and of itself, Not an attack. There is no intent of harm (in the landing on the shoulder). > > David would also have been annoyed at first contact being the bird's. > > The threshhold of contact was the bird, not the demon. > > > That too. But the disonance condition prohibits attacking first. It does not prohibit first physical contact. Again, there is nothing that says or implies that an angel could not tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention. If doing so resulted in the person hitting the angel (reflexively or otherwise), then the angel could respond to that attack without risking dissonance, right? the issue is who threw the first punch. Who made the first attack, trying to harm the other? How that happened, and what lead up to that (teasing, mocking, or trickery) are not the issue, as I read the dissonance condition. But hey, that's just me. - -Daiv ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:46:59 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone > > > David would also have been annoyed at first contact being the bird's. > > > The threshhold of contact was the bird, not the demon. > > That too. > But the disonance condition prohibits attacking first. It does not prohibit > first physical contact. Again, there is nothing that says or implies that an > angel could not tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention. If doing so > resulted in the person hitting the angel (reflexively or otherwise), then the > angel could respond to that attack without risking dissonance, right? the issue > is who threw the first punch. Who made the first attack, trying to harm the > other? How that happened, and what lead up to that (teasing, mocking, or > trickery) are not the issue, as I read the dissonance condition. > But hey, that's just me. Of course, in game terms, the dissonance condition is a 'disadvantage'. It's meant to restrict the options the character has. There's a fine line between "being clever" and "missing the entire point" and this, to me, clearly falls under the latter category. Although the image of a demon being afraid to touch _anything_ that got in their personal space is admittedly a rather amusing one, someone who just can't stand the Stonie dissonance condition would probably have much more fun playing an Angel of War instead. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:04:29 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates of Stone At 8:27 PM +0000 1/3/01, daiv@cruzio.com wrote: > >Landing on a persons shoulder is Not an attack. The corrolary situation would >be if I tapped some on the shoulder, from behind. It is a contacy, yes, but >there is no intent of harm, and no realistic expectation that harm will come >from it. By the same token, simply landing on the shoulder of someone is, in >and of itself, Not an attack. There is no intent of harm (in the >landing on the >shoulder). But if a Demon swats a bird off his shoulder, is there 'intent to harm' or intent to get a bird off his shoulder? Again, I wouldn't rule that an attack, first off. So the "first punch" hasn't been thrown regardless. > >> > David would also have been annoyed at first contact being the bird's. >> > The threshhold of contact was the bird, not the demon. >> > >> That too. > But the disonance condition prohibits attacking first. It does not prohibit >first physical contact. Again, there is nothing that says or implies that an >angel could not tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention. >If doing so >resulted in the person hitting the angel (reflexively or otherwise), then the >angel could respond to that attack without risking dissonance, right? Hitting, yes. Throwing an arm up to ward off the touch while saying "don't touch me," no. There has to be intent of attack. So, you have an angel using a host body to physically irritate a demon. The demon doesn't try to injure the bird but does physically respond. The Angel then uses that as an excuse to, in effect, bypass David's most sacred preceipt -- that one does not start fights, one finishes them. David would be *very* unhappy with that, yes. >the issue is who threw the first punch. Who made the first attack, >trying to harm the other? Agreed. However, I don't think swatting a bird constitutes trying to injure the bird. Grabbing the bird, perhaps. Swatting it away, no. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2002 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.