From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Apr 18 19:33:46 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 TAA25082 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:33:46 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id TAA24309 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:41:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:41:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200104190041.TAA24309@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 #2165 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, April 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2165 In this digest: Re: Soul-killing (was Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion) Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Hearts (was Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame.") Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." IN> Fwd: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question Re: IN> Fwd: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Gone?= to =?iso-8859-1?Q?Graveyards=22?= Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:38:05 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Soul-killing (was Re: IN> Gurps IN suggestion) At 4:50 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Elizabeth McCoy" > >>>all of those Will rolls to avoid taking Soul damage are being made at a >>>penalty equal to the # of Soul hits you took that turn. Remember, if you >>>take X amount of damage in a turn, then all rolls that turn are being >>>made at -X to your IQ and DX... that's what 'shock effects from damage' >*means* >> >in GURPS-speak. >> >> HUH? That's sure not how _I'd_ interpret the rule. I mean, unless it makes >> soul-killing at an acceptable level in your game, I'd point out that the >> roll to avoid damage is an _"AGING"_ roll, and therefore not affected by >> recent damage. > >Will is based on IQ + Strong (or - Weak) Will. If you're making every >single roll that turn at an IQ minus that turn, then that base penalty to >your IQ also drops your will score. No, simply no. That's not how it works. Aging rolls are not affected by things that give a _temporary_ penalty. Let me get Kromm. O:p >Besides, think about it. As I see it, the game effect of that Will roll to >avoid Celestial damage is represented as you gritting and hanging on with >all your willpower, trying to make that Force *not* got sheared off of you >by sheer determination. Actually, it's a way to randomly determine what gets ripped off, just like aging rolls are. You aren't girding your loins when you make HT rolls for aging. >just a straight Will roll after >your last Soul hit goes, no matter how crushing or how wimpy the attack that >turn was. > >??? Yup. Just like in regular IN. >After all, the whole point of making Celestial Hit Points and "HT" rolls >based on Will as opposed to HT was to represent the fact that physical >toughness was only for Vessels, right? Yes, but the roll to lose stats is an AGING roll -- it's not a roll to resist anything, such as the Psionics one you quoted. >> His Will-based rolls to _attack_ are going to be sucky, which means that >> he's going to be having trouble on that front, of course. But the aging >> roll... Nonononononononononono, the recent damage done does NOT affect >> that in canon, far as I'm concerned. > >Hopefully, the above will persuade you otherwise. Not that it matters >either way to my campaign -- the house rules here are what I say they are -- >but just because I honestly think it works better the other way. Hey, house rules are fine. And the guy's still going to be _stunned_ and at those kinds of penalties from all that nasty damage, which may well let you nail him with more "Free Shots" while he's going "Guhhhh." >> I'll ask Kromm for his take on it, too, if you want. > >Can ya forward this to him as well? Thanks! I'll forward it to him if he wants it, otherwise I'm going to summerize. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:49:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 4:05 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: [...] >So find yourself a blessed soul, handing him one end of a very >long rope, tying the Invinciblium(tm)-sealed box to the other end, and >telling him to start up them stairs and yankin' on that rope after him >wouldn't have worked because...?) Maybe they tried it in the past, and the thing came falling back down, rope sliced as if by a knife... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. arcangel is nursing a trout with ARMS! ARMS that reach out and try to pound the keyboard! You say "And teeth. Ow." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:38:24 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:49 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > At 4:05 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: > [...] > >So find yourself a blessed soul, handing him one end of a very > >long rope, tying the Invinciblium(tm)-sealed box to the other end, and > >telling him to start up them stairs and yankin' on that rope after him > >wouldn't have worked because...?) > > Maybe they tried it in the past, and the thing came falling back down, > rope sliced as if by a knife... In which case, the next one simply holds the box. (Lord knows that they selected for somebody who *REALLY REALLY* isn't going to open the box (it's not as if he doesn't know what will happen to him)... assuming that he *can* open the box, that being one of Jean's and David's absolute best strongboxes... Hey, if a measly hobbit can haul a ring across the continent before he finally succumbs to temptation, then Heaven's best blessed soul ought to be able to last as long as a flight of steps. I mean, the Superiors managed to get through the lengthy process of putting it in the concrete block without anybody losing it, so it's not as if you can't be held together with the proper support structure... - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:02:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 5:38 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >> Maybe they tried it in the past, and the thing came falling back down, >> rope sliced as if by a knife... > >In which case, the next one simply holds the box. Maybe the last one to hold it was Uriel, and it was left, spinning, behind on the ground when he vanished... - --Beth, typing w/a uncoopertive baby (iolanthe) causing typos. arcangel is nursing a trout with ARMS! ARMS that reach out and try to pound the keyboard! You say "And teeth. Ow." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:49:49 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:02 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." [snip] > Maybe the last one to hold it was Uriel, and it was left, spinning, > behind on the ground when he vanished... And at this point, I as a player generally tend to get up from the table and go "And maybe the DM would be better suited finding employment at a train station", and depart. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:13:16 -0600 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > And at this point, I as a player generally tend to get up from the table and > go "And maybe the DM would be better suited finding employment at a train > station", and depart. Moe's idea was a neat one, and the issues you have with it would make more sense in a game that was defined by absolutes. Admittedly, I'd tack a few more schticks onto the ring to make it less of a campaign killer, but the idea itself is neat. Sure, let the players take the ring up Jacob's Ladder. And then, when it doesn't go away, they're left even more confused and afraid than they were before. See? Easy. > Chuckg I don't really like this Jacob's Ladder solution, anyway. It seems to be too much of a catch-all solution. I wonder what'd happen if you shoved your heart up Jacob's Ladder... Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:33:44 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 5:49 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Elizabeth McCoy" >[snip] >> Maybe the last one to hold it was Uriel, and it was left, spinning, >> behind on the ground when he vanished... > >And at this point, I as a player generally tend to get up from the table and >go "And maybe the DM would be better suited finding employment at a train >station", and depart. Quite. (Geeze, it's not a CANON artifact. If the GM wants it in his or her game, then the GM is justified in coming up with any sort of excuse for the bloody McGuffin that he or she wants. Take a chill pill. I _like_ the idea that Uriel might have been wearing something like that. Makes the thing that much more alarming. Then you hand it to the PCs and tell them they have to drop it into the Holy Grail and nothing else will do and (hey, check the paranoia vibes on this thing!) maybe they should not let any Superiors at all know that it's extant again. After all, you wouldn't want either another Legion _or_ another Uriel, right?) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:27:38 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Hearts (was Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame.") - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Glickler" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:13 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." As far as a "catch-all" solution... hey, it's something serious enough you wouldn't use it for anything less than a potentially Symphony-rendering emergency, something *more* serious than a mere War between Heaven & Hell. Such as this thing. > I wonder what'd happen if you shoved your heart up Jacob's Ladder... Hearts can't be taken out of Heaven (which in this context means "the *Lower* Heavens") at all, can they? And what happens if you do do so, and then enter Trauma, is that you'd probably wind up feeling like you'd been in Teenagers From Outer Space and visited the Principal's Office. Assuming your character didn't simply vanish into the same place that Uriel did -- i.e., "Roll a new character." - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:30:55 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 05:49 PM 4/18/2001 -0500, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Elizabeth McCoy" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:02 PM >Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > > >[snip] > > Maybe the last one to hold it was Uriel, and it was left, spinning, > > behind on the ground when he vanished... > >And at this point, I as a player generally tend to get up from the table and >go "And maybe the DM would be better suited finding employment at a train >station", and depart. You quit when one of your ideas doesn't work? Honestly, all we know about the Ladder is that blessed souls can ascend it. While you can say 'climb' it is probably something altogether different celestially. You cannot just look up it and see the Higher Heavens, I'm sure, or that would be mentioned in the books somewhere. So, really, all anyone knows for certain is that blessed souls who go up vanish. There isn't any evidence you can take celestial artifacts, celestials or anything else up the Ladder and just for sanity check reasons it's probably no more possible than taking a normal gold ring or a physical human up a Tether... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:24:21 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 5:49 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >[snip] >> Maybe the last one to hold it was Uriel, and it was left, spinning, >> behind on the ground when he vanished... > >And at this point, I as a player generally tend to get up from the table and >go "And maybe the DM would be better suited finding employment at a train >station", and depart. Are you really, honestly so unwilling to accept that other game masters might have a different, equally valid interpretation of In Nomine's God than yours? Honestly? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:39:22 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." [snip] > Quite. (Geeze, it's not a CANON artifact. If the GM wants it in his or > her game, then the GM is justified in coming up with any sort of excuse > for the bloody McGuffin that he or she wants. Yes, and for players who have burned out on swallowing overly large Plot Devices due to prior massive overuse of that particular facility, the excuse had better be a *good* one or else the entertainment won't sell well in Peoria. Problem is, I find no excuse for this one that does not have, *somewhere* along the event chain, the caveat "And things would not have gone this way had not [fill-in-the-blank] acted with less common sense than the average russet potato." That is the deal-killer for me, the thing that turns it from Epic High Fantasy into Bad Farce... the fact that the plot device as written *requires* massive (and more to the point, massively *uncharacteristic*) stupidity on someone's (which particular Someone changes on which particular set of excuses used) part to have let things get this far. > Take a chill pill. I _like_ the idea that Uriel might have been wearing something > like that. Makes the thing that much more alarming. Think it through. Sure, it makes the thing much more alarming, as well as Uriel a more tragic figure. However, the fact that God /sent the bloody thing back down the Ladder entirely unchanged/ is a great big indicator that God is either: a) really, really, really, REALLY stupid, and I mean Makes-Saminga-Look-Like-Raphael stupid... even if this thing is beyond's God power to unmake (which thought by itself hurts my brain), it's not beyond his power to *secure*... or if there is a mythical way this thing can be unmade down below but not unmade by him, it would perhaps behoove him to actually make some arrangements so that somebody downstairs has any hope at all of ever finding and implementing it *before* the Symphony blows up again. I mean, cripes, even Tolkien's Ring-Bearers got prophecies to help them along. (And yes, this is precisely what you do below re: the Holy Grail, at which point the plot hole I am griping about is fixed. But would it ever have gotten fixed had I not put in the gripe? Forget having me take the chill pill... griping *does* have a point, and *somebody* has to do it. If you can be the Djinn Princess of Nitpicking, and somebody else can be the Habbalite of Belaboring The Point, then just call me the Seraph Angel of Finding Plot Holes.) b) secretly looking forward to the mass carnage, death, tragedy, and etc. that the next outbreak of this thing will inevitably produce, sooner or later. (Which again, sets off Chuckg's "Didn't anybody actually think through all the logical consequences of this series premise *before* rushing the pilot into production?" hot button -- because, while it's entirely possible to write a Dark campaign where God really is that much of a red-ants-black-ants-look-at-em-fight-whee! sod, it both is something I find exceptionally depressing, has been done to death already, and doesn't seem to fit with the mood Moe usually tries to project.) c) If there is a c), I ain't found it yet. > Then you hand it to the PCs and tell > them they have to drop it into the Holy Grail and nothing else will do And now, what was a bad plot hook turns into an acceptable adventure... because the situation is no longer hopeless. That's what the original proposal was lacking... *hope*. (As well as a Universe that wasn't being run by either a sadist or a twit.) > and (hey, check the paranoia vibes on this thing!) maybe they should not > let any Superiors at all know that it's extant again. After all, you > wouldn't want either another Legion _or_ another Uriel, right?) No. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:47:01 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean McCarthy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:30 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > You quit when one of your ideas doesn't work? No, and thanks for jumping to the worst conclusion first.. I quit when it's obvious that the DM's plot was not anywhere near to sufficiently thought through prior to dropping it on the PCs heads, and the DM is trying to "fix" that by laying down a set of railroad tracks and brute-forcing me onto it. If there is no underling structure of "why" that makes sense of it *all*, then I can't actually hope to figure out anything on my own -- I can only hope to respond in Pavlovian fashion to the DM's clues of the moment, follow the bread crumbs laid out for me, and find the trail at the end. I find that *horribly* limiting. And when that happens, I do leave. Or at the very least, *seriously* not enjoy myself that night.. Since you asked. > Honestly, all we know about the Ladder is that blessed souls can ascend > it. While you can say 'climb' it is probably something altogether > different celestially. You cannot just look up it and see the Higher > Heavens, I'm sure, or that would be mentioned in the books somewhere. So, > really, all anyone knows for certain is that blessed souls who go up > vanish. There isn't any evidence you can take celestial artifacts, > celestials or anything else up the Ladder and just for sanity check reasons > it's probably no more possible than taking a normal gold ring or a physical > human up a Tether... Forces bound into set and sentient form (i.e., people) can ascend the Ladder. The Ring is made out of Forces bound into a set and sentient form... it's a *living* artifact, remember, which means it's a *celestial*. A Superior-level Celestial, AAMOF... as described, that thing is effectively the Living Artifact of the Prince/Archangel(?) of Control. At least one Superior-level celestial has ascended the ladder in canon. Therefore, suddenly saying that the Ring can't do so logically requires either the DM to either: a) be inconsistent for no good reason -- otherwise known as "Unacceptable design". b) come up with a good reason as to why God doesn't want the Ring upstairs... which Beth's latest post just did (the Ring's destruction is possible only on the lower planes, 'cause that's where the Grail is), but which the original proposal and the first two attempted revisions (to which I was objecting so strenuously) *didn't* have. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:48:36 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whistling in the Dark" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > Are you really, honestly so unwilling to accept that other game > masters might have a different, equally valid interpretation of In > Nomine's God than yours? Honestly? When that interpretation requires God to be either a sadist or an idiot, yes. See my other two most recent posts for clarification. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:10:50 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Fwd: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question >From: "Dr Kromm" >Organization: Cabal Co. >To: Elizabeth McCoy >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:06:58 -0400 >Subject: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question > >On 18 Apr 2001, at 18:38, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> To his high lordship and master of necromancy, Kromm... > >The things we end up being known for . . . I better get to be a >lich when I die or there will be hell to pay. > >> Okay, in celestial combat, if you lose all your Soul Hits, you have >> to make an "aging" roll, based on Will instead of HT, for each of >> your stats and your Power Investitures. [p. GIN146] > > > >> One person on the list interprets this use of Will to mean that if >> you have a penalty to your "DX" (also Will, in celestial combat), you >> make _all_ your Will rolls at a penalty due to the damage. I.e., not >> only is your next attack penalized, but so is the "aging" roll. > >Uh . . . no. That should not be the case. That would result in >celestial combat being a little *too* quick and deadly. > >> However, you being the GURPS Line Editor, it's up to you to decide >> if, indeed, this use of Will in an "aging" roll ought to be akin to >> the use of Will to resist a psionic attack -- or if it's an _aging_ >> roll that just happens to use a different stat, and one-round >> penalties to _other_ uses of Will should not affect this one. > >The latter. In general, Will is Will . . . it may be based on >IQ, but it is not reduced for temporary IQ penalties any more >than temporary DX penalties lower Basic Speed because they >reduce effective DX. Figured attributes are not refigured if >the quantities they depend on take a penalty, and Will is as >much a figured attribute as Basic Speed. > >SP. > >-- >Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch, GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games >[POST] 4122 rue Rivard, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA, H2L 4H9 >[PHONE] 514.288.9600 / [VOICE MAIL & FAX] 514.288.9615 >[EMAIL] or >[WWW] http://www.io.com/~kromm/ [Note that, as usual, house rules are house rules and the Canon Police are unlikely to visit.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:54:00 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Fwd: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:10 PM Subject: IN> Fwd: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question > >From: "Dr Kromm" > >Organization: Cabal Co. > >To: Elizabeth McCoy > >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:06:58 -0400 > >Subject: Re: Soul-killing in GURPS In Nomine Question Duly noted. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:19:20 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 6:39 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >(And yes, this is precisely what you do below re: the Holy Grail, at which >point the plot hole I am griping about is fixed. But would it ever have >gotten fixed had I not put in the gripe? Does it bloody _matter_? It's not canon, and this is not playtest, and dropping it into the Holy Grain, or finding the current Ring-bearer and killing it before it gets too powerful (and then handing it to your Superior or Novalis or something), or finding one's _own_ means of Fix It So It Goes Away For The Next Few Centuries -- all are perfectly reasonable things to do with it. If I can think of the Holy Grail off the top of my head, then what's to prevent anyone else from doing the same? Besides, it's an amusing take on an entirely different series, and if people can find pleasure in In Nomine G.I. Joe or In Nomine Transformers or In Nomine Pokemon or In Nomine Gojira, then trying to nitpick the One Ring (which was made by the equivalent of Lucifer himself, was it not? And we already know that God, in the canon universe, doesn't just wave Its hands and dispose of the Lightbringer) is just plain mean. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:20:36 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 6:47 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: >At least one Superior-level celestial has ascended the ladder in canon. Eh? Who? Uriel was recalled; he didn't ascend. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:03:37 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 06:39 PM 4/18/2001 -0500, you wrote: >However, the fact that God /sent the bloody thing back down the Ladder >entirely unchanged/ is a great big indicator that God is either: >c) If there is a c), I ain't found it yet. Not involving Himself? Look at everything else God has allowed. More to the point, look at what God hasn't allowed. God has only done two things we have record of since back in the day: 1) Pardoned Michael. 2) Borrowed Uriel. Those are both internal administrative matters. I would go so far as to say that both involved multiples Superiors on the side of Heaven, all of whom choose to serve God and were doing what they did because of that choice, because of what they perceivef the Will of God to be. That's almost any Archangel action, really, but in those two cases it was a major yet internal issue. Let us look at what God didn't do: He did not stop the Purity Crusade. He did not stop the Rebellion ... He did not stop Legion, who if not stopped might have assimilated the Forces of all humanity..or maybe he would have hit a limit. Who knows? He does not intervene at all in the events of Final Trumpet, even in the worst possible worst case scenarios. He does not talk to any of the Archangels anymore, except Gabriel. I think this all adds up to a pretty strong case that God in IN does not intervene. There are two exceptions, but these are matters which while their outcome had an impact on broader events, were themselves internal matters of the type I described. Sean ( ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:05:48 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." From: "Charles Glasgow" > > Problem is, I find no excuse for this one that does not have, *somewhere* > along the event chain, the caveat "And things would not have gone this way > had not [fill-in-the-blank] acted with less common sense than the average > russet potato." You are obviously reading a One Ring that was not posted to any mailing list to which *I* belong then, Charles. > c) If there is a c), I ain't found it yet. Try reading the third installment of The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant the Unbeleliever, in that case, since a perfectly valid C: is outlined along the way. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:01:53 GMT From: prodigal@ticnet.com Subject: Re: IN> =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Gone?= to =?iso-8859-1?Q?Graveyards=22?= Charles Glasgow writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Prodigal" > > "I could do nothing to prevent it," Yves said at > > last. "Aside from myself, only two others of our > > kind have borne a burden such as this before you. > > Belated question -- *which* two others? *enigmatic smile* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "O. S. Kerr" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." "Hi, Moe." Let us here at Shameless Anonymous assist you in your time of need. Remember, our Shamelessness is bigger than us. Ochre Original Heretic ===== The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool. - Cameron Crowe Lester Bangs, "Almost Famous" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:12:19 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 06:47 PM 4/18/2001 -0500, you wrote: >At least one Superior-level celestial has ascended the ladder in canon. > >Therefore, suddenly saying that the Ring can't do so logically requires >either the DM to either: I disagree. Only blessed souls are in canon as ascending the ladder. No Superiors have, no celestials have. God took Uriel away by making him vanish. No one except blessed souls can decide to enter the Higher Heavens and make it so. I think that is Official, though I would like clarification.. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:22:49 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > At 6:39 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >(And yes, this is precisely what you do below re: the Holy Grail, at which > >point the plot hole I am griping about is fixed. But would it ever have > >gotten fixed had I not put in the gripe? > > Does it bloody _matter_? You want my opinion on that? Yes. It does matter. *Nothing* (save humor) is worth doing without doing it well and sensibily. As originally written, this wasn't done well -- and didn't appear to fall under the 'Parody Exemption' that exempts certain other things that I haven't and won't bother to analyze. > It's not canon, and this is not playtest, and > dropping it into the Holy Grain, or finding the current Ring-bearer and > killing it before it gets too powerful (and then handing it to your Superior > or Novalis or something), or finding one's _own_ means of Fix It So It > Goes Away For The Next Few Centuries Kinda kills the sense of achievement, doesn't it? Beth, one of the differences between this game and That Other Game With The Swords And Things is that in this game, *you* ("you" being the collective you that encompasses not only the PCs but their entire races) are the people responsible for taking care of the universe for the rest of eternity. Mortal adventurers can consider themselves as having delayed the Ancient Evil from overcoming all in their generation, and die content that they did the best for their children that they were able and that their children's children must prove their own worth, with the aid of their gods. That's the mortal sense of accomplishment. Problem is, when you're an angel, you don't get that. You should act like an *immortal* sense of accomplishment... that you took a step that, at least in its own small way, was a step forward towards the *permanent* solution of the problem. Maybe you can't ever hope to win the War all by yourself, but at least you can rest content that your own small actions were a tiny step towards the eventual accomplishment of the goal, when it will finally be settled. As originally written, before the Mount Doom was supplied to counterbalance the Ring's intro, this didn't exist. You and yours had no hope of ever winning, you were all were just stalling for time. When you're a mortal, playing for time can be considered a true victory of sorts... you defeated the Evil in your generation, and that's all that a mortal can really be expected to do. It's great if a mortal can build something or achieve something that lasts for eternity, but it's not *required* of them. But when you're an immortal operating on an immortal's timescale, merely playing for time *is not and can never be any kind of real victory*. All it means is that you're losing in slow motion. When you *are* the "gods", the ones who are responsible for getting the work done of the One that is being prayed to, then you can't assume a "I'll just put a temporary patch on it and assume that it'll all work itself out eventually" mentality. Not without, at least IMO, ruining the whole point of being an angel (or a demon) as opposed to just another generic fantasy player character race. If the Ring can never truly be gotten rid of, then eventually it wins. It's that simple. No matter how many times you succeed, since the chances of success are not 100%, eventually you will lose. If you flip a penny enough times, eventually it *will* come up tails... there is no way to make it keep coming up heads forever, assuming a penny that wasn't rigged wth two heads. Likewise the Ring. If the scenario has no way to destroy it, then the scenario is incomplete -- the players can rest assured that win or lose, they didn't make any difference in the long run. Eventually, that Ring will destroy you all. Entropy is truly the king, and there's nothing to look forward to but "How long can we stall before we finally drop it?" That kind of game is fun only if you're Kronos. >-- all are perfectly reasonable things > to do with it. If I can think of the Holy Grail off the top of my head, The point is, the need to think of something had to be pointed out, which is what just got done. Even if the whole point is merely to parody the Lord of the Rings, the parody still absolutely demands a Mount Doom. Otherwise, it's just no bloody fun at all. Fortunately, now there is one, and the open possibility that other DMs can create other ones at will. Now that the *need* for one has finished being explained. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:24:15 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > Problem is, I find no excuse for this one that does not have, *somewhere* > > along the event chain, the caveat "And things would not have gone this way > > had not [fill-in-the-blank] acted with less common sense than the average > > russet potato." > > You are obviously reading a One Ring that was not posted to any mailing list > to which *I* belong then, Charles. See my other posts. > > c) If there is a c), I ain't found it yet. > > Try reading the third installment of The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant the > Unbeleliever, in that case, since a perfectly valid C: is outlined along the > way. I would sooner gnaw off my own leg than read Donaldson again. I *tried* to get into the Chronicles, and never made it past book one. Probably for similar reasons as to why the original scenario posited here conflicted violently with every element that my psyche possessed. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:27:15 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:20 PM Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." > At 6:47 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >At least one Superior-level celestial has ascended the ladder in canon. > > Eh? Who? Uriel was recalled; he didn't ascend. He went up the ladder, didn't he? (*Dragged* up the ladder, perhaps...) Recall, ascension... as I understand it, he's in the Higher Heavens now, so either he got there via the ladder or he got there some other way. Basically, if you *don't* get into the Higher Heavens, it's because God doesn't want you to be there. Hence, if the Ring can't go up, God is deciding to keep it down there with you. If God is deciding to do so, then either he ought to provide some way for you to effectively deal with the problem (and mere containment is not "effectively", given the immortal's timescale involved!), or else he's hosing you. The first is what I was saying ought to be done, and the second is why I'd leave a game. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:32:48 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > Problem is, I find no excuse for this one that does not have, > > > *somewhere* along the event chain, the caveat "And things > > > would not have gone this way had not [fill-in-the-blank] > > > acted with less common sense than the average > > > russet potato." > > > > You are obviously reading a One Ring that was not posted to any mailing > > list to which *I* belong then, Charles. > > See my other posts. I did, and none of them have convinced me of your case. > > > c) If there is a c), I ain't found it yet. > > > > Try reading the third installment of The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant the > > Unbeleliever, in that case, since a perfectly valid C: is outlined along > > the way. > > I would sooner gnaw off my own leg than read Donaldson again. I *tried* to > get into the Chronicles, and never made it past book one. Probably for > similar reasons as to why the original scenario posited here conflicted > violently with every element that my psyche possessed. In which case you were willfully choosing the least complimentary interpretation of that, as well. I'll say one last thing on this thread, then bow out: No matter how many times you say otherwise, it's possible to interpret Moe's One Ring scenario is something other than the most pessimistic of lights. Have a nice life, Charles. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:32:22 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> "Hi, my name is Moe, and I have no shame." At 6:47 PM -0500 4/18/01, Charles Glasgow wrote: > >> You quit when one of your ideas doesn't work? > >No, and thanks for jumping to the worst conclusion first.. You're guilty of the same thing, here. Moe didn't post a plot seed. He posted a Relic. He didn't list conditions or Campaign Notes. He said, in effect, "The Superiors couldn't destroy it, so they trapped it." It is possible they tried to send it away, and God wasn't taking packages. Or it's possible that it was judged heretical to try. I don't know, and it's not relevant to the relic. If I created a Campaign based upon the Ultimate MacGuffin, incarnated as The Ring, I'd base in on the group trying to prevent it from being released. If they failed, the followup would be based on them trying to recontain it. Now, as I'm an epic, mythic sort of GM, I'd likely let the PCs discover a means of possibly -- possibly -- destroying it, and giving them the option of going Outcast/Renegade and disobeying their orders to try this method, going through unimaginable hardship and pain, and ultimately succeed -- with perhaps some grand, epic reward -- like the reconstituting of the Forces into the Angels who died during the Rebellion, say. And then using that as the basis of the *next* campaign hook. That took me about as long as typing the paragraph to come up with, and of course, it's just an outline. But it was what Moe's post of The Ring was meant to do -- potentially inspire ideas for games. It was a good post, too. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2165 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.