in_nomine-digest Friday, March 29 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2582 In this digest: Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Servitor of Dark Humor Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces question Re: IN> Forces question Re: IN> Forces question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> IN Riddles? IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... Re: IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question Re: IN> Forces Question - Nature of God Re: IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... Re: IN> Forces Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:05:45 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan M Roth" To: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > Regarding the idea that Corporeal object have Forces: Erm? I thought that Forces were what *Life* was composed of. Inanimate objects were merely formed out of Essence, right? Which gives rise to some really ugly thoughts re: Vaputech, e=mc^2, the science fiction (1) concept of total matter-to-energy conversion, and the Lightning attunement already giving us a rough guideline for how many joules = 1 Essence... and seeing as how there are *trillions* of joules in a mere gram of matter, assuming total conversion... - -- Chuckg (1) And if Vapula has a favorite saying, it should be "It's science *fiction* only because I haven't gotten around to it yet!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:02:46 -0500 From: "Eric Bertish" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > 4) How about Jean? Matter is composed of charged particles, creating > electric-magnetic fields. So all matter supports Lightning too. Apropos to my earlier post, I would posit that energy has all its 'characteristics' in Agility. > 6) Eli. Creation. As in 'All of Creation'. Maybe _all_ of the forces > are his, and he allows the others pretend they own them. Well, that's because Eli is God. ;) > We should forward this question to the Angel of Standards. Lightning, in service to Destiny? Or Destiny, in service to Lightning? - -- Casca "Many people hear voices when no-one is there. Some of them are called mad and are shut up in rooms where they stare at the walls all day. Others are called writers and they do pretty much the same thing." --Margaret Chittenden, writer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:13:45 -0500 From: "Ruth Evers" Subject: Re: IN> Servitor of Dark Humor Unni Sol峠wrote: >Oh, and to any demons on the list: Remember to stay inside tomorrow. You >_know_ why.... >-- >Pain! Lots of pain! Or, if you're considering Salvation, please seek a servitor of Flowers (or nearly any other angel, but probably less skeevy for you if they're peace faction). Ask for Kariel! Kariel Dominican Mercurian of Flowers, Vassal of War, Liaison from the Glade to the Groves, Petitioner for the Word of Salvation. [Under suspended sentence of death by Judgment (twice over!) ed.] 0 !=) _________________________________________________________________ Join the world s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:16:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Ryan M Roth wrote: > Of course, this all depends on the question of how big the rock > must be before it has a full Force. Here we run up against the granularity of the game mechanics, which have Forces only in a human size range and don't allow for fractional Forces. Charles Glasgow wrote: > Erm? I thought that Forces were what *Life* was composed of. > Inanimate objects were merely formed out of Essence, right? According to the main book, EVERYTHING is composed of Forces. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:21:28 -0500 From: "Robb Kidd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Eric Bertish wrote: >>We should forward this question to the Angel of Standards. > > Lightning, in service to Destiny? Or Destiny, in service to Lightning? Trade. With attunements/rites from strong crossword-relations with Lightning and, possibly, Destiny. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:37:36 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question I deleted the message, but someone just said something to the effect of "According to the main book, EVERYTHING is made of of Forces." To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the animists. Ryan Roth rmr48@columbia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:44:56 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Ryan M Roth wrote: > > I deleted the message, but someone just said something to the effect > of "According to the main book, EVERYTHING is made of of Forces." > > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the > animists. Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:16:49 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > Ryan M Roth wrote: > > > > I deleted the message, but someone just said something to the effect > > of "According to the main book, EVERYTHING is made of of Forces." > > > > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines > > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, > > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the > > animists. > > Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not > follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. > > Earl Ah, but doesn't the definition's construction (as it is printed in the main book) imply that any collection of Forces can be called a soul? For example, if I look in a dictionary and I find under the word 'pack' the definition 'a collection of canines,' then aren't I perfectly within my rights to call any group of canines I come across a 'pack'? To INize it, if we define a 'Devotion' to be a group of Cherubium, then isn't any observer permitted to call any collection of more than one Cherubs a 'Devotion'? Ryan Roth rmr48@columbia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:33:56 -0600 From: "JamesStein" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > To INize it, if we define a 'Devotion' to be a group of Cherubium, then > isn't any observer permitted to call any collection of more than one > Cherubs a 'Devotion'? > > Ryan Roth > rmr48@columbia.edu > A square fits the definition of a 'rectangle', but a rectangle does not fit the definition of a 'square'. Or is that vice versa? I forget. But...the point remains. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:36:46 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question At 03:44 PM 3/28/02 -0500, you wrote: > > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines > > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, > > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the > > animists. > >Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. Actually, Ryan's point is valid. He's just misquoted the book. "Soul - any collection of Forces." (IN 69) Furthermore: "Forces - any of the three types of energy (Corporeal, Ethereal and Celestial) from which souls are formed; see p. 34." (IN 69) *I* can't find any reference to everything being made up out of Forces. All PCs are, though. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:02:20 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question >On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > > > I deleted the message, but someone just said something to the effect >> > of "According to the main book, EVERYTHING is made of of Forces." >> > > > > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines > > > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, >> > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the > > > animists. > > >> Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >> follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. >> >> Earl > >Ah, but doesn't the definition's construction (as it is printed in the >main book) imply that any collection of Forces can be called a soul? For >example, if I look in a dictionary and I find under the word 'pack' the >definition 'a collection of canines,' then aren't I perfectly within my >rights to call any group of canines I come across a 'pack'? No, actually, that would be wrong. Coyotes, Wolfes and Dogs are all members of the Canine species<*>. but, it would be a Route of Wolves, A Pack or Kennel of Dogs, and a Wileliness of Coyotes. (From An Exaltation of Larks, one of my favorite reference books of all time) (no, I really could not have made that up. Not enough coffee in the world for that). The point is, when dealing with specifics, different classifications apply. -Daiv <*> The fact that they can all interbreed with fertile offspring just means that Creation and Animals got together and had some fun. - -- hurricane winds blow tempest in a coffee cup damn those butterflies ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:12:05 From: "Daniel Gallagher" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines > > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, > > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the > > animists. > >Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. > >Earl The way I understood it is that you had to have at least one celestial force to have a soul. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:35:13 -0500 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question >> > To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines >> > a Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, >> > possibly, is part of the same soul), which should delight the >> > animists. >> >>Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >>follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. >> >>Earl > >The way I understood it is that you had to have at least one celestial force >to have a soul. > Does that mean Remnants don't have souls? Josh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:04:29 -0800 From: Daiv Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > > >>Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >>>follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. >>> >>>Earl > > >>The way I understood it is that you had to have at least one celestial >force > >to have a soul. > > > >Does that mean Remnants don't have souls? > > >Josh Yes, by definition, Remnants have no souls... Wait. Have we established in Canon, if Celestials have souls? That would make the question moot. As i recall, all of creation is made from the same components, but how they are put together is relevant. Mortals, who have souls, cannot become remnants. They can become undead, though... huh... Metaphysical CDAU? - -- hurricane winds blow tempest in a coffee cup damn those butterflies ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:13:52 -0500 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question >> >>Just because a soul is a collection of Forces, it does not >>>>follow that every collection of Forces is a soul. >>>> >>>>Earl >> > >>>The way I understood it is that you had to have at least one celestial >>force >> >to have a soul. >> > >> >>Does that mean Remnants don't have souls? >> >> >>Josh > > Yes, by definition, Remnants have no souls... > Wait. Have we established in Canon, if Celestials have souls? >That would make the question moot. > As i recall, all of creation is made from the same >components, but how they are put together is relevant. Mortals, who >have souls, cannot become remnants. They can become undead, though... >huh... Metaphysical CDAU? And would the transformation to undead mean the loss of the soul, and thus the destruction of the body means they're lost forever? Josh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:21:13 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question At 03:04 PM 3/28/02 -0800, you wrote: > Yes, by definition, Remnants have no souls... > Wait. Have we established in Canon, if Celestials have souls? > That would make the question moot. > As i recall, all of creation is made from the same components, > but how they are put together is relevant. Mortals, who have souls, > cannot become remnants. They can become undead, though... huh... > Metaphysical CDAU? No. Refer again to page 69 of the core rulebook. "Soul - ANY collection of Forces." (emphasis mine) All celestials, ethereals, and mortals have souls, by definition. A Remnant still has a soul. What he does not have is a connection to the Celestial plane. His Heart has been shattered, he loses his resonance and dissonance conditions (although he keeps any Discord he might have), any celestial Songs, and any attunements that require Celestial Forces to operate (those that enhance Will or Perception, for instance). He also loses his memory, although he does not lose any intelligence as a result of being Remnantized and, if he has a Role, assumes that identity fully. (See IN 68 for the full text.) http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/faq/#rule-humans-004 details what happens when a human loses his last Celestial Force. (He becomes very much like a Remnant, in short.) - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:02:11 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question >Does that mean Remnants don't have souls? > > >Josh I believe so. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:34:55 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Josh Moger wrote: > And would the transformation to undead mean the loss of the soul, and thus> the destruction of the body means they're lost forever? Yes. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:35:48 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Daiv wrote: > Yes, by definition, Remnants have no souls... Correct. > Wait. Have we established in Canon, if Celestials have souls? Celestials have souls. Celestial Forces = Soul. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:39:06 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question EDG wrote: > Refer again to page 69 of the core rulebook. > > "Soul - ANY collection of Forces." (emphasis mine) A rather casual line which has since been contradicted in quite a bit of canon -- I would say that's probably another bit of throwaway canon. It has, after all, been established that Zombis do NOT have souls, yet they remain a collection of Forces. (Amendment to my previous comment about undead not having souls: actually, they do still have a soul, if they retain any Celestial Forces, but that soul is artificially bound to their body. As soon as they die, the soul goes away.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:35:54 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces question >At 12:42 PM 3/28/02 -0500, you wrote: >>Everything in the Symphony is made of either Essence or Forces, right? >>Even >>non-living things, like rocks, can have Corporeal Forces? > >For some reason, this implies to me a rock with an Agility score... and, >further, that larger rocks, having more Forces, have higher Agility scores. > >And since a zero-Force realm can still have up to 3 points in attributes... I always had a feeling that having attributes tied to "Forces" was a bad idea ... - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ T鬩chargez MSN Explorer gratuitement ࠬ'adresse http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:36:23 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces question >At 12:42 PM 3/28/02 -0500, you wrote: >>Everything in the Symphony is made of either Essence or Forces, right? >>Even >>non-living things, like rocks, can have Corporeal Forces? > >For some reason, this implies to me a rock with an Agility score... and, >further, that larger rocks, having more Forces, have higher Agility scores. > >And since a zero-Force realm can still have up to 3 points in attributes... I always had a feeling that having attributes tied to "Forces" was a bad idea ... - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos est le moyen le plus simple de partager, modifier et imprimer vos photos pr馩r饳. http://photos.msn.fr/Support/WorldWide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:41:42 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces question > > >Personally, I'd shove it all into strength, but that's just me. > > > > Well, yes, but I've always operated under the assumption that if a Force >is > > present, the minimum possible score in a related attribute is 1. Is >this > > not the case? Can you have a character with 1 Corporeal Force, 4 >Strength, > > and 0 Agility? > >Theoretically, I don't see why not. Said character would be immobile on the >Corporeal plane, though. But since rocks aren't known for moving of their >own volition, this isn't a problem for them. Ah. Not quite true, so not quite true that the _original_ In Nomine game devotes a Demon Prince to it. Gaziel, Demon Prince of the Earth. His special power is called "Earthquake." - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ T鬩chargez MSN Explorer gratuitement ࠬ'adresse http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:00:29 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question > > Yes, by definition, Remnants have no souls... > > Wait. Have we established in Canon, if Celestials have souls? > >That would make the question moot. > > As i recall, all of creation is made from the same > >components, but how they are put together is relevant. Mortals, who > >have souls, cannot become remnants. They can become undead, though... > >huh... Metaphysical CDAU? > >And would the transformation to undead mean the loss of the soul, and thus >the destruction of the body means they're lost forever? > >Josh Precisely. However ... there's a really nasty consistancy flaw on page 191. Under Animals (snicker), you're see that Dogs, like undead, cannot go to Heaven (lacking Celestial forces). Neither can insects, or Wolves for that matter. Cats can, though! Whoo-hoo!!! I bet that makes Tracking hard for dogs in the In Nomine universe, seeing how Tracking is paired with Perception. The average Dog with Tracking/4 can only follow the trail 16.66% of the time (snicker). :PPPPBBBBT - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ T鬩chargez MSN Explorer gratuitement ࠬ'adresse http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:06:52 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> IN Riddles? > >On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:40:51 , "Perry Lloyd" > >wrote: > > > >>What's a shedite with a chainsaw? > >> > >>A target. > > > >What's a Calabite with a chainsaw? > > > >Happy. > >What's an Impudite with a chainsaw? > >Dissonant. hee hee >What's a Malakite with three chainsaws? > >Smug. LOL - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos est le moyen le plus simple de partager, modifier et imprimer vos photos pr馩r饳. http://photos.msn.fr/Support/WorldWide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:31:27 -0600 From: "Wade Lahoda" Subject: IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... Forgive me if this gets recieved twice, but I don't think it made it to the list the first time. =) I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it's not in the FAQ, and the search engine for the archives doesn't appear to work. What exactly do you let people get away with with the Remote Control Attunement? I'll post the wording, just so people have it in front of them(I think this falls within Fair Use - I'm sure the moderator will correct me if it does not): "Angels with this attunement may mentally control any device crafted by the hand of man from a number of feet away equal to their total Forces. They can make it do only those things that its regular controls would permit, and only one command per round."(In Nomine, p. 123) I think the 'device crafted by the hand of man' part is pretty unambigious - but 'regular controls', on the other hand... Obviously, any electronic controls are fair game. I think equally obviously, any mechanical controls that trigger a process but don't actually due the work are fair game(ie: the trigger on a gun, or the gas pedal on a car). But how far does this extend? Is a doorknob a control on the door, that permits the door to open and close? What about the lock - it's a control you normally need the key to operate, but it permits a door to be locked and unlocked. What about the handle on a door - it's a 'control', by which you push on the door to make it open or close - but it's actually the person doing the work. Here are some more problematic possibilities, from least problematic to most absurd: - -the button/nozzle on a can of spray paint - -the slide on a gun chambering a bullet - -a winch that opens and closes a drawbridge - it controls the drawbridge, but normally takes two large men heaving on it to move it - -a zipper on a jacket being a 'control' for the jacket that zips and unzips the jacket - -the top of a stapler(the part you slam down to make the stapler push a staple through paper) - -the cap of a bottle(the control that you twist to open or close the bottle) - -the handles on a pair of scissors that you use to control the opening and closing action of the scissors - -the handle of a two-handed sword that controls the motion of the blade towards your enemy As you can see, if one wants to push things, you can get pretty absurd. In my game, I've more or less ended up drawing the line at 'the slide on a gun', but I'm not entirely sure if that's appropriate. The player playing the Servitor of Lightning is the type who will certainly accept whatever I rule, but is clever enough to take complete and full advantage of whatever I allow. =) I'm afraid of making the attunement a 'disallow the opponent any use of any manmade object, including his clothing' power, and thus perhaps way too powerful - but it is a Servitor attunment, costing 10 points - and no one can say that Divine Logic or Art of War aren't also grotesquely powerful. Some attunements just are a lot more powerful than others, but I'm wondering what the balance for Remote Control is. So what do you think? Where do you draw the line with Remote Control? A. Wade Lahoda ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:56:47 +0000 From: "cassandra benner" Subject: Re: IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... >Here are some more problematic possibilities, from least problematic to >most >absurd: >-the button/nozzle on a can of spray paint Hmm, on this i'd say its a waste of attunement, perhaps Jean would send out an angekl to look in to the waste of attunement, indeed continual usage would earn the stripping of said attunement. >-the slide on a gun chambering a bullet I'd allow this, as well as puilling the trigger. Frex: dummiel is being held captive by Log and Nog, nog leaves room, putting gun on table, haphazerdly pointing at Logs back. dummiel sees the gun, invokes the attunement, BLAMMO, Log gets a 9mm in the back. >-a winch that opens and closes a drawbridge - it controls the drawbridge, >but normally takes two large men heaving on it to move it Ah the winch i would say would lower the bridge but not raise it, as your just releaseing the locking mechanism there, but by the wording you can raise the bridge as well. >-a zipper on a jacket being a 'control' for the jacket that zips and unzips >the jacket See the note about poor usage of attunements. >-the top of a stapler(the part you slam down to make the stapler push a >staple through paper) Hmm... See above. A nail gun would be a different matter... >-the cap of a bottle(the control that you twist to open or close the >bottle) "deadiel, youve been sing that attunement far to many times, for little reasons, to teach you the respect of Lightening, i am stripping it from you for now." >-the handles on a pair of scissors that you use to control the opening and >closing action of the scissors This id allow. >-the handle of a two-handed sword that controls the motion of the blade >towards your enemy Ah not this though. Its the hand that swings not the handle. Continual mis usage of attunements does get noticed by Superiors, its them effectivly your messing with. Well, thier word anyways. In a game i run, there was an offanite of Lightening, and he had the remote control, used it in the following ways. Got ATM's to epmty thier money on the street. (thuis proving that technology is a faulty thing, BAD) Messed arounbd with tv's in sports bars, thus proving that TV's are unreliable, (BAD) Had automattic doors open and close randomly on people. (BAD) Shut down a powerstation (with continual usage of the attunement), which earned a visit from jean, who took him back to heaven, stripped him of all attunements and funky things, and piut him to work in a research station on the moon after having some of his forces and memories scrambled. Needless to say, that if he had used the attunement at the right times in thse ways it wouldnt have been so bad, like stopping demons from getting away by emptying the atm in a crowded street to get the people in the way of the demons, or by using the people as a smokescreen to run the hell away. If he had shut the powerstation down to thwart a demonic plan of mass destruction then it would have been tolerable. Hope thats a help. Cas *Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be Evil.* In Nomine @ http://www.angelfire.com/goth/psyber/i-n.html In Nomine yahoo @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inveritas ADnD forum @ http://www.drunkendwarfinn.co.uk ADnD stuff @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ADandD_Stuff _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:48:03 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question - --- Perry Lloyd wrote: > I bet that makes Tracking hard for dogs in the In > Nomine universe, seeing > how Tracking is paired with Perception. The average > Dog with Tracking/4 can > only follow the trail 16.66% of the time (snicker). > > :PPPPBBBBT (shaking head) Come on, Perry. You know as well as I do that you can have up to three points in Characteristics without it registering as a Force. I would assign a Will/1 and Perception/2 to a dog: that gives Tracking a target number of 6, which is much more reasonable (roughly 42%). For an average task, that's a reasonable number. Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 02/24/02(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:20:53 -0800 From: "Brian Rogers" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Also, a highly trained dog may actually have mastered the skill, using the Mastery rules in the CPG. Brian > Come on, Perry. You know as well as I do that you can > have up to three points in Characteristics without it > registering as a Force. I would assign a Will/1 and > Perception/2 to a dog: that gives Tracking a target > number of 6, which is much more reasonable (roughly > 42%). For an average task, that's a reasonable > number. > > Moe > > ===== > Liber Licentiae Moeticae: > http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html > > Last updated 02/24/02(this is usually way out of date) - -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Win the Ultimate Hawaiian Experience from Travelocity. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4018363;6991039;n?http://svc.travelocity.com/promos/winhawaii/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:22:12 -0800 From: "Brian Rogers" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question Also, a highly trained dog may actually have mastered the skill, using the Mastery rules in the CPG. Brian > Come on, Perry. You know as well as I do that you can > have up to three points in Characteristics without it > registering as a Force. I would assign a Will/1 and > Perception/2 to a dog: that gives Tracking a target > number of 6, which is much more reasonable (roughly > 42%). For an average task, that's a reasonable > number. > > Moe > > ===== > Liber Licentiae Moeticae: > http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html > > Last updated 02/24/02(this is usually way out of date) - -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Win the Ultimate Hawaiian Experience from Travelocity. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4018363;6991039;n?http://svc.travelocity.com/promos/winhawaii/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:48:07 +0000 From: "Fallen Seraph" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question - Nature of God >From: Ryan M Roth >I deleted the message, but someone just said something to the effect of > >"According to the main book, EVERYTHING is made of of Forces." > >To which I would point out that, since the main book glossary defines a >Soul as "a collection of Forces", everything has a soul (or, possibly, is >part of the same soul), which should delight the animists. > Ignoring the counter agruments that followed on form this, theres an interesting point to be made here... If a collection of forces is a soul, and the universe is a huge collection of forces, then the universe is a huge soul. (or as we like to call him/her/it: God) Thus everything in the universe (including lucifer and the demons) is actually a part of God. An interesting idea with which to play, and covers issues of free will (if we are all part of god, how can we be working against it), the nature of demons (necessary for balance? a metaphysical Cancer?) and many other gems i'm too busy to think about right now. quite possible to break peoples heads with (although, i doubt it's strong enough JuJu to break moe... he probably solves these sorts of dilemmas over coffee in the morning) - -FallenSeraph "tausend graue M䵳e mit blauen M䵳eh䵳ern" http://www.geocities.com/archangel_nine ICQ: 110193631 _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:56:06 +0000 From: "Fallen Seraph" Subject: Re: IN> Limits on Remote Control Lightning Attunement... >From: "cassandra benner" > >>Here are some more problematic possibilities, from least problematic to >>most >>absurd: >>-a winch that opens and closes a drawbridge - it controls the drawbridge, >>but normally takes two large men heaving on it to move it > >Ah the winch i would say would lower the bridge but not raise it, as your >just releaseing the locking mechanism there, but by the wording you can >raise the bridge as well. personally, in situations like this I call for attr tests.. Let it down, fine, as cas says, its only releasing a mechanism. raising it? Make the angel take a Str test (after all, one reasonable angel is as strong as 2 men anyway, nu?) As a note in general, I disallow the use of this attunement (and the lightning kyrio one) on anything that is not Technological / mechanical / electrical in nature. you want to unzip a zip at range? swing someone elses sword? buy the Ethereal song of motion, its cheaper... - -FallenSeraph "tausend graue M䵳e mit blauen M䵳eh䵳ern" http://www.geocities.com/archangel_nine ICQ: 110193631 _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:29:50 From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Forces Question >--- Perry Lloyd wrote: > > > I bet that makes Tracking hard for dogs in the In > > Nomine universe, seeing > > how Tracking is paired with Perception. The average > > Dog with Tracking/4 can > > only follow the trail 16.66% of the time (snicker). > > > > :PPPPBBBBT > >(shaking head) > >Come on, Perry. You know as well as I do that you can >have up to three points in Characteristics without it >registering as a Force. 'doh! (smacks head) I would assign a Will/1 and >Perception/2 to a dog: that gives Tracking a target >number of 6, which is much more reasonable (roughly >42%). For an average task, that's a reasonable >number. > >Moe still ... 42% for a human wouldn't be that bad, but for an animal who primary sense is smell? Never mind the fact that tracking is rarely an average task ... it's still just wrong - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com pl312993@oak.cats.ohiou.edu http://www.geocities.com/perrylloyd/ "And that's the hardest thing for a human being to do - be wrong. Do you know that people would rather die than be wrong?" - --from A Matter For Men by David Gerrold _________________________________________________________________ T鬩chargez MSN Explorer gratuitement ࠬ'adresse http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2582 ********************************