in_nomine-digest Wednesday, January 29 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2950 In this digest: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? RE: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? Re: IN> Ascending Headaches Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? IN> [ADMIN] Trimming Posts Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? IN> State Change Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Re: IN> Ascending Headaches Re: IN> Valefor strikes again! (was RE: 2003: Fiction Piece #1) Re: IN> Seraph Proof Paper RE: IN> State Change Re: IN> State Change Re: IN> State Change Re: IN> State Change Re: IN> Ascending Headaches IN> How to redeem a demon. Re: IN> State Change RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Re: IN> State Change IN>Answers make more questions (was Re: IN> Ascending Headaches) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:29:09 -0500 From: "Wajenberg, Earl" Subject: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Joe Reimers wrote: "At their very core, angels submit to the higher will. One key aspect of angelic nature indicated in the main book is that angels are unselfish: they put the good of many ahead of their own good. This is directly contrary to the notion of Freedom. Angels cannot grasp the concept of Free Will. It is perplexing and contrary to their natures." I think it goes too far to say that angels cannot grasp the concept of Free Will. I took the main book to mean that angelic thinkers, just like human ones, find Free Will a slippery concept. Meanwhile, and to all appearances, they are unselfish because they freely choose to be unselfish; they can change their minds and become selfish and Fall. True, there's some irony in the exchange between God and a newly-Wordbound Angel of Freedom: "Go thou forth and defend the cause of freedom in My Name." "Yes, lord. Willingly." "Yes, that's the idea..." There's even more irony in the (possible) exchange: "Go thou forth and defend the cause of freedom in My Name." "No! I won't! And You can't make me! Um... I mean..." [Ineffable chortle, just before angel is erased from reality.] Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:27:27 -0500 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Reimers > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:15 AM > > I'm not sure I even like the idea of an AA of Freedom. Freedom, at its > core, can be both a positive and a negative, but it is always a mixed > blessing. As opposed to War, or Fire, or Judgment, which are all unmitigated good? > At their very core, angels submit to the higher will. One key aspect of > angelic nature indicated in the main book is that angels are unselfish: > they put the good of many ahead of their own good. This is directly > contrary to the notion of Freedom. Ah. There's an interesting contrast between the meaning of "Freedom" and "Liberty." In an essay I once read, the author linked "Liberty" with its French roots, encompassing the rights to do what you want when you want; to establish your own course in the world. The liberty *to do* something. "Freedom" was tied back to the German concepts of responsibility and duty, and being protected from impositions. The freedom *from* something. The author suggested the avatars of both these concepts could be found in the Marquis de Sade and the Baron von Sacher-Masoch. From this reading, an Archangel of Freedom makes perfect sense. Lilith should be the Demon Princess of Liberty, though. - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:28:32 -0500 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? > -----Original Message----- > From: Rens Houben > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:37 AM > > Well, Lilith would know the moment Word friction sets in, but she might > not choose to share that information for reasons of her own... Assuming humans even suffer from Word-Friction, of course. - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:01:55 -0700 From: sirea@softhome.net Subject: Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? >> Well, Lilith would know the moment Word friction sets in, but she might >> not choose to share that information for reasons of her own... > > Assuming humans even suffer from Word-Friction, of course. Maybe for a human it's like a severe and constant migraine, depending on how much friction there is. Had one a few nights go, and it certaintly -FELT- like someone was rubbing a steel grate into my brain :/ --- Sirea, Free Cherub IST Destiny, Angel who Wanders, petitioner for the Word of Eternity (currently being ridden by Grapejuice, Renegade Shedite of the Game, and petitioner for the Word of Pranking Tightwads) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:06:09 -0500 From: Joe Reimers Subject: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? Boy, I guess I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest here... Every Word can be perverted. There are very few Words which are "unmitigated good." I guess my point is that Freedom is particularly tricky when compared to the others. Unlike War, Fire or Judgment, which all have good uses and bad uses, Freedom's uses are often "gray:" not inherently good, not inherently evil, and yet causing both good and evil effects. As I mentioned before, many of the other AAs have an aspect of Freedom as an aspect of their Words. There is no AA of Technology because Lightning encompasses that, for instance. In fact so many AAs have aspects of their words invested in Freedom that creating a seperate AA for that would be problematic. Blandine supports the freedom of dreams, the ultimate world without barriers. Dominic represents freedom from corruption; the freedom to serve God without restraint. Yves stands for the freedom of each individual to become everything that person can possibly become; he also represents the freedom of thought and knowledge. Again, just food for thought. > > I'm not sure I even like the idea of an AA of Freedom. Freedom, at its > > core, can be both a positive and a negative, but it is always a mixed > > blessing. > > As opposed to War, or Fire, or Judgment, which are all unmitigated good? > > > At their very core, angels submit to the higher will. One key aspect of > > angelic nature indicated in the main book is that angels are unselfish: > > they put the good of many ahead of their own good. This is directly > > contrary to the notion of Freedom. > > Ah. There's an interesting contrast between the meaning of "Freedom" and >"Liberty." In an essay I once read, the author linked "Liberty" with its >French roots, encompassing the rights to do what you want when you want; to >establish your own course in the world. The liberty *to do* something. >"Freedom" was tied back to the German concepts of responsibility and duty, >and being protected from impositions. The freedom *from* something. > The author suggested the avatars of both these concepts could be found in >the Marquis de Sade and the Baron von Sacher-Masoch. > From this reading, an Archangel of Freedom makes perfect sense. Lilith >should be the Demon Princess of Liberty, though. > >-- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Subject: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? Following on from the "how much do celestials know about each other..." thread. Essence points are thoroughly detectable as units. And someone would have figured out a long time ago that you can store an essence point per force you have. Stats are a bit more continuous - while celestials obviously know if they're strong or weak (for example), I'm not sure they know the numbers. At least some songs - Corporeal Memory is a prime example, as are some of the Numinous Corpus - have detectably different effects at different levels. So the levels are visible, and someone will probably have figured out that there are six of them. Skills are less obvious, and so are role and servant levels. But since celestials can count essence points, levels on reliquaries are detectable. G:IN characters don't have it quite so simple: there are a load more things that they can buy separately. Why am I wondering about all this? Because the "experience points are partially a measure of your Superior's favour" rationalisation has always seemed a bit weak to me, especially if you spend them all on buying up skills and songs you already have, and your Superior isn't the anal-retentative type you wants to be kept updated on all your skills. So are experience points character-visible, and if so, how does a character experience them? I feel sure some servitors of Nybas get them as chain letters, or spam; Gluttons might get them in meals. Other suggestions? - --- John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:21:06 -0500 From: "Finder, Randolph J Mr NGB-ARNG" Subject: RE: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? > I feel sure some servitors of Nybas get them as chain > letters, or spam; > Gluttons might get them in meals. Other suggestions? Stonies get them in Gems, Creationers get them in small wierd gadgets which they don't have to cash in. :) Randy > > --- > John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:24:47 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Dunscombe Subject: Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? I've wondered this myself. I've seen a /couple/ of situations where in-character conversations dance /around/ the question: "My strength is X - what's yours? Which of us should attempt this feat?" Or just general comparative questions. --- John Dallman wrote: > Following on from the "how much do celestials know > about each other..." > thread. > > Essence points are thoroughly detectable as units. > And someone would have > figured out a long time ago that you can store an > essence point per force > you have. Stats are a bit more continuous - while > celestials obviously > know if they're strong or weak (for example), I'm > not sure they know the > numbers. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:32:21 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Ascending Headaches At 5:57 PM -0800 1/28/03, zombi_bobb@muchneededrest.com wrote: >What I want to know are the restrictions for descension. No cost, why? And >how do you stop your PCs from "strike-forcing" a tether by descending into >it without utterly smashing them? Liber Castellorum has the answers to this one... Which i would type in a bit, but see .sig... - -- - --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, 29 Jan 2003 20:36:54 +0000 From: Harvey Mills Subject: Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? Where its characters that know each other, and have done so for a while I'm quite happy with players using mechanics to shortcut the in-character conversations. Where its an unknown you need to experiment in character. At 15:24 29/01/03 -0500, you wrote: >I've wondered this myself. I've seen a /couple/ of >situations where in-character conversations dance >/around/ the question: "My strength is X - what's >yours? Which of us should attempt this feat?" Or >just general comparative questions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:48:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Trimming Posts Okay, I've been seeing some of this, so it's time for another round of remedial Conserve Bandwidth and Spare The Digest Readers. Trim the quoted text of posts you reply to. Quote only the parts you are replying to. Select and delete anything you are not replying to. If you are replying to several posts, summarizing (in [brackets]) is perfectly acceptable. If you want to reply to certain bits, you can insert a [...] as necessary to indicate that you have deleted text in the quoted material. How can you tell how much is too much? 1: Always select and delete the .sig of the person you are replying to. ALWAYS. Your emailer should be able to insert "Yadda Said:" -- or if you're quoting from the digest, keep the "From: Yadda" text there. You should be copying and pasting the individual post's Subject anyway, so you don't need more than that. The only time you keep the .sig is if you are directly commenting on it. Remember, ALWAYS DELETE THE .SIG OF THE MESSAGE YOU ARE REPLYING TO. And if you're replying to a message that didn't trim the .sig, TRIM IT TOO. 2: With VERY RARE exceptions, the body of the quoted text should be NO MORE than 2/3rds of the entire message! If it is more than that, assume that you have too much message and need to start more draconian trimming, adding [...] and [summarizing]. 3: If the quoted text is half the message, then you are VERY PROBABLY quoting too much. Go back and work on it. 4: DELETE THE .SIG OF THE MESSAGE YOU ARE REPLYING TO. 5: Trim the .sig of the message you are replying to, and any other .sigs that someone else may have carelessly left in quoted text. 6: Don't quote .sigs. If you have quoted someone's .sig, the List Admin instantly knows that you were being sloppy about trimming, and will either send you a snarky email or think very bad thoughts about you. And if you are otherwise an interesting person, this irritates her greatly because interesting people should know better. Now, everyone's been warned. If you don't think I'm talking about you... I probably AM talking about you, because the people who are good about this are always paranoid and write me after one of these warnings asking if they've been trimming their posts enough. It's the people who are oblivious who overquote. Remember, everyone on the digest has already seen the original post (and .sig) -- don't quote the whole blessed thing. - -- - --Beth, List Admin http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/listrules.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:16:39 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> How much of the game system is visible to characters? >I've wondered this myself. I've seen a /couple/ of >situations where in-character conversations dance >/around/ the question: "My strength is X - what's >yours? Which of us should attempt this feat?" Or >just general comparative questions. The way I would tend to do it is have people describe the way their character looks to others, and how (for example) strong they *think* they are. Sure, the players may all know that Joe's strength is 10 while Jack's is 12; but Joe is an arrogant sonuva, and entirely overconfident, so Joe is likely to push Jack out of the way and try it himself. On the other hand, if Joe and Jack are both characters capable of making a decision rationally, Joe's player might say "Joe points a thumb at the walking muscle and lets him do the trick." William ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:33:25 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:14 AM, Joe Reimers wrote: > At 03:43 AM 1/29/2003 +0800, you wrote: >> If you were thinking of designing an angel or Archangel of Freedom, >> which choir would you choose? I think either a Seraph or a Malakite >> might work the best, and I'm leaning toward Seraph. > > I'm not sure I even like the idea of an AA of Freedom. Freedom, at > its core, can be both a positive and a negative, but it is always a > mixed blessing. We as humans and especially the Americans among us > tend to view freedom as a very positive, beneficial thing, with many > accompanying responsibilities. Angels would tend to see it > differently. > I have a little trouble with an Angel of Freedom, actually. Not so much because the Word can't be Angelic -- I think it can -- but because bestowing a Superior level Angelic Word that's the same as the Superior Level Infernal Word that's been held by a Princess since the opening of the Gates of Hell and the start of the War as we know it today is a recipe for disaster. If you think Gabriel, who is as powerful an Archangel as any this side of Michael, is nuts because of Belial's presence in the Symphony corrupting her very nature, just think what a Newbie Angel of Freedom would do as Selfish-Freedom-Some-Are-More-Free-Than-Others slams into their Word with the force of millenia of accrued Word Forces, Tethers, promotion and effort. IMC, which is a dark version generally, that Angel would either Fall within days, be destroyed by Word Friction, or become Outcast and 'suicide' into the cool cool nothingness of Limbo, where the friction would proceed to tear them into a horrific monstrosity which, as soon as it clawed out of Limbo, would begin setting all the neutrons, protons and electrons free of one another in big explosions all over the planet in an effort to kill everyone and set their spirits free. But that's me. - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:36:48 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: IN> State Change Inspired by a recent list exchange. The non-canon LED is on. Ryan R. *************************************************** Everybody's wrong, you know. About Gabriel's madness. Oh, she's quite mad. That's obvious. But -why- she is mad...that's where everybody's got the wrong idea. Or, rather, ideas. Word-friction? Pleeease. Gabriel's dealt with the bozo for millenia. And one would think that, if that were it, Belial would be as crackers as she is (okay, admittedly, it -would- be hard to tell, but still...) Actually, if you were to go and look at Gabriel's instructions to her, um, his, Servitors before she, um he (look, I'm just going to call her 'she' from now on. It's just easier. Deal with it.) went bonkers, you might pick out a pattern. A pattern which suggests that maybe the so-called 'warning signs' of Gabriel's mental breakdown were a ruse on her part, a ruse to make her appear weak. A ruse meant to draw out Belial for some heavy-duty, old-school smiting. Given that, I think that we can safely rule out Word-friction. What about her connection to God? Again, she had been dealing with that for ages. And I, for one, don't believe God would punish her with madness in the course of being His Divine Speakerphone. And don't give me that hooey about the pressure of everything building up over time until it was too much for her. She's Fire -- the light of the stars and core of the planet. She -knows- how to handle pressure. The Trial? Well, that did put her in a bit of snit. It -was- rather insulting. But it wasn't the -cause-; more like the...spark. I can see the pain in your eyes. Look, I'll let you in on what really went down, seeing as you want to help your Mistress so much. But I really doubt there's anything you can do about it; there isn't anything - -anybody- can do about it, except wait, hope and pray. Swear to keep what I tell you to yourself. That's a good little Malakite. Like I said, Gabriel was not too happy about being hauled before the Council by Dominic. But, she is an Archangel. One of the good guys. She knew that Dominic was really only doing his job (even if he was being a jerk about it and even if she did say a lot of hot-headed things she probably shouldn't have). But she just wasn't able to defend her actions very well (being a Divine Speakerphone doesn't mean you get to know why or what you are saying). But she did want to reassure everybody that she was okay. And, if they were worried about her the way she was, then she would change what she was and make the issue moot. Wind isn't the only dynamic Word, after all. Impulsive? Well, yeah. Impulsiveness and Fire are no strangers. So she went to her Volcano, got it and everything else in order, and decided to make her change on the spot. (Did I mention this was an impulsive decision?). I wish she had told somebody, -anybody-, what she was going to do. You can be blessed sure that Soldekai would have, at the very least, made sure another Archangel was there to supervise things. But she told no one. The change itself was supposed to be quick and fairly straightforward. I mean, she had seen others do it before. Heck, she almost did it herself, back in the day. So she saw no reason why she couldn't do it now. The change was primarily an -emotional- one, an transformation fueled by Divine Fury, something Fire had in spades. Her idea was to center herself on her divine connection, summon all the Divine Anger she could muster (which was, of course, a LOT. I imagine she only had to imagine the bozo's face to get the ball rolling), focus her Will, and speak the words. As far as she knew, that was all that she needed. Honestly, anyone would think the power of Fire, a connection to God and the Will of one of the most powerful and ancient beings in all Creation - -should- be enough to do almost anything. Well, to her credit, she almost pulled it off. She got a quarter of the way though the process before something went wrong. Maybe some element was missing; maybe she started with the wrong premise, or maybe, the wrong -promise-. Maybe Word-friction did play a part after all. Maybe God just simply didn't want it to happen again. Regardless, something happened, and Gabriel's mind took the brunt of the awesome forces she had summoned and tried to channel. Soldekai found her then, and immediately called for the others and I. The Council knows, of course. We saw her just after it happened, and it was pretty simple to piece together what she had tried to do. She herself doesn't remember, though; the process destroyed that memory, leaving her even more confused. She doesn't remember even if you explain it to her. Believe me, we've tried. We saw her, raving, in her naked celestial form, the one we Archangels rarely show. We saw her -- burning rings of flame brighter than the sun. But we also saw the new ring -- one that was added and surrounded her constantly, like a dark corona. A ring made of words. Words that, if you looked close enough, said 'I shall not suffer the cruel to go without proper punishment' over and over in a long, dark chain. It was hard to see my choirmate (or should I say our choirmate?) in that state. We tried to help her, of course. But we couldn't reverse what she did or cause the process to finish. So we had to let her go (who could hold her?), and to hope. We decided not to reveal what we knew; Hell might find some way of using it against her, and we didn't want others up here attempting to duplicate the experiment. We guarded the knowledge for her sake. And now we wait, hoping that time will help her stabilize and recover. We hope that, someday, she will work through the damage and heal. And we (or, rather, most of us) allow this New Crusade to happen, since it allows her Servitors to channel their pain, and because getting rid of Belial and his crew, while it may not help, certainly wouldn't hurt. And I, for my part, do what I can to keep the bozo off her back. A good breeze can change the course of even Infernal flame, after all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:39:06 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Chris Bergstresser wrote: > Ah. There's an interesting contrast between the meaning of > "Freedom" and > "Liberty." In an essay I once read, the author linked "Liberty" with > its > French roots, encompassing the rights to do what you want when you > want; to > establish your own course in the world. The liberty *to do* something. > "Freedom" was tied back to the German concepts of responsibility and > duty, > and being protected from impositions. The freedom *from* something. > The author suggested the avatars of both these concepts could be > found in > the Marquis de Sade and the Baron von Sacher-Masoch. > From this reading, an Archangel of Freedom makes perfect sense. > Lilith > should be the Demon Princess of Liberty, though. > Were I to develop a *compliment* to Lilith IMC (and be at least somewhat bright about it), I would strongly consider an Angel (or Archangel) of *Liberation.* Where Lilith embodies Freedom in all its dark, selfish, self-centered, mememememe glory, the Angel of Liberation would embody the selfless effort to release the oppressed from bondage, and enable humanity to embrace its own Destiny unfettered by imposition. And, Lilith wouldn't even know the interloper was there until the Angel had a chance to get established. - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:40:07 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Ascending Headaches On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 04:36 PM, Edward Jones wrote: > (Greetings all--first time posting 'n' a'that, so do kindly point out > any Netiquette errors on my part, mew.) > Welcome! > -Mew! > Ed, the Sabre // Cat Mmmm... sabres everywhere.... - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:41:10 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan M Roth Subject: Re: IN> Valefor strikes again! (was RE: 2003: Fiction Piece #1) On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Vaughn Romero wrote: > Until then, I offer you the poor man's guide to > distinguishing Vaughn from Ryan: > > * The entire piece is a dialogue with no narrative > text in between. Vaughn. > * The piece is well written and edited by Casca. Ryan. > * Kobal appears and calls himself Kaiser Soze. Vaughn. > * The piece contains a well-reasoned and convincing > argument that Valefor is a role for Lucifer. Ryan. > > This will be on the test! > > Vaughn "I'm not Ryan" Romero > Gee, thanks. :) You are welcome to write the next part... Ryan R. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:50:03 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Seraph Proof Paper On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 09:03 AM, Michael Walton wrote: > Now this is just _off_. Michael must love this stuff > (but only because Dominic hates it). > Mm. I see Michael as the Ultimate Seraph, in much the way that Eli is the Ultimate Mercurian. Where Dominic is obsessed about finding Truth to add to Judgement, and Litheroy seeks to Spread the Truth, Michael *knows* the Truth and lives by it with every word and deed. This piece of paper would make that version of Michael decide it's time to winnow out Vapula's ranks again. Painfully. - -- Eric A. Burns Freelance Writer and Textual Whore http://www.annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:04:03 -0500 From: "Wajenberg, Earl" Subject: RE: IN> State Change Oh, *very* nice. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:43:58 -0800 From: Harukami Subject: Re: IN> State Change *Brilliant*. [throws Essence] Harukami - ---- "A masterful plan. Not at all overblown, uninteresting, irrational, or completely guaranteed to fail." * Erik smiles innocently. "Why /thank/ you." http://haru_in.tripod.com/ Haru's IN page: Game logs, art, and fiction. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:08:13 +0800 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> State Change May I second (or third) the applause. Janet Anderson ************************************************* Seraph: What do we want to do if he turns out to be an infernal? Malakite: I'm kinda hoping we don't find that out definitively. Leaving a long string of bodies behind us isn't a really good idea. - -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:55:43 -0700 From: sirea@softhome.net Subject: Re: IN> State Change It all makes sense now... It all makes SENSE! *claps approvingly* --- Sirea, Free Cherub IST Destiny, Angel who Wanders, petitioner for the Word of Eternity (currently being ridden by Grapejuice, Renegade Shedite of the Game, and petitioner for the Word of Pranking Tightwads) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:55:05 -0500 From: Michael Nutt Subject: Re: IN> Ascending Headaches > What I want to know are the restrictions for descension. No > cost, why? And how do you stop your PCs from "strike-forcing" > a tether by descending into it without utterly smashing them? I'm not sure if I understand the question, but it seems to me that it's based on a misunderstanding. Transiting is referred to as "ascending" when you leave the corporeal realm for the celestial realm, no matter if your destination is Heaven or Hell. "Descending" means traveling from Heaven OR Hell to the corporeal, and you can only do so to either the spot you ascended from most recently, or you can travel down a Tether to a fixed endpoint. A given Tether will allow travel between a fixed location on the corporeal plane (known as the "Tether locus") to a fixed spot in either Heaven or Hell (this, of course, neglects such oddities as "forked Tethers"; see Liber Castellorum for a much more in-depth analysis of Tethers). Most Tethers also have a limit to the number of Forces that can travel through them in any period of time; while this may "stretch" in some Tethers, there's a "rebound effect" that shuts them down for a long time after being "stretched". In other words, PCs won't be able to suddenly appear in an enemy Tether, ince they won't be able to get to the celestial end of anything but Tethers of their own side. If they're planning to attack a friendly Tether, I'd wonder just what sort of game you were running; I can imagine a campaign where PCs would be traitors to their side, but it doesn't seem like a viable long-term game. There's nothing to explicitly stop a team of PCs from trying to swarm the corporeal end of an enemy Tether, but the Seneschal will be powerful enough to make a serious dent in any attack, and has probably come up with a defense plan to deal with any attack that he can anticipate. It may just be "call for a hit squad of 20 Calabim for reinforcement", but it might also involve corporeal defense measures; again, the Liber Castellorum has an extended section on defending a Tether against attack. Note that many tactics may be made much more effective (or much less so) by the amount of Symphonic disturbance and general wrath and mayhem that celestials are allowed to indulge in. If you're running a very subtle "blending into the background" sort of game, an assault squad with flamethrowers and explosives racing into a network TV studio demonic Tether is going to draw an amazing amount of negative attention. Many PCs don't really think about how much their actions risk exposing the War; that's just one of the ways that Judgment and The Game can serve to rein in overeager PCs. - -- Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:57:06 -0500 From: BC Petery Subject: IN> How to redeem a demon. > The only hope is for them to activate this tether ... Now half of the > angels are dead and there's not enough of them to > activate the tether... but if the demons somehow redeem, they could do it. I don't have [the tether book], but could you use a Soldier of God? They might act a replacement characters for the dead angels. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:57:40 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> State Change Nif-tay, indeed! - -- - --Beth, trimming her .sig preemptively. O:> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:21:05 -0500 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: RE: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? > -----Original Message----- > From: Whistling in the Dark > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:39 PM > > Were I to develop a *compliment* to Lilith IMC (and be at least > somewhat bright about it), I would strongly consider an Angel (or > Archangel) of *Liberation.* Where Lilith embodies Freedom in all its > dark, selfish, self-centered, mememememe glory, the Angel of Liberation > would embody the selfless effort to release the oppressed from bondage, > and enable humanity to embrace its own Destiny unfettered by imposition. Am I the only one who plays Lilith brightly? For that matter, I play a pretty bright version of Lucifer -- he's not for *evil*, he's for the *choice* that makes good worthwhile. He was frustrated with all the holy-holy-holy in heaven when it didn't mean anything; it's meaningless to be good when nobody's evil. Realizing this, he sacrificed himself to create the distinction. Now he's stuck down in Hell with a bunch of loonies, not happy exactly, but satisfied knowing what he's doing is worthwhile. He could redeem, but he holds a grudge, and he's worried how bad things would get if he wasn't keeping Hell's legions in check. Call him the loyal opposition. *Someone* needs to run Hell, and he's good at it. Lilith's the only creature in creation who *understands*. Yves probably knows, and Eli might have figured it out, but Lilith's been there. She's not allied with Hell so much as they're the only ones who will talk to her. But she's generally honest, she always keeps her word, and she'll treat everyone with the respect they deserve. Forget demons, you can't find many *angels* you can say that about. - -- Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:24:10 -0600 From: Gregg Forge Subject: Re: IN> Angel (or Archangel) of Freedom? > > >>I would also recommend Ofanite; I can easily see such evolving out of a >>Servitor of the Wind. I can't see a Malakite, with their binding oaths and >>codes, taking the Word of Freedom, though I could see one taking related >>Words that had more restricted scope. > > >How about the Choir no one's looking at? > >No one notices. > >Has complete autonomy. > >And has been ignored by both sides for millennia? > > Damnit, beaten to it... >Course, getting a Grigori up to Heaven to be Word-bound could be difficult, >but I bet Eli could pull it off. > > Not required, by any sense of the...erm...Word. (^_^) Remember! Celestials who show up, with Words, are assumed to be the result of the Will of the Creator deciding, "THIS is where the Word should be..." After all, with such a game and with that level of Fiat, it only makes perfect sense. Also, since my books aren't right in front of me, I recall a mention in both the GMG and in S3 about how the Seraphim Council tends to acknowledge such happening in the rare event that they occur. Which means that a good way to start off an adventure is... The petitioner for the Word of Freedom has been approved by the Council, and all things are in order to cause the granting of the Word to occur when... it doesn't work. And immediately, all know the reason why. There's a certain sound of Failure that exists when attempting to bind one to a Word while the original holder yet lives... >And a Grigori would probably interpret her Word as making sure that humans >remain free from interference from either side. > > Which is what's happening in my IN Anime - Silent Möbius campaign. Incidently, this game also includes such heresies as celestial forms being just as physically existant upon the Corporeal as vessals, but mostly invulnerable due to the nature of Celestial material, as it were. A sword would hurt only as much as a celestial believed it to, and bullets the same, but the body would not retain such things put through it. A young celestial might be cowed by a hail of bullets; an experienced servitor would make the most of the ripples of their flesh gaining holes that immediately swirl and reseal in order to intimidate without even having to lift a finger. Now, anything that's imbued with the capacity of inflicting celestial damage, however...well, those holes seal, somewhat, but bits of their makeup still shred and flit away. Vessals remain. Celestials unravel after six minutes, if soul-killed. A celestial killed inside the vessal remains inside the body for a day, then is expelled messily. THEN unravels. But in the course of that day, with proper rituals and preparations, one can merge the two, keeping the essential celestial qualities trapped in a corporeal body. And from that physical body, one can make things that harm other celestials. Knives made from demon ribs, a sword from an angel femur... Kamika-Z ...and the contrast is low, and darker than I usually play... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:05:25 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> State Change _Interesting_ theory. =====

Michael Walton, #US2002023848

Smart knows what. Intelligence knows how. Wisdom knows why. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:34:59 -0800 (PST) From: zombi_bobb@muchneededrest.com Subject: IN>Answers make more questions (was Re: IN> Ascending Headaches) > "Descending" means traveling from Heaven > OR > Hell to the corporeal, and you can only do so to either the spot you > ascended from most recently, or you can travel down a Tether to a fixed > endpoint. I didn't know about that first portion, I assumed one could descend anywhere, where did I miss that? > Most > Tethers also have a limit to the number of Forces that can travel > through > them in any period of time; while this may "stretch" in some Tethers, > there's a "rebound effect" that shuts them down for a long time after > being > "stretched". And I take it that this is all explained in Liber Castellorum. > Many PCs > don't > really think about how much their actions risk exposing the War; that's > just > one of the ways that Judgment and The Game can serve to rein in > overeager > PCs. > > -- Michael How do you convey the importance in not exposing the War, and what kind of punishments are suitable for when PCs do so(Judgement or otherwise)? Other questions, since I'm asking them: What would demons do with Divine technology? specifically medical tech? If a Mercurian essentially frenzies, for role-playing purposes, should you allocate the dissonance one kill at a time or wait for the bloodbath to end? How often do you have PCs talk with their Superiors? How would a Superior respond to a request for healing a vessel's body hits? How would a Superior respond to a request for replenishing Essence? How is Essence-transferring handled? Where is it possible? Where isn't it? How would a Superior respond to a request for a new vessel? an extra vessel? If character points are sort-of like "favor" with one's Superior, does that mean celestials can't advance without their help? Including skills? If not, why does a vessel cost so much Essence (GM's Guide), but not nearly as many equivalent character points? Those are all of my questions for now, Jim ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2950 ********************************