Hauberk of Bells

[vegetalss4]

Thanqol


the part about not all demons being evil (and the fact that the infernal isn't but into the 12 year old girl) is a valid point, however it is still a quite nigthmarish process, that where most of what the demon does is described as "an exercise in cleansing the Infernal’s mind of whatever sympathy for and identification with the people of Creation he might once have held"


as for the ways of removing torment. they all consist of saying sorry to the yozis one way or another, and is completely under the yozis control, how much torment you lose, AND by agreement how much you gain. in other words a fully blown traitor who just bitchslapped malfeas can expect to be under constant effect of torment, with nothing he can do ageinst it.

 

[Thanqol]

Exactly. Malfeas thinks he can get results out of his GSP's by beating the shit out of them, because that's what works on all his souls. That just makes angry, vengeful GSP's.


They never understood humanity, and they still don't.


Which is all part of why I love the Primordial mindsets and how that relates to their chosen avatars.

the part about not all demons being evil (and the fact that the infernal isn't but into the 12 year old girl) is a valid point, however it is still a quite nigthmarish process, that where most of what the demon does is described as "an exercise in cleansing the Infernal’s mind of whatever sympathy for and identification with the people of Creation he might once have held"

Eh. Only if you play it like that. In my mind, the process changes the GSP's perspective, rather than making them into a monster. If it's a houserule, it's a justified one IMO.


Infernal Example: Realms, my pet Scourge, came out with the following change in perspective: The Sun promised the world would be better without the Primordials; Because of what happened to her, it is obviously not.


The Yozi are horrible monsters that would screw the world if they ever got out. This is plain. But she also has compassion for the Yozi, knows that they hate being horrible broken monsters.


So her decision is to steal the Games of Divinity and bring 'em down to Hell. Make the Sun do his goddamn job and make the prison a brighter place for the Yozis.


And what's wrong with that?

as for the ways of removing torment. they all consist of saying sorry to the yozis one way or another, and is completely under the yozis control, how much torment you lose, AND by agreement how much you gain. in other words a fully blown traitor who just bitchslapped malfeas can expect to be under constant effect of torment, with nothing he can do ageinst it.

Eh, the Yozi have less control over their own actions than they think, and they're not exactly Team Unity here. C'mon.


Seriously, if we go off your example, I'd bet the Ebon Dragon would veto any Torment Malfeas tried to give out on account of being bitchslapped (just because he'd think it'd be hilarious). Note that the Torment rules have very specific triggers that cause buildup which do not include "You have pissed off your Yozi".


If you want to houserule that rebelling against the Yozi causes instant death, sure. Or if you reckon it's core, also sure. But a rule that stupid and unconductive to roleplaying will never cross my table while I have strength in my arms and a bullet in my gun.

 

[Kyeudo]

If you want to houserule that rebelling against the Yozi causes instant death, sure. Or if you reckon it's core, also sure. But a rule that stupid and unconductive to roleplaying will never cross my table while I have strength in my arms and a bullet in my gun.

I hope you're just shooting down the idea and not the player. Shooting the player makes a terrible mess of your kitchen table.

 

[Gylthinel]

the part about not all demons being evil (and the fact that the infernal isn't but into the 12 year old girl) is a valid point, however it is still a quite nigthmarish process, that where most of what the demon does is described as "an exercise in cleansing the Infernal’s mind of whatever sympathy for and identification with the people of Creation he might once have held"

Eh. Only if you play it like that. In my mind, the process changes the GSP's perspective, rather than making them into a monster. If it's a houserule, it's a justified one IMO.

If you want to houserule that rebelling against the Yozi causes instant death, sure. Or if you reckon it's core, also sure. But a rule that stupid and unconductive to roleplaying will never cross my table while I have strength in my arms and a bullet in my gun.

Unfortunately, a large portion of your perspective on the Infernals rests on the concept of them retaining their humanity, self-respect, and enough of their own logic to want for themselves, rather than wanting for their masters. If this is a house rule, as you allusion suggests, then your entire perspective on Infernals is predicated on a house rule. Which is fine for you, but largely invalidates most of your posts.


I would further say that Torment is designed to represent the fury of the Yozi. Though the rules don't state that you gain torment for ticking a Yozi off, would it be inappropriate to give Torment for such? Maybe. The Ebon Dragon would want the GSPs to retain the ability to be rabble-rousers, I'd think. But, on the other hand, the point of Torment is to punish the wayward.


Similarly, I give out Limit to Solars who are subjected to extreme emotional stress. That's what acting against your virtues and witnessing your limited break conditions represents. There's no rules out there that say you have to get limit if you spend a dramatic action weeping over your slain wife, but it's appropriate to the concept of limit, so I hand it out.

 

[Gylthinel]

Sorry for the double post, I forgot this!

Solar Bond buff (because it does suck):
You add the rating in dice to any roll directly related to your Solar or your Solar's ideals. Given that a two dot Daiklave will add more than 2 dice to every single combat roll anyway, this seems fair, yes?

This rule might be a bit too good, because it could be rather easy to make everything align w/ the Solar's ideals. If your Solar has an intimacy to conquering Gem, and you're in Gem, than conceivably all of your actions could profit from this boost. Not too bad when it's level 2, but level 5?


My GM and I play it rather fast and loose. He lets me spend the "dice" to do wacky things like transmit ideas to the Solar via virtual telepathy, know where the Solar is, and one time I even spent a die to metagame horribly so that my Lunar knew a bunch of the solar's stats. He just got a "feel" for it, and it gave them a great edge.

 

[Thanqol]

Sorry for the double post, I forgot this!
This rule might be a bit too good, because it could be rather easy to make everything align w/ the Solar's ideals. If your Solar has an intimacy to conquering Gem, and you're in Gem, than conceivably all of your actions could profit from this boost. Not too bad when it's level 2, but level 5?


My GM and I play it rather fast and loose. He lets me spend the "dice" to do wacky things like transmit ideas to the Solar via virtual telepathy, know where the Solar is, and one time I even spent a die to metagame horribly so that my Lunar knew a bunch of the solar's stats. He just got a "feel" for it, and it gave them a great edge.

Come on, if you've got 5 dots in a background you can get an artifact that will one-shot Gem. I don't see the problem there.


Plus if your Solar's devoted to conquering Gem, any actions you take towards conquering Gem should get the bonus - i.e. your big speech that orders the townsfolk to surrender would get the bonus, but fighting an Abyssal who just so happens to be in the area and isn't directly tied to Gem's plot wouldn't. Treat it like a motivation.


And if you're willing to be a puppet of your Solar, with your will being exactly what he says (+6/-6 MDV makes it kind of hard to disregard, especially when he breaks out social charms) - then you should be prepared for horrifying consequences that more than outweigh getting 5 dice to a bunchton of rolls.

 

[Thanqol]

Unfortunately, a large portion of your perspective on the Infernals rests on the concept of them retaining their humanity, self-respect, and enough of their own logic to want for themselves, rather than wanting for their masters. If this is a house rule, as you allusion suggests, then your entire perspective on Infernals is predicated on a house rule. Which is fine for you, but largely invalidates most of your posts.

I don't believe it's a house rule. I believe the opposing theory is a houserule. And even if you can somehow convince me that it's core, I will disregard it anyway.

I would further say that Torment is designed to represent the fury of the Yozi. Though the rules don't state that you gain torment for ticking a Yozi off, would it be inappropriate to give Torment for such? Maybe. The Ebon Dragon would want the GSPs to retain the ability to be rabble-rousers, I'd think. But, on the other hand, the point of Torment is to punish the wayward.

Okay, look. This theory is dumb, for reasons outlined in Infernals. If the Yozi had kill switches on all their GSP's, the Incarnae could just order them to kill all their GSP's. And then they do not have any GSP's. Just like the problem with the Akuma.


So, we've got Urges. Urges are 'You go and do this'. The Yozi cannot contravene an Urge once set, unless the GSP comes back down to Hell for reassignment. The urge mechanic is tight and self-contained. There are no provisions for Yozi torment-smiting rebellious GSPs. If you want to add such mechanics, you are essentially killing roleplaying and defying the entire purpose of the GSP program.


EDIT: And the Yozi already have a defense against rebellious GSP's. Namely, none of Malfeas' charms work against Malfeas (and so on and so forth). They do, however, lack the foresight to imagine their Princes could ever surpass them, and thus failed to put in extra controls for GSP's who are more powerful than them.

Similarly, I give out Limit to Solars who are subjected to extreme emotional stress. That's what acting against your virtues and witnessing your limited break conditions represents. There's no rules out there that say you have to get limit if you spend a dramatic action weeping over your slain wife, but it's appropriate to the concept of limit, so I hand it out.

I am not sure I agree, and I certainly wouldn't agree in the case of GSP's, but if it works for your group then it's dandy.

 

[vegetalss4]

Thanqol i fully support your houserules


with regards to the part where i wrote "an exercise in cleansing the Infernal’s mind of whatever sympathy for and identification with the people of Creation he might once have held" that was actuly a quote from the infernals book.


and the reason you only gain torments for very specific acts is that the yozis agreed on it, a pince who say screw you, and your reclamation i'm gonna be a green sun KING, could expect the yozis to be quite angry with him. however i agree that it would be logical IF the yozis didn't have a kill switch, as the incarna then could order them to use it, so i think i will houserule it out of excistence.


and by the way i think to comment about strength in your arm ond bullets in your gun, was uncalled for. I believe i have been completely clear about that i have the uthmost respect for your houserules, and aren't trying to force anyone into doing anything

 

[Thanqol]

and by the way i think to comment about strength in your arm ond bullets in your gun, was uncalled for. I believe i have been completely clear about that i have the uthmost respect for your houserules, and aren't trying to force anyone into doing anything

Generally, my threats to shoot people are made in jest. And my lexicon is a bunch of free-floating movie quotes enmeshed in a layer of protective gel.

 

[Gylthinel]

and by the way i think to comment about strength in your arm ond bullets in your gun, was uncalled for. I believe i have been completely clear about that i have the uthmost respect for your houserules, and aren't trying to force anyone into doing anything

Generally, my threats to shoot people are made in jest. And my lexicon is a bunch of free-floating movie quotes enmeshed in a layer of protective gel.

Okay, look. This theory is dumb, for reasons outlined in Infernals. If the Yozi had kill switches on all their GSP's, the Incarnae could just order them to kill all their GSP's. And then they do not have any GSP's. Just like the problem with the Akuma.

I wouldn't say it's dumb, it simply differs from yours. But, not even that much... yet my slight variance has you calling my idea dumb? Sounds like you enjoy Yozi because you think like them. I'm just musing with an open mind regarding alternative perspectives. Perhaps I should self-quote to remind you of my position, however:

Quote:
I would further say that Torment is designed to represent the fury of the Yozi. Though the rules don't state that you gain torment for ticking a Yozi off, would it be inappropriate to give Torment for such? Maybe. The Ebon Dragon would want the GSPs to retain the ability to be rabble-rousers, I'd think. But, on the other hand, the point of Torment is to punish the wayward.

You'll note that I do not say that Torment should apply, only that it MIGHT be appropriate to apply, and I never even mention the concept of torment-death (which doesn't even exist). I definately think that the design-by-committee nature of Torment would make a direct assault from any single Yozi neigh impossible. Yet, I feel that simply saying that a Yozi cannot inflict torment outside of the guidelines in the book is a bit overly-mechanized, blowing the wind out of the sails on the mystery boat.

Similarly, I give out Limit to Solars who are subjected to extreme emotional stress. That's what acting against your virtues and witnessing your limited break conditions represents. There's no rules out there that say you have to get limit if you spend a dramatic action weeping over your slain wife, but it's appropriate to the concept of limit, so I hand it out.

I am not sure I agree, and I certainly wouldn't agree in the case of GSP's, but if it works for your group then it's dandy.

Well, this house-rule doesn't get a lot of action, because I don't see a lot of RP-oriented emotion that'd merit any limit. But, every once and again it happens. And I'll freely admit that I utlize this as a method to increase limit production, because I feel it builds far too slowly in my games.

 

[Thanqol]

I wouldn't say it's dumb, it simply differs from yours. But, not even that much... yet my slight variance has you calling my idea dumb? Sounds like you enjoy Yozi because you think like them. I'm just musing with an open mind regarding alternative perspectives. Perhaps I should self-quote to remind you of my position, however:

Sorry. The majority of my posts are written in the transitory gap between waking up and work and I barely know who I am. I don't mean anyone offense.

You'll note that I do not say that Torment should apply, only that it MIGHT be appropriate to apply, and I never even mention the concept of torment-death (which doesn't even exist). I definately think that the design-by-committee nature of Torment would make a direct assault from any single Yozi neigh impossible. Yet, I feel that simply saying that a Yozi cannot inflict torment outside of the guidelines in the book is a bit overly-mechanized, blowing the wind out of the sails on the mystery boat.

Torment death does exist if your Yozi is Celcyne. How do you like infinity dice of unsoakable lethal damage?


I think the Urge mechanic does what it needs to do. The Yozi give an order, then they set the Prince loose until that mission is completed and don't meddle in between. If there are additional ways for the Yozi to give out Torment, they really have to support the concept of the Urge and the whole Infernals-Have-Free-Will, which is a critical part of the Yozi's plans. If they were going to include ways to control their Infernals, they'd have made them Akuma.


The point is that they didn't, in case the Incarnae used it against them. They never thought that the Infernals would use that against them.

Well, this house-rule doesn't get a lot of action, because I don't see a lot of RP-oriented emotion that'd merit any limit. But, every once and again it happens. And I'll freely admit that I utlize this as a method to increase limit production, because I feel it builds far too slowly in my games.

A faster Limit build up does have merit to it, I agree. I don't particularly agree with 'punishing' dramatic role playing.


My preferred method to increase Limit buildup would be to broaden the category of Limit triggers, so more things set the PCs off more often. Some PCs choose subtly narrow ones.