I was thinking that since many Paladin settings are going to be small ones (2-3 pages, although I think my Heaven and Hell one might be longer) that RPGevolution would be a great place for them. Is this the kind of article that would fit the mag?

Jake

Jake,

Yes.

I'm going to post today a list of things I really want to see in this issue, including me pointing the finger at a few people and saying, "You. Do this. Now."

- Clinton

I'm working on my "Fires of Heaven" setting for Paladin which I reckon is going into RPGevolution. My question:

Since we're going to be selling this thing to people, posting it publically as a "work in progress" probably isn't a good idea, but I would still like to post it and get feedback, so I was thinking of doing that here. How does that sound?

Jake

[edit:] I would especially like feedback concerning the Code and the Powers, which I'm feeling a wee bit shaky on.

Sounds great by me - I'll look over whatever you post, Jake.

- Clinton

Yeah, Jake, fire it up. ;-)

Mike

Okay, here it is, to-date. There are notes at the bottom. I'm looking for some real feedback on this.

Jake

http://www.theriddleofsteel.com/otherstuff/foh.htm

Jake,

So far, I really like this.

Feedback:

One Minor Law is "Thou shalt punish the iniquities of the wicked, as the Fires of Heaven destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah," but a Major Law is to not commit murder, or end life without His consent. How would a Seraphim commonly punish inquity? I note that they have the power to bring the fires of heaven, but if they kill someone without first being told to (or asking God), they will break a Major Law.

Also, I'd add some Law about humans, perhaps something like "Thou shalt represent the Glory of Him to all mortals," or "Thou shalt never ask a mortal to act against His will." Basically, this is for fallen angels - breaking it gives them power, and tempting people = power for the fallen seems pretty biblical to me.

Otherwise, your Code rules. I like the fact that it works for demons (or fallen angels) as well: traditionally, they gain power by claiming what is not theirs (breaking a Minor Law), and cannot speak the name of Him (denying Him is breaking the Unbreakable Law, which I'd rule always turns someone into a fallen angel.)

I think the Seraphim will have reasons to break the Code: the fornication one is interesting, because it brings the idea of love into the game, which is a great reason to break your Code. The "Thou shalt not take what is not yours" Minor Law is a great one. Imagine a scene where the fallen are taking away a human that desperately wants to be saved. The angel cannot interfere without breaking this Law, however, because that soul is promised to the fallen.

One interesting idea is to constrain the angels even more: change the second Minor Law to "Thou shalt show mercy towards all of His creation," forcing them to not hurt mortals that do not follow Him. I imagine that could create a huge amount of stories.

Your Powers are great.

I updated the "Special Considerations for using Animus" section.

Jake

The whole thing is now finished, except for lots of tweaking and re-organization. Other than that, I think it's done.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this one, as it's oozing greatness to me, but that's usually a good sign that you're slipping.

Mike? Ralph? Ron?

Anxiously pacing,
Jake

Lest you think I was ignoring your pleas...I was only today added to the membership of this secret project forum...I shall endeavor to follow the link and give you some good feedback this week.

Ok, here are some preliminary thoughts (I love this stuff...movies like Prophecy and even Dogma, games like Heaven & Earth before GOO emasculated it)

The scripture quotes are so sweet. Your notes indicate you'll be adding more...Yeah!

I'd like to see more on the Lukewarm (is there a better word for that...the Undecided perhaps). They were originally angels right (on the day before the day before). What have they been doing on Earth? Are they aware that they are celestial beings...are they in hiding...are they moving among us like a bunch of angelic Immortals waiting for the Gathering?

I'd like to see some examples of clashes with the Fallen as they'd occur on Earth in the various time/places. Are they metaphorical clashes? As a Serephim am I sent across to Morning to help Richard the Lionhearted take Acre. Am I defeated at the gates of Jeruselem? Or are their really horned dudes with barbed tails I'm hunting through the desert as the mortals wage their own battle.

How much of mortal history is tied to the divine history of "Today". Are events like the Protestant Reformation manifestations in the mortal world of battles between the Host and Legion. Or are they totally irrelevant events that mortals waste their time on while Today slowly ticks past?

I guess that would lead me to wanting to see more on mortals in general in the game. If the Paladin stats are defining angels, how does one stat a mortal...or more precisely how does one relate mortals to the mechanics since they'd pretty much be beneath stating. Since a big part of the game seems to be making sure not to inadvertantly kill a million mortals while fighting Baal, how is that worked mechanically.

And what about the Saints. In your brief description you seem to indicate that all mortals who've chosen Him and not just canonized individuals. Is that right. Does being a Saint give them any special function mechanics wise?

Finally, what kind of Light and Dark Animuses (Animi?) are suitable for angels. Maybe a couple examples of some "Higher" and "Lower" powers would be helpful in that regard.

I'll try to read it again side by side with my copy of Paladin and see what else leaps out at me...whenever you get back from your holiday type thing.

Sorry that I missed this one as well. Comments:

I'm also trying to represent Him as something other than the distant, unapproachable, "why am I serving this guy again?" figure that so many game designers (probably who are unhappy with their own IRL concept of God) make; He needs to be worth serving.

Hey all-

This is good stuff. After reading Sorcerer and Soul, and talking at length with Ron (who you know) and others (who you don't) I see some changes taking place in my design, especially along the lines of "what do you do in this game."

As to the idea of "my beliefs," understand that in its current form, not a thing I believe in is in this game. I've decided to add some things that will actually facilitate it somewhat that do come from my own belief system, but as it stands...it's fantasy.

Finally, there's nothing in Angels knowing God that's un-Paladin like. Compare Star Wars, where a Jedi never doubts whether or not there is a Force, or even that one side is light and one side is dark. The "trial of faith" in Star Wars is when one's own desires and goals are in conflict with those of the side you're on (it goes both ways, as the Vader story beautifully shows us that not even he was "all dark side," and that it was his urge to do something from the wrong side of his tracks that killed him).

My current thoughts on the Paladin-style conflict come from the role of the Seraphs and the Fallen. It's issues of what's greater--the means or the end? Issues of free will and giving it to others. As I see it, the Fallen wish to remove mankind's free will--that's the thing that got them the status of "Fallen" to begin with. The angels wish to promote free will, but also wish to save souls (including the souls of the fallen?). What happens when they could force someone to do the right thing--are they following their prime directive or not? Are they stealing that which isn't theirs (free will) or are they allowing "evil" to happen. Which is the greater evil, really. Just because they know that there is a God doesn't mean that they have to agree with him.

There is a LOT of revision that I have to do on this now, but I think that Paladin is still a great system for it. Mike's right in that I need to play with it to get the right kind of inner conflicts as the focus, but I'm on that track, I think.

Jake,
who's glad there's a discussion on this now.

Jake Norwood wrote: As to the idea of "my beliefs," understand that in its current form, not a thing I believe in is in this game. I've decided to add some things that will actually facilitate it somewhat that do come from my own belief system, but as it stands...it's fantasy.

It's issues of what's greater--the means or the end? Issues of free will and giving it to others. As I see it, the Fallen wish to remove mankind's free will--that's the thing that got them the status of "Fallen" to begin with. The angels wish to promote free will, but also wish to save souls (including the souls of the fallen?). What happens when they could force someone to do the right thing--are they following their prime directive or not? Are they stealing that which isn't theirs (free will) or are they allowing "evil" to happen. Which is the greater evil, really. Just because they know that there is a God doesn't mean that they have to agree with him.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote: As to the idea of "my beliefs," understand that in its current form, not a thing I believe in is in this game. I've decided to add some things that will actually facilitate it somewhat that do come from my own belief system, but as it stands...it's fantasy.

Apollogies, then. But it certainly reads as at least reactive to other's beliefs. Which may or may not be an issue.

Mike Holmes wrote:

It's issues of what's greater--the means or the end? Issues of free will and giving it to others. As I see it, the Fallen wish to remove mankind's free will--that's the thing that got them the status of "Fallen" to begin with. The angels wish to promote free will, but also wish to save souls (including the souls of the fallen?). What happens when they could force someone to do the right thing--are they following their prime directive or not? Are they stealing that which isn't theirs (free will) or are they allowing "evil" to happen. Which is the greater evil, really. Just because they know that there is a God doesn't mean that they have to agree with him.

OK, now there's an issue. If you focus on that, I think you're on to something unique. In that case the only real modification I'd suggest is to make all of the Vows relate to humanity and how to deal with them. Then all you have to do is put the angels in close proximity with humanity in morally ambiguous cases, and you'll be off and running.

In the original it seemed ass though a lot of play would be in the late evening, and just be aobut killing the bad guys.

Mike

Interesting. That quote is usually cited as referring to agnosticism. That is, the "lukewarm" are those who won't commit to either belief or disbelief.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Interesting. That quote is usually cited as referring to agnosticism. That is, the "lukewarm" are those who won't commit to either belief or disbelief.

Mike

Jake Norwood wrote: What's funny is that the whole Today/Yesterday/Tomorrow thing was all mine--I thought--but I recently stumbled across a passage to support it.

Wierd.

Jake Norwood wrote: Going back to one of Ralph's questions, the Lukewarm (referring to Christ's claim that "if ye are neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee from my mouth," where I believe he later refers to such folk as "lukewarm." It's got that biblical bit, which I'm trying to keep. That 3rd, the "lukewarm," are all of mankind. The idea is that men are angels in a sense, but they have lost their connection with things heavenly. They aren't "mere mortals," but the undecided bretheren of both the angels and the fallen.
Jake

Mike Holmes wrote:
Wouldn't be the forst time the apocrypha was used to support some weird idea.

BTW, what bible are you using? Not to be disrespectful or anything, but are you including anything from the Book of Mormon?

Mike

Jake Norwood wrote: The one I found was canon, not apocrypha (though it's true that the apocrypha would be a great source for this stuff if I knew my way around it well enough).

Actually (puts linguist hat on), Apocrypha means something along the lines of "the hidden," and Apokolips is the one that means "the revelation" (as in, the apocolipse of St. John, also called the Revelation of St. John, which is what has led to its accidental renaming of "apocolipse" as "the end").

As for the bulk of Catholic Apocrypha, I have read a bit--Maccabees and the "other" ecclesiastes, along with some of Enoch (which isn't catholic apocrypha, or at least wasn't last time I checked). There is a lot of cool stuff in there, though, that's true.

Hey, Clinton--the date's still the 15th, right?

Jake