Nobilis

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I saw a copy in the store the other day and really considered it  on a purely coffee table level that is.  Let me say I hate In Nomine- style games... where players are the god of XXXX or the servents of XXXX. I hate them because its way too hard to get a group made and have them stay together especially when you have two or more competing ideologies. Thats one of the reasons I dont like Unknown Armies even though the system is so well designed, and the reason I sold Demon a few days ago. And Man is the price STEEP, granted its a beautiful 300+ page book with glossy pages and a gold bookmark. But still.

Anyhow I am trying to talk myself into it if only for the conversational value so those of you who own the game please tell me I can be wrong about the servents of god/ Devil/ Beer style play.

[Entsuropi]

Dude... i blathered non-stop about it and posted links to various infosheets in the "what are you playing now" section.

And from what you say... you would apparently hate most RPG's.

Paladin. Law and order are king.
Thief. Law and order are bad.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Oh and I read your stuff in the other thread, missed it the first time. Thanks.  
I feel that I need to respond to your comment about hating other RPG's though.

I like most RPG's.
I just dont like the Archtype phenomenon lately.  

The Paladin/ thief concept is not a good example to use for all roleplaying.
It all goes back to the debate on alignment we had a few weeks ago.
It is possible to be a thief who doesn't stand for chaos and against law. They are called Lawyers  . Seriously though even in D&D you can have a Lawful Good thief. Whats your take on them? Who do they steal from and for? What was Robin Hood? Depending on the story he wanted a return to law and order rather than to destroy iit.
Being a paladin isn't all roses either... what if the community your in doesn't belive in your pantheon or ideals, is forceing another person to worship your way neccisarilly "good"
I dont see life in absolutes and never did, which is why the concept of alignment, and archtype never appealed to me.
Lets say you decide to play an angel in Nobilis and your friend wanted to play a demon. (Correct me if Im wrong but this is well within the scope of the game) what do your players have in common. How would a GM keep them together for more than a one shot.  Comound that by having someone play the archtype of a mercury, or aphrodite etc... Where and how does a GM develop that and branch the story out from there.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well Entropy, I think Im going to buy it. I ordered a copy from Game Parlor here in VA and it will arrive on thursday.

$50.00 for the main book and 16.00 for the game of Powers supplement.

[Entsuropi]

Seriously though even in D&D you can have a Lawful Good thief. Whats your take on them? Who do they steal from and for?

Uhm... if they are lawful good, they do not steal.
Good move...

What was Robin Hood? Depending on the story he wanted a return to law and order rather than to destroy iit.

Robin hood was a fighter/ranger multiclass. He never actually stole as in broke in silently etc... he did the highwayman approach.

Being a paladin isn't all roses either... what if the community your in doesn't belive in your pantheon or ideals, is forceing another person to worship your way neccisarilly "good"

The idea behind a paladin sucks. By their definition, half the crusaders would be paladins. Yeah. Those same crusaders who murdered babies and butchered entire cities. Uh huh.

I dont see life in absolutes and never did

Whoops. Nobilis deals very heavily in absolutes - the game system is based upon absolutes. You either can, or you cannot. No place for random or wiggly elements.

Lets say you decide to play an angel in Nobilis and your friend wanted to play a demon. (Correct me if Im wrong but this is well within the scope of the game)

Yes. The GWB (great white book - nickname for the rulebook) says that powers will often be the same alignment as their imperiator... but not always.
Oh, but a Demon and a Angel are actually imperiators - not player characters. The PC's can assume angelic qualities upon their rise to noble status though.
I do not think the judao-christian god is present - there is a creator, but no God as in old testament. In the game world, Jesus was probably just a PC of heavanly alignment.

How would a GM keep them together for more than a one shot.

Nobilis is rather iffy for a one shot. In a 300 page rulebook, there is perhaps 30 pages of rules and character creation. Everything else is background. It can be done though.

Comound that by having someone play the archtype of a mercury, or aphrodite etc..

I am not sure i understand what you are talking about here. Please explain.

Where and how does a GM develop that and branch the story out from there.  

Be aware, nobilis has a very good way of making the characters work together : reality, and the powers the characters have power over, are under direct assault by gods from outside creation. Either the PC's get along, or they die.
Or lord Entropy has his wicked way with them.
It is also worth noting that it is just like amber in many ways. The characters are a family of supreme beings. They may have divergent beliefs. It is part of the game.
And besides, the GM can always say "you will choose the alignment of heavan, and you shall play with concepts about beauty, love or goodness" if it is a major problem.

16.00 for the game of Powers supplement.

Uhm... that supplement is the Live Action Roleplaying rules i think...

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Lawful good thieves can actually steal, except they have to rationalize their thefts into terms of law. Robin Hood is my idea of a Lawful good thief and not a ranger in the sense of D&D terms. He's good with ranged weapons and woodland weapons. He steals, from oppressive tyrents who in his mind have already stolen from the poor (thus breaking the law in the first place) and then he redistributes the wealth back to the poor.  And saying that Robin never stole is a little Naive. Being a highwayman as close to a modern day bank-robber/ stickup man as you can get. Add to that theft of horses, community property and valuable military hardware and you have an ancient John Dillenger, or John Wesley Harding.  



"The GWB (great white book - nickname for the rulebook) says that powers will often be the same alignment as their imperiator... but not always.  
Oh, but a Demon and a Angel are actually imperiators - not player characters. The PC's can assume angelic qualities upon their rise to noble status though.
I do not think the judao-christian god is present - there is a creator, but no God as in old testament. In the game world, Jesus was probably just a PC of heavanly alignment. "

And thats good to know because it puts a more human face on the game.


"Be aware, nobilis has a very good way of making the characters work together : reality, and the powers the characters have power over, are under direct assault by gods from outside creation. Either the PC's get along, or they die.  
Or lord Entropy has his wicked way with them.
It is also worth noting that it is just like amber in many ways. The characters are a family of supreme beings. They may have divergent beliefs. It is part of the game.
And besides, the GM can always say "you will choose the alignment of heavan, and you shall play with concepts about beauty, love or goodness" if it is a major problem. "

Now see I don't like saying to my PC's that they have to choose a particular alignment. I like to see what they come up with.  I do like the assualt on reality by outside forces though and I'll see what I come up with after reading it.

[Entsuropi]

And thats good to know because it puts a more human face on the game.

Heh. You do realise that sample characters in the book include a chinese dragon (power of tibet) and a collection of nanobots?

Robin Hood is my idea of a Lawful good thief and not a ranger in the sense of D&D terms. He's good with ranged weapons and woodland weapons.

No... a thief has skills that enable him to break and enter. A ranger has skills that enable him to sneak up on and murder intruders into a wilderness area. Think about it.

And why would a rogue use woodland weapons?

Now see I don't like saying to my PC's that they have to choose a particular alignment. I like to see what they come up with.

Ok. But sometimes, you have to do so. It is an option if you feel that it may be a problem. Try asking the players, and then making them all go for powers and factions that work well together. Heavanly peace and demonic murder are not going to like each other much. Heavanly peace, and heavanly euthanasia might. (Note... heavan = beauty in this game. Not good. You could easily justify it by saying to are making humanity more pleasing by removing the ugly elements. Hey, nobody said it was a nice game...).

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

And Robin  often breaks and enters, Strongboxes, caches, and Nottingham castle anyone?, ... but a thief also has skills and feats like climb walls, move silently that 2e rangers did not always have. A woodland thief would use woodland weapons, an Urban thief would use urban weapons.

And no I did not know of the nanobots or Chinese Dragon.

But that sounds interesting.

Like I said Im going to buy it.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Actually, by the D&D def. the crusaders were NOT Paladins. Sir Gaharis of Arthurian fame would be. A Paladin is required to not only ACT in the name of a deity, but to fully live by that deity's ideals.

But I also have to agree. Robin Hood is MUCH closer to a ranger than a thief/rogue in D&D terms. The emphasis is on his archery and woodland familiarity. The fact that he incidentally took things without permission does not make him a thief.

Just to add my $.02. I really thing strict alignment systems are silly, but I've said that before. I've also said, but it bears repeating, that for some styles of play and characterizations, there does need to BE a code of behavior that the character lives by. If you have opposites alignments contending, then you have a story telling problem, not a mechanic problem. The gm should be more adament about the types of characters and the players should be less stiff-necked when it comes to what type of character they'll play. Compromise is the art of universal fun.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Maybe its just alignment thats my sticking point then. Especially since I always thought of it as stupid. I kind of disagree with you about the whole ranger thing, but I think its because you, Entropy  and I have different Ideas about the RH myth.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well, I have read some of Chapter 1 and Chapter 7 (Downloaded from Gurdians of Order) and I like how the book is written so far.  Smart , but not smarmy. I like the short fiction too.

[42]

I wonder id it anyone here would find it confusing that I'm entering a thief/paladin into my DnD campaign?

My thought is that archetypes only exist if you chose to buy into them. I've sort of noticed that not everyone agrees that a particular idea could or should be considered an archetype. Like the concept of paladin, which I have found many people have different opinions. I knew a player who played a very blood-thirsty paladin who killed just about everything she met, but in the player's mind her character was very much the embodiment of Lawful Good.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I kinda like EUOL's idea of making a paladin-like champion of each alignment. Not just the Paladin and the Blackguard prestige class. I'll have to consider developing that

[42]

Or you just play your paladins differently than the obvious presentation given to you in the book. Something I've noticed about EUOL is that he really only has one character idea.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Well, it does also require altering the powers. It makes little sense to have a detect evil alignment on Lawful Evil character. Well, no, that's not true. You can still use that. And if you did change it, certain changes would be obvious and easy. However, it would require some thematic changes to the idea of the class as well.