Seraph Resonance

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

I have never applied Risk to resonances. I don't think it's possible. p. 38 says: In these cases, the GM should require the player to describe exactly what his character is doing to make the task more or less risky. How the heck do you make your resonance more risky?

Well, offhand, if a Seraph player told me "I'm going to let my mind drift, not really focus on particular thing the subject is saying, and just wait for the Symphony to alert me when factual is said," I'd allow that as a risk justification. It explains both good CDs (they're focusing on the Symphony directly, not letting external distractions like all the meaningless social niceties that humans throw into speech get in the way), and bad CDs (if they miss the Symphony's message about the truth of a fact, they'll probably miss the statement as well!).
In any case, even if we're not allowing risk, as Rocket Man pointed out, a Seraph can spend Essence to counter a lower CD too. And we really have to assume the most extreme case here - a Per 12 Seraph, willing to spend a couple of points of Essence on each Resonance roll, to counter the lower CDs.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by JCD

Scenario:

Senator Fishback is in a press conference with Sidney Seraph. She asks "Did you ever take a bribe, Senator?" Anyone paying any attention to any of our politicians knows they are weasely double talkers. "Ms...who are you again? That is a serious and may I say unsubstantiated allegation. Next question."

That might work once or twice. But in order to protect yourself from a Seraph, you have to answer evasively every time a question like that comes up. Because even if there's no Seraph listening right now, they can still scrutinize the recordings. And as I said before, despite the common stereotypes, politicians do have to give straight answers from time to time, or risk their opponents seizing on the fact that they're being evasive. That sort of thing can kill a political career.

Originally Posted by JCD

But assume that Fishback answers her question. "No I didn't."

I would not allow a weak roll of CD 3 reveal his demonic heritage,

Note that I wasn't implying that it would reveal demonic heritage - I just said "his superior", not "his Demon Prince". But the fact that he does have a superior is telling. A Seraph could follow that up a response like that with "Who do you take your orders from, Senator Fishback?" If he doesn't answer evasively, a CD 4 probably will give "my Demon Prince", if he's a demon, and if he's evasive, that can be spun against him.

because, frankly it wasn't germane to the question. If he was 'keeping his cover' he wasn't doing it for a bribe, he was taking it as a bonus for something he had to do anyway. But you picked a bad example. Did he want to get money? Did he want to corrupt someone? (Though if the person was offering the bribe, he was already corrupt. 'Soliciting' a bribe is another story)

Originally Posted by JCD

Let us assume that Sidney did get her answer. In a press conference she isn't getting another one.

Depends on the press conference. Some certainly allow follow-up questions. And even if he tries to override her, Sidney can still shout the next question. And, again, if he tries to hussle her out, he looks suspicious. People will think "If he's innocent, why's he so upset about being asked? Does he have something to hide?"

Originally Posted by JCD

On a televised interview...we are talking a Seraph, aren't we? Or is she a masochist?

I'm not sure I see the relevance. What about a televised interview would be particularly bad for a Seraph?

Originally Posted by JCD

She has her answer about the bribe. [snip] Now she has a lot of legwork to do.

Again, this is all assuming that she only gets one question in. A televised interview could give her lots of opportunity to get more. So could being Senator Fishback's opponent in a debate. So could simply having a big stack of documents filled with everything he's said on the subject personally over the years (which is going to be a lot: tapes of similar questions in other campaigns, transcripts of speeches, memos he's written, and so forth - it all adds up when you're a public figure). And there are Roles that allow for even more latitude for questioning. I'll wager that Dominic has a Seraph or two on things like the House Ethics Committee, or the local equivalent. Or prosecuting attorneys! Nothing a Seraph likes better than being allowed to question the witness extensively, and have the court ready to charge them with contempt if they're evasive...

Originally Posted by JCD

But let's deal with your switching the example. Sidney, frustrated 5'2" Seraph runs up to Curtis. 'Have you seen a tall redhead run by?' Curtis, having seen the 5'6" redhead, without blinking an eye, says 'No.' Five Six is not tall.

This just suggests that Seraphim will prefer to ask questions that aren't easy to answer in an opinionated way. Sidney wouldn't ask "have you seen a tall redhead go by?", she'd ask "have you seen a redheaded man, about 4 inches taller than me, go by?". Or just "Have you seen a redhead taller than me go by?".

Originally Posted by JCD

Absolutely true. But exactly how common are 'serious interrogations'? If Seraphs are regularly conducting them, then that is a very odd game and they should get all the attention they deserve, either from the mortal authorities to demons

Seraphim are already in danger from demons, simply by being angels. Hell should definitely be paranoid about Seraphs, and every other angelic resonance, given how much information they can reveal. But that's not a reason to reduce the value of the Seraph resonance - that's a reason to give them other disadvantages. Demons can't work on the assumption that everyone who asks them a straight question is a Seraph, and gun them down appropriately. In fact, they can't even gun down people they know are Seraphim, since they're constrained to conceal themselves from humans just as much as angels are.
And Seraphim can do a lot to circumvent the mortal authorities. If you're giving the demons the opportunity to apply hot pokers and cattle prods to a Seraph, you've got to assume that Seraphim get just as much of a chance to sit demons down in a small room and explain that they can answer all the questions clearly and directly, or the Malakim standing behind them will start removing fingernails.

Originally Posted by JCD

If the person is amenable. If they are not outraged at being called a liar by an outraged Seraph.

Seraphs aren't actually compelled to flip out and scream at someone every time they lie. A Seraph who's been on Earth for a while can probably even prevent themselves from doing more than wincing internally. :-) A competent interrogator certainly will be able to.

Originally Posted by JCD

If they decide not to walk away. Being badgered for information is not high on my list of things I like and I assume that holds true for a lot of others.

Interrogations don't need to involve "badgering". A competent interrogator will know tricks to make the questions seem casual, and have leverage to keep an unwilling or suspicious subject there anyway.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Well, offhand, if a Seraph player told me "I'm going to let my mind drift, not really focus on particular thing the subject is saying, and just wait for the Symphony to alert me when factual is said," I'd allow that as a risk justification. It explains both good CDs (they're focusing on the Symphony directly, not letting external distractions like all the meaningless social niceties that humans throw into speech get in the way), and bad CDs (if they miss the Symphony's message about the truth of a fact, they'll probably miss the statement as well!).
In any case, even if we're not allowing risk, as Rocket Man pointed out, a Seraph can spend Essence to counter a lower CD too. And we really have to assume the most extreme case here - a Per 12 Seraph, willing to spend a couple of points of Essence on each Resonance roll, to counter the lower CDs.

Mmm...very much a GM thing.

In the vast majority of Seraph cases, they do not get anything beyond a CD 5 with media.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by JCD

Mmm...very much a GM thing.

In the vast majority of Seraph cases, they do not get anything beyond a CD 5 with media.

Even if you disallow Risk, we're still left with a high Per Seraph simply spending Essence to overcome the CD penalty. Per 12 is well within what a starting character can have, and spending two Essence to overcome the penalty is not exactly onerous - on an important question, the party will probably share Essence to make it possible, and that's not even counting things like reliquaries, rites, Dominic's Seraph attunement, etc.

[Kelly Pedersen]

To illustrate my overall points, let's consider the "Seraph is looking for Raven, asking Curtis" scenario in more depth.

There are four possible outcomes for asking Curtis "Where is Raven?" (assuming Curtis is in any way connected to Raven, and could possibly know - we'll assume the Seraph isn't asking someone randomly). The responses are:
1) Curtis knows the truth, and tells it.
2) Curtis knows the truth, and lies.
3) Curtis doesn't know the truth, and says so.
4) Curtis doesn't know the truth, and lies.

Let's assume that the Seraph gets a CD 4. Not unreasonable, given that they can have a Per of 12, be within a yard of the subject to get a +1, and maybe spend some essence. That means for the next 6 minutes, the Seraph knows whether Curtis is lying, which statement he considers most untrue if he does lie, why he is choosing to lie or tell the truth, and what he believes the truth actually is.
For the sake of argument, we'll assume Raven actually is in Dayton.

In the first scenario (knows the truth, and tells it), Curtis says "Raven's in Dayton". The Seraph knows he's telling the truth. If his motivation for doing so is positive ("I don't see why I shouldn't tell anyone", "This guy seems concerned about her, and I'm worried myself", etc.), the Seraph can follow up with "Did she say where she was staying", "when did she tell you she was going", and so forth, and glean some more information.

In the second scenario (knows the truth, and lies), Curtis says "I don't know where Raven is", and the Seraph knows he's lying and why he lied. If the motivation is to protect Raven ("I don't want her caught by this guy", "I've been ordered to keep her location a secret"), the Seraph now has a lead - they can start questioning Curtis about why he's concerned, why he was ordered to lie, etc. If the motivation is more personal ("I don't want to give information to you, you jerk"), the Seraph can try to change their tone to make themselves more friendly, or get a little leverage and make it worthwhile for Curtis to answer.

In the third scenario (doesn't know, and tells the truth), the Seraph knows that Curtis doesn't know, and that he's sincere about saying so. If the motivation is innocuous ("Raven didn't tell me and I don't see why I shouldn't say that"), the Seraph can write Curtis off, or possibly ask a minor follow-up question or two, such as "When did you last see her?".

In the fourth scenario (doesn't know, and lies about it), the Seraph knows that Curtis doesn't know, and why he's pretending that he does. A motivation like "I don't want to her to get caught, so I'll say some place where she'd never go to to throw them off the scent" lets the Seraph rule out what Curtis said, and leads to lines of questioning like "Why do you think she's in trouble?".

And bear in mind, a Seraph with an appropriate Role, or simply a strong Fast-Talk skill, could probably keep up any of these lines of questioning long enough to get a lot of information out of just Curtis, and almost certainly get lots of leads on where to ask next, before Curtis starts getting evasive.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

That might work once or twice. But in order to protect yourself from a Seraph, you have to answer evasively every time a question like that comes up. Because even if there's no Seraph listening right now, they can still scrutinize the recordings. And as I said before, despite the common stereotypes, politicians do have to give straight answers from time to time, or risk their opponents seizing on the fact that they're being evasive. That sort of thing can kill a political career.

I can name a half dozen politicians whom it has not harmed in any measurable degree.

I want to deal with 'transcripts and recordings' elsewhere.

Note that I wasn't implying that it would reveal demonic heritage - I just said "his superior", not "his Demon Prince". But the fact that he does have a superior is telling. A Seraph could follow that up a response like that with "Who do you take your orders from, Senator Fishback?" If he doesn't answer evasively, a CD 4 probably will give "my Demon Prince", if he's a demon, and if he's evasive, that can be spun against him.

I think it's a bad example, the motive has nothing to do with a bribery question, and the Superior is a 'freebie' to the players. YMMV.

Depends on the press conference. Some certainly allow follow-up questions. And even if he tries to override her, Sidney can still shout the next question. And, again, if he tries to hussle her out, he looks suspicious. People will think "If he's innocent, why's he so upset about being asked? Does he have something to hide?"

"Who is this reporter? Does she have an agenda? Why is she throwing allegations like that around? Is she angling to get hit with a libel suit? Sounds like a political operative operating as a reporter."

I'm not sure I see the relevance. What about a televised interview would be particularly bad for a Seraph?

Seraphs hate pop culture and the media. Being stuck inside of it would be a hard assignment for a Seraph.

Again, this is all assuming that she only gets one question in. A televised interview could give her lots of opportunity to get more. So could being Senator Fishback's opponent in a debate.

I am frankly AGOG at the idea of a Seraph as a political figure!

So could simply having a big stack of documents filled with everything he's said on the subject personally over the years (which is going to be a lot: tapes of similar questions in other campaigns, transcripts of speeches, memos he's written, and so forth - it all adds up when you're a public figure).

I wanted to get into the idea of transcripts etc. This is not RAW by any means, but...

First Principles: A Seraph who is listening to you at close range is 'unfiltered' in his analysis. Whatever he does, closer is better. (as per modifiers in the IN) A dozen yards keeps him from getting 'the good stuff' (i.e without high Perception or major Essence expenditure)

So to a television or computer. He can see and hear the guy as plainly as if he were there...but it isn't the MAN speaking to him. It is the speaker of the television. Thus the modifier

So too audio and much much more so when writing. the Seraph isn't 'seeing' the person, he is getting sounds from something else and words on paper.

So, with that being said, a transcript is something typed up by someone else. They are 'the speaker' Not Senator Fishback. Does Flora the Typist know how truthful what she is typing is? Not so much.

I would not rule that if Fishback wrote a book that the Seraph would read the 'typesettists" but something directly written by a third party?

But say you do not buy that argument. What exactly is the Seraph going to get with all those transcripts? Questions about demons are rather rare. She will be wading through a cesspool of lies, innuendo, partial truths, dubious and illegal motives, horrifying distortions and that is the humans!

Their motives will be clear as mud too "I want them to vote for me" is pretty damned common. "I want them to think I voted for more tax cuts." "I don't want them to guess my involvement?" (with what?) etc And that is a best case scenario absent extreme characters or measures.

And there are Roles that allow for even more latitude for questioning. I'll wager that Dominic has a Seraph or two on things like the House Ethics Committee, or the local equivalent. Or prosecuting attorneys! Nothing a Seraph likes better than being allowed to question the witness extensively, and have the court ready to charge them with contempt if they're evasive...

Since a Seraph has to tell the truth or suffer dissonance, I see their role as being a bit more limited then you do.

Senator Fishback: "Excuse me young lady. Who exactly do you work for?"

This is a common question of a politico for a reporter. Find out what paper is being.

Sidney: "It doesn't matter."

F: "I asked you a question. If you won't identify yourself...Ms. Seavers?" going on to the next reporter (Not that it matters to the Seraph. She can scan his words for truth anyway.)

Or better: "Mr. Truth, who exactly do you work for?"

There is a lot of room for a Seraph to not be particularly comfortable with all that public access.

This just suggests that Seraphim will prefer to ask questions that aren't easy to answer in an opinionated way. Sidney wouldn't ask "have you seen a tall redhead go by?", she'd ask "have you seen a redheaded man, about 4 inches taller than me, go by?". Or just "Have you seen a redhead taller than me go by?".

I like this as a flavor thing.

Seraphim are already in danger from demons, simply by being angels. Hell should definitely be paranoid about Seraphs, and every other angelic resonance, given how much information they can reveal. But that's not a reason to reduce the value of the Seraph resonance - that's a reason to give them other disadvantages. Demons can't work on the assumption that everyone who asks them a straight question is a Seraph, and gun them down appropriately. In fact, they can't even gun down people they know are Seraphim, since they're constrained to conceal themselves from humans just as much as angels are.

I wasn't clear. I was noting that a Seraph who is constantly grabbing and interrogating demons will put himself at the top of the list of attention from cop and demon.

And Seraphim can do a lot to circumvent the mortal authorities. If you're giving the demons the opportunity to apply hot pokers and cattle prods to a Seraph, you've got to assume that Seraphim get just as much of a chance to sit demons down in a small room and explain that they can answer all the questions clearly and directly, or the Malakim standing behind them will start removing fingernails.

This sort of seemed to be your default assumption for questioning.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Even if you disallow Risk, we're still left with a high Per Seraph simply spending Essence to overcome the CD penalty. Per 12 is well within what a starting character can have, and spending two Essence to overcome the penalty is not exactly onerous - on an important question, the party will probably share Essence to make it possible, and that's not even counting things like reliquaries, rites, Dominic's Seraph attunement, etc.

Hmm. a min/maxed Seraph. Celestial forces 4 min. Okay.

I would love for a Seraph to constantly drop serious essence to get that last CD point. They should do that for every question. Particularly if they think the target is a demon...

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by JCD

Hmm. a min/maxed Seraph. Celestial forces 4 min. Okay.

I would love for a Seraph to constantly drop serious essence to get that last CD point. They should do that for every question. Particularly if they think the target is a demon...

Of course, if the target IS a demon, they're probably going to hear that Essence use and be able to zero in pretty well on where it's coming from. And each subsequent Essence-fueled "listen" in the same interview will just magnify the echoes ....

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by JCD

Senator Fishback: "Excuse me young lady. Who exactly do you work for?"

This is a common question of a politico for a reporter. Find out what paper is being.

Sidney: "It doesn't matter."

F: "I asked you a question. If you won't identify yourself...Ms. Seavers?" going on to the next reporter (Not that it matters to the Seraph. She can scan his words for truth anyway.)

"I work for the public interest, Senator. Can you say the same?"

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

To illustrate my overall points, let's consider the "Seraph is looking for Raven, asking Curtis" scenario in more depth.

There are four possible outcomes for asking Curtis "Where is Raven?" (assuming Curtis is in any way connected to Raven, and could possibly know - we'll assume the Seraph isn't asking someone randomly). The responses are:
1) Curtis knows the truth, and tells it.
2) Curtis knows the truth, and lies.
3) Curtis doesn't know the truth, and says so.
4) Curtis doesn't know the truth, and lies.

Let's assume that the Seraph gets a CD 4. Not unreasonable, given that they can have a Per of 12, be within a yard of the subject to get a +1, and maybe spend some essence. That means for the next 6 minutes, the Seraph knows whether Curtis is lying, which statement he considers most untrue if he does lie, why he is choosing to lie or tell the truth, and what he believes the truth actually is.

Since I said that Curtis is an Impudite, I can break down all his motivations for lying "Because you are a Celestial." This is about 5 seconds before he starts running like Hell.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume Raven actually is in Dayton.

In the first scenario (knows the truth, and tells it), Curtis says "Raven's in Dayton". The Seraph knows he's telling the truth. If his motivation for doing so is positive ("I don't see why I shouldn't tell anyone", "This guy seems concerned about her, and I'm worried myself", etc.), the Seraph can follow up with "Did she say where she was staying", "when did she tell you she was going", and so forth, and glean some more information.

snip


In the fourth scenario (doesn't know, and lies about it), the Seraph knows that Curtis doesn't know, and why he's pretending that he does. A motivation like "I don't want to her to get caught, so I'll say some place where she'd never go to to throw them off the scent" lets the Seraph rule out what Curtis said, and leads to lines of questioning like "Why do you think she's in trouble?".

That last motive seems very...generous.

But in each of these cases, (You ARE assuming a CD of 4, right?) that the Seraph doesn't <i>know</i> what the Truth is. So knowing Curtis' motives are all well and good, but it doesn't tell him where Raven is, just where Curtis THINKS she is.

And if someone was hovering over me less then a yard away, I'd have some issues unless they were my spouse, child or someone very attractive and of the appropriate gender.