From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Mar 19 14:32:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16680 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:32:27 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA26576 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:33:21 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:33:21 -0600 Message-Id: <199903192033.OAA26576@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1167 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Friday, March 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1167 In this digest: IN> Demons at the U of MN Re: IN> What is the value? Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? (quasi-fluff) Re: IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> Demonic Words IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> Demons at the U of MN Re: IN> More general Malakim ideas Re: IN> More general Malakim ideas Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> Demonic Words (Fluff) Re: IN> Demonic Words IN> malakim IN> locations books Re: IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Demonic Words Re: IN> malakim re:IN> Malakim IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) IN> Becoming Malakim Re: IN> malakim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Wade Trupke Subject: IN> Demons at the U of MN - ---Eeyore wrote: > > Who, speaking of the other on-going thread, thinks Kobal has outdone himself > getting officials of his beloved Gophers to pretty much shoot themsleves in > the head. Everyone else is laughing and I'm angry and depressed. Yep, > sounds like his handiwork. > As someone who actually attended that illustrious institute of higher education (good lord, I can't even type that with a strait face!), I can honestly tell you that Malphas is in charge there. The Institute of Technology looks down on the College of Liberal Arts, and they both look down on the General College. There are rivalries between dorms, between campuses (East Bank, West Bank, and St. Paul), and between departments. The profs couldn't possibly care less about the students. We've had days with 'potentially fatal' windchills, and the University didn't close down, because it would be 'too difficult to notify the faculty'. Although Kobal does have some fun there. Every couple of years, some architect proposes demolishing the Student Union building in favor of a grassy area, in order to 'establish a spiritual connection with the Mississippi River'... Wade (sadly, I'm not making any of this up) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:25:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> What is the value? Actually, the Books of Servants and Locations struck me as a couple of the most appealing IN supplements... Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:33:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? (quasi-fluff) Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Nor do I, actually -- I prefer the pierced ears, with the > ear-piercing representing not an individual oath but the assumption > of what it *is* to be Malakite. I prefer the pierced ears, too, especially with the esoteric Biblical reference. (Which is: According to the Law, you could only keep someone as a slave for seven years. At the end of that time, he either went free or freely pledged to remain in your service for life. If he took the life pledge, this was accompanied by a ceremony in which he was nailed by his ear to your doorpost.) So, can a Mercurian crash a Malakite bar with a dye-job on the wings and a pierced ear? Probably not smart... > Besides, we can then have some cool relics passing around. "The > Third Earring of Laurence..." Worn on his third ear? Hey, he's an Archangel; he can do Song of Forms in his sleep -- an unsettling idea. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:37:22 +0000 From: Mark Baker Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words - -=|horsefly|=- writes >this may well be, now that i think about it, why the Catholic >Church so strictly forbade/forbids masturbation--what could be a more >selfish sexual act? > The Catholic Church's attitude to masturbation has nothing to do with the sin of Lust. I don't have a bible in front of me here at work to check the reference, but it's all to do with the story of Onan who 'spilled his seed upon the ground' and was cursed by God for that crime. The core of this story is also central to the Catholic Church's position on contraception and abortion: they interpreted the story as proof from god that the sexual act was purely for procreation. - -- Mark Baker (L'Ange de l'Abime) aka. Simeon, Mercurian of Novalis aka. Rebekkah, Menunite of Blandine "Some of my best friends are demons. You know where you stand with them." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 07:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Mark Baker wrote: > -=|horsefly|=- writes > >this may well be, now that i think about it, why the Catholic > >Church so strictly forbade/forbids masturbation--what could be a more > >selfish sexual act? > The Catholic Church's attitude to masturbation has nothing to do with > the sin of Lust. I don't have a bible in front of me here at work to > check the reference, but it's all to do with the story of Onan who > 'spilled his seed upon the ground' and was cursed by God for that crime. yes, i'm familiar with Onanism. thinking about it a bit more broadly, though, doesn't what i said make any kind of _sense?_ apparently not if people are arguing that masurbation causes no harm (before this turns into a flame-war, no, these aren't my personal views--masturbation isn't something i condemn, nor do i villify it: i'm seeking here to explain why the Church would classify the act as forbidden on the basis of lust). to provide counterpoint, Onan wasn't struck dead because he merely "spilled his seed": God had commanded him to carry on his bloodline via his sister or his sister-in-law (i can't remember which), and Onan _failed_, disobeying God at the last, and was *therefore* struck dead. to conclude that sex is for procreation exclusively from the story of Onan strikes me as horribly misguided, as that isn't the thrust of the story. rather: obey God or suffer the consequences. to get back to my point ... masturbation *can be* thought of as lustful as it provides no comfort, no pleasure, and communicates no love to another person. it is entirely an act based on self-gratification (or self-exploration, but again, the focus is on the individual, not another person) which concentrates on the flesh. i do not maintain that masturbation is harmful beyond distracting one from other activities, particularly duty to God, family, and friends. within the In Nomine setting, masturbation can be used as a tool of Lust whereby practitioners divorce themselves from loved ones (particularly spouse or lover) in favor of themselves and their own desires; whereby practitioners devote themselves to their own pleasure to the exclusion of their own health, serice to God, etc.; whereby practitioners reduce what can be a communion of spirits (no, this isn't purple-prose) to a few minutes' high to alieviate loneliness. all this isn't to say that masturbation is always evil, cannot be used to good purpose, will hinder someone from reaching their Destiny or speed them to their Fate. it can be used to communicate tremendous intimacy or to inform one of one's own body and what feels good, that one may make others feel good in similar fashion; however, Lust does not promote, nor does it acknowledge, these uses of masturbation. > The core of this story is also central to the Catholic Church's position > on contraception and abortion: they interpreted the story as proof from > god that the sexual act was purely for procreation. if such is the case, it explains why i have such difficulty understanding the whole debacle, and i'm Catholic! (no, i'm not going to address this any further--it's sufficiently off-topic already). -=|horsefly|=- "Back off, preacher, I don't care if it's Sunday. I ain't no angel, but I never felt better!" --FREEDOM, Alice Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 07:31:03 -0800 (PST) From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Demonic Words >>Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >> Greed quite possibly but Lust? It's not *instrisically* evil. Is it? >And Earl Wajenberg replied: > >Depends on what you mean. If you just mean sexual desire, no, it's >quite morally neutral. "Lust" as one of the classic Seven Deadly Sins, >though, is the act of giving sexual desire too much importance, and >so is evil. And I add: Also, in IN terms, the connotation seems to be that Lust is making a mere sexual object of another person, which is clearly selfish/evil. (Note Andre's dissonance conditions.) Of course, it could be argued that that is merely Andre's demonic application of a more general concept. In IN Heaven, Eli has domain over sex and sexual desire, so clearly no one is asserting that these things, in and of themselves, are inherently evil. "Lust," however, tends to have a darker connotation than mere "sexual desire." IMHO and IME, at least. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campuscwix.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:44:39 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Demons at the U of MN Wade Trupke wrote: > As someone who actually attended that > illustrious institute of higher education (good > lord, I can't even type that with a strait > face!), I can honestly tell you that Malphas is > in charge there. The Institute of Technology > looks down on the College of Liberal Arts, and > they both look down on the General College. > There are rivalries between dorms, between > campuses (East Bank, West Bank, and St. Paul), > and between departments. The profs couldn't > possibly care less about the students. We've had > days with 'potentially fatal' windchills, and > the University didn't close down, because it > would be 'too difficult to notify the faculty'. Malphas is active at every university I've ever been around. Remember: The first rule of academic politics is that the viciousness of any argument varies in inverse proportion to its actual importance. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:29:26 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> More general Malakim ideas In a message dated 3/19/99 2:48:34 AM, bloodroot@earthlink.net writes: >I've considered making this part of a campaign for a while...at a point in >the onset of the Rebellion, some angels were moved to great righteous >outrage. They, by God's hand, became Malakim. Somehow, the ability to >create fresh Malakim from scratch was passed on to the Superiors. > >Now, what if that was a standing offer of sorts? That any angel, in certain >dire circumstances, might go Malakite? > >I know it is not canon. > >What sort of effect would it have on the campaign, that certain rare angels >take up the burden? I would love some feedback. > >Sean It depends on the campaign. In an Angelic campaign, it gives a really cool place to send players who don't seem to be working quite right with their characters. (A Seraph who gets dodgy with the truth, a Cherub who prefers to smite over protecting his charges, an Ofanite who says, 'Hold on, let me think about this...' and so on...) Of course it can also make for a nasty plot twist in a demonic campaign, as the Mercurian Gets Fed Up, and suddenly you don't have a Friend anymore, you have a Virtue. Obviously, the character won't retain any of the old resonances, but there might be a chance for them to keep non-resonance based attunements... Depending on what you want to do. Mark (Just a few thoughts...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:09:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> More general Malakim ideas Here's a general Malakim idea -- utterly non-canonical: Targeted Malakim To reduce the Malakim's potential as a munchkin magnet and to make them seem less generally psychopathic (not that they *are*, but the stereotype tends that way), alter the standard oath about not freely suffering evil to live; instead, they swear to harm no one BUT their designated targets. Targets can be designated by Archangel or other superior, or by other oaths, and can be individuals or classes. This makes Malakim sort of converse cherubim. It also means they are committed to being careful, at the cost of dissonance, about catching allies and bystanders in friendly fire. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 99 9:12:17 PST From: nick jost Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages > Elizabeth McCoy wrote on 17 March 1999 18:36 > > > The angelic language does not allow anyone to speak what > >Is Not. (Translations of it may use human elements, such as sarcasm > >or other constructions; those are only poor translations of the > >pure notes of Truth that each word contains.) Each concept is > >a single, clear note, devoid of murkiness of meaning. > > > Can you express statements which are false but which you believe to be > true? > As far as I understand cannon no. Angelic tongue in effect is a force of nature. It is attuned to the symphony and is therefore ALWAYS true. It can, however, be misleading. You can state my name is "x" when your full name is "x and y and z". You may never state that your name is "v". Note that this should not be used to quest into the unknown. You can't try to ask about did Mr. Custard use the knife in the kitchen and answer yourself 'yes'. Why? Because you don't know. When you make the statement 'yes' it will be prepended by an automatic 'this is what I believe to be the truth' NOT 'this is not the truth'. - -- Kakita Nikku With IN for a LONG time ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:44:42 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words Mark wrote: >In a message dated 3/18/99 2:44:57 PM, ramesh.sat@telinco.co.uk writes: > >>Earl Wrote: > >>>Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >>> >>>> Greed quite possibly but Lust? It's not *instrisically* evil. Is it? >>> >>>Depends on what you mean. If you just mean sexual desire, no, it's >>>quite morally neutral. >> >>So since the Word has this meaning it isn't *instrisically* evil. >> >Except that that's not the word Andrephalus promotes. Andrephalus promotes >lust as 'Selfish sexual desire that has it's outlet where *I* want, and forget >anyone else. > >Lust, as a demonic word, is the cheapening and dirtying of sexual activity. Yes, Andrealphus only promotes the dark side. However his Word is not intrisically evil it has not evil (not neccessarily good, just not evil) sides to it, in the same way the Word of Drugs is not *instrisically* evil because it has not evil sides to it. >>>"Lust" as one of the classic Seven Deadly Sins, >> >>>though, is the act of giving sexual desire too much importance, and >>>so is evil. >>Seriously: If that were the only meaning I'd agree it is intrinsically evil, >>but it isn't. >> >Which isn't: 'the only meaning', or 'intrinsically evil', or both? "The act of giving sexual desire too much importance" isn't the only meaning of Lust. Because Lust also means "sexual desire", Lust isn't intisically evil. Clear enough? >The problem here is that we're talking about Demonic Words, not English >(that's a different thread...). To some degree. But remember the Demon of Spam. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:56:03 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words Whistling in the Dark wrote on 19 March 1999 06:10 >And for the record, I can very clearly see an Angel of Cruelty. Whose job would be? >Probably in service to Judgement, and possibly working with the Angel >of Mercy. Another pairing like Dreams and Fear where one Word is in the sheme of things used to overcome the other? Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:06:12 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words (Fluff) Mark Baker wrote on 19 March 1999 14:56 >Mark Baker (L'Ange de l'Abime) >aka. Simeon, Mercurian of Novalis >aka. Rebekkah, Menunite of Blandine >"Some of my best friends are demons. You know where you stand with them." Really? Are you sure that's just not what they want you to believe? Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:31:45 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words At 4:56 PM 3/19/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote on 19 March 1999 06:10 >>And for the record, I can very clearly see an Angel of Cruelty. >>Whose job would be? >>Probably in service to Judgement, and possibly working with the Angel >>of Mercy. Hmm. I think the word here might be Severity, rather than Cruelty. Geburah and Chesed, anyone? Jason Schneiderman - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) werther@hilander.com (play) "But, except in dreams, you're never really free and don't the sun look angry at me?" _Desperadoes_Under_The_Eaves_, Warren Zevon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:04:29 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> malakim Beth: " Because they already Fell. They're just demons who are allowed to stay in Heaven. So they just get Discord, like us. Because you can't Fall off the floor. " I would have thought that Malakim were the proverbial 'bogeymen' that MR and Mrs Demon use to scare their little devils to sleep each night in Hell. "Now Adolf, eat up all your junk food, and leave your greens, otherwise the Malakim will come for you!" "aww ma!" Isn't it then common knowledge that Malakim HATE and KILL ALL demons (from the demon's perspective)? " Why don't Superiors make the Cannot Fall aspect part of other Choirs? Because they can't. Only God can make someone unable to Fall, and when He did that, He got Malakim. 'Nuff said. " I was given to believe that David was the first Malakite who, instead of turning green when he got angry, just became a Malakite. I didn't think God, as such, just decided to invent some. Good old God - he's not just there for the nasty things in life! ~l~ Mark: "Look back in the digest for various explanations. My favorite was, "Malakim don't fall, they bounce," (i.e., Malakim are creatures of Honor. anti-Malakim would be creatures of Treachery, and thus redeem...)" Martin is most confused, he remembers said thread but it also confused him then! :-) I don't understand why they would automatically redeem! "Also, you have a slightly one-sided view of Malakim. I have a Malakite of Novalis in my campaign who is a Salvation Army officer. His view of "not allowing an evil to live" is to prevent the Evils of homelessness, poverty, and drug abuse in his area." I don't really have any view of Malakim to be honest! :-) What I meant was that if Malakim were the only angels on the frontline then they would need to be properly trained of course. "In your game, go ahead. In my game, that's interfering with Free Will, and will get you a visit from the Almighty." Unless it was His idea. That Malakite were nothing more than celestial guinea pigs. Ramesh: "I think it's got something to do with their nature being somehow related to Uriel's Word." Maybe he fell and God covered it up which is why no one's ever heard from him since. "I guess that was part of the idea in making them." Yeah, well why don't they use it? Bunch of pansies! "There are far more notes in the Symphony than honour and all of them are important (to some degree)." Sure, but what's that got to do with it - Heaven wants to win the war. Or so you'd hope! "Sorry I don't quite understand what you mean by this?" it was a flippant remark to reflect the fact that Malakim, as with all earthbound angels, would have to be properly trained in how not to crack skulls constantly! "Maybe without the possibility for a gaining dissonance they are somehow unstable, and the forces can't keep together." That's a frightening thought! "Possibly, but it's possible you can't mix the choirs this simply" Well Jean wouldn't want to be doing that, only seeing what makes Malakim inFallible ™ and try to introduce that to other angels. Martin Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:04:51 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> locations books Jo: "Are you sure you haven't read it? :)" Next they'll be releasing the IN Menswear catalogue, or something! Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:14:27 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words In a message dated 3/19/99 9:36:07 AM, jadasc@ma.ultranet.com writes: >At 4:56 PM 3/19/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > >>Whistling in the Dark wrote on 19 March 1999 06:10 >>>And for the record, I can very clearly see an Angel of Cruelty. >>>Whose job would be? >>>Probably in service to Judgment, and possibly working with the Angel >>>of Mercy. > >Hmm. I think the word here might be Severity, rather than Cruelty. Geburah >and Chesed, anyone? > >Jason Schneiderman Actually, If you want to be a traditionalist, it would be Might and Mercy. Or Truth and Love. Or Justice and Compassion. Sheesh... Weird plot idea time: In the Christian Mystic tradition I am most familiar with, the priest's stole represent Might restrained by Mercy (left over right) with the girdle (or cincture) which holds the stole down representing Temperance. This gives me an idea for a Judgment Triad who work at the highest level. A Malakite (Angel of Might), a Mercurian (Angel of Mercy), and an Elohite (Angel of Temperance). I *really* wouldn't want to be downrange of that group. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:23:32 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> malakim Martin Arnold wrote: > Isn't it then common knowledge that Malakim HATE and KILL ALL demons > (from the demon's perspective)? Sure. That hardly precludes them being demons themselves. It's not like demons are famous for solidarity, and the Malakim, on this theory, don't necessarily *know* they're demons. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:18:40 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Elizabeth Bartley wrote: >The relatively-obvious part: > >Geasa remain even if an angel Falls. Malakim oaths are like geasa, and >would also remain if a Malakim fell. Like geasa, to some degree - follow all the same rules I'm not so sure. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:37:54 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> malakim Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Martin Arnold wrote: > > > Isn't it then common knowledge that Malakim HATE and KILL ALL demons > > (from the demon's perspective)? > > Sure. That hardly precludes them being demons themselves. > It's not like demons are famous for solidarity, and the Malakim, > on this theory, don't necessarily *know* they're demons. Or the demons remind the Malakim of what they really are, and therefore the Malakim try to kill them in order to rid themselves of such reminders. OR the Malakim, as a group, all just really want to take Hell for themselves. So why doesn't their oath "Never suffer an evil to live" cause each and every Malakite to become suicidal? <_so_ non-canon> Because they define "evil" to be "dishonorable", and measure honor by themselves. - -EDG who believes Malakim are angels, anyway. - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:46:00 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Demonic Words Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > To some degree. But remember the Demon of Spam. That's a different story. I imagine that there wasn't really a word for "Spam" in Infernal Tongue until Hormel introduced it on Earth; thus, it probably changes meaning whenever the Earth word does, to keep the language consistent. "Lust", on the other hand, is fairly basic, and was definitely a Celestial word before it was ever a Corporeal one. It doesn't change meanings that readily. And also remember that you're imposing modern morality on the situation; when the Deadly Sins were put into place, "physical desire" - that is, Lust - may well have been a socially unacceptable thing in any way, shape or form. While modern morality may well be called for in this discussion, it's good to try to find out the roots of the problem as well as the weed you can see. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:02:11 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> malakim Martin Arnold wrote: >Beth: >" Why don't Superiors make the Cannot Fall aspect part of other >Choirs? Because they can't. Only God can make someone unable to Fall, >and when He did that, He got Malakim. 'Nuff said. " > >I was given to believe that David was the first Malakite who, instead of >turning green when he got angry, just became a Malakite. I didn't think >God, as such, just decided to invent some. I thought Uriel was the first. >Good old God - he's not just there for the nasty things in life! ~l~ > >Mark: "Look back in the digest for various explanations. My favorite >was, "Malakim don't fall, they bounce," (i.e., Malakim are creatures of >Honor. anti-Malakim would be creatures of Treachery, and thus >redeem...)" > >Martin is most confused, he remembers said thread but it also confused >him then! :-) > >I don't understand why they would automatically redeem! I think the theory was something like the opposite of honour (The Res. of a Malakite) is Betrayal, and so the Fallen Malakite immediately Betrays the side of Hell and bounces. (Not a big fan of this theory myself) >"There are far more notes in the Symphony than honour and all of them >are important (to some degree)." > >Sure, but what's that got to do with it - Heaven wants to win the war. >Or so you'd hope! To win the War you can't just use Malakites, you need Seraphs, Cherubim, Elohites, Mercurians, Kyriotates and Ofanim. Winning the War is about more than just beating the oposition. >"Sorry I don't quite understand what you mean by this?" > >it was a flippant remark to reflect the fact that Malakim, as with all >earthbound angels, would have to be properly trained in how not to crack >skulls constantly! Okay. >"Maybe without the possibility for a gaining dissonance they are somehow >unstable, and the forces can't keep together." > >That's a frightening thought! That's good to hear. :-) >"Possibly, but it's possible you can't mix the choirs this simply" > >Well Jean wouldn't want to be doing that, only seeing what makes Malakim >inFallible ™ and try to introduce that to other angels. But maybe what makes Malakim inFallible is intrinsic to their nature, either you have the entire honour package or you don't Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:34:31 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: re:IN> Malakim Martin Arnold wrote: >"Possibly, but it's possible you can't mix the choirs this simply" > >Well Jean wouldn't want to be doing that, only seeing what makes Malakim >inFallible ™ and try to introduce that to other angels. I think you misunderstand Jean. He's not a mad experimenter like Vapula. He takes the laws of nature that God explains to him and assists others (primarily humans) in discovering those laws at the time and in the order that they are to be revealed. He doesn't run experiments on Malakim to determine how to change them, because they are already as God intended them to be. As are the other Choirs. To start clinical trials on how to produce SuperMalakim(tm) would be the first step towards Jean Falling himself. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:28:55 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) At 12:53 AM -0500 3/19/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/18/99 7:33:29 PM, in-sabre@annotations.com writes: >First, Malakim already have a parallel to the 'Geas Bracelet' paradigm in >canon. Each oath the Malakite takes is a chain which binds his celestial form. >This is mentioned in the original description of Malakim in the core rules. No, it's not. It came up on the list a while back -- I think in the concept of the "chains that bind them to Heaven, so they *can't* Fall -- but it's _nowhere_ in the main book. It did get picked up in *several* non-canon games, but it's not canon. However, there is something viscerally scary about the idea of that. The idea of enslaving yourself to a vow for all eternity and having that pledge symbolized by some kind of chain upon one's form -- a physical representation, to a Malakite, of voluntarily giving up their free will in that area. Of submitting to God's Will. (And in return, they don't Fall.) Becoming slaves to the Divine, perhaps... or perhaps not. The themes of submission -- to someone else, to a higher power, to a lower force, from love, from fear, with dignity, with shame, physically, emotionally, spiritually, in name only -- are very powerful. The symbols of it -- cuffs, chains, collars -- are equally powerful. I was, therefore, planning to ask SJ if this would be a better part of the Malakite description for 2nd Ed than the current "shadowy humanoid form," which never really symbolized, to *me*, at least, the deadly dark glory of them. (And besides, they're never drawn that way. Foo.) However, if there's a biblical reference to earrings in some form, I'd be strongly tempted to snarf that _instead_, because it's also rather intriguing, has many of the same connotations, and has other ties... Can someone give me the location for it? Please? - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:28:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 10:04 AM -0800 3/19/99, Martin Arnold wrote: >Beth: " Because they already Fell. They're just >demons who are allowed to stay in Heaven. So they just get Discord, like >us. Because you can't Fall off the floor. " > >I would have thought that Malakim were the proverbial 'bogeymen' that MR >and Mrs Demon use to scare their little devils to sleep each night in >Hell. > >"Now Adolf, eat up all your junk food, and leave your greens, otherwise >the Malakim will come for you!" > >"aww ma!" > >Isn't it then common knowledge that Malakim HATE and KILL ALL demons >(from the demon's perspective)? And all of the above is going to weaken the propaganda how? Remember, these are demons who live with Calabim and Habbalah. So okay, Malakim are divine demons who can kill us with impunity, because their Angel Princes don't care about upsetting Demon Princes, and furthermore, they enjoy it a lot. They're like Habbalah on steroids. Don't get caught by them, or they'll torture you to death. >" Why don't Superiors make the Cannot Fall aspect part of other >Choirs? Because they can't. Only God can make someone unable to Fall, >and when He did that, He got Malakim. 'Nuff said. " > >I was given to believe that David was the first Malakite who, instead of >turning green when he got angry, just became a Malakite. I didn't think >God, as such, just decided to invent some. At the Fall, there were some angels -- led by Uriel, Seraph Archangel of Purity -- who, to para-quote Derek, "Raised their fists in the air and found that they were something different." Uriel was the first Malakite. David was probably the second. A whole bunch of others were the rest. This didn't happen by something *they* did. God changed them. So yes, God "just decided to invent them." The Grigori were created after the Fall as well -- a new Choir that God invented. For that matter, the first 8 beings created were: Yves (no Choir/Avatar of Destiny), Michael (Seraph), Lucifer (Seraph), Baal (Seraph), Uriel (Seraph), David (Cherub), Gabriel (Ofanite) and Eli (Mercurian). Not necessarily in that order. You'll note that there were no Elohim or Kyriotates in that batch (but rather a lot of Seraphim!) -- so after the first 8 were created, God went and invented other Choirs. The next wave of creation-of-celestials includes Raphael and Jean, Elohim, and Malphas, Kyriotate. There are some who believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that Malakim cannot Fall because they are all based on the template of Uriel, Archangel of Purity, and so long as he holds his Word, it protects his Choir as it protects his Servitors. There are some (frequently demons) who *believe* that God yanked Uriel up because otherwise _Uriel_ might have Fallen, in his disagreement with other Archangels. There are, however, a *LOT* of theories about why Uriel was called/summoned/dragged/invited to the Higher Heavens, and precious little to indicate which are true. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:52:44 -0600 From: Seth Buntain Subject: Re: IN> malakim > There are, however, a *LOT* of theories about >why Uriel was called/summoned/dragged/invited to the Higher Heavens, >and precious little to indicate which are true. So what happens when a Seraph asks questions regarding Uriel going to the High Heavens, and gets a check didgit of 6? >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ - -- Seth Buntain Northwestern University enthar@nwu.edu "Magic is always the best solution, especially reliable magic." - -from the program 'fortune'. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:58:23 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> malakim Seth Buntain wrote: > So what happens when a Seraph asks questions regarding Uriel going > to the High Heavens, and gets a check didgit of 6? I don't know if this is in the errata, but I think the authoritative concensus is that the seraph gets the equivalent of a taped message reading: "That information is not available on this plane of being." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:07:35 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) Exodus 21:2-6: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." In short, if a Hebrew slave acquires a family while enslaved, he has the choice of leaving them behind when he goes free, or of never going free. And, as you see, it isn't earrings, it's pierced ears. Of course, an elegant way of demonstrating you've got a pierced ear is to put a ring in it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:17:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Becoming Malakim On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > Nor do I, actually -- I prefer the pierced ears, with the > > ear-piercing representing not an individual oath but the assumption > > of what it *is* to be Malakite. > > I prefer the pierced ears, too, especially with the esoteric > Biblical reference. (Which is: According to the Law, you could > only keep someone as a slave for seven years. At the end of that > time, he either went free or freely pledged to remain in your > service for life. If he took the life pledge, this was accompanied > by a ceremony in which he was nailed by his ear to your doorpost.) As a non-canon idea for the way Relievers and other Choirs become Malakim, how about this: they have to serve for seven decades as Malakim, without actually being Malakim. They must swear the oaths and live up to them (and the Malakim watch), and live as a Malakite. They gain none of the advantages (no immunity to trauma and they do not possess the resonance); they also do not gain dissonance as Malakim, but breaking their oaths immediately disqualifies them from service. At the end of the seven decades, if they have been faithful and true, they gain the choice to become Malakim. If they choose their freedom, they walk away and may never become Malakim. If they choose service, they become Malakim at the end of a ritual of acceptance which includes the boring of the ear. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:28:04 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> malakim On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Seth Buntain wrote: > > There are, however, a *LOT* of theories about > >why Uriel was called/summoned/dragged/invited to the Higher Heavens, > >and precious little to indicate which are true. > > So what happens when a Seraph asks questions regarding Uriel going to the > High Heavens, and gets a check didgit of 6? The eyes of his understanding are opened and he has a vision of the higher Heavens, and beholds the glory and magesty thereof. And he is struck dumb by the vision, commanded never to speak of it. And then the GM wuss-slaps the wise guy player. Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1167 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.