From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Mar 20 15:34:44 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 PAA02126 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:34:44 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id PAA25851 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:34:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:34:03 -0600 Message-Id: <199903202134.PAA25851@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 #1168 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 Saturday, March 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1168 In this digest: Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Re: Janus Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 IN> Celestial Words in Earthly tongues IN> Malakim IN> The First Angels Re: IN> malakim Re: IN> malakim IN> Re: Stuff IN> INC updated IN> Question of Appropriateness IN> In the Beginning (a very non-canonical Genesis) IN> re: malakim Re: IN> malakim (Fluff) Re: IN> re: malakim Re: IN> Re: Stuff Re: IN> Question of Appropriateness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:08:28 EST From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> malakim In a message dated 3/19/99 11:56:52 AM, enthar@nwu.edu writes: > >So what happens when a Seraph asks questions regarding Uriel going to the >High Heavens, and gets a check digit of 6? > Who is he asking? Current errata says that you can't get an answer from the symphony (even on a CD of 6) if the questioned being has no way of knowing the answer ... unless I've missed something, which (given the chains thing) I may have. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:42:13 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 1:52 PM -0600 3/19/99, 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? Their heads explode. Some questions don't get answered. The form of this is up to the GM. Either it *just doesn't work*, they get a cosmic sense of UNDERSTANDING that they forget as they come around from their faint, they get the 'too close to God/the ineffable' sensation where the Symphony fuzzes, etc. But they don't get an answer. Not even Dominic, Michael, or Litheroy get it -- or if they do, it's in a form that only another Seraph Archangel can comprehend, as the GM sees fit. ("Hey, how about that nature of God?" "Oh, yeah -- talk about ineffable!") Many people play that even if a Seraph gets a CD 6 and thus the TRUTH, if he's asking someone who doesn't know, then the TRUTH he gets is that the person *doesn't know*. This is not canon yet, but it may be eventually, because it's a good idea for restricting seriously abusive tricks with the Seraph resonance. Note that there may eventually be some more explanation about the exact 'what happens' when a resonance for Truth gets too close to the ineffable. That may change the above slightly, but that first statement is pretty well fixed: Some questions just don't get answered. - --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 16:44:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Chains on Malakim (Re: Why on earth can't Malakim fall?) At 3:07 PM -0500 3/19/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Exodus 21:2-6: >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. How . . . sneaky. >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. Quite 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 17:20:26 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 This bounced because someone said "u-n-s-u-b" (or maybe just u-n-s) in the first 6 lines. Without the hyphens, of course. >From: Paul Golds >Subject: Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 >In-Reply-To: <199903171840.MAA32468@lists.io.com> > >Okay, first post by me to the list after a long u-n-s-u-b-scription >so let's see what I can do to further the Word of Stupid >Questions... > >1) Can a gaes be triggered by a conditional phrase, and if so > how does this affect the time and hence gaes level needed? > example, suppose a Lilim gaeses Phil with the gaes 'When Eric > comes to collect his CD, give him this one instead of his'. > What's the time taken for this, is it a minute as that's the > about the time it'll take to give him the CD? It it a few weeks > since Eric's probably going to collect in a few weeks (Or the > gaes'll fizzle)? Or is it a day, since Phil could get Eric round > today if he worked at it? Personally, I can see credit in the > first two, but think the last one's a little unlikely since the > gaes didn't include getting Eric round in it's description. > >2) What happens if a Lilim detecs a need, and then someone else > fulfills it? Can the Lilim take credit for it and get a hook, or > do they have to do the legwork themselvvs? > >3) A few days ago it was discussed (As a joke, at first) if a Redeemed > Celabite could become one of the Malakim. Well, reading through > Night Music (The section on What Happenes if the PCs Meet Lucifer) > a possible request was 'Make me a Celabite'. Given that this didn't > mean 'Make me a Celabite, I've always wanted one. I'll love it, and > feed it, and clean up after it', and that the text stated Lucifer may > agree to such a bizarre request, doesn't this imply that Celestials > can have their Band/Choir changed? Is this a 'Tear me apart and > stick my Forces to a Celabite' request? > >4) Finally, a non-rules question. Does anyone know of an In Nomine > group in London, England, that would be willing to accept another > player or GM? If you do, can you reply to me by private email to > avoid spamming the list. Sorry I asked this here, but I couldn't > think of anywhere I'd be more likely to get a good group from. > > >Molt... Belseraph of Dark Humor, Captain of Stupid Questions. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:22:10 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 4:08 PM -0500 3/19/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/19/99 11:56:52 AM, enthar@nwu.edu writes: > >> >>So what happens when a Seraph asks questions regarding Uriel going to the >>High Heavens, and gets a check digit of 6? >> >Who is he asking? Current errata says that you can't get an answer from the >symphony (even on a CD of 6) if the questioned being has no way of knowing the >answer ... unless I've missed something, which (given the chains thing) I may >have. It's in the errata? That would be good... (Or is it just in the FAQ?) - --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 14:27:48 -0800 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Re: Janus At 09:09 AM 3/17/99 -0500, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: Yes! Angels of the Wind are too easily seen as comic relief, IMHO. I think of them as being possibly quite scary, attuned to such a primal Word. The aim is to help people with change. Kind of like David's strength through suffering. Giving up all material goods has generally been considered very holy...though usually that's when you did it yourself. And remember, Janus is generally grouped with the War faction... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:30:29 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> malakim Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > It's in the errata? That would be good... (Or is it just in the > FAQ?) Actually, I can't find it in either... - -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 18:06:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 >>From: Paul Golds >> >>Okay, first post by me to the list after a long u-n-s-u-b-scription >>so let's see what I can do to further the Word of Stupid >>Questions... >> >>1) Can a gaes be triggered by a conditional phrase, and if so >> how does this affect the time and hence gaes level needed? It depends on the phrase and the action. The handy-dandy FotM table on page 30 is invaluable. I would generally *not* allow a Lilim to self-Geas with a conditional -- "you do this and I promise you a Geas" or "I do this and you promise me a Geas." You either have a Geas/Geas-hook or you don't. You could possibly work it with, "I Geas you to, upon being presented with the golden apple within the next week, to allow me to place a week-Geas upon you." or "I geas myself to, upon being give 3 Essence by you, to Geas myself to your service for a day." I say this, because I *would* allow a Lilim to self-geas to a Geas/1: The next thing I say will be true. (This would have a duration of 1 hour, and then would wink out if she'd kept her mouth shut.) Then the Geas/1 would be fulfilled and the Geas would vanish. But the phrasing is important. It has to be a "do X upon Y stimulus" Geas, where the X is allow an unspecified Geas and the Y is the task for the Lilim. It works because a Lilim could say, "Stand outside this building and when you see someone in a red skirt, take her picture." >> example, suppose a Lilim gaeses Phil with the gaes 'When Eric >> comes to collect his CD, give him this one instead of his'. >> What's the time taken for this, is it a minute as that's the >> about the time it'll take to give him the CD? It basically depends on if she wants him to do it Right Then or just wait for Eric to show up. If she's doing a "do X when Y", then that's a trivial action -- handing him one CD instead of another, when presumably the CDs look similar enough to make the substitution easy. That would probably work out to being a Geas/1, where Phil started taking damage every hour he didn't get Eric in. She'd have to tell him to "Do This Now," basically. On the other hand, if she doesn't want Phil acting a little weird, she can use that same Geas as "For the next day, if X happens, do Y." Where Y is a trivial action. (This is from the table -- 0 + 2 - 1 = Geas/1.) >>2) What happens if a Lilim detecs a need, and then someone else >> fulfills it? Can the Lilim take credit for it and get a hook, or >> do they have to do the legwork themselvvs? Nope, she's got to do it herself -- or have *arranged* to have it done. She *can* call up a thug and have someone offed, for example, and collect a hook on a Need for that offed person to have died. But she can't take credit unless she got off her backside and did something to fulfull it. >>3) A few days ago it was discussed (As a joke, at first) if a Redeemed >> Celabite could become one of the Malakim. Well, reading through >> Night Music (The section on What Happenes if the PCs Meet Lucifer) >> a possible request was 'Make me a Celabite'. Given that this didn't >> mean 'Make me a Celabite, I've always wanted one. I'll love it, and >> feed it, and clean up after it', and that the text stated Lucifer may >> agree to such a bizarre request, doesn't this imply that Celestials >> can have their Band/Choir changed? Is this a 'Tear me apart and >> stick my Forces to a Celabite' request? Calabite, not Celabite. I don't think many demons are celibate... GM call. If anyone could change a Band/Choir nature, it would be God and/or Lucifer. - --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 18:03:46 -0500 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> We the Lilim demand our rites! At 10:48 AM -0500 3/17/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >If the GM allows it, that's the price that mummies pay for Rites, and >therefore the price that seems logical for anyone to pay. > >Of course, the GM has to decide whether some Prince is going to let a >Lilim get away with an indefinite (minor) drain on his personal power, >for a finite period of service... Well, if not a permanent drain, how about a temporary one? Limited by both time and amount, to keep both sides reasonably happy? "Ah, yes, Mabel. Do come in." "In light of Inspector Beton's rather ... unusually complimentary ... report of your performance in the Achorage situation, and the resulting drop in the price of corn oil, I must admit that you did, indeed, fulfill the terms of our contract. "In accordance with our prior bargain, I have set aside a reservoir of ninety measures of Essence, available to you, and solely to you, which you may draw upon as you wish, at a maximum of one per day, until either one year from this date has elapsed, or the reservoir has been completely drained. Should you wish to do so, merely convince a human to try a new creation that will increase his reliance on the fruits of technology. "Excellent. You may leave the canister with the receptionist. Should we require your services again, we know where to contact you." ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Tasha, Balseraph Knight of Factions, the Alternate Angel of Political Correctness. | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:19:14 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > I say this, because I *would* allow a Lilim to self-geas to a > Geas/1: The next thing I say will be true. (This would have a > duration of 1 hour, and then would wink out if she'd kept her > mouth shut.) Then the Geas/1 would be fulfilled and the Geas > would vanish. Can a Lilim, therefore, effectively emulate the Seraph resonance? In other words, could she Geas/2 (or 3) someone: Speak only truth for the next hour? Could she use a high-level Geas to make someone Speak only Truth for the next hour? - -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: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:33:11 +0000 From: Paul Golds Subject: IN> Celestial Words in Earthly tongues Having read the discussion the discussion on here about grannar and Seraphim I began thinking about other effects of language on Celestials A Celestial with a Word embodies that word in all of it's meanings, a good example being the one in the rulebooks (Can't recall which book at the moment) about the Demon of Spam suddenly becoming more powerful when his word got the connotations of unwanted email. Does this mean that Novalis' Angel of Cherries is now handling a small car called a 'Cherry'? Wouldn't these 'Joint-purpose' Words end up very confusing in areas using different languages where 'Processed meat products' and 'Unwarranted email', or 'Small red fruit' and 'A small Japanese car' simply don't have the link, and if so wouldn't we be getting the same effect from different languages? Why can I suddenly imagine a servitor of Kobal smiling as the Demon of Language Perversion gave Janus dominion over those with an embarrassing digestive problem? Molt... Belseraph of Dark Humor, Captain of Stupid Questions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:35:15 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Malakim >>>I was given to believe that David was the first Malakite who, instead of turning green when he got angry, just became a Malakite.<<< No, Uriel was the first Malakite. David followed soon after. Uriel's Word (Purity) was critical in the creation of the Choir, but it is unclear (and will probably remain CDaU) just how much choice was involved and exactly how it happened. (Did God create Malakim? CDaU. Did Uriel spontaneously turn himself into a Malakite and sweep up lots of other angels in the transformation with him? CDaU. Can angels spontaneously turn into Malakim to this day? Only if the GM wants to allow it. It's certainly not known to happen in general.) >>>Sure, but what's that got to do with it - Heaven wants to win the war. Or so you'd hope!<<< If Heaven ignores everything but victory, and thus places value only on those notes that will "win the War," there is little to distinguish Heaven from Hell.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:40:49 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The First Angels >>> 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. <<< My personal take has always been that back in the early days, angels weren't differentiated between "Choirs"....such differences between the first angels didn't exist when they were created, they simply evolved over time. - -David (who's glad I don't have to use or tags on all my posts ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 21:59:36 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 1:52 PM -0600 3/19/99, 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 Seraph blinks. "What the Unmentionable is *ultraviolet* clearance and why don't I have it?"] - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 21:56:18 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> malakim At 2:28 PM -0500 3/19/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > 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. For the record, I *hate* this interpretation with a passion. One of the things I truly disliked about the Final Trumpet (and the whole concept of Uriel's word keeping the Malakim Up) was the expectation that Uriel would come back. In my campaign, Uriel was called in from the showers because he was wrong, and he refused to agree to anything anyone would say. So God pulled him in and the bitchslapping began, and Uriel can't very easily return because it's hard to fly when your wings have been clipped and you've been sent to clean the Divine Toilets with your toothbrush for ten millenia. The Purity Crusade is a great historical point, but I simply can't reconcile genocide with any interpretation of Purity that isn't lodged directly in Hell. - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:49:07 PST From: "Hydrax 59" Subject: IN> Re: Stuff >"Ahem. That is pure propaganda. They are Ethereal spirits, nothing >more." > >Of course, it *could* explain how Uriel took them out before AD 745... > >(Actually, I've never heard that at all. Sources?) > The Mighty Aztecs Gene S. Stuart National Geographic Society, 1981 Microsoft Encarta 95 Author unknown Microsoft, 1995 Colliers Encyclopedia Author unknown Collier publishing, 1972 Grolliers Author unknown Grollier publishing division, 1949 Well, you did ask... (sadistic grin) and this is from the 2nd of four assignments I did. (I'm too lazy ro find the others) If people are interested in hearing more about the Aztecs, I'll stick some stuff on my page. Email if this appeals. As a couple of teasers: 1. The Aztec gods were kicked out of the higher heavens after a rebellion led by Tezcatlipoca led to the Aztecs tasting the tree of knowledge. 2. One of Tezcatlipoca's titles was Yaotl - the enemy. 3. The aztwecs believed that to provide their gods with power, sacrifices were nessecary to "give the gods strength". >> 2. doesn't the existence of Yves point towards a plan on the part of the >> divine? > >IMC, yes. Of course (IMC) he's just a conventional angel, not God's >Destiny incarnate in the lower Heavens. > I was actually referring to predestination. >> 3. What if lucifer is working for the divine? > >Again, IMC, he is. Involuntarily. God is omniscient, omnicognizant, >omnipotent, and so on. He didn't create Lucifer to Fall, but He took >advantage of it once Lucifer did. > I meant more specifically, working for the divine as in through his own free will. Sort of a servant willing to get his hands dirty for the divine. which brings me to another point. How come Luicifer continually walks around as a human. You'd almost think he didn't want people to see his celestial form >> 4. isn't it interesting how many comic books are depicting lucifer as a >> nice guy? > >Huh? > >The only two I can think of recently are Crimson and Lucifer: The >Morningstar Option. In Crimson, he shows up to mess with Michael's plans >to execute a vampire. In The Morningstar Option, he's a retired evil >bastard being used by Heaven because he's a deniable resource. > >In which comics is ( are? Sounds bad either way.) he nice? Off the top of my head, Angelyne and Vortex. Give me time, I could think up more. Perhaps that should have read culture though, because in a large number of books, he led the rebellion against god out of goodly motives. "The red haired man grabbed Marius's wrist and licked the blood off his forefinger and thumb. "Hmmm, very good," he said. "All my companions are of the best blood"" Martino, The vampire Armand, shortly before his death. Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 01:22:33 -0500 (EST) From: Eslin Subject: IN> INC updated New stuff's up on the INC, to let you all know; more will be coming shortly, so those of you who like to keep up-to-date on /everything/ might want to check it out while the new stuff is still featured on the main page. As ever, the In Nomine Collection is at: http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles -- eslin@buffnet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 02:36:50 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Question of Appropriateness I've been working on a potential article to send in to Pyramid, centering on Metatron, Archangel of Humanity (and major figure of Judaism). I thought I was careful in making sure there was no reference to him in Canon, only to find the one line reference in the Angelic Player's Guide (under Seraph, which I hadn't defined him as) listing him as the first Archangel Lucifer had killed. Should I drop the article or keep going with a note in the front 'diverging' from Canon? What's appropriate in these situations? - -- Eric Alfred Burns |"It was then I felt my heart break like a sabre@annotations.com | fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com | Reality -- and it's been broken ever since." http://www.roundrobin.org | --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 02:48:13 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> In the Beginning (a very non-canonical Genesis) In the beginning, there was God, and God was all. God was without form or substance or nature or dimension. Thus God was indistinguishable from nothingness. Just as nothing can exist where there is nothing, nothing existed apart from God. An entity came into being, to distinguish God from nothing. This entity was an emanation of God, part of God's being and completely comprised of God, yet in some way distinct from everything else that was God. Before this emanation, there was both everything and nothing. Now, there could be something which was neither everything nor nothing. Now there could be names, for when there was only God and nothing apart or distinct from God, there was no purpose or meaning in naming things; there was nothing to name. This emanation brought names into the world. Later, some would say that where there was void, or nothing, now there was something (matter, creation, numina, or any of many other names). Others would say that where there was chaos, now there was form. Others would say that God, who was alone, created a companion. All of these explanations of the first emanation were true, but none were really correct. But that doesn't matter. This emanation, that part of God which names and defines reality and gives dimension meaning, would be named Yves. But there was nothing that was aware of God, or with which God could be aware of anything, even Himself. So another emanation came forth, and this emanation was that part of God capable of awareness. With the second emanation came Self, and because God was still all, He could only be aware of Himself. So when God asked "Who am I?", his first emanation replied "Who is like God?" And the second emanation was named Mik'El. Now God was aware of Himself, and His emanations were aware of themselves, and each other, and God. For this was all the same. But God was awareness without sensation; there was existence but no perception of it. God and His emanations were alone and could not see. And so a third emanation came forth. This was that part of God which could see. Later, some would say that there was a great darkness into which appeared light. Some would quote God as saying "Let there be light!", though His emanations did not, in fact, manifest when called, as if summoned by command, but simply came forward on their own (for they were part of God). Nor was what the third emanation brought forward light, exactly. But this explanation is close enough, and so the third emanation was known forever after as the Lightbringer, and named Lucifer. Now God was aware and could see, and He could name what He could see. But God was without purpose. There was no reason for being. God had no desires, no motives. So a fourth emanation came forth, and this was that part of God which possessed motivation and intent. The fourth emanation was named Baal, and Baal brought the motivation and desire of God. Now God looked about and saw that there was yet only God. And God desired more. Firstly, He decided He wanted to communicate, for though His emanations were Him, they were not all of Him, and thus they did not know His desires and intentions. Baal could not tell the others, for he had no voice. And God could not tell them what Baal knew, for God had no voice either. So a fifth emanation came forth, and this emanation was brought forth expressly at God's will, and it spoke God's commandments. This was that part of God which could speak and listen. It was named Metatron. Metatron said "I am lonely, for I am alone. There is nothing but I." And Yves said "There is God and Mik'El and Lucifer and Baal and I and you, but there is nothing apart from God." And Mik'El said "I am like God. If I am not God, who is like God?" And Lucifer said nothing, for he saw everything and all was clear and perfect to him. And Baal said "God is bored and lonely, so we should serve God and talk to Him and keep Him company." So they conversed with God, through Metatron. However, while this pleased God, it did not suffice, for Yves and Mik'El and Lucifer and Baal were all emanations of God. So it was much like talking to Himself. So Metatron asked Yves "Can there be others who are not I?" And Yves said "There are none." And Lucifer said "I see only God and His emanations." And Baal said "There is only the will of God." And Mik'El said "There is only God; who is like God?" So another emanation of God came forth, and this was that part of God which can take form and give form. The sixth emanation was named Eli. Metatron said "Create." And Baal said "God desires creation." And Eli said "Let there be." Creation is also destruction. For everything was God, and for there to be that which was not God, some of God had to be destroyed. So Eli was both creator and destroyer, and the other emanations marveled, for Eli could destroy God. Now there was creation. It was of God, but not God. God and His emanations marveled. Metatron asked "What is this?" Eli replied "It is." Yves replied "It is creation." Baal said "It is interesting, but isn't it . . . a bit messy?" Eli replied "Creation is always messy. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." And the emanations marveled, for Yves had not yet named eggs or omelets. But that was beside the point. [to be continued] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 03:20:14 PST From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> re: malakim Liber Armani - for the discerning celestial! Liber Ann Summers - for the discerning demon of Lust! Martin PS - How about Aqualung: remnant of Lust, snot running down his nose! ~l~ Earl: "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." I rather like this theory, but how would you explain the screaming discord that they would create in heaven, and the light of heaven and all the rest of it? Ramesh: "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)" I know it's an old thread, but ??????????? No demon automatically redeems do they? "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." Well, there wouldn't just be Malakim, maybe only on earth though. Why do you need different choirs anyway; it isnt the same as the concept of the Word (which isn't choir/band specific). I believe INS/MV didn't have separate choirs and bands (or maybe even words, I dont know). "But maybe what makes Malakim inFallible is intrinsic to their nature, either you have the entire honour package or you don't" I'm sure it is, but couldn't all angels do with some more honour. To, er, quote Laurence and his mates! "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." Indeed; be fun though wouldn't it! ;-) I think Jean would be motivated out of 'noble' desire to see all angels inFallible ™ - even though it says that Jean has apparently found fault with His work.. (Maybe that's Jean's destiny). I guess you could also substitutes Eli for Jean in this scenario. Then anything is possible. " 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." Last time I raised my first in the air, I caught a bus by mistake! Martin "just look at it this way, a river of space, a ripple of time... like a burial" Thomas Dolby Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 12:30:18 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> malakim (Fluff) - -----Original Message----- From: Earl Wajenberg To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 19 March 1999 20:08 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." You mean, "You're not cleared for that!"? 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: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:14:34 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> re: malakim Martin Arnold wrote: >Ramesh: "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)" > >I know it's an old thread, but ??????????? > >No demon automatically redeems do they? (BTW remember I don't like that theory.) For a moment I was going to say "What about Habbalah who fails to infect someone with emptiness and makes a 111 on the dissonance roll", I then looked it up and it seems that it doesn't automatically redeem, it just knows that it isn't an angel. Interesting... Would that mean that you could have Habbalah who know they are demons and like being demons and so stay that way? >"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." > >Well, there wouldn't just be Malakim, maybe only on earth though. Then the other choirs wouldn't really be able to fight the war would they? (In the same way that Laurence doesn't fight the war he just orchestrates it) >Why do >you need different choirs anyway; it isnt the same as the concept of the >Word (which isn't choir/band specific). I believe INS/MV didn't have >separate choirs and bands (or maybe even words, I dont know). How can the beauty of the Symphony be upheld if you're only playing bass drums. To win the War, no Word, no Resonance must be the only tune playing. >"But maybe what makes Malakim inFallible is intrinsic to their nature, >either you have the entire honour package or you don't" > >I'm sure it is, but couldn't all angels do with some more honour. To, >er, quote Laurence and his mates! Maybe they could do with a *some* more honour, but maybe taking the entire Honour package would compromise an angels attunement to their Resonance. >Martin > >"just look at it this way, >a river of space, a ripple of time... >like a burial" > >Thomas Dolby "I scare myself just thinking about you" Thomas Dolby - I scare myself Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:19:02 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Stuff Hydrax 59 wrote: >>> 2. doesn't the existence of Yves point towards a plan on the part of >the >>> divine? >> >>IMC, yes. Of course (IMC) he's just a conventional angel, not God's >>Destiny incarnate in the lower Heavens. >> > >I was actually referring to predestination. Maybe there is more than one possible Destiny for the Symphony and therefore alhtough there would be some plan, it wouldn't mean predestination. 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: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:28:20 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Question of Appropriateness On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Should I drop the article or keep going with a note in the front > 'diverging' from Canon? What's appropriate in these situations? Make "Metatron" the title of the Archangel of Humanity, whoever that Archangel happens to be. Richard 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 #1168 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.