From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Dec 2 23:00:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03328 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 23:00:48 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id XAA13370 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 23:01:51 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 23:01:51 -0600 Message-Id: <200012030501.XAA13370@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 #1955 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, December 2 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1955 In this digest: Re: IN> Another Hurrah for Humans IN> Lilith Re: IN> God's Word-bound (Re: Netanya, the Angel of theSelflessGift) Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Another Hurrah for Humans Re:IN> Lilith's Web Re: IN> The Santa post I mentioned Re: IN> Hurray for Humans, Part 1 IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before Re: IN> Re: Yves' pad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:50:23 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Another Hurrah for Humans Nice. Now who wants to do Rod Denisman? - -- Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus If you have time to kill, why not kill it at http://ucsub.Colorado.edu/~grothtp/In.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:55:03 -0500 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Lilith Hey do you think Lilith is going to kill Michael? (i.e. finish him off) In order to consalidate her position as queen of hell? Just lure him in with a promise of redemption of her and slay him? She'd be able to gte him fully there on Earth in order to redeem a superiorlevel Demon. And insist the rest of the Council could THEN BAM! - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:56:59 -0800 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> God's Word-bound (Re: Netanya, the Angel of theSelflessGift) Kay Dekker wrote: > Imran wrote: > > Christopher was made Angel of Children as a response to the Children's > > Crusade. He became an Archangel in 1978. (Zadkiel became an Archangel in 500 > > BC.) > > This I find truly astonishing. After all, Children were about > ever since humans were invented, long before Technology, and, > as they're the means of keeping God's Pet Project going, I've > always thought that there should have been an Angel of Children, > if not an AA, pretty much from the start. Why wasn't there? Well, there's no canon, I don't believe, to say that there wasn't. But the real answer to your question (or rather, the only real answer you're going to get from me) is that children as they differ from other human beings haven't been around for all that long. 500 years, or whatever, ago kids were only kept around until they could fend for themselves. They weren't really different from adults, they just couldn't do as much. There was no real culture (as they is today) surrounding children. Thus no Angel of Children, specifically, is especially needed (or at the very least would be less powerful than Christopher is today) Or at least that's what I've been hearing/reading and so forth. All you well educated people can feel free to rebut/take my argument apart as you wish. Cheers, Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:02:21 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Phipps" To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 9:55 PM Subject: IN> Lilith > Hey do you think Lilith is going to kill Michael? > > (i.e. finish him off) > > In order to consalidate her position as queen of hell? > > Just lure him in with a promise of redemption of her and slay him? "Why did my Malakite of War attunement start going off like that? Gee... it must be a trap." As far as I know, the Archangel of War has not been successfully blind-sided once in the entire history of Creation > She'd be able to gte him fully there on Earth in order to redeem a > superiorlevel Demon. In his current condition? David probably wouldn't even let him out of the tent. (And Michael, when that weak, is in no position to force the issue.) Laurence would go instead. I mean, why do you think David is standing in front of that tent 24 hours a day when there's so much work that needs being done elsewhere? Because he's taking a day off? *g* Heaven *knows* that Hell would just love to zorch Michael in his bed -- it's the only chance they'll ever have. So uh-huh. Wherever Michael goes -- which is nowhere, until he's healed -- David will be right there with him. And if it was a *healthy* Michael -- Lil, when in the prime of health he took Lucifer, and he's damn sure gonna take you. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:03:52 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Another Hurrah for Humans - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Groth" To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 9:50 PM Subject: Re: IN> Another Hurrah for Humans > Nice. Now who wants to do Rod Denisman? I think we'll just leave the Worm as a human being, with influence by neither side. Or maybe he's a vessel of Janus in a really weird mood. Shake things up, and all that... (Hrm -- why *does* he skip so many practices, anyway? It's like he's out of town every third day, ya swear...) J/K! - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2000 12:40:38 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re:IN> Lilith's Web Em wrote stuff: nicely done and inspiring, if dreadful. thanks for posting :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:25:55 +1100 From: "Azrael/Demigouge" Subject: Re: IN> The Santa post I mentioned That was great! Brilliant! Astounding! Marvellous! Fantabulous! Words cannot express its Magnificence...I love Christmas, it's all about presents, good cheer, food, trees, elves and the slaughter of deer.... Azrael You laugh at me because I'm different...I laugh at you because you're all the same. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:47:59 +1100 From: "Azrael/Demigouge" Subject: Re: IN> Hurray for Humans, Part 1 > > Umm... The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything... minus 1? > > Actually, that answer was 42. But Celestials do get 41 CP starting > out if you count the value of their Choir/Band Attunements. Yes, The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = 42 However, the answer to The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything - 1 = 41 Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:08:30 -0600 From: "Bradley Paranial" Subject: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before Suppose a Balseraph of Fate takes the Elohite Resonance and gets a note of dissonance by being subjective. Can he just get rid of it by resonanting himself and saying "I wasn't acting on my emotions really. I was being complelty objective." Though admittly this nothing compared to the porblems of a Balseraph of Fate that takes the SERAPH resonance. (Oh, irony of ironies) Bradley Paranial, who will porbaly either get shot down or promote debate on this for weeks. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:48:58 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before >Suppose a Balseraph of Fate takes the Elohite Resonance and gets a >note of dissonance by being subjective. Can he just get rid of it by >resonanting himself and saying "I wasn't acting on my emotions >really. I was being complelty objective." Its a special way of dealing with dissonance. Personally I'd allow it. They have to overcome their own Will afterall. >Though admittly this nothing compared to the porblems of a Balseraph >of Fate that takes the SERAPH resonance. (Oh, irony of ironies) Well these folk I'd think would just get double dissonance from Balseraph situations. As has been discussed Seraphs are only smacked with dissonance when they knowingly lie. Balseraphs also get dissonance for that, or being called on their lies and being forced to acknowledge they lied. Worse because of their Seraph resonance their special method of removing dissonance becomes that much harder. - -- Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus If you have time to kill, why not kill it at http://ucsub.Colorado.edu/~grothtp/In.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:07:46 +1300 From: "Alex Liddell" Subject: Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before >Well these folk I'd think would just get double dissonance from >Balseraph situations. As has been discussed Seraphs are only smacked >with dissonance when they knowingly lie. That brings up an interesting point. Balseraph's NEVER lie. They always tell the truth from their point of view. It is a twisted point of view, but they actually believe what they are saying to be true. A Seraph who gets a 1-2-3-4 on the check digit, can't say that that the Balseraph knows he is lying. Their Resonance is only an extension of their own point of view. They are not lying to someone, just forcing them to share the Balseraph's twisted version of the truth. Therefore in the above situation of the Elohite/Balseraph he wouldn't need to use his Resonance on himself, because he already believes it to be true. A Balseraph should never have to use his Resonance on himself. For his Resonance to function he needs to believe what he is saying to be true, then the Resonance applies it to a target. The Balseraph already believes it, so he needn't do it to himself. Just think of the Habbalah vs Seraph situation. Seraph: "Are you a Demon" Habbalah: "No, of course not, I am an Angel Seraph rolls D666 and gets a 1, 2, 3 or 4 Seraph: "Yes that is true, you don't believe that you are lying." The Habbalah actually believes that he is an Angel and therefore the Seraph can't break through without a 5 or 6 on the Check Digit.... that relates to the Truth. Am I nuts? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:22:50 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> I Wonder if Anyone has thought of this before >Therefore in the above situation of the Elohite/Balseraph he >wouldn't need to use his Resonance on himself, because he already >believes it to be true. A Balseraph should never have to use his >Resonance on himself. For his Resonance to function he needs to >believe what he is saying to be true, then the Resonance applies it >to a target. The Balseraph already believes it, so he needn't do it >to himself. The special dissonance removing situation is because Balseraphs don't necessarily believe the same this are true one minute to next. Self resonating enforces that bit of dissonance free reality on them. - -- Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus If you have time to kill, why not kill it at http://ucsub.Colorado.edu/~grothtp/In.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:54:40 +0800 From: Manny Nepomuceno Subject: Re: IN> Re: Yves' pad Interesting. I actually like the idea of Yves and Raphael together. It humanizes Yves for me -- goes beyond the archetypal "wise old mentor" that is harped about so much in the sourcebooks. I prefer Superiors to have some depth and dimension beyond being embodiments of their Words (yes, I know that's not exactly true, but it's close enough.) Which is why I'm rather enjoying the spate of Michael/Novalis posts, and I really liked the writeup on Gabriel in S3 -- I like the discussion of the rivalry between Gabriel and Belial, and why Gabriel holds back so much. I like how Laurence is insecure, especially with Michael around. I'd like to see more personality for Dominic, though. His fears were hinted at in S1, but not (to my mind) really fleshed out. I'd like to know more about Janus. I'd love to hear more about Blandine. But this is just my two cents. I'm not saying I'm right, or that everyone else is wrong. After all, this list is about interpretations. In my mind having Yves perpetually (but quietly) mourning Raphael gives depth and a more human character to an otherwise ineffable creature. :) Manny Neps on 12/1/00 9:12 PM, Azrael/Demigouge at angelofdarkness@dingoblue.net.au wrote: >>>> Only in a Dark Campaign. A very, very, very Dark >>>> campaign. >>> It's strongly implied in S3 that they were. >>> jo >> >> I'll take your word for it, Jo, but I don't think that >> I'd ever explore that possibility in anything I do. >> It's... well, disquieting. >> >> Moe > > I agree with Moe here, very disquieting ...kindly like your grandfather > taking up with a supermodel...it's just not the right image. > > Azrael o_O > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1955 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.