From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 10 14:17:55 2000 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 OAA05098 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:17:51 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA08798 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:16:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:16:26 -0500 Message-Id: <200007101916.OAA08798@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 #1706 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 Monday, July 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1706 In this digest: IN> See previous message Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post IN> Mea Culpa Re: All the Fuss about Harry Potter (WAS: IN> Khalid and Faith) Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post RE: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post RE: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post IN> Female Archangels? Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Re: IN> Female Archangels? Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim IN> Spelling nitpick (Re: A look at Lilim) Re: IN> A clarification about this mailing list/INC/Pyramid. NOT a complaint. Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Re: IN> Female Archangels? Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> Really Old Jobs (was Metatron) Fwd: Re: IN> Judus Re: IN> A look at Lilim Re: Re: IN> Judus IN> Baal, the Archangel of Valor? (*Not* a writeup) RE: IN> A look at Lilim Re: IN> Really Old Jobs (was Metatron) IN> Judas Re: IN> Concerning Novalis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:11:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: IN> See previous message BTW, you'd all probably want to email me with opinions re digest vs post. No sense cluttering up the digest with replies. :) Morgan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:37:28 -0500 From: "Tafka J." Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post At 6:08 PM -0700 07/09/00, Maurice Lane wrote: > Anybody have a strong opinion, one way or the other? With individual posts, you can delete stupid threads (or sort out stuff from say David E. and Charles Phipps, to your Trash Pile };;;>). *ahem* Sorry. . . Bad week for me. Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = tafkaj@thrifty.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:41:08 -0500 From: "Tafka J." Subject: IN> Mea Culpa AUGH! I'm going to insert foot into mouth. I'm really _really_ sorry. I'm having one of those mega-stressful weeks, and well. . . I'm acting more irationally than I should. Gah. I'll shut up now. Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = tafkaj@thrifty.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:27:30 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: All the Fuss about Harry Potter (WAS: IN> Khalid and Faith) At 3:30 PM -0500 7/9/00, Tafka J. wrote: >At 3:16 PM -0500 07/09/00, Tafka J. wrote: >> J.K. Rowling; [...] In fact, he's never really [...] > > I stand corrected. _She's_ never really. . . > > (Therefore I show my true colors, that I've never read the books. >Really, I have no interest too, until the consumer commercialism >sourounding them firmly dies down.) Mm. Bite the bullet, Tafka. They're that rarity of rarities -- popular because they're high quality. Not that Nybbas isn't trying his best to hide that. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:47:13 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post Maurice Lane wrote: > What the above says. I'm thinking of switching over > to receiving the posts as they come in, rather than > waiting for the digest. Anybody have a strong > opinion, one way or the other? Uh....no offense, but why would anyone else care whether you choose to receive digest or post? - -David (I don't know whether to wear a green shirt or a red one tomorrow....anyone have a strong opinion?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:48:17 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post "Tafka J." wrote: > With individual posts, you can delete stupid threads (or sort out stuff > from say David E. and Charles Phipps, to your Trash Pile };;;>). Hey, what did Charles do to deserve getting lumped in with me? >;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:19:25 -0500 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post >> What the above says. I'm thinking of switching over to receiving the posts as they come in, rather than waiting for the digest. Anybody have a strong opinion, one way or the other? << Yup. I *hate* digests. They tend to be *much* harder to follow than individual posts. People on this list are far, far better about quotebacks and not quoting entire previous posts than on other lists, but digests are still more difficult to read. Of course, the only list I belong to that I'm subscribed to in digest form has the worst offenders regarding leaving entire previous threads attached to their messages. And if I actually read it more than about once a week without deleting entire digests unbrowsed, I'd get it in post form as well. FWIW. Ki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:59:34 +1000 From: "Leath Sheales" Subject: RE: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post David E. wrote: > -David (I don't know whether to wear a green shirt or a red one > tomorrow....anyone have a strong opinion?) Definitely the Green. I'm getting a strong feeling that red is not you tomorrow (or maybe it's my Habbalite disguising its manipulations through me. See, In Nomine content ;) ) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:56:21 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post At 8:47 PM -0500 7/9/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Maurice Lane wrote: >> What the above says. I'm thinking of switching over >> to receiving the posts as they come in, rather than >> waiting for the digest. Anybody have a strong >> opinion, one way or the other? > >Uh....no offense, but why would anyone else care whether you choose to >receive digest or post? I'm *thinking,* David -- now, someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but I'm *thinking* Morgan's asking for opinions on how well the two options work, not on what we think of his decision making process. For the record, I prefer posting. And I so rarely get to enlighten *David* instead of the other way around.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:10:28 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: RE: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post At 11:59 AM +1000 7/10/00, Leath Sheales wrote: >David E. wrote: > >> -David (I don't know whether to wear a green shirt or a red one >> tomorrow....anyone have a strong opinion?) > >Definitely the Green. I'm getting a strong feeling that red is not you >tomorrow (or maybe it's my Habbalite disguising its manipulations through >me. See, In Nomine content ;) ) Red! *Red!* Eschew the colors of Ireland and garb yourself in the Scots banner of fire, lad! (Hey, Malphas pays contract rates. And gave *me* a preferred percentage -- he doesn't do that for everyone. He told me so!) - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:03:13 -0400 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> Female Archangels? > Why are so few Superiors portrayed as primarily > female? Well I doubt actually they'res that much descrepiency save for the writers being male and the game markets being primarilly it...Zorastrian texts put the superiors as equal male and female and I think they've followed through nicely.... Hmmm let's examine it shall we with some useless info about them too (for a joke post that got lost-I need to unload it somehow) Heaven's side Guys: Michael (needed to be brawly guy/holiest of holy types) favorite/least favorte movie: James Bond/Michael with John Travolta Laurence (needed to be new kid on block in love with Blandine) Favorite Movie: Excalibur Idea of romantic night: Horseback riding Marc (needed to be Michael Douglas in Wall Street) Interesting fact: Is actually richer than God Jean (needed to be creeky old scientist type) Movie fact: Once inspired a servitor to make a movie starring Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox. Yves (needed to be not so creeky old scientist type) When asked who would play him in a TV show: Robin william was his answer Eli: (needed to be a frat boy) Eli: invented Velcro, Microwaves, and a few other products before handing em over to the Malakim in Black. David (Needed to be the Fight Club character Tyler Durant) Favorite Movie: See above...and Rocky I, II, III, IV come in descending order afterwords. Christopher: It was a toss up between boy and girl, who can say. Interesting fact: One of his servitors was the little Dutch Boy who plugged up a dike. Litheroy: Eh toss up, could have been a girl. Interesting fact: Whenever Michael thinks the Apcolypse is near he walks over and asks what he meany by in Saint John's book of relevations. Girls: Gabrielle: Made up for quality as she is in MY opinion the most interesting character of In Nomine-far exceeding any other in terms of sheer magnetism. Like Eowyn in Tolkien she steals the show. Interesting fact: the theme of Chariots of Fire makes her cry Blandine: Again one of the more interesting characters in the show however Sleeping beuty has some low points. Interesting fact: She expects her male angels to pay, hold the door, and otherwise be laurence when escorting her to events. Novalis: Being the only real pacifist we've got some interesting characterism him. Needed to be the Hippie Chick. Favorite Movie; Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes. Interesting fact: The angel of mushrooms is French cuisine worker and not a drug addict as some have claimed. Raphael: Again one of the most interesting characters we've heard about. I'd like to see more exploration of her. Favorite movie: Out of jokes. Zadakiel: No clue but I'd appreciate some advice on how to play her. Truth be told with Lilith, Gabrielle, Blandine, Novalis, and Raphael. I doubt they'res a real shortage of women abouts and the developers were just looking at stereotypical (meaning good for campaign hooks) players for their works. Jean as Elohim is sexless but they made him male because it seemed better that way, still it's not too difficult to have a lab rat female with the same qualities (look at Ms. Walsh from BTVS for instance). Indeed the only superior who will likely never take a female vessel in my mind is Fufur and that's because I see him as markedly immature. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:28:40 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post From: "David Edelstein" > > -David (I don't know whether to wear a green shirt or a red one > tomorrow....anyone have a strong opinion?) Wear the blue one. It matches your eyes a lot better. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:42:28 -0400 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Female Archangels? At 22:03 -0400 7/9/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >> Why are so few Superiors portrayed as primarily >> female? > >Well I doubt actually they'res that much descrepiency save for the writers >being male I don't know about the INS/MV authors, but there was only one writer (Derek) who fixed the sexual preferences of the Superiors in the SJGames version of In Nomine, as far as I know, and he was male. (At least, I *think* Derek is male -- I've never met him, but I think I've heard him referred to as "him" by people who'd know....) Though I seem to recall hearing that it was SJ who wanted Lilith in the main book, so maybe that's not *entirely* true. As far as IN writers today go, I suspect there is actually a slight predominance of female authors, in fact. > and the game markets being primarilly it... While gamers are predominantly male, that doesn't mean that male characters *sell* to them. A large fraction of the comic market seems to be mostly about female characters. Hot females on covers sell books (which leads me to wonder about how well Superiors 3 will sell...). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:32:34 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim > > > > Hmmm, I think I may just have to play around with the concept of Eve, > > > Archangel of Women, creating a choir to balance the Lilim... > > > > That's a little narrow. Hey, if you can have an Archangel of Children ... jo ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:40:31 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim At 10:32 PM -0700 7/9/00, Jo Hart wrote: >> > > Hmmm, I think I may just have to play around with the concept of Eve, >>> > Archangel of Women, creating a choir to balance the Lilim... >>> >>> That's a little narrow. > > >Hey, if you can have an Archangel of Children ... > Maybe we should do something funky with this. Say, a bunch of us each do our own take on Eve, Archangel of Women (or Princess of Submission, if you *really* want to get wonky) and see how it turns out. We could all agree to put them up on the same day -- say, on a website or the like. Not really a contest, but just to see how different ones of us would treat variations on a theme. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:37:45 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim In a message dated 7/10/00 12:34:04 AM Central Daylight Time, j_hart@hotmail.com writes: << > > > > Hmmm, I think I may just have to play around with the concept of Eve, > > > Archangel of Women, creating a choir to balance the Lilim... > > > > That's a little narrow. Hey, if you can have an Archangel of Children ... >> Hey, what about an Archangel of Manly Men? If we're gonna cover women and children, ya can't leave the guys out in the cold! :) Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:59:03 -0500 (CDT) From: edg@pyramid.sjgames.com Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim > Hey, what about an Archangel of Manly Men? If we're gonna cover women and > children, ya can't leave the guys out in the cold! :) Isn't that Michael? ;) - -EDG more power! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:30:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Guy Royse Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim > > Hey, what about an Archangel of Manly Men? If we're gonna cover > > women and children, ya can't leave the guys out in the cold! :) > > Isn't that Michael? ;) Or maybe David for the more stoic, patient Manly Man? Guy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:36:08 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim - --On Monday, July 10, 2000 7:59 AM -0500 edg@pyramid.sjgames.com wrote: > >> Hey, what about an Archangel of Manly Men? If we're gonna cover >> women and children, ya can't leave the guys out in the cold! :) > > Isn't that Michael? ;) > > -EDG > more power! > Please stop before we slide down so far that we start discussing "Maxwell Smart, Malaikim of the Sword". Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation. ("Sorry about that, Laurence.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:43:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Gant Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > Hey, if you can have an Archangel of Children ... > > Hey, what about an Archangel of Manly Men? If we're gonna cover women and > children, ya can't leave the guys out in the cold! :) That's Michael. But David and Lawrence both try to muscle in on that from time to time. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4656/ The Returners Final Fantasy Role-Playing Game Site: http://returners.simplenet.com/ or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Matrix/5758/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:25:09 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Spelling nitpick (Re: A look at Lilim) At 11:47 PM -0500 7/8/00, Tafka J. wrote: >>2:) They're souls who have met their [Fate] and [Destiny] [f]ate and [d]estiny. Lowercase for the ultimate endpoint, uppercase for the Words themselves. Sometimes uppercase for the ultimate endpoint of the _Symphony_, but that's sort of the Word anyway... Save the LE's sanity! Read the stylesheet everyone! O:> http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/writers/in-nomine-style-sheet.html - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:20:24 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A clarification about this mailing list/INC/Pyramid. NOT a complaint. At 8:03 PM -0700 7/7/00, Casca wrote: >On Wed, 05 July 2000, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> Technically, the maintainer of the INC should be asking >> the appropriate authors, and if they say "no," respecting > >EDG, this is your balliwick. I don't want it. Besides, it's not like you do any real work on the INC... ;) > >> that. Sometimes this gets skipped in the assumption that >> people _want_ their moment of INC fame. (So far, I don't >> think anyone's said no.) > >Okay, I've never taken a logic class, so I may be missing something here... >but what's the difference between having your stuff put on a mailing list and having it put on a website? Especially since that selfsame website hosts the mailing list archives? The INC is "graciously hosted" by sjgames. It is not part of SJGames' resources. The digest is. >I mean, the stuff is there, regardless. The only difference is that it's cleaned up, amde easier to find, and the author's name put in big letters next to the title. Yup. NItpicking is evil. That is a difference -- mostly because the INC is _UNOFFICIAL_. >Would it be fair to assume -- in the interests of my sanity -- that unless folks say otherwise, it's okay to put their stuff on the INC? No, it really would not. However, if you batched up the stuff you were intending to post, and gave an advance warning to the list and/or the people included on the group, and asked for people who _didn't_ want it posted to please speak up fast, that would make me happy. And it would give advance warning that new INC stuff was going to be up -- sneak previews! - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:27:10 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> I'm thinking of changing from digest to post At 8:47 PM -0500 7/9/00, David Edelstein wrote: >-David (I don't know whether to wear a green shirt or a red one >tomorrow....anyone have a strong opinion?) Blue. Definitely. If you don't wear blue, I'm going to have to seriously consider your s*bscription status. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:29:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Female Archangels? At 10:42 PM -0400 7/9/00, Walter Milliken wrote: [...] >As far as IN writers today go, I suspect there is actually a slight >predominance of female authors, in fact. MUWHAHAHAHAHA! Make of that evil laugh what you will. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:54:18 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim From: "Marc Bowden" > > Please stop before we slide down so far that we start discussing > "Maxwell Smart, Malaikim of the Sword". Would you believe I killed *ten* Calabim with the letter opener? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:14:19 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim At 1:33 AM -0400 7/8/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >Marc Bowdin: [...] >1:) The actual Children of Lilith: If you dig around in the INC, I think you can find Em Dresner's long-ago thesis (is that the right word?) about the non-canonical reproduction of the Bands. (I forget what she had for Shedim...) >[...] According to >the legends she had children by angels, demons, animals, and mortals though >frankly it's hard to tell the difference on the third one when Seraph[im] and >Cherub[im] are involved let alone Kyirorites ...plus their opposite numbers. Check out http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/lillith.html -- my cursory check has her having children from demons and (presumably evil) sprits. And Adam himself, mind, esp. in "Eden Bower." Over 100 a day! Must be doing it like a frog. And then there's those three very busy angels who go around killing 100 of those children (precisely) a day... >In cannon In Nomine I wish that you wouldn't toss things like "canon" around followed by >I would [do X] The people authorized to _create_ canon are few, and none of them, forgive me my bluntness, are you. The words that you are looking for here are "In My Campaign." Those three little words, often abbreviated to IMC, are all that are needed to preserve peace on the list, and confusions from yours-truly about whether you _mean_ in your campaign, or if you are honestly confused about what _In Nomine_ canon is. In _In Nomine_ canon (one "n," mind), Lilim are created from Forces, and are demons at their birth. In general usage quasi-canon, some Lilim themselves deny that they are demons, claiming instead to be _Lilim_, something entirely different, but are nevertheless _celestial_ beings, not human-souled, and are burned by the Light of Heaven unless redeemed. Which is close enough to demon that most other celestials go, to claims otherwise, "Yeah, whatever." In _In Nomine_ canon, Lilith draws these Forces from many places -- angels, demons, Princes, Archangels, ethereal spirits, damned souls, and maybe human souls who are not yet in the celestial realm. At least one is one of her _personal_ Forces, defined as Ethereal. (This was a plot point for FotM/FT.) Those who know this (not too many) speculate, in canon, that there are "memetic"* influences from the Forces that come from others, causing the diversity in personality of Lilim (while the defining "Lilim Force" directly from Lilith causes their atypically undemonic ability to cooperate). This is canonical speculation. The current canon about Lilith herself resides in _Fall of the Malakim._ Canon regarding Bright Lilim is divided between the IPG and FotM, with a little grace note in FT -- though to the best of my abilities, the material in FotM is a condensed version of what's in the IPG. (With the exception of the Bright Lilim Choir Attunements, which are collected in FotM, and appear in each Archangel writeup in the Superiors books.) [...] >I put about three hundred or so in Heaven at this time. Feel free in your campaign, but in canon, those who have a reason to research such things generally believe there are less than a dozen alive in Heaven. In canon, there are 1.5 Bright Lilim named. Mira, Bright Lilim of Dreams, and in the Liber Servitorum, "Dee," Bright Lilim of Creation in service to Flowers. I consider the characters in the LiberS to be "parti-canon" -- I have no plans to allow them to be used in actual storyline canon, though they should be _examples_ of what _could be_ canon without a hitch. And they might well show up in examples of rules in future books -- this keeps "name bloat" from swamping the poor compilers at www.incyclopedia.org. O:> * A "meme," for those who don't know, is to thoughts and personality what a gene is to physical appearance, roughly. - --Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor (arcangel@io.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:14:17 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Really Old Jobs (was Metatron) At 10:57 PM -0400 7/7/00, Charles Phipps wrote: >Oh dear though, I described my Seraph[] as having seen dinosaurs and the >Earth cool....(so I suspect making him among Eli's first creations is quite >okay-I can explain it away as him not remembering much before the fall do to >ethereal dissonance and lost forces too) Angelic memories are not perfect -- they can forget things. Intro to APG and LiberS, IIRC. >This however begs the question... >What exactly did the [v]arious [C]hoirs and [S]uperiors do before [there] >actually were humans to occupy their time? Sang praises to God and fed Essence to their Bosses for World-Creation 101, probably... Mercurians sat around feeling vaguely dissatisfied and getting patted on the shoulder by Yves, advised to be patient. Kyrios zooped around wondering why animals didn't have containers to poke through... O;> (No, don't ask me how _JORDI_, of the Superiors of the Choir that doesn't normally get vessels, figured out how to make them. I have a feeling that way back then, the slide from Word-bound to Archangel, or even just Way Powerful Angel, was an easier one, with the celestials tapping into the great and loving power of the Creator at need. (Or, in other words, Divine Interventions were a lot commoner.)) [...] >figure out methinks....especially for people like Baal, Asmodeus, etc. Baal was organizing dino-hunts...? Asmodeus was crouched by Dominic's side like a Chinese Dragon with feathered wings, bright of scale, eyes like brilliant diamonds, murmuring advice to temper Truth with Devotion when angels came to Judgment with questions. ("He got some pollon into my grass over here! What should happen?" "But, but, but that was my _favorite_ little bronto, and his T-rex ATE it before it could grow up! He's _mean_!") Mostly just personal opinion, though tempered with LE knowledge. - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:27:58 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> Judus Remember, s*bscribe to in_nomine_posters-l if you have multiple accounts you want to post from! >From: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:14:41 -0500 >To: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: BOUNCE in_nomine-l@lists.io.com: Non-member submission from [Matt Trent ] > >Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:14:44 -0500 >From: Matt Trent >Reply-To: mtrent@bigfoot.com >X-Sender: "Matt Trent" <@smtp.email.msn.com> (Unverified) >Subject: Re: IN> Judus > >Prodigal wrote: >> > It's an interesting question. Mm -- there may be an adventure seed in >> > this... the reincarnation of Judas... >> >> Judas raises any number of questions, the most important to me being "Is it >> possible for someone's Destiny and Fate to be so close to the exact same >> thing as to make no real difference?" >> >> After all, it says in the gospels that after Jesus told his disciples that >> one of them was fated to betray him, he then commanded Judas to go do it. >> >> What if betraying Jesus was both Destiny *and* Fate for Judas? > >What if his destiny was to throw the 30 pieces of silver back at who >ever it was (the sanhedrin? my bible history is suddenly failing me.) > >Now if you assume that his fate was to betray Jesus then you have a >situation where he had to achieve his fate to achieve his destiny. >Though I suppose he could have turned down the money when he had the >chance, but I don't think that would have been as effective >historically. Also I dislike the thought that destiny or fate might be >tied to something that the person supposedly had no choice about. After >all Judas _had_ to betray Christ or else it would have all been >pointless. So I prefer to believe that his fate was probably to swindle >money from the aposials (I seem to recall a reference that he did >something of the sort in the passage about Jesus' anointment) or perhaps >to commit suicide or something he never did. This would have Judas >either dissolved (boring) reincarnated (boring. He'll probably never >know), or in Heaven (disturbing). I personally favor the later. > >Matt > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:16:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> A look at Lilim > If you dig around in the INC, I think you can find Em Dresner's long-ago > thesis (is that the right word?) about the non-canonical reproduction > of the Bands. (I forget what she had for Shedim...) Hatching grounds. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emily K. Dresner -- http://www.nodonut.com/zenith The Parisian Asphalt Initiative - Paving France for a Better Tomorrow http://www.pave-france.org So you're saying -- in effect -- that the human body, the pinnicle of human evolution, the temple of the mind and soul, the inspiration of Michaelangelo and the scourge of the Religious Right... is Open Source? - Whistling in the Dark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:49:56 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: Re: IN> Judus From: Matt Trent > > After > all Judas _had_ to betray Christ or else it would have all been > pointless. Which works perfectly for low-contrast or -brightness games, don't you think? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:57:47 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Baal, the Archangel of Valor? (*Not* a writeup) We all know that in the expanded writeup (pre-Superiors -- FT if I remember correctly which I might not) of Baal, the Prince of the War, it claims among other things that he was the Archangel of Valor before he Fell. And by claims, I mean of course that it's right. It is, after all, Canon. Except that from the "Balseraph Prince of Fate" in the Main Book we know that not all Canon is as Canon as other Canon. There may actually be... a rest of the story here. It is well known, and often trumpeted, among the Demons of the War that their Prince was the shining Archangel of Valor, as he himself has said time and again. Valor was one of the great virtues, and the Demons of the War themselves embody Valor, infernal or not. They bring the battle to their enemies and never flee, after all. Is that not Valor? And is their Prince not the the greatest of that breed -- championing Hell itself, and waiting impatiently for the day he can take the War right to Michael, who is the Archangel of War? And would not the Archangel of Valor -- bravery, in the face of overwhelming odds -- be greater than the Archangel of War -- violent ends to conflict, regardless of the source, or so the Demons say -- anyhow? Would Baal not have been purer, more virtuous, and in all ways more what Heaven claimed to love, only to be cast down with the rest? That is one reason they fight, and *know* they will win. That is where they know that there is nothing of Heaven that is good -- it is all bad, and *must* be destroyed. It is *passionately* important - -- so much so that the Demons of the War must not only never flee, but enforce an iron discipline like no other. They must be true. As true as their Prince. Except... their Prince *isn't* true. He's a Balseraph. And the concept of the Archangel of Valor doesn't hold water very easily. Let's look at the facts. Many -- one could say most -- of the truly powerful Angels of the first generations *had* no Words in those days. They got them later, as they became needed in War and in guiding and protecting humanity. This included Michael. Michael was the Firstborn Angel, the mightiest of the Seraphim, greater than even the Lightbringer. And certainly he was an Archangel, and likely always had been. He was more force than sentient being. But he was not the Archangel of War. Before the Fall, there was no War. Not in Heaven. And on Earth, with the humans, there was no need to champion conflict. It came up all by itself, and was disturbing to the Angels who saw it. Michael was not needed in that way. But with the Fall came Michael's triumph over Lucifer, and Lucifer's casting out. And in that moment the Archangel became the Archangel of War -- of the unleashed power of the righteous against the heretic, to protect those behind him and defeat those in front of him. It was the Fall that forged Michael into War, even as the Malakim were Forged. Before War was needed, what place was there for Valor? What battles could Baal have fought to earn him that lofty Word? Whisper this now -- you don't want anyone to hear. After all, the War is adamant about their Prince, and he himself is equally Adamant. This is how it was, they say. This is who Baal was. But the Prince of the War is a Balseraph. It is easy to forget that. Baal seems to possess a rough honor bright enough that Michael still respects it. The two speak as fellow warriors, not Seraph and Balseraph. And if Michael can respect Baal, how could any Angel or Demon not. But he *is* a *Balseraph.* And Balseraphs *lie.* Baal was mighty before the Fall, even as Michael and so many others were. But he was no more Word-Bound than Heaven's Champion. He was not the Archangel of Valor or anything else. But from the first of it, Baal had to clothe himself in all the trappings of honor. And that led him to his single greatest lie -- the single greatest demand that Baal's personal Symphony has made of the Symphony at large: Baal was Valor Incarnate, and was thrown out of Heaven. Today, who can refute him? If you repeat the lie enough, it becomes a kind of truth. Even as demons and angels alike know that Kronos is a Balseraph, so they also know that that Baal was the Archangel of Valor. Michael, and the older angels, know the truth, of course. And they refute it where they can. But how do you refute so many whisperings in the night. How do you argue a repetition so insidious. How do you dispel the Lie of a Balseraph Prince, when he has had twenty thousand years to let it spread. So, Baal was the Archangel of Valor. Clearly. Everyone knows it. The books are right. Aren't they always? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:56:59 -0700 From: Steven Feldon Subject: RE: IN> A look at Lilim Quoth the Archangel, Elizabeth McCoy: >Feel free in your campaign, but in canon, those who have a reason to >research such things generally believe there are less than a dozen >alive in Heaven. In canon, there are 1.5 Bright Lilim named. Mira, >Bright Lilim of Dreams, and in the Liber Servitorum, "Dee," Bright >Lilim of Creation in service to Flowers. I consider the characters >in the LiberS to be "parti-canon" -- I have no plans to allow them to >be used in actual storyline canon, though they should be _examples_ >of what _could be_ canon without a hitch. And they might well show up >in examples of rules in future books -- this keeps "name bloat" from >swamping the poor compilers at www.incyclopedia.org. O:> Oh, don't worry about me and Diane. Liber Castellorum was the last nail in my coffin, and she's still working on that one. The Superiors books have been a joy and a pleasure compared to Castellorum, with, I think, TEN THOUSAND NAMES in it and every last one of them a Seneschal--the thing my database handles least well. *sigh*. Bitter? Me? Naah. :) steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:58 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> Really Old Jobs (was Metatron) >Mercurians sat around feeling vaguely dissatisfied and getting patted >on the shoulder by Yves, advised to be patient. There weren't as many of them, back then. Once prehuman primates appeared, they had something to practice on. A few of them never moved on from that, and are still working for Jordi. And, too, back then they were Friends to *angels*... a function they still retain, IMC, though it's rarely exercised anymore. Think about it. It's canon that Kobal was the Mercurian Angel of Laughter long, long, long before the first proto-human banged the rocks together. Since brontosaurs weren't exactly full of giggles, obviously it was angelic (and, perhaps, divine) humor that was empowering his Word. These days, Mercs have their hands very full with humanity. But they're still there to help other angels, when that function is needed. >>figure out methinks....especially for people like Baal, Asmodeus, etc. See my post on Eos, angel of the dawn (search for "Eos" in the Archives). It has glimpses of angels back in the Pre-Cambrian. Belial is into volcanic eruptions and lightning; Lucifer concerns himself with particle physics and the smooth internal operation of the Sun... Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:42:10 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: IN> Judas >>What if his destiny was to throw the 30 pieces of silver back at who >>ever it was (the sanhedrin? my bible history is suddenly failing me.) IMC the 30 Pieces of Silver have popped up as holy relics. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:17:29 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Concerning Novalis At 11:02 PM -0700 7/7/00, Jo Hart wrote: [...] >Despite her hippy, happy nature, Novalis does understand the natural cycles >of life and death -- even if she doesn't articulate it in the calm rational >way that Jean might choose; she understands things on an emotional level -- >that things are born, grow old and then die to make way for new things. I am minded of a filk song...wherein "a man walked in to the hardwood grove, with a chainsaw, and its crew." And meets the dryad... She was sun, and moon, and starlight. She was earth and sky and sea. She was everything that he'd ever loved, and all that he wished to be. And she sang of the eldern forests, And she sang of the rustling wind, and her arms reached out of the jagged bark, Reached out, to pull him in. "I am the strength of the heart and the root, I am the soul of the wood." But the man pulled out an acorn, and he held it to her eyes, and he sang to her of birth and life... That even an oak must die. (I forget the author, curse it. Probably Lackey or Fish or McQuillin.) Of course, it has a happy ending... "...so he kneels to plant the acorn, and he hears a quiet sound -- the sound of joy and the hope of spring, the new life in the ground..." - --Beth, catching up as she can, typing with a baby (iolanthe) in her lap. Vapitalizatoin and spelling still difficult, typing w/ 1 hand (and often a wigglebaby in the other). ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1706 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.