From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jan 26 14:41:08 2001 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 OAA24959 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:41:07 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id OAA13400 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:40:44 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:40:44 -0600 Message-Id: <200101262040.OAA13400@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 #2034 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, January 26 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2034 In this digest: Re: IN> A Memo from the Desk of Sir Laurence IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto IN> Hellish Memo IN> New Prophet report IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto Re: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto Re: IN> On Ethereals [Was Re: An Open Letter from Laurence] Re: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto Re: IN> January 25, 2001 Re: IN> Ess-Ee-Ex! Re: IN> January 25, 2001 Re: IN> Stupid Entropy Trick Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> Stupid Entropy Trick Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:04:11 -0000 From: "I. Inayat" Subject: Re: IN> A Memo from the Desk of Sir Laurence [Daily Revelation. Usual 'delivered anonymously, we have had no contact with the author - *especially* in this case...' disclaimer.] BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Well, all I can say is... ...It's about freaking _time_! Now, of all of you still up there, I wouldn't have expected the kid to do this. Maybe I should've. Youth's no barrier to recreating yourself. (Neither is age, but I digress.) Heh. Maybe I'll see ya 'round sometime, Larry, huh? (And remind me to explain _why_ I didn't go through the paperwork first _before_ you whip out the letter-opener...) Oh, and before anyone starts pleading with me to come back ('time of crisis', 'organisational upheaval', 'your assistance greatly required'...) forget it. I already heard the spiel. I _will_ come back. When the time is ready. Stay cool, guys. Well, as much as possible. (Nikki? Give my regards to Bronwyn, wontcha? Oh, and you still owe me a coffee from Vienna...) Eli. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:28:36 -0500 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto >I know David. David is a friend of mine. And you, pal, ARE NO DAVID! I >can't *believe* you actually got this much wrong for so long! Firstborn Lord of the war, I accept your judgement as acting Commander of the Host. However laurence is blinded by his devotion to the woman he pines for and it nauesates me that she pines for the slime that has left Heaven. He is blinded by his devotion to your shadow as well. I imagine the majority of Hell also are excellent liars and they wept no tears when Uriel left either...and that was a VERY bad thing. Thus respectfully commander Michael I say unto you this as an Archangel, and most honorable being since Laurence has left. YOU ARE WRONG I have obeyed Laurence and have not continued the Purity Crusade but do not deflame our brother's memory. As War call his tactics stupid, foolish, or insipid but do not call him mad. For it will be him who returns on judgement day to set us straight that God willed it. - -David Addenum: The brethren in Hell also are probably fearing he is merely going to do something stupid and throw his life away fighting one of them. I do not like the idea of wasting God's chosen choice because he insists on bearing the weight of guilt for something that was necessary. I also repeat Lord Michael THERE ARE NO GOOD ETHEREALS, they're are no evil there, they are THOUGHTS, DREAMS, and VIRUS as much as I wish stone had a soul beyond me...they do not. Let this delusion that dreams are alive dissapate. *grumble* I trust my opinions will not be used against me most Holy, I here and obey all but to change my heart of which that is only one being's pernogitive. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:31:59 -0500 From: "Aaron Medwin" Subject: IN> Hellish Memo [found on Malphas' desk] You failed again. Expect to see me very shortly. - -L. - --- Maybe, just maybe, Malphas tried to do something big. Something that couldn't fail, unlike that fiasco with Armaggedon a few years back. It wasn't a new notion - using a Malakite's honor to turn him against his fellows. He'd been doing it since the beginning, after all. But to try to twist the mind of a Malakite *Archangel*... risky, but Malphas needed a big success. That level of success would relieve tension from the other Princes, many of whom had been looking forward to the Final Battle with glee and wicked anticipation. Malphas chose Laurence, and subtly placed hints of Ethereal plots and schemes in the angel's path, hoping Laurence would vent, and he did. Malphas was nearly beside himself with glee as intelligence reports indicated that proud, honorable, scion-of-Purity Laurence was being berated by nearly every Archangel in Heaven. Then came the word that Laurence had embarked on a Quest to welcome select Ethereals back to the fold, making amends as he could. Then came the Memo. Malphas is very, very scared now. - -Aaron Medwin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:42:28 -0500 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> New Prophet report A tombstone has been placed on the Castle of Purity's grave the epiteth reads "My soul will be ressurected on Armageddon after the Hosts of Hell have been driven to oblivion but know this I was denied death fighting them, not fighting for humanity's soul, but died at the hands of one of my own brother for the protection of Phantasms mistaken for people." "Know I died unrepetant trying to destroy this resource of hell. Know I died at the hands of my brothers trying to destroy the lies men called a story of God. Know that because of this bloodshed...I likely will only be the first." The angels name his superior Never outcast, never dissonant - -Charlemagne David isn't taking this well is he? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:51:10 -0500 From: "Charles Phipps" Subject: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto I agree with David Most Holy acting commander of the Host. Perhaps your certainty to being right is great indeed but God selected my Lord Laurence when he was a servitor of Purity. The ethereals are soulless creatures that cannot enter Heaven and a person who could is dead, a friend of mine though it affects not my judgement. Objectively I have no arguement against mortal soldiers but since when have we called mercanaries beloved children of Heaven? It mocks God to accept their service while they solely work to steal the essence we use to build heaven and fuel our words. Give charity to the poor Muhammed said but I doubt he meant these lunacies nor at the cost of bread in one's own family's mouth. I make this plea to you Brother Laurence, abandon your mad quest and repent of your murder for it was done in the best of intentions and under ignorance. God will forgive but I will not stand aside as you kill our brothers. Strike at another brother and you will have to strike through my flesh. Kill another and your head will roll. Amen. - -Khalid ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:11:19 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto [The Holy Revelation. Again. How many editions a night do they print?] At 2:28 AM -0500 1/26/01, Charles Phipps wrote: >I trust my opinions will not be used against me most Holy, I here and obey >all but to change my heart of which that is only one being's pernogitive. Of this, I can speak. Of the nature of Ethereals, there has been no Judgement. With the Commander-General's new tactic, the ongoing investigation into the nature of Ethereals has been granted additional resources, and both Jean and Blandine are assisting. However, at this time I do not believe any of these organizations is prepared to report. Therefore, while the Firstborn may be certain and the Worldshaper may be certain, we cannot definitively state one is correct and the other is not. Perhaps the issue should be brought before the Seraphim Council. Regardless, no negative consequences should befall David for his opinions. Further, even as the Firstborn has earned the right of soapbox, whether politely wielded or no, when he desires, so I would submit the Worldshaper has earned the same right. While we are on the subject of the Ethereal Soldiers of God: it is not mete to refer to such beings as 'the Soulless.' The theory that Ethereals, being unable to enter Heaven or Hell, possess no souls even as the Undead have squandered their souls for the illusion of corporeal immortality is well known among the Host. However, that theory has not been proven. Even as some of the most selfless of Soldiers are those Undead who have taken up Heaven's Cause with no hope of Heaven, so we must respect the gesture of an Ethereal who accepts the burdens of the War as his own, assuming his conversion is valid and his sentience is actual and not simulated. In either case, disrespect is unfair and can be considered challenging the authority of the Commander-General, and will be treated such by Judgement. Judgement would like to thank the Archangel of Dreams for permitting the investigatory triads to enter her Realm and assist in the debriefing of the Ethereal Templers (as some have begun to call them). Please note this debriefing is an extensive and complex process, and we request as little interference or distraction as possible. Many Ethereals have roundabout or even obfuscated ways of dealing with questions -- perhaps out of a desire to hide Truths from the Divine Inquisition and Heaven, and perhaps merely out of their nature. Distractions merely hinder this progress further. As for the rumor that Laurence is going to come under investigation and trial for his actions... all we are prepared to state at this time is that the Commander-General is acting within his rights and authority, noting also that by not declaring an Acting General of the Vale or the Marches, he has implicitly reserved that for himself. My proposal to name Blandine to this post was hasty, the result of my making an unwarranted, unsupported presupposition and assumption. This highlights the dangers of such things. Once Laurence returns to Heavenly Society, assuming he does not step beyond what is considered his Authority, a decision regarding investigation will be made. Inquiries about this process may be submitted to the Chief of Staff or her organization. Semper Fidelis Dominic Archangel of Judgement - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 2001 08:24:33 -0000 From: "-=|horsefly|=-" Subject: Re: IN> On Ethereals [Was Re: An Open Letter from Laurence] On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:00:58 -0500 Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 11:05 AM -0500 1/25/01, Rolland Therrien wrote: >>Ares, still God of War, would become a more serious General and Mercenary, >>rather then just a grunt warrior. Think Rambo with the Strategic mind of >>Hannibal. >Ares, actually, used to be like this -- till he merged with that thug, >Mars. IIRC. other way around, last i checked: Ares was the thug who kept the Trojan war so bloody (well, so did all the gods, but it wasn't something Mars, honorable bloke that he was, would have done). Ares seeded conflict for its own sake to promote himself; in that sense he was very much the way Baal is portrayed in In Nomine. Mars was nominally god of war, but he functioned more like the god of warfare, with Roman rules and strictures on how to fight, blessing Roman soldiers and military endeavors over others' (provided they sacrificed properly...). >It's been a few years since that Mythology class, though I >think the teacher compared Ares' loss of status with Venus' gain when >she conflated with Aphrodite. Venus was more well-respected than Aphrodite, but i find Aphrodite much more honest in her station, and much less mealy-mouthed about who and what she is. -=|horsefly|=- Mythology: it's not a hobby, it's a way of life! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:16:43 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Phipps" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:28 AM Subject: IN> The Purity Crusade was Right -A Davidian Manifesto [Text of a private memo...] > Firstborn Lord of the war, I accept your judgement as acting Commander of > the Host. Trouble is, I'm not. Laurence *didn't* step down, he merely left some of us in charge of different division while he decided to shift to field-work. So don't address me that way, OK? Last thing I need right now is Dominic getting on my case, it's hectic enough as is. Ironic, isn't it? Both of us have been wishing for over a millennia that he'd step away from the planning table and get back to using the hands-on approach. Admittedly, the hands of the peacemaker aren't what we anticipated him using... but hey, if it's stupid but it's working, it's not stupid. David, since arguing with you ain't exactly productive, this is going to be just a few quick comments.. > Addenum: The brethren in Hell also are probably fearing he is merely going > to do something stupid and throw his life away fighting one of them. As theories go, that's not too bad -- but it's still wrong. I mean, explain to me why *Baal* is sweating so hard. After Laurence caught him out with a banzai charge the last time he's been keeping Belial on speed-dial for just such an occasion, and even Laurence can't handle both of those Demon Princes at once and they know it. (Note to self -- make sure to remind Laurence not to let himself be goaded by Baal in this condition. If I were him, I'd be trying to suck Laurence into a head-on ambush right about now... the kid's not dumb, but he is worked-up about something. 'Scuse me, I've got to send a Song of Tongues... there. Back.) And has anybody seen Malphas lately? You should hear the intel on what's going on with *that* one. Rumor has it that Lucifer himself is going to personally rake him over the coals for screwing up big-time.. I'd *wondered* why the Seraphim Council debates had been edged into going public recently. (Admittedly, I didn't *care*, 'cause letting the Truth out in public can only hurt Hell's cause in the long run, as this whole thing is now proving. Have you *seen* Alaemon lately? *laughs*) You should at least be happy to hear about him taking one in the short-n-curlies.. Like I said, nobody can argue with you. I can, however, point out things I've seen that you missed and hope to God that it makes you *choose* to think again. And while none of us are omniscient, because only God is, we come a lot closer to that ideal *within* our own Words than we do outside of it. And Dreams are a Word neither of us bears. Look. I've been doing a lot of rethinking ever since this whole thing started, and while I still wish she'd fix some things I've come to the realization that Blandine does mostly know what she's doing. And while you can convince yourself that Laurence's judgement is romantically out of whack about Blandine, ain't no way in Heaven you can say that about *me*. My love-life does *not* interfere with my work, period, full stop. (If it were, I'd be wearing a bleeping *garland*.) > At least not without picking the losing end of the argument. > I do not like the idea of wasting God's chosen choice because he insists on > bearing the weight of guilt for something that was necessary. I might point out that so far, all we've got is dueling opinions... oh, yes, and fifteen centuries of hindsight that has shown that the Purity Crusade's been a much better deal for Hell than for Heaven. BTW, before you repeat yet again that Ethereals can never enter the Light of Heaven, aren't truly alive, yadda yadda, and therefore don't deserve Heaven's forbearance in not killing them or not allowing them to work alongside us, I'd like to say two words... ... Redeemed undead. Think about that for a while. *It is not our place to say who may and may not be allowed the privilege of trying to serve God.* So until Himself sends us a message saying "Stop it", I'm going to operate on the basis that Hell is the place that condemns people to death simply for being part of the wrong crowd [1] while Heaven is the place that believes that all individuals either save themselves or damn themselves based on their own actions and not their race's. [snip] > I trust my opinions will not be used against me most Holy, *ripple-blink* Use your opinions against you? Who do I look like? *Asmodeus*? I can't -- and shouldn't -- stop you from thinking what you please, just so long as it doesn't lead you into either dishonor or disobedience. And your honor doesn't need me to watch over it, and the possibility of disobedience only started being my problem as soon as I reached Acting Commander status. And now that it's no longer a possibility -- taking you at your word is something I've got no problem with, David -- I've got no more official reasons for any concern at all. Of course, just as you are free to say your opinion wherever you please, I am equally as free to point out that you're full of little red ants and some of the things you've been saying recently about our boy Laurence have personally annoyed me just a wee bit. > I here and obey all but to change my heart of which that is only one > being's pernogitive. Fair enough. Remember that even when I'm most pissed with you, I still respect you, 'cause you are and God willing will always be worthy of my respect. (You *still* owe me a wrestling match, though. Later. The next few years are gonna be red-alert busy, what with the shakeups going on in the strategic situation. See you at the next Seraphim Council meeting.) Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:39:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> January 25, 2001 Maurice Lane wrote: > No, really. Shocking, huh? You would think that Paul > would have managed to peg either his Destiny (from > Laurence's point of view) _or_ his Fate (from > Malphas')with his work in early Christianity, but it > didn't happen. Interesting idea, but I wouldn't have thought that Paul was such a major (if unwitting) servant of Factions. Yes, he passionately crusaded for several controversial issues in his day, but are ALL such crusaders fodder for Malphas? Let' see... He started out persecuting the Christians, but he repented of that (in response to an (alleged, at least) Intervention), and spent the rest of his life working the other way, and NOT persecuting Jews either. His really big controversy within his Christian career was the issue of whether all Christians had to be (or convert to being) Jewish as a precondition. Yes, there was a big dust-up over this, but so far as the record shows, Paul (with eventual back-up from Peter) carried the day and the issue was pretty much over. And he worked AGAINST factionalism, as some of his letters deal explicitly with how to cope with different opinions within a congregation and still live charitably with each other, not to mention things like "Greek and Jew, slave and free, male and female, all are one in Christ." If you want to boot Paul out of Heaven, I'd recommend you invent some sin that doesn't show up in the records. Or he could be the biggest big-name Saint who chooses to reincarnate repeatedly, so as to go on serving on Earth, and his celebrity makes him an obvious target for Hell if word leaks out about it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:54:07 -0500 From: "Tyto Alba" Subject: Re: IN> Ess-Ee-Ex! - -- On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:11:32 Charles Phipps wrote: >Actually to understand the purposes of the rites I think you have to get >into the Archangel's frame of mind. I think it's also helpful to look at the dissonance conditions for Andrealphus. "Mortals exist only to be ruthlessly manipulated." If there's any element of affection, it is out of Andrealphus's realm. tyto a. Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:06 -0500 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> January 25, 2001 - --On Thursday, January 25, 2001 23:04 -0600 Charles Glasgow wrote: > From: "Maurice Lane" > >> Now, the PCs will probably not be mighty enough to >> handle the careful - very, very careful - nudging of >> Paul (who hasn't yet made any inroads towards either >> state. Heck, he's a 13 year old girl this time >> around). > > Moe, Moe, you're not being *nearly* twisted enough here. You > should have turned the poor barstid into Britney Spears or > something. > ...a state which, by itself, is a Fate. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("You want *what* when you turn 15?") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:50:27 EST From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Stupid Entropy Trick /snip/Well if I'm interpreting this correctly each cell would be a zygote. That would mean that the cells couldn't live on their own. So you could implant as many as them as possible into surrogate mothers to keep them alive, and have clones. /more snip/Every cell is the age of a zygote. How quickly do zygote cells divide/grow ? Imagine a 30 years old who had the growth rate of a newborn/unborn baby... /Revenge of snip/Not if you consider that the human immune system doesn't develop fully until quite some time after birth. That person may be young, but he or she would be dangerously low on antibodies. /You are now leaving Snip. Y'all come back now, y'hear!/ The things you all mentioned are related to the growth cycle! The Corporeal Song of Entropy as described in the LC does not affect those things! Just the rate of aging. The decline of the body. Reverend Brian A. Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:05:04 +0000 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Rolland Therrien wrote: [...] > The Crusade of the Sword. [...] > Ok, if you haven't figured by now, Laurence has decided to make up for > the Purity Crusade by going out into the Marches, to find those > Ethereals who are Honorable enough to join Heaven's side of the > Marches, and to end the threat of the Tsayadim, even if he has to put > an end to their lives himself, as painful as the idea may be to him. [...] I like it a lot, and I'm going to use it. With one small change, though. It won't be Laurence going into the Marches, publicly acknowledging the error of the Purity Crusade, and asking the Ethereals to join Heaven. It's going to be Uriel. It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised he was wrong. So now he's going to do the only honourable thing. He's going to apologise. Sam - -- Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:11:59 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Stupid Entropy Trick > The things you all mentioned are related to the growth cycle! The Corporeal Song of Entropy as described in the LC does not affect those things! Just the rate of aging. The decline of the body. Reducing the age of a tree won't turn it into an acorn. It'll just make it much healthier and add those years to its lifespan. Adding age to an acorn won't turn it into a tree. It'll probably deteriorate and crumble into dust. So aging a 30 year-old man 100 years will make him die as his body deteriorates and his organs fail. Reducing a 30 year-old man's age by 30 years won't turn him into a newborn baby, but his organs and body will have 30 years of stress and deterioration removed from him, and he'll probably live to see 110. > Reverend Brian A. Rogers Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:11:12 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. Sam Kington wrote: > It's going to be Uriel. > > It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised > he was wrong. So now he's going to do the only honourable thing. > He's going to apologise. Since he's returning from the Upper Heavens, might he be able to do something more? Maybe ... reinstate some of the slain? (To make it interesting, first, he might have to decide who to resurrect. Then he might need some scrap or essence of their previous existence to build on. THEN, when they do come back, they come back just as they were right before they died -- which is usually not in a mood to listen to apologies.) Just a suggestion. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:22:27 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. > It's going to be Uriel. > > It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised he was > wrong. Maybe, just maybe, we should give Uriel the benefit of the doubt. Uriel is many times smarter than any mortal man. Heck, he's many times smarter than any angel. Uriel is one of three beings to command the armies of God, and was widely feared by Hell as one of Heaven's most fearsome generals. Even Baal considered Uriel a worthy opponent. Uriel knows warfare. Uriel was one of the first seven angels. He was one of the first Seraphim. He understands honor, he understands truth, and he understands the way the world works. We, on the other hand, are mortal. By comparison, we have no understanding of warfare. We don't have Uriel's perspective on what is good for Heaven or who Heaven's enemy's are... ...yet we persist in viewing Uriel through our uneducated biases. Even if you point to angels who opposed Uriel, you must understand that their words are often words that *require* compassion in the face of reason. They had no choice to oppose Uriel, and were probably, due to their words, wrong in doing so. In other words, we can't jerk our knees and assume Uriel was wrong just because "Purity" and "Crusade" are two words that offended our knee-jerk sensibilities. Why can't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt? When you're an entity that is hyper-intelligent, and have lived billions and billions of years, and were one of the first Seraphim and the first Malakite, and know your enemy better than just about anyone else in Heaven, you probably know what you're doing when you declare war on someone. And God didn't let him stand trial -- probably because God knew there were angels whose words would never allow them to understand that Uriel was right, and he was knew they'd convict and condemn Heaven's greatest general for the simple crime of doing his job. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:40:51 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. From: "Ben Glickler" > > It's going to be Uriel. > > > > It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised he was > > wrong. > > Maybe, just maybe, we should give Uriel the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, just maybe, you should do the same for those who saw that trying to exterminate all Ethereals, with the net result being giving all the survivors that much more reason to ally themselves with Hell, and running rampant over the Words of a number of other members of the Seraphim Council in the process, was a bad thing. > Uriel is many times smarter than any mortal man. Heck, he's many times > smarter than any angel. As are the archangels who called for his crusade to end. > Uriel was one of the first seven angels. He was one of the first Seraphim. > He understands honor, he understands truth, and he understands the way the > world works. A case could be made to the contrary, considering how the way the world works is so often in direct affront against his Word. > Even if you point to angels who opposed Uriel, you must understand that > their words are often words that *require* compassion in the face of reason. Neither Dreams nor Animals require such a thing, Ben, and both Blandine and Jordi were among Uriel's foremost accusers. > In other words, we can't jerk our knees and assume Uriel was wrong just > because "Purity" and "Crusade" are two words that offended our knee-jerk > sensibilities. Especially since there is no such need to do so before coming to the reasoned conclusion that he was Wrong in taking actions that killed potential allies and devastated mortal dreamscapes. > And God didn't let him stand trial -- probably because God knew there were > angels whose words would never allow them to understand that Uriel was > right, and he was knew they'd convict and condemn Heaven's greatest general > for the simple crime of doing his job. No, it was because the fallout from him having exceeded his job by several orders of magnitude would have given Hell even more of a benefit than his losing sight of the more important objective would have. As commander of the Host, Uriel's primary duty was against Hell, not the Ethereals. He gave greater priority to his Word than to his duty as general, and that is why he was wrong to launch his crusade. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:52:58 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Glickler" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:22 PM Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. > > It's going to be Uriel. > > > > It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised he was > > wrong. > > Maybe, just maybe, we should give Uriel the benefit of the doubt. O-kay. But maybe not. > Uriel is many times smarter than any mortal man. Heck, he's many times > smarter than any angel. IIRC, canon contains more than a few examples of Superiors dropping the ball badly, so therefore it is canon fact that Superiors are -- even with their known superintelligence and eons of experience -- *not* immune to dropping the ball. Badly. [snip] > Even if you point to angels who opposed Uriel, you must understand that > their words are often words that *require* compassion in the face of reason. > They had no choice to oppose Uriel, and were probably, due to their words, > wrong in doing so. Check out Superiors 1. Michael's *canon* position re: the Purity Crusade was almost entirely as I outlined it -- according to Michael, it was a waste of resources, a foolish gambit, and alienated far too many potential allies and turned them into bitter enemies. Michael disapproved of Uriel's decision to waste so much effort, manpower, goodwill, and credibility butchering dreams that didn't deserve it rather than remembering where the *real* enemy is. And when the Archangel of War thinks that declaring and fighting a given conflict was a bad move, you can't exactly suspect that *his* opinions were motivated by too much touchy-feely or some philosophical objection to bloodshed. > In other words, we can't jerk our knees and assume Uriel was wrong just > because "Purity" and "Crusade" are two words that offended our knee-jerk > sensibilities. I might point out that most, if not all, of the objections to the Purity Crusade recently have not been made on the basis of "sensibilities". You mischaracterize the opposition to the Purity Crusade by implying that their objections are not at least as based on pragmatism as they are on emotion. > Why can't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt? Because even for a superintelligient Archangel, two plus two still equals four (in bases equal to or greater than four). They might be a lot smarter than humans are, but they still live in the same overall reality that humans do. For example, Dominic may have a more superhuman capacity to discern the just from the unjust than any human can possibly have... but even he can't use that capacity to *make* the blatantly unjust into something just. To coint a metaphor... Archangels may have superhuman reading skills compared to mortals, but both Superiors and humans are still reading from the same Big Book. If Michael, for example, is written as making an elementary strategic blunder (something on the order of "Whoops, I forgot to scout out the land ahead of me or put out any flankers as I marched an army onto enemy soil") -- and then, in hindsight after all the consequences have finished shaking out it's revealed to *genuinely* be a strategic blunder by the final results, and not a feint... then we can't say "Well, Michael is both a superintelligent Archangel, one of the Eldest, and the greatest master of warfare in the entire Symphony, so that stupid move he made can't have been a stupid move even though it really was one." That's like retroactively changing the answers on a test to pass a favorite student rather than actually flunking him on the questions he got wrong. No, instead we say "Whoops, Michael was not written right there." We've already hashed over the basic strategic and political errors of the Purity Crusade (it is ever *not* an error to treat an extremely varied collection of subgroups, many of which have worked with you in greater or lesser degrees of amity for centuries, as a monolithically cultural entity simply because of their distant common ancestry and/or geographical location? And then declare a war of extermination on them thereby?) but I'll touch on the point again. The fact that a superintelligent Archangel made an error so self-evident that our mere human minds can see it is not proof that the error isn't really there. Instead, it's proof that said Archangel was having a *really* bad day. Even the Firstborn wouldn't claim that Archangels are infallible. Any Archangel, *including* himself. Only God is infallible. >When you're an entity that is hyper-intelligent, and have lived billions and > billions of years, and were one of the first Seraphim and the first > Malakite, and know your enemy better than just about anyone else in Heaven, > you probably know what you're doing when you declare war on someone. Problem with this line of reasoning is that *the* First Seraph, an entity who is not only hyper-intelligent but even older than Uriel -- and who has War as his *Word* -- probably knows what *he's* doing when he takes the canon position that the Purity Crusade was a bad move. So by the exact same logic that requires us to presume that Uriel knew what he was doing, we must presume even more that Michael knows what he's doing when he says that Uriel *didn't* know what he was doing. > And God didn't let him stand trial -- probably because God knew there were > angels whose words would never allow them to understand that Uriel was > right, and he was knew they'd convict and condemn Heaven's greatest general > for the simple crime of doing his job. I disagree. I think LoneWolf's theory did it best -- Uriel was massively dissonant and Discordant by the time of the Crusade (you think *Gabriel* has impossible-to-fill dissonance conditions? Check out the ones David Edelstein laid out for a servitor of Purity! I don't see how Uriel could avoid picking up dissonance at record rates just by walking around and *breathing*...), and by the time the Crusade was on he had reached the point where he couldn't really be held responsible for his actions. However, since Dominic is notoriously skeptical and unsympathetic about the "diminshed responsibility" defense when it comes to Superiors (look at the ongoing investigation of Gabriel), and since Heaven did *not* need the spectacle of Judgement getting publicly over-ruled *again*, God intervened and invited Uriel for a nice quiet rest Upstairs *before* it got to the public trial stage. IMO. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:17:09 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. From: "Charles Glasgow" > > I think LoneWolf's theory did it best -- Uriel was massively dissonant and > Discordant by the time of the Crusade I doubt that Uriel was dissonant (much less discordant,) but would instead posit that he was placing the interests of his Word over those of his position as commander of God's armies. The Ethereals who were diverting essence away from Heaven were too much for the Archangel of Purity to stand any longer than he did. This way, Uriel could have remained completely free of dissonance while still doing something inhumanly stupid. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:19:17 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. > > > It's going to be Uriel. > > > > > > It took him close to a thousand years, but he's finally realised he was > > > wrong. > > > > Maybe, just maybe, we should give Uriel the benefit of the doubt. > > O-kay. > > But maybe not. Most of the criticism of Uriel seems to stem from two origins. First, we presuppose that the Purity Crusade was wrong. Second, we base our judgement on limited information. I'm sure the writers could create whole books on the Purity Crusade, and it would still not equal the amount of information Uriel would have had at his disposal at the beginning, before he launched the crusade. Michael might oppose because he did the job first. It's like replacing your boss but have him still hanging around, telling you how he would've done it. In any case, Michael's opinions are generally good ones, but we must remember that Michael wants to fight Hell, not Ethereals, and views the war through that perspective. Blandine's word *does* require compassion in face of reason. That's what dreams are all about -- hope, optimism, and looking to the future, no matter how bad things look now. Why do people assume Uriel was dissonant for massacring Ethereals, but nobody even suggests that Jordi might have been dissonant for assuming Ethereals were his to protect? We just have to make so many assumptions about Uriel, but nobody asks themselves if maybe, just maybe, Uriel was in the right. Maybe his advisors gave him the odds and said Ethereals would hurt Heaven more than help it in the long run. Maybe they showed him statistics on how Ethereals were messing up the whole Fate/Destiny thang. Maybe he learned how much essence Ethereals were getting that would otherwise have gone to Heaven. Who knows? It's as least as valid an argument as claiming that Uriel, the Archangel of Purity, was riddled with dissonance and did something really stupid. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:37:24 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Glickler" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: Re: IN> The Crusade of the Sword. > Most of the criticism of Uriel seems to stem from two origins. > > First, we presuppose that the Purity Crusade was wrong. Second, we base our > judgement on limited information. What "limited information"? It's basic strategy that alienating a neutral -- creating new troops for your enemy -- is worth it only if there is a greater counterbalancing gain. And IN canon history is quite free of any such gain to be seen. Analogy time again -- if an Archangel goes around saying that "two plus two equals three in base ten", then you don't need to be an Archangel himself to know that he's wrong. > Michael might oppose because he did the job first. It's like replacing your > boss but have him still hanging around, telling you how he would've done it. This posits a degree of petty spite on Michael's part that not even canon supports. Sure, Michael's capable of holding a grudge till eternity is over and then some, but he's always been written as accepting of the chain of command. > In any case, Michael's opinions are generally good ones, but we must > remember that Michael wants to fight Hell, not Ethereals, and views the war > through that perspective. Again, this works both ways -- we must remember that Uriel's perspective is even *further* away from objectivity than Michael is. Purity is a word that *requires* the holder to be inflexibly closed-minded. Which gives Uriel's perspective better odds of having missed the point than the other Archangels'... I mean, how can you simultaneously argue that Uriel should be presumed right because of Archangelic superintelligence while the vast majority of the other Archangels in Heaven all agree that the Purity Crusade was not a good move? Even when that agreement is between Archangels who agree on almost nothing else? [snip] > Why do people assume Uriel was dissonant for massacring Ethereals, but > nobody even suggests that Jordi might have been dissonant for assuming > Ethereals were his to protect? Eh? What? I thought that Blandine assumed that Ethereals were hers to protect... and Dreams *are* her Word. > We just have to make so many assumptions about Uriel, but nobody asks > themselves if maybe, just maybe, Uriel was in the right. No, this looks like that you've *assumed* that nobody has ever asked themselves this. You have assumed -- with no basis -- that the opposing viewpoint to yours is utterly closed-minded, and has willfully ignored the possibility that it might be wrong. Which is a faulty assumption. We did think to check ourselves before we posted our opinions. It's just that even the recheck came up negative for Uriel too. [snip] - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2034 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.