From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Nov 9 11:36:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26027 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:36:13 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id LAA09454 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:34:27 -0600 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:34:27 -0600 Message-Id: <199911091734.LAA09454@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 #1399 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 Tuesday, November 9 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1399 In this digest: Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Marc Re: IN> Marc Re: IN> Cry Havoc! IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re:IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Vessels Re:IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Marc Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re:IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Tyger Tyger, Burning Bright.... IN> New Malakim Re: IN> New Malakim Re: IN> Tyger Tyger, Burning Bright.... Re: IN> Vessels Re: IN> Destiny? Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> New Malakim Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> Marc IN> Ruggedized Calabim Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> Vessels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:38:19 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? > But, even people that do things because "they're the right >thing to do" do so because they prefer feeling good about themselves >by having done what they felt was right to the guilt they'd feel from >doing something wrong. Thus, it's still a selfish action, just one >that helps others as well as one's self. This is in opposition to >demonic selfishness, which is really just not caring about what's >right and not deriving any benefits in general from helping others, >and then acting to maximize these returns. True to an extent, I mean were only human so yes we do do things for a reward and anyone who says otherwize is lying. But it should be *at least* balanced with selfless giving to be worthy of Heaven, because the war is about whether or not humanity is selfless or selfish. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:40:12 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? At 16:03 -0500 11/9/99, Azrael wrote: >He decides that not going to hell is more enjoyable than some bad wine and better >for him (selfish...naughty naughty), so he gives 2nd vagrant the money. > >Does hne go to heaven? Certainly your standard "hell and brimstone" revival preacher would say yes, since their whole approach to saving souls is to literally scare the Hell out of them.... However, the fate/destiny thing isn't controlled by fundamentalist preachers in IN canon, so it's more doubtful, and probably pretty much a GM call. Personally, I'd say that anyone who was trying to get to Heaven (or avoid Hell) by performing the appropriate behaviors, *without* any actual selfless motivation, would, at best, go around for another try in his next life. Canon seems to say that getting to Heaven requires *some* selfless behavior (but not *totally* selfless -- otherwise there'd be *very* few humans in Heaven). Simply avoiding Hell isn't selfless -- it's selfish. But it might be possible to knowingly pursue one's destiny *if* one was also inclined to go that direction anyway. Just knowing the details wouldn't, in my opinion, preclude reaching it. (On the other hand, it probably wouldn't *ensure* reaching it, either.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:47:59 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? Santiago wrote: > But, even people that do things because "they're the right > thing to do" do so because they prefer feeling good about themselves > by having done what they felt was right to the guilt they'd feel from > doing something wrong. Thus, it's still a selfish action, just one > that helps others as well as one's self. This is in opposition to > demonic selfishness, which is really just not caring about what's > right and not deriving any benefits in general from helping others, > and then acting to maximize these returns. Exactly, even someone like Novalis helps others because she -likes- to, it makes her -feel- good. This is in -addition- to doing it because it's the right thing to do. Even the greatest martyr's in the world gain a sense of self-satisfaction, of inner peace by doing the right thing. If the right thing made you feel emotionally -awful- and guilty, almost no one would do it. Taking this from an IN standpoint, being selfless feels good because that's how God made the Symphony, to work together. Being selfish at the expense of others feels good in your own personal symphony but -not- in the Symphony at large. This is why demons aren't a part of it. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:59:12 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? Walter Milliken wrote: > Canon seems to say that getting to Heaven requires *some* selfless behavior > (but not *totally* selfless -- otherwise there'd be *very* few humans in > Heaven). Simply avoiding Hell isn't selfless -- it's selfish. But it might > be possible to knowingly pursue one's destiny *if* one was also inclined to > go that direction anyway. Just knowing the details wouldn't, in my > opinion, preclude reaching it. (On the other hand, it probably wouldn't > *ensure* reaching it, either.) Hmmm, here's a fun something to throw into the mix: Soldiers. Soldiers of God - -know- that there are angels, a Heaven, et cetera. Now, does their motivation matter so much if they're on the right side? Let's bring everyone's favourite Mercurian, Nicole. She bullied her Servitor around like crazy, does this mean he's Heavenbound or Hellbound? Can the actions of Celestials, even if they - -force- a human into acting selflessly, still lead that human to the Pit? - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:08:18 -0700 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? At 01:03 PM 11/9/99 PST, you wrote: >He decides that not going to hell is more enjoyable than some bad wine and better >for him (selfish...naughty naughty), so he gives 2nd vagrant the money. >Does hne go to heaven? Well, IMO this is a fairly unrealistic example to start out with. The greatest thing this vagrant could /ever/ achieve is to give someone else a couple bucks? I doubt it. Likewise, the lowest depth the vagrant could /possibly/ fall to is spending a couple of bucks on cheap booze? Highly unlikely. There's a clause in a few passages in the In Nomine ruleset that I've always thought should apply to Destiny and Fate as well, but it seems it doesn't: "barring celestial intervention". Take notes, that's going to be on the quiz. In a general sense, humans will never know what their Destiny and Fate are. It's only through celestial intervention that they /can/ know - and yes, Virginia, Yves leaving the Book of All Things out by accident counts as celestial intervention. I'll explain a bit below. Any given sentient being - let's call him Fred - has a Destiny and a Fate. Barring celestial intervention, they're set at birth, when the Forces are first brought together. No one knows before Fred dies whether he will or won't achieve his Destiny, his Fate, or both - but it can be known that his Destiny is the greatest height he can reach, and his Fate the worst depth he can fall to. Until someone reveals them to him. At that point, his entire being is irrevocably changed - usually in one of three ways. Fred can choose to ignore the information, and live his life the way he would have, and eventually he will probably forget exactly what his Fate and Destiny are. Destiny and Fate will usually not change here; but even if Fred forgets the Destiny and Fate entirely, he will /know/, when he has achieved them, that something special and cosmic just happened. Fred can choose to act on his Destiny and/or Fate, on the belief that Heaven is better than Hell or vice-versa, or that disbandment or reincarnation is better than either. This tends to change Destiny and Fate, in such a way that reflects the new most selfish and selfless thing Fred can do. And he /won't/ know - nothing will indicate to him that he's achieved his Destiny or Fate, or in fact that they've changed. Fred can look at his Destiny and/or Fate, and be dissatisfied. "That's all I get?" or "You think that's the worst I can do?" generally typifies this transformation; Fate and Destiny are not changed so much as they are /expanded/, as Fred actively works toward achieving greater heights then anyone imagined possible for him. Again, Fred will have no idea when he actually reaches his Destiny and/or Fate. There's a subset of this one, too - the one where Fred looks at his Destiny and says "You think that's the best I can do?" In that case, Fred's Destiny usually becomes a fate, with a new Destiny emerging in its place. Regardless of the effects the intervention has, though, the very fiber of Fred's being has been changed by knowing his Destiny and Fate - and, usually, the Destiny and Fate have too. This has the side effect of disallowing any creature to know its Destiny or Fate for more than a moment. Now it's getting late, and I'm tired - I got three hours of sleep last night. So I'll break here - comments? - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:05:33 -0600 From: "Ben Chism" Subject: Re: IN> Marc > > One thing I REALLY hope is brought out in Marc's expanded writeup is > that he is NOT the Archangel of Capitalism. Modern business doesn't > reflect Marc's Word any better than the American legal system reflects > Dominic's. Any idea when his expanded writeup is coming out(And Eli's too!)? > It'll surely make some people scream to see Marc also supporting such > economic systems as communism and socialism, but I'm sure he would. They > ALL fall under Trade, and like capitalism, are only as good or as bad as > their implementation. Socialism is a pretty dang good Economic concept, in therory...in practice is where the problems come up. Execellent point, though, about all being under Trade...those here in the USA tend to fall into the captalism mind set, and don't think about other forms of Trade(at least I find myself doing it!) Ben Chism ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:29:17 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Marc >From: David Edelstein > > > >One thing I REALLY hope is brought out in Marc's expanded writeup is >that he is NOT the Archangel of Capitalism. > >It'll surely make some people scream to see Marc also supporting such >economic systems as communism and socialism, but I'm sure he would. Yep, but they aren't as close to either his Word or his heart as free trade is .. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has a soft spot for Capitalism. In theory if not in practice. (Like, from the main book we know that he draws a salary so presumably Communism doesn't over-excite him as a political philosophy) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:33:11 -0600 (CST) From: paranial@creighton.edu Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Kewl write up. I loved it. Still wainting on Fallen Marc though. Bradley Paranial, Impudite Knight of Wrath ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 07:49:42 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Changing Choirs >>>This would seem to imply it is within Lucifer's power to change the Band of a demon. Choirs are pretty much set, God changed shifted things around once but under very special circumstances.<<< As implied in the GMG, a Superior could *probably* change the Choir or Band of one of his Servitors. However, this would involve taking the celestial apart and putting him back together again differently, so (a) the celestial may or may not survive it (it's probably not quite as stressful as redemption, but pretty close), and (b) He wouldn't really be the same being anymore; more like a new creation who happens to have the old being's memories. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:05:29 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Changing Choirs At 7:49 AM -0600 11/9/99, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>This would seem to imply it is within Lucifer's >power to change the Band of a demon. >Choirs are pretty much set, God changed shifted things around once but >under very special circumstances.<<< > > >As implied in the GMG, a Superior could *probably* change the Choir or >Band of one of his Servitors. However, this would involve taking the >celestial apart and putting him back together again differently, so (a) >the celestial may or may not survive it (it's probably not quite as >stressful as redemption, but pretty close), and (b) He wouldn't really >be the same being anymore; more like a new creation who happens to have >the old being's memories. Which, if you think about it, makes sense. A resonance is more than a super power. It's an entire worldview expressed as a note in the Symphony. If a Superior disassembled a Servitor and remade him to have a different resonance, his note in the Symphony is completely different. His whole way of seeing the universe changes. There wouldn't be very much similarity before his former self and his new one no matter what the reason why is. Do you think the Cherub of Stone was even the tiniest bit like Mister Inflexible Tough Love? No -- because David was inexorably changed from an expression of Divine Devotion to an expression of Divine Honor. His purpose went from being a guardian to being God's Wrath. Commonality of memory couldn't compete with that. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:18:20 EST From: "dinah jones" Subject: Re:IN> Cry Havoc! >Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:35:55 -0800 >From: Steel Angel >Subject: IN> Cry Havoc! > >- --------------C53CE33A33999CAB352A3647 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >Michael, Demon Prince of Wrath >The world is enraged, vicious and out to hurt you. The best way to >get >even, is to get mad. i liked this, really i did,except for one thing. it's a small thing really, but why is laurence frequently portrayed as incompetent? i think that he is doing the best that he can, especially for someone so young. maybe it's a character trait i'm just choosing not to see. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:30:48 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Vessels I think Walter's explanation of vessels sounds very good, as does his "frozen snapshot" theory. I'd add a couple of ideas: A celestial's strength and endurance have no relationship to the size and structure of its vessel. This is because these things spring straight from the celestial's Corporeal Forces. This much is canon. I suggest that a mortal creature's Corporeal Forces *are* its body; the two are one and the same thing. However, a celestial creature's Corporeal Forces are simply *attached* to the vessel, which contributes nothing to daily activity. It's like a puppet, moved by the puppeteer's hand, but not originating any force of motion itself. Then the reason vessels don't need food or drink is because they aren't spending any energy. It's all coming from the celestial. Perhaps vessels don't grow hair or fingernails unless the celestial bothers to eat something. Perhaps celestials can't age their vessels without releasing the metabolic "parking brake" and going through a period in which they eat normally (unless they use a Song to age, which would cause Disturbance). I do, however, rather long for a second model of vessel, a sort of cheap rental vessel. I'm thinking of the kind of body apparently possessed by the vampires in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." These vanished into dust with a poof, when staked. Solves a lot of problems for Buffy and friends, not having to dispose of corpses. Surely a lot of celestials on covert missions would like to have vessels that go poof, rather than go thud, if they happen to get vessel-killed. (Fighting a Malakite with a string of these would *really* feel like being trapped in a video game.) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:43:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re:IN> Cry Havoc! On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, dinah jones wrote: > i liked this, really i did,except for one thing. it's a small thing really, > but why is laurence frequently portrayed as incompetent? i think that he is > doing the best that he can, especially for someone so young. maybe it's a > character trait i'm just choosing not to see. p. IN130: "It's not [Michael's] job to bitch about things, so he generally doesn't, but he's getting tired of pulling Laurence's fat out of the fire every century or two." same: "...Laurence...has crossed iron with Michael and has humble memories of the occasion." So it's not that Larry is truly incompentent... it's that Michael, to some degree, feels that he's gotta keep doing Larry's job for him. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! "Punctuality, regularity, discipline, industry, thoroughness, are a set of slave virtues." -- G. D. H. Cole ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:33:11 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Marc David Edelstein wrote: > One thing I REALLY hope is brought out in Marc's expanded writeup is > that he is NOT the Archangel of Capitalism. Modern business doesn't > reflect Marc's Word any better than the American legal system reflects > Dominic's. > > It'll surely make some people scream to see Marc also supporting such > economic systems as communism and socialism, but I'm sure he would. They > ALL fall under Trade, and like capitalism, are only as good or as bad as > their implementation. IMO, you're close, but not exactly on the money (so to speak). =) Marc promotes Trade in the form of mutually beneficial exchange. Any governmental system that helps that goal is of interest to him. So while socialism/ communism is better than feudal lords owning everything and mongol warriors, they are inferior to capitalism. So while Marc is not the Archangel of Capitalism, I'm sure he does a great deal to promote it where inferior (to his point of view) systems are in place. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:42:09 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! On Laurence compared to Michael, and Michael's grudges: I think we might reasonably conclude that Laurence is superlative in many ways, and probably far beyond any mortal general, but still a lot lower on many scales than Michael, the oldest and strongest angel there is. In a little more detail, I think Laurence might even be a better strategist that Michael, be better at coordinating thousands of factors and demands, and probably keeps a clearer vision of what the War is all about. He may even have a more refined sense of honor -- the kind that can slip into legalism, which Michael's kind wouldn't -- and of course has the same selfless courage as Michael. But Michael is probably the best tactician in the Host, both the strongest and the most wiley. So, very properly, Laurence would call on him for just those talents, which might account for some of the times Michael sees himself as saving Laurence's bacon. It is often the office of tactics to prop up strategy, and that often looks like (and even IS) pulling the fat out of the fire for strategy. Michael also probably has a deeper insight into Hell, both because he's so old and knew Lucifer way back when, and because he's come closer to Falling than Laurence ever has. Does this mean Laurence is naive? Well, he is compared to Michael; he might not be compared to Eisenhower or Patton. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:32:43 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re:IN> Cry Havoc! At 9:18 AM -0500 11/9/99, dinah jones wrote: > >i liked this, really i did,except for one thing. it's a small thing >really, but why is laurence frequently portrayed as incompetent? i >think that he is doing the best that he can, especially for someone >so young. maybe it's a character trait i'm just choosing not to see. Laurence is young, so a number of the Old Guard -- Michael in particular -- see him as the whippersnapper who can't wipe his nose without help. On the other hand, Dominic and David both support him, and Yves seems to be of the opinion that Laurence is *exactly* the right celestial for the job. So, who do you trust. The Archangel of War? Or the Archangel of Destiny? This is one of the running subplots.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:45:11 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? Walter Milliken wrote: > > At 16:03 -0500 11/9/99, Azrael wrote: > >He decides that not going to hell is more enjoyable than some bad wine and better > >for him (selfish...naughty naughty), so he gives 2nd vagrant the money. > > > >Does hne go to heaven? > > Certainly your standard "hell and brimstone" revival preacher would say > yes, since their whole approach to saving souls is to literally scare the > Hell out of them.... > > However, the fate/destiny thing isn't controlled by fundamentalist > preachers in IN canon, so it's more doubtful, and probably pretty much > a GM call. Yep. There are NO fixed mechanics for Fate/Destiny in IN, because there are so many different ways to handle things (as your question shows for one example). IMO, though, vagrantOne would only know that being generous with his money for those who need it is his Destiny. He wouldn't know which wino, or when, or even what will happen to himself afterwards. In other words he could live his life as if, at any time, the deciding moment that will determine his Destiny was at hand... or not. - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:53:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? John Karakash wrote: > In other words he could live his life as if, at any > time, the deciding moment that will determine his Destiny was at > hand... or not. This is very much like what Christ said about Judgement Day -- "It could come at any time, therefore be ready for it at all times." Many Christians, including me, think that those other Christians who keep trying to predict the time of the End are fundamentally unclear on this concept. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:06:47 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Tyger Tyger, Burning Bright.... Daleks? - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -----Original Message----- From: Whistling in the Dark To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:05 PM Subject: Re: IN> Tyger Tyger, Burning Bright.... >At 2:38 PM -0800 11/8/99, Jo Hart wrote: >>>From: Douglas Muir >>> >>Jordi, Demon Prince of Daleks... > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:12:18 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: IN> New Malakim when did the last angel to change into a Malakim transform? is it still possible for an angel to undergo such transformation? what would lead to such a fundamental transposition of your nature? - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:17:16 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> New Malakim Amo Nympham wrote: > when did the last angel to change into a Malakim transform? is it > still possible for an angel to undergo such transformation? what > would lead to such a fundamental transposition of your nature? I doubt that, in canon, angels can still turn into Malakim. Or, to put it another way, they can, but it would be by the same process as the first time -- a divine intervention. Heck, with a divine intervention, a mummy could become a seraph, a pebble could become an Archangel... What happened is that, at the Fall, a certain number of angels were struck with a certain degree and flavor of moral outrage and then found they had spontaneously become Malakim. I suppose that after that, Archangels created more Malakim from raw forces or from relievers by copying the Force-pattern of the first Malakim. Either that or Yves handed out the latest installment from his Big Book of Angel Recipes. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:19:32 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Tyger Tyger, Burning Bright.... Amo Nympham wrote: > Daleks? Daleks were one of the recurring villains in the "Dr. Who?" TV series. They looked sort of like giant salt shakers bristling with guns, and were a particularly nasty flavor of alien cyborg. They wanted to be the only intelligent life in the universe, and their battle cry (delivered in heavily filtered and cadenced voices, to sound more mechanical) was "Exterminate!" Cf. the "assimilate" battlecry of Star Trek's Borg. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:39:29 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Vessels - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -----Original Message----- From: Azrael To: IN Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:03 PM Subject: IN> Vessels All of these are IMG >Do vessels leave fingerprints? yes, unless you get a nice advantage "No fingerprints" >Do vessels pores produce oil? yes >Do vessels' have DNA? If so is it all the same? Or is it all the same for the one celestial? Or the one Superior? yes, just like regular humans the DNA differs Vessel to Vessel >Is the DNA in the same form as humans? yes >Do they have the same # chromosomes? yes >Do they reflect photons? umm...you can see them, so i would suppose they do. >Are they chemically identical to a normal human? yes >Are they also approx 80% water? (That number fluctuates btwix various sources) yes >Are the affected by the flu' and other virus'? is specifically states in the main book that Vessels are immune to disease. they also require no food or sleep (but they do air) and do no age. they also heal incredibly fast. IMG, what makes a Vessel a Vessel as opposed to just a body is the Celestial inside it. Otherwise how would you explain Kyriotate Hosts becoming like Vessels? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:41:09 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? yes. it is ineffable. - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" - -----Original Message----- From: Azrael To: IN Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:16 PM Subject: IN> Destiny? >Say for example, a vagrant's destiny is to give another a small amount of money >(but all he has), with which the 2nd vagrant will buy a lottery ticket, which will win. >Using the money the 2nd vagrant creates a shelter thingee for anyone in need. > >His fate is to keep the money and use it to buy some cheap wine, get drunk and >pass out. > >However, somehow the 1st vagrant finds out his fate and destiny, he also finds out >their ramification i.e. he goes to hell, he goes to heaven. > >He decides that not going to hell is more enjoyable than some bad wine and better >for him (selfish...naughty naughty), so he gives 2nd vagrant the money. > >Does hne go to heaven? > >Don't ask how he found out, that isn't important. Perhaps he was in a library during >a storm, accidentally stumbled across the Book of All Knowledge (which Yves had put >down and can't remember where) and read it. > >Azrael > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:45:29 CST From: "jonh smith" Subject: Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> Changing Choirs/a fallen mike Actually, i don't think god had much to do with changing angels into malakim. I think they did it pretty much on their own, out of their own rage. isn' t this one of the things that seems to indicate that malakim are actually demons? They changed choir purely by force of their own will. And that is the same way demons changed into bands. By the way, I love the writups on mike taking a dive. archangel of bunnies is terably funny, as is the one of mike stalking the halls of hell saying "here, lucy, lucy, lucy!" But the demon prince of wrath is just scary. very bad days for heaven, very fast. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:48:46 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> New Malakim At 11:17 AM -0500 11/9/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >Amo Nympham wrote: >What happened is that, at the Fall, a certain number of angels >were struck with a certain degree and flavor of moral outrage >and then found they had spontaneously become Malakim. I suppose >that after that, Archangels created more Malakim from raw forces >or from relievers by copying the Force-pattern of the first >Malakim. Either that or Yves handed out the latest installment >from his Big Book of Angel Recipes. Why do I suddenly have an image of Yves handing out update CDs for AngelCreator 4.1.2? (Rev. History. 4.1.2. Added Malakim. Turned off default stick up Seraphim butts. 4.1.1. Fixed bug that caused all Cherubim to Fall on creation. Fixed "Barbie Doll" bug error with Mercurians. 4.1 Post-Fall Release. Added information on Demonic Bands. Added Redemption Beta. Added encryption....) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:52:19 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? At 0:59 -0500 11/10/99, Steel Angel wrote: > Can the actions of Celestials, even if they >-force- a human into acting selflessly, still lead that human to the Pit? In my opinion, if the human is *truly* forced by celestial actions, then those actions have no bearing on his soul. Only the human's own choices really count. On the other hand, how the human reacts to such celestial interference *does* count. So Nichole's Soldier has a choice in how he serves her, and even whether he serves her, and how he makes those choices affects his status relative to fate and destiny. Frankly, I find Derek's characters so gray as to be virtually indistinguishable, so they're really not good examples for this. (Also, the storyline involving them is not really finished, so judging them by the extant canon may be somewhat misleading.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:02:16 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Marc At 2:05 -0500 11/9/99, Ben Chism wrote: >Any idea when his expanded writeup is coming out(And Eli's too!)? Sometime.... <\flip-answer> Actually, I don't think most of the Superior books are scheduled yet, and I believe the order of publication of the Superiors isn't necessarily fixed, either. To some extent, it may depend on the availability of appropriate authors volunteering to do specific Superiors. All the main Superiors are all supposed to be covered, sooner or later, and the groupings into books have been pretty much set, I believe. The ordering and spacing of the books beyond that is up to the various editors involved, and SJ, and the vagaries of the publishing process. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:02:45 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Ruggedized Calabim Here's a cheery thought: I gather that Malakim are immune to Trauma simply because they've been through it so much, they've built up a resistance, not because of any resistance built into their design to start with. In that case, couldn't Baal, say, develop a battle-hardened cadre of, say, Calabim who are immune to Trauma for the same reason? (A Trauma-immune Mercurian has probably acquired the Masochism Discord by the time it gets the immunity...) Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:04:30 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs >From: "jonh smith" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > > Re: IN> Changing Choirs/a fallen mike >Actually, i don't think god had much to do with changing angels into >malakim. I think they did it pretty much on their own, out of their own >rage. isn' t this one of the things that seems to indicate that malakim >are >actually demons? They changed choir purely by force of their own will. Hmm. This makes me think. I always wondered just how definite it was that no Malakim had spontaneously changed since the Fall. Granted, it might actually take a divine intervention to do it though. But what if, very very rarely, a demon was able to spontaneously redeem, without the intervention of an archangel. Maybe, in a case like that, the new angel might actually be a Malakite... jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:20:47 -0600 From: "Amo Nympham" Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! ack!!! HTML other than that, my only problem with this is why would the relation between Wrath and Death...are they both hostile to each other? I can see Saminga liking Michael (Wrath kills a lot of people) or hating him (old habits die hard). - - Dennis H, Groome V "Amo Nympham" ICQ: 11430261 http://welcome.to/EvM_Gamers "I think I woke up screaming 'cause I had a dream that you still loved me" -Stabbing Westward, "ACF" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:22:21 -0800 (PST) From: The Alien Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Regarding Laurence as incompetent: This isn't verbatim, but it is drawn from one of the books. Laurence tends to expect something too close to perfection. He doesn't realize that angels, even his angels, can be tempted, can be corrupted, can make mistakes. And the other side fights very dirty. So Laurence, in some ways, is an idealist. Oddly, Laurence is on very good terms with Dominic, who is unquestionably the angel most aware of how fallible angels are. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:25:12 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs At 11:45 -0500 11/9/99, jonh smith wrote: >Actually, i don't think god had much to do with changing angels into >malakim. I think they did it pretty much on their own, out of their own >rage. I don't think so -- if that were true, angels would turn into Malakim about as often as they Fall, and they don't. It was a singular occurence. The rage aspect of it may have come in as implicit permission/agreement to the change. There's some canon that prevents Superiors from arbitrarily changing celestials in certain ways, like changing an angel to a demon or vice-versa. Of course, God can violate His own rules, if he wants, but He seems to do that very rarely. > And >that is the same way demons changed into bands. Demons don't change into Bands; they merely become the opposite Band from their angelic Choir (I assume you're talking about Falling here). There's no choice in the matter, except for the act of Falling itself. Falling/redemption is the only change in core nature that canon supports, other than the one singular instance of the first Malakim, which is attributed to Divine Intervention. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:28:01 -0800 (PST) From: The Alien Subject: Re: Re: IN> Changing Choirs On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, jonh smith wrote: > Re: IN> Changing Choirs/a fallen mike > Actually, i don't think god had much to do with changing angels into > malakim. I think they did it pretty much on their own, out of their own > rage. isn' t this one of the things that seems to indicate that malakim are > actually demons? They changed choir purely by force of their own will. And > that is the same way demons changed into bands. I believe the 'official' version (i.e. the Heaven PR department) is that God Himself transformed them. Starting with Uriel. The story implies an instant transformation all at once of some who felt the right way at the right time. Demons, of course, would argue this. There is no definite canon answer...as I recall, the canon description is '...found themselves transformed...' or some such. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:30:08 -0500 From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Vessels At 9:30 -0500 11/9/99, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >I suggest that a mortal creature's Corporeal Forces *are* its >body; the two are one and the same thing. One minor nit to pick... Humans keep their Corporeal Forces after death, so those Forces are more than *just* the body. They may, however, be inextricably intertwined with the body until death. Your statement above is probably true of undead, though. >I do, however, rather long for a second model of vessel, a sort of >cheap rental vessel. I'm thinking of the kind of body apparently >possessed by the vampires in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." These >vanished into dust with a poof, when staked. Solves a lot of >problems for Buffy and friends, not having to dispose of corpses. >Surely a lot of celestials on covert missions would like to have >vessels that go poof, rather than go thud, if they happen to get >vessel-killed. (Fighting a Malakite with a string of these would >*really* feel like being trapped in a video game.) There was some early discussion of what did happen to vessels when dead, in canon. The "poof" model was a possible option, at one point, but the Powers That Be ruled otherwise. I think the main reason was to prevent just such convenience, and ensure that corporeal death entailed corporeal problems. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1399 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.