From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Nov 11 18:48:41 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 SAA20067 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:48:40 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id SAA21942 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:49:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:49:53 -0600 Message-Id: <199911120049.SAA21942@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 #1407 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 Thursday, November 11 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1407 In this digest: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Losing Superior status? Re: IN> Losing Superior status? IN> Vehicular Vessels. Re: IN> New Malakim Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. Re: IN> Changing Choirs Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. [FLUFF] Laurence & Marc (was Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism) Re: [FLUFF] Laurence & Marc (was Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism) Re: IN> Servitor Meetings Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. Re: IN> Cry Havoc! Re: IN> Destiny? Re: IN> heresy Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:27:10 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) At 2:50 PM -0500 11/11/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > >What happens if you switch from your car vessel to your motorcycle > >vessel? I *really* want to see this done with three passengers, > >at 80 mph. Maybe, if you make your Agility roll, you can have > >all three suddenly piled on the seat. And your familiar becomes > >the sidecar. > > Only if it has a sidecar vessel! I think that I'd >require some kind of roll and good explanation of how they were >doing it, but otherwise leave it up to the GM who _wants_ that >kind of complexity and rules-mechanics. I'm going to have the Transformers theme stuck in my head for the remainder of the day. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:59:59 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Walter Milliken wrote: > Not necessarily -- when you abandon a vessel, there's no particular > reason to think that a corporeal property like momentum should carry over > to the new one. (In fact, that would raise all kinds of other physics > quirks unless the vessels had the same mass.) Yes! Much weirdness can occur if momentum is conserved. > > I'd be inclined to say a vessel has the velocity of its surroundings, > when manifested. OTOH, any passengers are still, IMO, going 60mph while the former vehicle is standing around (or has even gone celestial). - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:07:50 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >What Michael isn't particularly capable of is the idea that *Heaven* >has to win the *right* way, not *any* way. Which was the point of >the writeup. It's not enough for Laurence that the Demons get carved >into small pieces and the Angels take every city and break every >Tether. If in the process of that happening humanity turns towards >its Fate, the Demons *win.* *Lucifer* wins. Laurence Gets that. >Michael doesn't. Michael is an *archangel*, and defined as the strongest *in mind* as well as body. His moral sense is most likely better developed than Gandhi's. Suggesting that he doesn't understand that the War is being fought over the souls of mankind is just plain stupid, imo. >Redemption isn't the same, in this context, as humanity reaching its >collective Destiny. But that being said, Laurence is a lot less >likely to abandon individual humans to Hell than Michael is. To >Laurence, *any* dishonor is anathema. Every human who goes to Hell >is a stain on Heaven's banner. I would suggest that in this case Michael is probably nearer the right than Yves. Free will is only meaningful if those actions have consequences -- and that means that it has to be possible to screw up badly enough to go to Hell for real. You make your choices and you take your lumps. I suspect that it might not be possible for Yves to acknowledge this fact -- as a personification of a concept rather than a real person, he may just have blind spots built in. How do you explain to the personification of the Best of All Possible Worlds that there are bad people doing bad things, for real, right now? >But Michael dropped the job of supreme commander in the aftermath >of his being convicted of the same Sin that caused Lucifer to be >thrown out of Heaven. If you want to run a game with a benevolent God, then I don't think it's possible to maintain that Michael was really guilty of pride. In that case God would have a double standard -- one for Satan and one for Michael -- which is hard to reconcile with the notion of impartial divine justice. I think that either Dominic had to be mistaken (perhaps mistaking glorying in God's strength for vainglory), or God has to be not quite as pure and holy as the advertising makes Him out to be. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:43:49 -0600 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Losing Superior status? > > David Barr wrote: > > {Angel One}How do you refer to them, then? "She is a Servant of...The > > UnNameable One." > > (Angel two)"Oh, you mean Belial?" > > (angel one)"No, no... the Other Unameable One." > > etc. > and Earl Wajenberg responded: > The traditional method among humans is to come up with > derogatory nicknames. "Old Nick" is one for Satan. > > Um... off the top of my head: > [snip nicknames for Haagenti, Beleth, Kobal, and Asmodeus] > Surely other can do better?... Zippo for Belial Zombie-breath for Saminga Ms. Baby-killer for Lilith [or Adam's first wife] Fly-on-the-wall for [Alaemon?] the DP of Secrets The Evil General for Baal Frankenstein on a Bad Hair Day, or Glitch-for-Brains for Vapula [he just doesn't get it when Eli's folks call him Doctor Frankenfurter, which makes the Creationers laugh all the more] Sticky-fingers or MacCavity [sp?] for Valefor Butch & Sundance when referring to Valefor and Janus as a dynamic duo 0:-) Probably more that I will think of after I log off. Tom Timberlake, Angel of Poingy-Goodness - -- "Strange blood, howl again, for now we know to well Better a friend on paths unknown, than to be alone in Hell!" --"Strange Blood" "A Wolfrider's Reflection", various artist ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:12:38 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Losing Superior status? >From: David Barr >{Angel One}How do you refer to them, then? "She is a Servant of...The >UnNameable One." The Archangel formerly known as X ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:05:40 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: IN> Vehicular Vessels. Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel benefit from the Song of Healing? Or could this be an alternate use of a Song of Machines? :-) Could someone use a Mechanic skill to fix the vehicular vessel, perhaps pretending it were a Medicine roll? If so, since the vehicle has a better sense of what's wrong, would a mechanic get a bonus? (Like a doctor working on a conscious patient who can say what hurts versus an unconscious one who cannot...) Or would you just use Medicine? Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel get a body point back at the same rate, thus becoming self-healing? Would someone get a bonus to their driving skill to drive a vehicular vessel, or would the benefits and drawbacks of having a sentient car balance each other out? (No, no, I wanted you to go THE OTHER WAY!) Would a vehicular vessel need gas, or are they like human vessels, not requiring food? From where does a vehicular vessel see? A human vessel can be blinded, blinding the celestial in it, correct? Do you just have to smash the headlights on a vehicular vessel? If someone breaks in and steals the speakers, can the vehicular vessel still talk? I'm assuming they could move any moveable part on their vessel, opening doors, locks, moving seats forward, etc. Surely no canonical answers exist, but good suggestions are eagerly anticipated. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:43:54 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> New Malakim From: Earl Wajenberg > a pebble could > become an Archangel... > that's Archangel David to you, bub liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:26:36 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host > Michael is an *archangel*, and defined as the strongest *in mind* > as well as body. His moral sense is most likely better developed . Yes. In other words, he'll win. He's the Archangel of War, and losing isn't in his makeup. The point that is trying to be made is that winning isn't what is important. > If you want to run a game with a benevolent God, then I don't > think it's possible to maintain that Michael was really guilty > of pride. In that case God would have a double standard -- one > for Satan and one for Michael -- which is hard to reconcile with > the notion of impartial divine justice. Michael never rose a sword against God. Lucifer did. They were both guilty of pride, but only Lucifer was proud enough to stand up to God. > Neel Krishnaswami Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:33:24 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host From: > Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > > >What Michael isn't particularly capable of is the idea that *Heaven* > >has to win the *right* way, not *any* way. Which was the point of > >the writeup. It's not enough for Laurence that the Demons get carved > >into small pieces and the Angels take every city and break every > >Tether. If in the process of that happening humanity turns towards > >its Fate, the Demons *win.* *Lucifer* wins. Laurence Gets that. > >Michael doesn't. > > Michael is an *archangel*, and defined as the strongest *in mind* > as well as body. His moral sense is most likely better developed > than Gandhi's. Suggesting that he doesn't understand that the War > is being fought over the souls of mankind is just plain stupid, > imo. Not when you take into account the fact that he is a Seraph, and therefore one of the AAs least capable of understanding the human viewpoint (since Seraphim are the choir furthest from humanity in nature.) Ironically, in his quest to destroy the enemy, Michael has blinded himself to the Truth that it is not necessary to destroy them, to defeat them. > I would suggest that in this case Michael is probably nearer > the right than Yves. Free will is only meaningful if those > actions have consequences -- and that means that it has to be > possible to screw up badly enough to go to Hell for real. > > You make your choices and you take your lumps. And if enough of you do that, then Heaven's cause is lost. The true battlefield is not the world, but the human soul. Every soul lost to Hell is a tragedy, and something to be avoided at all costs short of negating a human's ability to achieve his Destiny. > If you want to run a game with a benevolent God, then I don't > think it's possible to maintain that Michael was really guilty > of pride. In canon, it is. But while Michael was guilty of Pride, it was not the destructive sort of Pride that led to Lucifer's fall. It was the pride of a being who was the best at what he was designed to do. Michael had a right to his pride, and his brand of pride is exactly what Heaven needed to continue standing against Hell. > I think that either Dominic had to be mistaken (perhaps mistaking > glorying in God's strength for vainglory), or God has to be not > quite as pure and holy as the advertising makes Him out to be. Or Dominic was applying the same standard to Michael's pride that he was to Lucifer's, and God knew better. Prodigal Demon of Calling In to Tech Support Without the Product Nearby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:38:45 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) From: Whistling in the Dark > > I'm going to have the Transformers theme stuck in my head for the > remainder of the day. Oh damn! Now you've got me wondering what choirs/bands the various transformers are... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Optimus Prime from the 1980's series would be a Seraph, obviously. Optimus Primal, in Beast Wars, was probably be a Malakim, but in Beast Machines, he's definitely a Cherub. Blur is the ultimate Ofanite. Megatron's been a Balseraph in every incarnation. He's definitely the Lucifer to Optimus' Michael. Perceptor would have to be an Elohite. Anybody else feel like carrying this silliness forward? *g* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:41:52 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host >>>interesting idea. But I dont think that it works. Michaels tactics show that he does understand the art of subtlety. look at the writeups about his tactics w/ regard to soldiers and saints. He has them dug deep into all kinds of organizations throughout the world, waiting for the go signal for a big engagment.<<< That's not subtlety; it's sneakiness. There's a difference. Michael's plan always boils down to "Stomp them!" He can conduct espionage and run secret operations, sure, but his end-goal is still no more subtle than "Catch them off-guard and stomp them!" >>>If he was purely a big dumb brute of a warrior,<<< Not what I said. >>>Laurence is in charge of a coordinated overall war effort. He didn't get the job directly from god. <<< Yes, he did. This is canon. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:30:21 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. >From: "Ben Glickler" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > >Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel benefit from >the Song of Healing? Or could this be an alternate use of a Song of >Machines? :-) > (Great. I'm now trying to imagine a car singing. Have a mental picture of an entire car park attempting to sing in harmony, with the car bonnets opening and shutting in time.) jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:46:59 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) At 4:33 PM -0500 11/11/99, Walter Milliken wrote: >At 14:50 -0500 11/11/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>>Now: What happens if you're in your car vessel and have passengers, >>>and switch to your human vessel. >> >>I'd probably figure that anything living is dumped on the pavement. >>Remember that if you do this at 60mph, your non-vehicle vessel >>will also be going 60mph... > >Not necessarily -- when you abandon a vessel, there's no particular >reason to think that a corporeal property like momentum should carry over >to the new one. (In fact, that would raise all kinds of other physics >quirks unless the vessels had the same mass.) Yeah, but do you _want_ to allow car-vessels to change, leave themselves standing shock still, and have their passengers go pavement surfing without them? Simpler to assume momentum is kept, if you ask me. I don't think that it's a good idea to have multiple vessels make celestials nearly immune to falling damage from any great height. Especially since it doesn't take a Will roll to _change_ vessels. (Only to go celestial.) >I believe it was decided that vessel-switching used the celestial form as >a sort of transient intermediate stage (though only for an instant), >hence the disturbance. But celestial forms are mostly immune to corporeal >physics. Truuuuueeeeeee...... But only kinda-sorta -- you don't take actual damage in a Heaven-Tether, for instance, if you're a demon changing forms. (Though it kinda stings.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:57:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. (Am I being canon? Probably close to what I'd approve, but this is all so fuzzy that I reserve the right to change my mind without warning! Ha.) At 2:05 PM -0700 11/11/99, Ben Glickler wrote: >Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel benefit from >the Song of Healing? Anything does, actually... > Or could this be an alternate use of a Song of >Machines? :-) Hmmmm............ I'm not sure I'd allow the Song of Machines to work for a _vessel_. It's a little too funky. A Living Artifact, on the other hand, would likely be fine with SoMachines. (Get me when I have the brainpower to deal with the differences between vessels and living artifacts; it's not tonight, that's for sure.) >Could someone use a Mechanic skill to fix the vehicular vessel, perhaps >pretending it were a Medicine roll? That, probably -- the parts aren't put together with blood and bone, but with metal and plastic. >If so, since the vehicle has a better >sense of what's wrong, would a mechanic get a bonus? (Like a doctor working >on a conscious patient who can say what hurts versus an unconscious one who >cannot...) Only if the machine can A: talk, and B: has "nerves" to feel. >Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel get a body >point back at the same rate, thus becoming self-healing? I'd think so... >Would someone get a bonus to their driving skill to drive a vehicular >vessel, or would the benefits and drawbacks of having a sentient car balance >each other out? (No, no, I wanted you to go THE OTHER WAY!) The latter. The car is either driving itself, or it's being driven. In an emergency situation, you might have _both_ driver and car make driving rolls -- if the driver screws up, the car might be able to figure out how to salvage the situation anyway. >Would a vehicular vessel need gas, or are they like human vessels, not >requiring food? I'd think they'd need air-only... >From where does a vehicular vessel see? A human vessel can be blinded, >blinding the celestial in it, correct? Do you just have to smash the >headlights on a vehicular vessel? They probably just _perceive_, much like Kyrios of Lightning do. Alternatively, they have to be "built" with cameras or other designated "eyes." (See why no one's really done non-biological vessels before? The rules questions are really nitpicky...) >If someone breaks in and steals the speakers, can the vehicular vessel still >talk? Nah. >I'm assuming they could move any moveable part on their vessel, opening >doors, locks, moving seats forward, etc. Probably. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:58:41 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Changing Choirs At 6:47 PM +0000 11/11/99, Liam wrote: >From: jonh smith > >> isn' t this one of the things that seems to indicate that malakim are >> actually demons? > >i wasn't aware that there were *any* things that indicate malakim are demons They can't Fall -- _demons_ sometimes say that Malakim are a kind of divine demon themselves, since "you can't Fall off the floor." Malakim just get Discord, in the demonic way, when they get really dissonant. Does this make them demons? Angels say no. Demons say, "Sure! Makes sense to us! They're a lot like Habbalah... Only they're demons, don't hit us!" - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:55:26 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host At 5:07 PM -0500 11/11/99, neel@cswv.com wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > > >What Michael isn't particularly capable of is the idea that *Heaven* > >has to win the *right* way, not *any* way. Which was the point of > >the writeup. It's not enough for Laurence that the Demons get carved > >into small pieces and the Angels take every city and break every > >Tether. If in the process of that happening humanity turns towards > >its Fate, the Demons *win.* *Lucifer* wins. Laurence Gets that. > >Michael doesn't. > >Michael is an *archangel*, and defined as the strongest *in mind* >as well as body. His moral sense is most likely better developed >than Gandhi's. Suggesting that he doesn't understand that the War >is being fought over the souls of mankind is just plain stupid, >imo. Intuitively? No, he doesn't. Not the way Laurence does. >I would suggest that in this case Michael is probably nearer >the right than Yves. Free will is only meaningful if those >actions have consequences -- and that means that it has to be >possible to screw up badly enough to go to Hell for real. > >You make your choices and you take your lumps. Perfectly true, for humanity -- and absolutely Michael's point of view. But if 75% of all humanity makes the choice, takes their lump and goes to Hell, Heaven *loses.* It's not enough to throw your hands up and say "they have Free Will. If they damn themselves, that's their own lookout," because that represents Lucifer having been *right.* Humanity wasn't worth God's special attention. So yes, it's always the individual human's choice -- but if Michael leads the charge and levels New Delhi to take out Baal's Fourth Irregulars, and in the process shocks and horrifies thousands who turn towards Selfishness and Fate because that's the easiest way to survive... Heaven loses. >I suspect that it might not be possible for Yves to acknowledge >this fact -- as a personification of a concept rather than a >real person, he may just have blind spots built in. How do you >explain to the personification of the Best of All Possible Worlds >that there are bad people doing bad things, for real, right now? That I find as difficult to swallow as you find Michael's moral sense being lesser than Laurence's. Yves's Divine Destiny attunement doesn't simply yield a mortal's Destiny. It tells the Servitor both the Destiny *and* Fate of the mortal. Yves knows instinctively *just* how bad every human he sees can be. He sees their falls etched on their foreheads in bright letters. His is the task to steer them away from this, but he can't compel, he can only suggest. And he fails, every day. And he sees those failures every day. Michael's attunements and attitudes, on the other hand, are for combat. And Michael has *never* *lost.* Michael was convicted of the sin of Pride, not tried for it. God exonerated him, rather than the evidence. Now, it has been said Heaven needs pride, and this is true -- but I think it's safe to say Michael literally *can't* conceive of losing a fight. That would be a denial of the Truth as he knows it. Which in turn leads to his Dissonance condition. Of *course* you can't retreat from battle -- that implies you could lose, and Michael doesn't understand that. War is simply not as flexible as Destiny, and it certainly can't overtake Destiny in it's own baliwack. And neither can it overtake the Sword in *its* baliwack. Look at the significance of Michael defeating Laurence in hand combat. Michael is the supreme warrior. The greatest hand-fighter ever crafted by God. But the Sword is not merely a symbol of fighting. The Sword is a symbol of knightly virtue, of honor, and of chivalry. It is not the pure application of War to the ends of War, but the application of force in the name of higher ideals. The Sword is Excalibur in King Arthur's hand, uniting the Britons and driving out invaders and petty men in the name of justice for all. The Sword is Galahad's blade as the Cross turned to honorable battle, shielding through faith and hope. Michael isn't capable of those things, because Michael is too good a *warrior.* Michael would have no problem cutting a defenseless man in half if it brought him closer to his objective. The Ends *do* justify the Means. > >But Michael dropped the job of supreme commander in the aftermath > >of his being convicted of the same Sin that caused Lucifer to be > >thrown out of Heaven. > >If you want to run a game with a benevolent God, then I don't >think it's possible to maintain that Michael was really guilty >of pride. In that case God would have a double standard -- one >for Satan and one for Michael -- which is hard to reconcile with >the notion of impartial divine justice. Lucifer's sin was Pride -- in believing his judgement was superior to the divine. It is innately flawed if you assume an all-powerful God, benevolent or not. God must know better than Lucifer, but Lucifer believed otherwise, and Fell. Michael's Sin of Pride was the Pride of hubris -- the encouragement of warrior cults (of which he was the strongest). It was a Pride that may have been sinful and may not -- but it was *not* flawed because Michael is correct. He *is* the best warrior to walk the Earth, Heaven or Hell. He *is* the cock of the walk. He is the undisputed, undefeated Heavyweight Champion of the Symphony. He is all that and a bag of chips. God exonerated him not because Michael didn't sin in Pride, but because that Pride didn't make him flawed. It didn't make him a Balseraph. And because without it, Heaven was doomed. Does that mean God has a double-standard? Maybe -- but he's God. He gets to break His own rules. But more to the point, Pride is the sin that caused Lucifer to Fall because it was dissonant, flawed Pride. Michael didn't suffer from that. However, he *did* suffer from the *scandel* of being convicted of Lucifer's Sin, which in Heavenly terms is far far far worse than whether or not God has a double standard, in terms of God's own armies and Angels. If the best, brightest Warrior of God can make the same mistake that Lucifer did, and he's leading the fight... maybe... just maybe Lucifer was *right...* Michael had to leave. He had to step aside, assuading himself with big talk or not. Because the Ends (a Heavenly victory) justified the Means (Michael leaving his position as the General of God's Armies). >I think that either Dominic had to be mistaken (perhaps mistaking >glorying in God's strength for vainglory), or God has to be not >quite as pure and holy as the advertising makes Him out to be. Dominic is a Seraph, as Michael himself is. But whether Dominic was mistaken or not, and whether God exonerated Michael or not, the fallout was the same. Heaven needed to be secure. So, Uriel got tapped -- the First, Purest Malakite. And when Uriel's Purity became... problematic... the most honorable, most decent, most idealistic knight was picked by God himself to lead the fight. Or so it seems to me. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:57:29 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) At 4:38 PM -0600 11/11/99, Prodigal wrote: >From: Whistling in the Dark > > > > I'm going to have the Transformers theme stuck in my head for the > > remainder of the day. > >Oh damn! Now you've got me wondering what choirs/bands the various >transformers are... > >Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... > >Optimus Prime from the 1980's series would be a Seraph, obviously. > >Optimus Primal, in Beast Wars, was probably be a Malakim, but in Beast >Machines, he's definitely a Cherub. Ironhide is *so* Cherub of Stone. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:05:33 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. Ben Glickler wrote: > > Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel benefit from > the Song of Healing? Or could this be an alternate use of a Song of > Machines? :-) ALL Corporeal things can benefit from the Song of Healing (unless otherwise specified). I don't have any problem with someone using the Song of Machines as well, though. > > Could someone use a Mechanic skill to fix the vehicular vessel, perhaps > pretending it were a Medicine roll? If so, since the vehicle has a better > sense of what's wrong, would a mechanic get a bonus? (Like a doctor working > on a conscious patient who can say what hurts versus an unconscious one who > cannot...) Works for me. > > Or would you just use Medicine? No way! > > Since it's just like any other vessel, does a vehicular vessel get a body > point back at the same rate, thus becoming self-healing? Of course. > > Would someone get a bonus to their driving skill to drive a vehicular > vessel, or would the benefits and drawbacks of having a sentient car balance > each other out? (No, no, I wanted you to go THE OTHER WAY!) Only one person can be in control. Either the vehicle does it or the 'driver'. > > Would a vehicular vessel need gas, or are they like human vessels, not > requiring food? No food or fuel required. > > >From where does a vehicular vessel see? A human vessel can be blinded, > blinding the celestial in it, correct? Do you just have to smash the > headlights on a vehicular vessel? There are no particular sensory organs. Pretty much it just keeps working until it stops working. (The windshield area is probably a better choice to count as the 'eyes'.) > > If someone breaks in and steals the speakers, can the vehicular vessel still > talk? Nope. Sucks, doesn't it. =) The engine can growl suggestively, though. > > I'm assuming they could move any moveable part on their vessel, opening > doors, locks, moving seats forward, etc. Read the FAQ on Kyriotates of Lightning. > > Surely no canonical answers exist, but good suggestions are eagerly > anticipated. As you say, this is non-canonical, but fun! - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for Data General + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:57:23 -0500 (EST) From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: [FLUFF] Laurence & Marc (was Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism) Jo Hart wrote: > >But then again, the other Archangels don't really understand 'money' >as a concept. This comment just inspired the following bit of fluff. - -*-*-*- MARC: All right Laurence, today I'm going to teach you about money. LAURENCE: Oh, goody, what's that? M: Currency is a standardized medium of exchange, created to make transactions simpler and more convenient. L: M: Ok, you see these little pieces of paper here? They're called bank notes. You can think of them as contracts -- as a sort of oath written on paper -- L: You sure have a lot of them! I mean, I only have four oaths, and this one right here has 20! M: No, no, no! If I want you to make a promise to me, I need to give you more than one of these. The bigger the promise, the more notes I need to give you, ok? L: Would it be all right for me to just swear an oath to you? I'm afraid I've never had a very good head for numbers.... M: NO, it's NOT all right! The way it works is that I give you some bank notes in exchange for a contract from you, and you can give these bank notes to someone else for some of their promises. L: I think I like Jean's version better. You should definitely talk to him. M: Jean's version? L: Yes, just the other day he showed me a little box of his with buttons on it. When you push some of the buttons, it will activate a different box that someone else has. Then it lets you hear each other speak, so you can trade oaths even if you're not next to each other. M: That's a telephone; it's not the same thing as money at all. The advantage of money is that you don't need to trade goods immediately or with the same person as gives you money. L: So money lets you accept an oath without knowing what it is ahead of time? M: Exactly! L: That's very impressive! Jean needs all sorts of complex circuitry, and you can do even more with just these little pieces of paper! M: Thank you. I'm glad you understand what I do now. L: Honestly, I think I'm still confused -- do you think you could manage a practical demonstration for me? M: Certainly! I'll give you some money -- L: -- and I'll swear an oath! Okay, I'm ready whenever you are. M: Very well. L: O Lord Marc, Archangel of God, Angel of Trade, Guardian of Charity, I Laurence humbly swear unto you to render any service you desire, with gallantry, dispatch and good cheer! I swear this to you by the keenness of my sword, the strength of my honor, and by my honest hope that God will show mercy for my sins! M: Laurence, you just promised to do ANYTHING I ask on the hope of your salvation! L: Did I do something wrong? M: I was supposed to ask you what I wanted, and you were supposed to reject it if you thought I wasn't giving you enough! L: But you said that with money you didn't need to know the oath, and I wanted to give you a good surprise. M: I don't have enough money to pay for that kind of oath. I'll never have enough money. You've just bankrupted me, you black-winged cretin.... L: I'm terribly sorry about that, Marc. But I warned you I didn't understand. M: L: What does THAT mean? I'm afraid Uriel never taught me those words... - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:30:52 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: [FLUFF] Laurence & Marc (was Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism) At 6:57 PM -0500 11/11/99, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: > > > >But then again, the other Archangels don't really understand 'money' > >as a concept. > >This comment just inspired the following bit of fluff. Which will have me laughing straight through to the end of dorm duty, I hope you understand. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:58:46 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> Servitor Meetings From: Ben Aldred > Christopher's go to a playground and sit on the benches watching the kids > play. so this would be Christopher, Archangel of Perverts? :) liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:39:42 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels. > ALL Corporeal things can benefit from > the Song of Healing (unless otherwise specified). > I don't have any problem with someone using > the Song of Machines as well, though. Ooh. I didn't know that. I assumed it only worked on bloody pulp. > No food or fuel required. Would it require air? If so, how could you suffocate it? Would the car need to keep its windows rolled down? ;) > There are no particular sensory organs. > Pretty much it just keeps working until it stops > working. (The windshield area is probably a better > choice to count as the 'eyes'.) Oh. So you simply can't blind the car. I assume that the car only has a field of vision as wide as a human's? Or can the car see everything around it? Could you sneak up on a vehicular vessel? > As you say, this is non-canonical, but fun! Can you stun a vehicular vessel? If so, how? Bringing a physical body down by 25% of its total form does a lot to make it less likely to move around, but smashing a car's windows and doors wouldn't stun it, would it? If a car is moving and is stunned, does it keep going, or does it let off the pedal? If the car is reduced to 0 hit points, or is for some reason incapable of action, could someone steal its tires? If so, what happens when the car assumes celestial form? No damage is healed, but where do the tires go? > + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:21:49 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> Cry Havoc! From: Earl Wajenberg > I tend to see Michael as the tactician because his realm of combat > is the lone champion or the little band of buddies, all very > individualistic. Laurence is painted as more managerial, which feels > more strategic than tactical to me. so what you're saying is; michael's Halflife, while laurence is Command & Conquer? liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:07:38 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> Destiny? From: Michael Martin > Can you get into Heaven even if you don't meet your destiny? Are there > thresholds of selflessness that guarantee entry? personally, i'd say that there's a bit of leeway in heaven's direction. ie you don't have to reach your destiny, just be a generally nice person, and you can get into heaven. just being generally a bit of a rubbish person doesn't send you to hell, you get reincarnated. hell has been winning in recent times because it's been succeeding at turning more and more people to their fates liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:31:00 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> heresy From: Tim Groth > What I've got writen write now there are no Malakim, hell hs the Malach > though. They are seemingly unRedeemable demons, who have sworn to serve > Michael and dominate Heaven as you may have guessed, i got this e-mail after i sent the one suggesting that malakim be unredeemable demons who worked for michael :) nice to see there's someone else on the same wavelength, though > However Lilith isn't in Hell anymore. Heaven pretty much monopolizes her Daughters, > with a few bad seeds winding up in Hell. see above :) liam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:26:49 -0000 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> Marc and Capitalism/Communism From: John Karakash > Provable, how? Scientific proof (as opposed to > mathematical proof) is strongly on the side of Capitalism. scientific proof? would this be cold-war era scientists who proved that all communists are Evil? > Every economic model of human behavior that is expansive > enough to include both communism and capitalism (and has > accurately matched real-world data) shows capitalism > coming out ahead. coming out ahead how, though? it's hardly surprising that capitalism succeeds at making more money, is it? > I can't disagree more. David is the one MOST likely > to say, "Let the law of the jungle rule and the strong will > survive." i don't really agree. that doesn't build strong communities. that creates lots of little warring tribes. that sounds like malphas to me. you don't temper a sword by breaking it apart > But I have an inherent distrust of > systems that eliminate 'poverty' by eliminating the wealthy. i have an inherent distrust of any systems that want to "eliminate" anything :) liam ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1407 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.