From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Nov 13 12:49:58 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 MAA25270 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:49:58 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA13460 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:47:23 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:47:23 -0600 Message-Id: <199911131847.MAA13460@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 #1410 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Saturday, November 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1410 In this digest: Re: IN> Servitor Meetings Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host IN> Divine Religions IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> IN and TFs Re: IN> Re: How To Meet Beautiful Women Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Re: IN> IN and Transformers Re: IN> IN and Transformers Re: IN> IN and TFs Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host (FLUFF) Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN> Inanimate Vessels Re: IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) Re: IN> Inanimate Vessels Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Re: IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) Re: IN> Vessels and Words. IN> As you were saying #72F9 Re: IN> IN and TFs Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Re: IN>Cry Havoc! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:11:46 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Servitor Meetings >No. FOX. Hmm, good point, I was thinking of the larger media empire but the sleezier one makes sense too. 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: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:36:44 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host Neel wrote: > >But if 75% of all humanity makes the choice, takes their lump and > >goes to Hell, Heaven *loses.* [...] > > This is one of those points where the game-as-written lapses into > incoherence. This makes no sense at all, no matter how you try to > rationalize it. The problem is that the converse is an even more > compelling argument. > > Why does what Lucifer thinks matter at all? I *had* wondered what the numbers had to do with it. At what damnation rate does creation supposedly break even? > I think to Michael, humans are these poor little dudes who live lives > that are mostly nasty, brutish and short to begin with. And then > demons show up and try to make the human condition even worse. That > just pisses him off. No one should be allowed to bully and torture the > weak and the helpless, and that's truth like the color of the sky. > [...] > It's different for Laurence. He knows evil, intimately and personally. > His resonance shows him what lurks in the hearts of men, and he knows > how close and tempting evil is through the difficulty of obeying his > own oaths. His knowledge of frailty is what shapes Laurence's sense of > empathy: he sees others and thinks how hard it must be for them. Sounds like Michael is the extrovert and Laurence is the introvert. That certainly meshes with the rest of their descriptions. > A Mercurian of War IMC explained it like this: "While there's life, > there's hope. And in the Lord is eternal life, so we can never give > ground." > I think that Michael's dissonance condition is the result of whatever > the opposite of existential despair is. Existential courage? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:42:33 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Divine Religions >>>How, then, does this address the Worship of saints, and / or the intersection of Saints and Loas in Voodoo? At what point does a religon in IN go from being "Pagan" to "Divine"?<<< If you're following the One God in some way, shape or form, your religion is probably Divine. OTOH, there are "hybrid" religions (like Hindu and Voudon) which create sustain both ethereal spirits AND seem to support divine Words as well. The lines aren't always clear. >>>(is this addressed in the GMG that everyone should buy (tm)<<< Yes. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:54:37 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Very cool. One quibble: I rather think Lilith would NOT be eager to see another Lilim Princess... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:02:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host At 3:40 PM -0500 11/12/99, neel@cswv.com wrote: >If you want to reform a society, then Laurence is undoubtedly the >better choice. But asking whether Laurence's moral code is better than >Michael's is kind of like asking whether red is taller than blue. (Or otherwise comparing people's various favorite characters/sports heroes/ vegatables...) (Go ahead, keep at it so long as it's not just rehashing. But I'm very dubious that _anyone's_ position here is _entirely_ supported by canon. Except that Saminga is kind of dense for a Prince. O:> ) (Or, in other words, just want to make sure that people don't start to take debate over Favorite Superiors too personally.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:06:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) At 2:29 PM -0700 11/12/99, Tim Groth wrote: >>i wouldn't have thought something like this could exist. when you take on a >>word, you take on the essence of that word's meaning. i don't think you can >>then devote yourself to destroying it. if you wanted to do that, you'd have >>to take it as part of the word itself (like "the malakite of >>anti-pornography") > >Yeah but its easier to say Malakite of Pornography, and it sounds better. >Its mostly for Words that sound stupid, like my example of the Angel of >Serial Killers. Technically its the Angel of Punishing Serial Killers, but >that's much to long Naaaaaaaah. It's just right. Three or four words is usually fine for a relatively minor Word. Final Judgment is two, and that's pretty darn big. Stale Bong Water is three, and perfectly acceptable... (And I had a character whose Word was Pausing for Reflection -- "the brief hesitation before the sure stroke of the pen," in a more poetic way.) IOW, it's Too Blessed Confusing to have an "anti-Word" translate into English the same as the Word itself. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:22:34 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) Jo Hart wrote: > I can see so many ways for inanimate vessels to be misused. Just imagine, if > you have a secondary vessel that is something small and harmless like a coin > -- so you get chased down a dark alley, dash round a corner and switch > vessels. Who's going to resonate a bit of rubbish, or a penny? Almost > perfect disguise. Or better yet, try a Shedite as a -valuable- object. Pick up that glittering gold ring or ancient coin, and it gets a nice, long chance to 'ooze' in. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:23:36 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> IN and TFs Liam wrote: > From: Steel Angel > > Impudite - Starscream > > > > no way is starscream a "people person" But he -is- a conniving, manipulative, and vain beyond all measure. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:33:45 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Re: How To Meet Beautiful Women sales@lanton.com wrote: > Thanks Dodo, I guess I needed that; whatever THAT is. > I'll resist the temptation to respond in kind. I'm tied to the > ball and chain anyway. > > Sounds like you've got me pegged though. And all this time > I thought I was coverin me tracts. > > Give me a call, at home, sometime when you're feeling better. > Who's Dodo? -What- was this?! What's with the accent? (coverin me tracks) I swear, Andrealphus is having some Servitor spam the list. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:47:28 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Vehicular Vessels (was Vessels and Words) At 2:22 PM -0800 11/13/99, Steel Angel wrote: >Jo Hart wrote: > >> I can see so many ways for inanimate vessels to be misused. Just imagine, if >> you have a secondary vessel that is something small and harmless like a coin >> -- so you get chased down a dark alley, dash round a corner and switch >> vessels. Who's going to resonate a bit of rubbish, or a penny? Almost >> perfect disguise. That might depend on how _common_ inanimate vessels are in one's universe. If they're known, then yeah, one probably _does_ get people testing resonance on random stuff if they hear a vessel-swap disturbance and don't see an obvious vessel running away. So you have to find an alley with feral animals in it... > Or better yet, try a Shedite as a -valuable- object. Pick up that glittering >gold ring or ancient coin, and it gets a nice, long chance to 'ooze' in. Shedim Don't Get Vessels. Nice try, but no can do. Vapula's only get to possess the special relic computer (which can be spotted as a relic). - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:48:18 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> IN and Transformers At 2:23 PM -0800 11/13/99, Steel Angel wrote: >Liam wrote: >> From: Steel Angel >>> Impudite - Starscream >> no way is starscream a "people person" > But he -is- a conniving, manipulative, and vain beyond all measure. Sounds like a Balseraph of the Game to me... Well, any sort of Balseraph. Or maybe Habbalite. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:59:05 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> IN and Transformers From: Elizabeth McCoy > > Sounds like a Balseraph of the Game to me... Well, any sort of Balseraph. > Or maybe Habbalite. The only thing that Starscream was deluded about was his fitness as a leader. Gotta be a Balseraph. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:43:44 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> IN and TFs At 2:23 PM -0800 11/13/99, Steel Angel wrote: >Liam wrote: > > > From: Steel Angel > > > Impudite - Starscream > > > > > > > no way is starscream a "people person" > > But he -is- a conniving, manipulative, and vain beyond all measure. And the one they'd send to convince a person that the Decepticons weren't really the bad guys. (Unless Balseraph-Megatron went instead.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:08:51 -0800 From: Steel Angel Subject: Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death David Edelstein wrote: > Very cool. One quibble: I rather think Lilith would NOT be eager to see > another Lilim Princess... Also, I can't see -anyone- holding a Demonic Word without Lucifer's say so. Especially not if some Outcast Grigori was trying to work with her. I don't think a Heavenly Word could help graft a Demonic one onto someone. Also, I'm sure -most- Princes wopuld have preferred Saminga...no poaching and -far- easier to manipulate. - - Abracax: Shedite of Riots ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:45:27 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death At 3:54 PM -0600 11/12/99, David Edelstein wrote: >Very cool. One quibble: I rather think Lilith would NOT be eager to see >another Lilim Princess... Of all the Words that a Lilim Princess (not another, just "a") might have that wouldn't necesarily threaten Lilith much -- assuming her major twitch about that is that a Lilim Princess could reproduce, which is a (logical) assumption -- Death might be it; it's not a very _creating_ Word, after all. Man, that was a convoluted sentence. Ahem. Assuming that Lilith's major objection to Lilim Princesses is that they would threaten her Lilim Production Monopoly, she might not be _as_ worried about a Lilim Princess of Death, since that's a Word which might not inspire the new Princess to see if she can make little green copies of herself. Death not being a Word that is likely to produce new growth and all that. (Is that clearer, if still a mouthful?) I had something else to comment, besides being entertained by the writeup, but I have a headache and forgot it. O:/ - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:42:22 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host At 5:02 PM -0500 11/12/99, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 3:40 PM -0500 11/12/99, neel@cswv.com wrote: > > >If you want to reform a society, then Laurence is undoubtedly the > >better choice. But asking whether Laurence's moral code is better than > >Michael's is kind of like asking whether red is taller than blue. > >(Or otherwise comparing people's various favorite characters/sports heroes/ >vegatables...) Nah, Michael can take Laurence twelve falls out of thirteen. Takes *all* the fun out of it. >(Go ahead, keep at it so long as it's not just rehashing. But I'm very >dubious that _anyone's_ position here is _entirely_ supported by canon. >Except that Saminga is kind of dense for a Prince. O:> ) > >(Or, in other words, just want to make sure that people don't start to >take debate over Favorite Superiors too personally.) I'm more debating the roles and places and viewpoints of Superiors. Neither Michael nor Laurence are in my top four Superiors. But I still think Laurence is a better general than Michael. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:19:47 -0800 (PST) From: David Barr Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host (FLUFF) [hear the snipped words of Beth} > (Or, in other words, just want to make sure that people don't start > to > take debate over Favorite Superiors too personally.) Right. Becasue we all know that everybody's really absolute favouritist (sic) superior in the Whole Symphony is Archangel and Demon Princess Beth. :=) - -Daiv ===== reply to my home address -> daiv@cruzio.com my mother once said that boy is stranger than a three toed barking frog - -Daiv __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:40:11 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host At 3:40 PM -0500 11/12/99, neel@cswv.com wrote: >Gah. This is getting huge. Unless I get some really brilliant ideas, >this will be my last post in this thread. That's a pity, as this is one of the cooler (both in terms of "hey neat" and in the lack of fiery emotions and responses) discussions we've had in a while. But still . > >>Suggesting that [Michael] 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 think this might be a point of fundamental disagreement. > >For me, one of the chief attractions of IN is that it suggests the >possibility that utterly different forms of life can know each other >and extend compassion towards each other despite inconceivably vast >differences, sort of anti-call-of-Cthulhu. Watering that down is >diluting one of the chief reasons I like the game. I can see that attraction. However, one of the chief attractions *I* feel for the game is that many different viewpoints may be brought together, including many contrary ones, and may conflict or unify -- with *all* the participants still being *good,* from their point of view. Michael isn't the Archangel of Extending Compassion Towards Others Despite Inconveivably Vast Differences. He's the Archangel of War, which I submit is the opposite. "Travel to interesting lands, meet intriguing people, and kill them." But Michael is still totally and completely *good.* Dominic extends compassion when compassion is just, *period,* and that ain't often. He is the Archangel of Judgement. The Archangel of the Inquisition. But Dominic is still *good.* Novalis is the Archangel of Flowers -- truly and completely *she* is the Archangel of Extending Compassion Towards Others Despite Inconveivably Vast Differences. That's who and what she is -- and yet she is *good.* That's fascinating to me -- the fact that I could take the Archangel I like least, settle behind his/her/its eyes, and see everything from the point of view of "this is good and selfless." That doesn't mean every Archangel has the same understanding of what the War is about and how best to fight it. Michael's understanding isn't Marc's understanding isn't Blandine's understanding. The wonderful thing about Jo's writeup of Dark Blandine was that once Blandine Fell, it was nigh impossible for humanity to choose Destiny over Fate. Heaven had all but lost. Yet Blandine isn't the General of the War and Michael is *hostile* to her. Michael is not a kind and warm Seraph. Michael is an Opinionated Bastard who happens to be Right. He knows with a Seraph's certainty that the enemy are the Demons, and he wants to tear them apart. The souls of humanity are incidential, to his Word and to his Worldview. > >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. > >This is one of those points where the game-as-written lapses into >incoherence. This makes no sense at all, no matter how you try to >rationalize it. The problem is that the converse is an even more >compelling argument. > >Why does what Lucifer thinks matter at all? Very very simple. *God* said that humanity was important -- more important than the Angels themselves, for all intents and purposes. Lucifer disagreed. If Humanity succumbs to its Fate, then Lucifer was right, and God was wrong. And if God himself is wrong, then everything the Angels are doing is a lie. God is *not* a Benevolent ruler. He is a tin pot tyrant imposing his will on celestials because he wants to play the game that way. If that happens, Lucifer is the romantic hero Milton portrayed him as - -- the one who stared up into the eyes of his creator and refused catagorically to be wronged. And all the Angels who put their faith in God are wrong to have done so. This will be shown and proven. I promise you, the Mass Fall that follows that scenario will make the third-of-the-Host who Fell with Lucifer look like an office going out to Lunch. The few remaining Angels and Archangels will be slaughtered. Lucifer will set himself up as Cock of the Walk. Earth will be a Demonic Playground for all eternity. And so what? Humanity *wasn't* *worth* it. > >From the angelic perspective it's worth helping humans simply because >they are people too. The average, Most Holy Seraph doesn't think of humans as 'people too.' He thinks of them as bloody inconvenient children who lie with the facility of a demon and plan with the coherence of a groggy Ofanite. They have ridiculous customs and even more ridiculous attitudes, and they don't even have the brains in their head to understand Selfless Good, Selfish Bad. At least from the description in the Core Book. This is why Seraphim generally have Mercurian handlers who help them out. Much like Mercurians have Malakite handlers who help them out. Because despite the fact that they are all good, they are also all different, with different perspectives. >Stopping demons falls out naturally because as a rule demons tend >towards wrecking people's lives and generally being a pain in the >butt. Surely Michael stops demons because they're the enemy, and he is their destroyer. He stops them because they're at War. And surely Malakim in general stop demons because their being cries for them to, rather than as an ancilliary to helping humanity. >Helping mankind is an action that makes sense on its own terms and >doesn't require further justification. Trying to turn one-upsmanship >and score-keeping into some sort of holy destiny for Creation >strikes me as simultaneously weird and dumb. It's like trying to use >a toothpick to hold up a skyscraper when you have steel girders >available. An extremely Novalis-position. One, by the way, I agree with on a personal level. I expect Blandine agrees as well, and Marc for good measure. In other words, that's the viewpoint of the Peace faction in Heaven. The Key is helping Mankind. Demons are secondary, and if they see humanity be helped and exaulted, perhaps they'll see Lucifer was wrong, redeem and come home. The War faction, on the other hand, believes that the War is won by slashing every last stinking demon into component forces, and replacing all the leather the Malakim wear with Balseraph hides. When the Angelic are all that are left standing, Heaven wins, Q.E.D. Certainly that's Dominic's viewpoint. And David's. And Michael's. It's the central conflict of Heaven: What is the War About. Which Yves has kept his own counsel on, while promoting humanity to their destiny. And Laurence, a Malakite Demon Hunter who's firmly in the War faction... is slowly recognizing the many fronts the War is fought on. He's Getting It. And so Yves makes veiled comments about his fitness for the position. > >That I find as difficult to swallow as you find Michael's moral sense > >being lesser than Laurence's. > >Not lesser (or greater) -- /different/. Laurence has a finely honed >and refined sense of honor, whereas Michael's moral sense is based on >an intuitive sense of fellowship. Look in the main rulebook: Michael >and his servitors always show compassion towards humans, even if it's >as small as listening to an old soldier's war stories. Absolutely. I'm not claiming Michael's folks aren't compassionate. They'll listen, empathize, and then go tear Demon Head off. But all of Michael's Servitors must engage and not retreat -- not back off, not bend. Fight fight fight! With a strong undercurrent of individual glory. >Laurence and his angels obsess over ritual and honor, and their law >is to offer service. Right. So Laurence's angels are oriented towards honorable, idealistic behavior... and selflessness. Always and totally giving of themselves to help others. I could see a Servitor of War falling into Selfishness far more easily than a Servitor of the Sword. >I think to Michael, humans are these poor little dudes who live >lives that are mostly nasty, brutish and short to begin with. And >then demons show up and try to make the human condition even worse. >That just pisses him off. No one should be allowed to bully and >torture the weak and the helpless, and that's truth like the color >of the sky. Whereas it seems to me that Michael sees demons as repugnant little horrors who took glory and squandered it in their own names and against God himself, and need to be exterminated, and by God Almighty he is the *best* at doing that. And humanity are caught in between sometimes and that's sad, and we should feel for them. Not retreat because of it, but feel for them. >Both his actions and his responses are unforced: he knows without >seeking that he must extend compassion and protection to the other. >It's seeing with the eyes of an artist -- he sees reality without >preconception and acts based on the immanent moral order he sees. I just can't agree with this perception of Michael, who is described point blank in his core book description as "pig-headed and individualistic." To his viewpoint, and I paraphrase slightly the original, he and his servitors fight so the War will end. This is his gift to humanity -- he'll destroy the demons once and for bloody all for them. That doesn't mean he fights that war by trying to convert the hearts of humanity towards Destiny -- he doesn't even trust the *Archangel* of Destiny. It means he keeps his axe at hand. > >Laurence is an excellent choice to reform the angelic society that >produced Uriel. Or Eli, for that matter. I concer (and largely for your reasons. I'm not simply contridicting you, I swear.) > >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. > >Do you really think that a Seraph (which can't lie to itself without >dissonance) is going to be able to honestly tell itself "I serve a >benevolent and just God" and nuke cities wholesale? Yes I do. And from Michael's point of view, it is the literal truth. It's the Old Testament God for certain, the God of Dominic and David, but he believes strongly that if a city must be destroyed for the foe to be exterminated, then it is just and mete. Who, after all, destroyed Sodom and Gohmorroh? Who sent the flood? God. (And yes, I know the Bible isn't Canon -- but sometimes, what can you do?) God is fully capable of 'if thine eye offends thee before me, pluck it out.' > >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. > >No, I don't think that works as a rationale for Michael's dissonance >condition. It can certainly work for Michael himself, but not for his >Servitors. Any of his Servitors can certainly be beaten, but they >still never retreat. Right. But a dissonance condition reflects the mind-state of the Superior. Michael can't lose, so he won't retreat. His servitors can, but they're *his* Servitors, so they won't retreat. >Suppose that God is evil and uncaring, that Hell is stronger, that all >your efforts to do good will fail and quickly be forgotten. Supposing >all that, does it still make sense to fight for right? I think most >angels of War wouldn't hesitate to say yes. Now, as it happens, God is >just and benevolent, evil will someday be defeated, and doing good >will help and can inspire others to the fight as well. If it made >sense to fight for justice even in the worst possible case, how much >more sense does it make in reality? Can giving up ever be justified? Actually, I can fully subscribe to the above as well. >I mostly agree with you about Laurence, but not about Michael. I think the crux of the debate is Michael -- Laurence I think we're in sync on. >Michael isn't a force of pure destruction -- he gives his Servitors >some of the most potent noncombat attunements in the game. (Eg., the >Mercurian of War attunement) Ah, but the Mercurians of War are specifically listed as his *only* diplomats. And given their difficulties fighting, I expect there aren't that many Mercurians of War, and he uses them carefully. >Michael received his word for beating Lucifer and driving him out of >Heaven -- his word of War represents the destruction of evil and the >protection of the righteous. Agreed. But one's Word is what one is completely oriented towards. It is the rewriting of the Symphony on a single note. And while I think Michael's Word of War is wholly angelic, it is *War.* >The difference is that Laurence uses force for the creation and >protection of society. So for Laurence, the structure of the law is of >central importance. [...] > >Michael as a Seraph just sees the right thing and does it, without any >further thought. If there are laws (angelic or mortal) in the way, he >just ignores them. After all, morality is part of the structure of >Creation; so if it causes problems for society, then civilization must >give way. I agree. But I would extend it. Michael sees the right thing and does it, without any further thought -- and if there are angels or mortals in the way, he just ignores them like he does the Law. He'd never betray a dissentor (say, a Mercurian of Flowers) to Dominic, but he might cut him in half rather than be distracted in the face of the enemy. And all the more so with humanity. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:22:49 PST From: "Micheal Knight" Subject: Re: IN> Inanimate Vessels >>>I can see so many ways for inanimate vessels to be misused. Just imagine, if you have a secondary vessel that is something small and harmless like a coin - -- so you get chased down a dark alley, dash round a corner and switch vessels. Who's going to resonate a bit of rubbish, or a penny? Almost perfect disguise.<<< This trick also involves spending essence for the swap. That's Perception-able. Micheal ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:08:00 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) >Naaaaaaaah. It's just right. Three or four words is usually fine for >a relatively minor Word. Final Judgment is two, and that's pretty darn >big. Stale Bong Water is three, and perfectly acceptable... (And I had >a character whose Word was Pausing for Reflection -- "the brief hesitation >before the sure stroke of the pen," in a more poetic way.) I'll give you the Serial Killer one, but the angel of Helping prostitutes make a better life for themselves is a mouthful especially for a minor word (and shorting it to helping prostitutes doesn't convey the proper message). >IOW, it's Too Blessed Confusing to have an "anti-Word" translate into >English the same as the Word itself. IMC it is a very human convention which baffles celestials whose native tongue is Symphonic themes, which allows a wider array of Words than if Words were based on human languages (their are a few Word bound IMC who don't have humanly translatable Words, most of them deal with the mechanics of heaven/hell and are very old). 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: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:41:28 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Inanimate Vessels >This trick also involves spending essence for the swap. That's >Perception-able. Yeah but the celestial chasing them is going to be looking around for something animate, assuming they Perceive it as a vessel switch. I doubt Superiors go around giving their servants inanimate vessels because extra work has to go into giving them mundane senses. Sure the celestial can still detect disturbance but they as a penny they can do much else. They can only perform songs they know well and other such liimitations that make them only useful in specific circumstances (as far as the Superior is concerned) and are thus probably the reason living artifacts are more common than inanimate vessels. 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: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:27:03 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Azazel: Superior Spirit of Death Weird, I have a write up for the demon princess of blood. A Lilim who womped Saminga. What I don't like about this is the none demonic word/superior hood. As written she'd also have a lot of superiors after her, with Lucifer miffed she would last a minute tops. However it was well written, and I love the opening story because I can see their being an NNN. 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: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:25:41 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Words and Anti-Words (Re: Superior nicknames) At 7:08 PM -0700 11/12/99, Tim Groth wrote: > >Naaaaaaaah. It's just right. Three or four words is usually fine for > >a relatively minor Word. Final Judgment is two, and that's pretty darn > >big. Stale Bong Water is three, and perfectly acceptable... (And I had > >a character whose Word was Pausing for Reflection -- "the brief hesitation > >before the sure stroke of the pen," in a more poetic way.) > >I'll give you the Serial Killer one, but the angel of Helping prostitutes >make a better life for themselves is a mouthful especially for a minor word >(and shorting it to helping prostitutes doesn't convey the proper message). Eh, they have time. Remember "He Who Disfigures Small Animals." There is a certain dignity to a rolling concept, expressed in human tongues instead of celestial ones. The first piece of In Nomine fiction that started speaking my head was the story of the Demon of the Mists that Cling to Shephard's Pond in the Mornings.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 04:04:43 -0500 From: Ehrbar Subject: Re: IN> Vessels and Words. From: "Micheal Knight" > For bringing up my dark nemisis, I fear you must be exposed to my > Malakite of Teletubbies. Finally, absolute PROOF that Malakim are demons! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 06:57:36 -0500 From: "Victor" Subject: IN> As you were saying #72F9 FREE E-COMMERCE WHEN YOU HOST WITH US!! Tired of expensive e-commerce software, set up fees and leasing contracts? Here is the deal: You host your site with us and you get free E - -Commerce, including a merchant account, real-time software and shopping cart. While others charge you hundreds of dollars to get a merchant account or put you on a 48 months non-cancelable lease agreement we charge you NOTHING for E-commerce when you sign up for our e-commerce hosting plan. If you wish to stay with your current hosting company you still can get the same deal. Check it out first and make an informed decision. But hurry up: THIS LIMITED OFFER MAY BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT NOTICE. You have never seen a package deal like this before: * Your own merchant account with one of the lowest rates in the industry * Real-Time software to accept VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX, DISCOVER/NOVUS, DINERSCLUB/CARTE BLANCHE, JCB * Direct deposit within 48 hrs into your checking account * Shopping Cart store front software with an easy to use web based interface * Real-Time Credit Card Processing software * Virtual terminal for phone/fax/mail orders * Automated E-mail receipts to your clients * Recurring billing feature with batch uploads * Password generator for membership sites * Automatic batch closing * Address verification system (AVS) * Back office to 24/7 access account history * 50 MB (megabytes) of disk space * 30 GB (gigabyte) of data transfer per month * 25 POP3 E-mail accounts * Unlimited alias E-mail addresses * Live web site statistics * Unlimited FTP uploads * Anonymous FTP * CGI directory for your own scripts * Site control panel * Installation included * Tech support included All this and more when you sign up for our E-Commerce Hosting plan for ONLY $69.95 per month and a one time set up fee of $199.00. That's right. NO ADDITIONAL SET UP FEES or application fees for your merchant account real-time software or shopping cart storefront. A one-stop E-Commerce solution. And the best is: NO LEASING, NO LONG TERM COMMITMENT. YOU CAN CANCEL ANYTIME. THIS OFFER IS FOR U.S. BASED COMPANIES ONLY! PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST MORE INFORMATION IF YOU ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. Request our free information package without obligations. by replying to: mailto:glwk@enotify.com?subject=INFO_PLEASE ***************************************************** Remove at mailto:rewq77@usa.net?subject=remove ***************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:55:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> IN and TFs On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Steel Angel wrote: > > > Impudite - Starscream > > > > no way is starscream a "people person" > > But he -is- a conniving, manipulative, and vain beyond all measure. Balseraph. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! "Human germ!" -- Shrapnel (Decepticon), _Transformers: The Movie_ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:42:28 EST From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> How and Why Laurence Became the General of the Host David Edelstein wrote: >(Michael stepped down originally because he was pissed at Dominic, but can there >any doubt that he would have took up the mantle of General of the Host >again if GOD had asked him to?) Can't you see what he'd do if he were restored as the General of the Host? Michael: Right, I'm general now. I'm appointed by God, so no questioning my orders. (other angels murmur agreement) Michael: Okay, Dominic, you and your servitors are now on the front line. Dominic: What? We have to make sure the Heavenly Hosts remain untainted by Hell! (Michael cuts Dominic down with his axe.) Michael: I though I said no quesitoning my orders. Michael takes things personally, which is why IMO he isn't the best general for Heaven. This is excellent and well thought out. Bravo! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:42:30 EST From: Samovar3@aol.com Subject: Re: IN>Cry Havoc! SteelAngel wrote: Interesting. I've always considered Laurence more flexible than Michael, mostly from the quote in Janus' writeup about him (Janus) changing less and less as time went by. With Janus being so involved with change, I can't see any celestial his age (or older) not being mostly unchanged. To me, I think Michael is more likely to think one-on-one combat is the solution. Because Michael doesn't fail in combat, I don't see him as having contingencies for such an occasion if, say, servitor X messes up. Laurence on the other hand would plan a contingency, it's just that contingencies are used more and more IMO. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1410 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.