From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Apr 10 18:55:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09839 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:55:16 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id SAA22642 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:02:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:02:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200104102302.SAA22642@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 #2147 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, April 10 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2147 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Terms of Address for Archangels Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> How a Angel/Demon drinks his coffee Re: IN> Habbalite of... Flowers? Re: IN> [RELIC] Jean's Special Blend Re: IN> How a Angel/Demon drinks his coffee IN> "Gone to Graveyards" Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" Re: IN> Haagenti, Malakim of Novalis Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Re: IN> Re: heavenly love and all that (was:RE; malakite blandine) Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) Re: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) Re: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:09:06 -0700 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > >Errr? > >Even in canon, Blandine was the most vehement opponent the Purity Crusade >had. And it's a very hot rumor that Servitors of Dreams go selectively >blind a lot when out in the Marches, and never seem to be able to remember >where the last 'benignEthereal they saw was when asked by the particularly >Ethereal-intolerant... or even if they saw any at all. > > > which would definetly put her at cross-purposes with Laurence (who led >the > > slaughter). > Sorry, I know that Blandine's treatment of Ethereals is canon. I wasn't clear on that part. I simply put it in to show how different Laurence and Blandine are. >Nyet. Uriel led the slaughter. And how could Heaven's most perfect knight >ever have slain any but worthy foes in combat? (IOW, any ethereals the >senior Word-Bound -- he wasn't a Superior, then, remember -- Laurence >killed >were those capable of giving a fair fight back, and were most probably on >the level of Huitsopochtilie and company. Even Blandine wouldn't weep a >tear over those.) Laurence did lead the slaughter, I feel, a little more literally. He was the most loyal champion of Uriel, right at the front hacking right and left. Laurence is a devoted Catholic and feels that all the pagan spirits are affronts on the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, he would have nothing but scorn and hatred for the pagan gods, fairies, fabulous beasts, etc. Actually, I do think that Blandine would shed a tear for the Aztect gods. According to the Marches, Blandine does not judge the merits of a dream. The dream of a madman can be just as glorious as the dream of a saint. Gods form an important part of peoples' lives. They form the culture, they create stories, they give people comfort. Therefore, for them to be hacked apart on masse, improvishering the spiritual mindscapes of their dreamers would horrify her. Laurence endorses the Purity Crusade, and so I think that Blandine would not think highly of him. > > >Any particular reason why you think so? I mean, Michael respects and >admires strength and valor, but it's a platonic admiration from everything >I've seen. > For you it just "feels rights" that Michael dates Novalis. For me it just "feels right" that Michael is with David. I dunno. I suppose its the whole Spartan image. - -Bevan - ------- "We've alway been under seige. The 'Real World' keep shoving us into cornors - -- so we've built some worlds of our own. Now whoever's controlling this... wants to take those worlds away. Well, I call that interplanetary war." -T. Campbell, "Fans: the Fandom Menace" _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:10:30 -0700 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >From: "John Maurer" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:31:43 -0400 > > > >Dear god, this has been done to death you know. > >Just repeat to yourself "Angels do not have genders" until it sticks. > >Speaks > Yeah, that was my fault. But I still think that Laurence would be uncomfortable with the idea of people who are usually perceived as the same gender being lovers. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:14:26 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Anderson" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:01 AM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > Well, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I enjoy the amusing and > beautifully written articles people write on this basis, but I don't believe > it,because 1) any relationship worth anything requires that the people > involve have something in common with each other and respect each other. > Michael and Novalis have nothing in common, and Novalis doesn't respect > Michael or what he stands for "Sometimes I think that the parts of him that could actually relax, or imagine a world at peace... well, they're all burned out. He's been fighting too long, been War so much that he's lost the chance to be anything else. I feel sorry for him. He's magnificent at what he does, but when you look in his eyes you can see that he's gone past expressing himself in anything but force, however much he cares. He needs to let go, and I'm not sure that he can anymore." -- Novalis' opinion of Michael, Superiors 1 As written, this is hardly a declaration of undying love. Conceded. It does, however, leave the door open for her to possibly love him, and he her... she *does* respect his strength and dedication, and she isn't even *completely* opposed to the concept of War. She's merely sorrowful that he has (in her opinion) focused upon his Word for so long that he's burnt himself out on it. (This also ties into Yves' opinion of Michael, that "War is a harsh Word to bear." There is a reason *besides* the obvious one that the Word of War was given to the mightiest of the Host and not to anyone else.) I don't think that there's a single angel in Heaven that doesn't *respect* Michael, even if they don't like him one bit. As far as 'nothing in common'... actually, they have quite a bit in common. To wit, their love of God, their devotion towards humanity, and their desire to protect and strengthen the innocent. The fact that they've chosen two entirely separate paths doesn't change the fact that they share virtually identical goals. [snip] > 2) I maintain that Blandine is still pining for Beleth (somewhat supported > by Superiors 3), So, for that matter, do many of the Laurence & Blandine advocates. After all, the knight pining over the lady in the tower is a classic tale of *unrequited* love... > and that Laurence is celibate. Two words -- "Courtly love". Perfectly in character for a celibate knight. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:29:14 -0700 From: "Kish" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine From: "Charles Glasgow" <<[1] "Gabrielle" has been male for 99.999999% of his existence, and Michael was there for every single minute of it, so while the rest of the Symphony might see her as female it is my opinion that Michael has yet to look at 'her' as anybody except his-brother-in-Creation-Gabriel-who-has-temporarily-been-using-a-female-Vess el-for-the-past-few-micro-instants.>> And this matters to Michael the genderless Archangel because...? --Kish ICQ# 28085879 AIM Kish K M ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:31:27 -0400 From: "Rolland Therrien" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - -----Original Message----- From: John Maurer To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:37 PM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Charles Glasgow >To: >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:32 PM >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Kish" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:44 PM >> Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >> >> >> > Then one wonders why Laurence and David never hooked up. Maybe one of >> them >> > is still hoping Uriel will come back. >> >> Maybe it's because Laurence is strictly Catholic. > >Dear god, this has been done to death you know. > >Just repeat to yourself "Angels do not have genders" until it sticks. Unfortunetly, that concept doesn't apply to In Nomine, where the Archangels -clearly- have male or female avatars and appearances. Blandine always shows up as a semi-illusionary woman, Michael always shows up as a battle-worn veteran grunt, Novalis incarnates the "Earth-Mother" imagery, etc. Come back when you can refer to the Archangels with the word "It" all the time, and then we'll see if they have Genders... - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:38:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Terms of Address for Archangels > Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:06:07 -0400 > From: Mary > Subject: IN> Terms of Address for Archangels > > Normally even the suavist Mercurian (Creation) > doesn't have to face the > social nightmare of introducing people, or > addressing an Archangel or Demon > Prince oneself. Sure, the later probably doesn't > mean much--because you > have about .2 seconds to live anyway--but you might > as well be turned into > a puddle of ex-forces with *style*. Anyway these > things have been known to > happen occasionally to PC's because the Demiurge > (ie. the GM) has to get > their cheap thrills somehow. > > So how does one address various beings of power? Generally, I 'translate' the various Angelic titles of respect as Lord/Lady - it gives a nice feudal feel to the setting (Heaven has a lot of feudal aspects to it, I think). Of course, when Servitors want to be formal, they drag out the various Titles found in S1/S3, or something along those lines. Exceptions: Laurence is always "Sir Laurence" or "Lord Commander Laurence". Mike is often "St. Michael" - "Sir Michael" from Swordies feeling mildly cantankerous, "Lord Champion Michael" when they aren't. Eli likes to be called "Dude". You can't go wrong in calling Jean "Doctor", but only really brave Windies call him "Dean Jean" - even behind his back. Novalis is, of course, "Mom" or "Ma'am" - although certain Servitors of War seem to get away a lot with using "Miss". Yves is ... well, Yves. Sometimes just Sir. It's a crapshoot with Gabbie (which she's never called to her face, except by Soldekai) and Janus. As for Princes(ses) ... crawl and kiss fundament is the rule. They love it. Except for Asmodeus, who doesn't have the time to listen to you suck up. And Kronos, of course, but if you're talking to _him_ you've got enough problems anyway, so you might as well do as you please. :) Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 04/01/01(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:58:02 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine From: "Bevan Thomas" > > >Nyet. Uriel led the slaughter. > > Laurence did lead the slaughter, I feel, a little more literally. He was the > most loyal champion of Uriel, right at the front hacking right and left. That was because Laurence could not have done anything else as long as Uriel was leading his Crusade. His Oath to follow his commander without question left him no other option that would account for his never having gained so much as one point of dissonance. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:01:02 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:58 PM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > That was because Laurence could not have done anything else as long as Uriel > was leading his Crusade. His Oath to follow his commander without question > left him no other option that would account for his never having gained so > much as one point of dissonance. "I will never question the will of my Superior." Yup, that's Oath #4. Oath #3 for Laurence however, was "Strive for perfection in all things; never lower my standards for the sake of ease or convenience." One of the most important things Laurence strives to be perfect in is his honor. He *is* God's Most Perfect Knight, with nobility beyond question... not just in the technicalities of that definition, but also in the highest ideals of it. This conflicts much in my mind with the image of Laurence being a remorseless butcher of the innocent. *Uriel* may have lost his perspective to the point where he couldn't tell the difference, but Laurence was not Uriel -- he is Uriel-*plus*, the being that God trusted to be the Commander of the Armies of God after Uriel showed that he'd lost his way. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:08:28 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bevan Thomas" To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:09 PM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > Actually, I do think that Blandine would shed a tear for the Aztect gods. > According to the Marches, Blandine does not judge the merits of a dream. A dream, no. A *nightmare*... yes. Blandine *does* separate the Marches into categories of "acceptable" and "not acceptable", and she is merciless about expunging the "not acceptable". She is not unconditionally accepting of everything in the Marches. And Huitsilopochtilie and similar gits are most definitely nightmares on feet, ain't they? - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:14:43 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine From: "Charles Glasgow" > > From: "Prodigal" > > > That was because Laurence could not have done anything else as long as > > Uriel was leading his Crusade. His Oath to follow his commander > > without question left him no other option that would account for his never > > having gained so much as one point of dissonance. > > "I will never question the will of my Superior." Yup, that's Oath #4. > > Oath #3 for Laurence however, was "Strive for perfection in all things; > never lower my standards for the sake of ease or convenience." > > One of the most important things Laurence strives to be perfect in is his > honor. He *is* God's Most Perfect Knight, with nobility beyond question... > not just in the technicalities of that definition, but also in the highest > ideals of it. > > This conflicts much in my mind with the image of Laurence being a > remorseless butcher of the innocent. It isn't necessary for Laurence to have been remorseless for him to have carried out the duty assigned him by Uriel, however. He could have carried himself with perfect honor through the field of battle, only dealing with Ethereals who could face him in fair combat (or to save his fellow servitors of Purity who were in danger of being overwhelmed.) And it would have been *terribly* convenient to have renounced the validity of the Crusade once Uriel was brought to trial... Laurence could have regretted the Crusade's aftermath, but for as long as Uriel was commander of the Host, it was his duty to obey, no matter how hard or inconvenient the duty may be. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:35:19 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> How a Angel/Demon drinks his coffee - --On Monday, April 9, 2001 21:06 -0400 Whistling in the Dark wrote: > At 10:50 AM -0700 4/9/01, Michael Walton wrote: >> Alaemon: You know, no one really knows... > > "I like my coffee like I like my women." > Strong, hot, two cream, one sugar. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation (Redhead. 5'8". Green eyes. Legs up to here.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:39:01 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> Habbalite of... Flowers? - --On Monday, April 9, 2001 21:10 -0400 Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > Of course he would. That doesn't mean Alaemon's going to *tell* him > about them. Why, the mere fact that Asmodeus *could* find them > useful implies he might want to get some understanding about how > they're organized, about who they report to, about the overall > shape of the operation, about the organization behind that > operation, about the manipulators of that organization, about the > organization behind the manipulators, about the.... > > ...are you trying to get him *killed* here? Who do *you* work for? > Heaven. Division Six. Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation ("I make this look practical.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:42:19 -0400 From: Marc Bowden Subject: Re: IN> [RELIC] Jean's Special Blend - --On Monday, April 9, 2001 14:36 -0700 Michael Walton wrote: > > --- Jo Hart wrote: >> _Jean's Special Blend_ > > Ah ha! THAT'S why all those angels were dancing on the heads > of pins! > > Pins, fellow Angels, tables, nearby cars... Marc. Just Marc. Elohite Angel of Salvation (Private Dancer. Dancer for Essence.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:53:44 -0400 From: Jason Schneiderman Subject: Re: IN> How a Angel/Demon drinks his coffee >--On Monday, April 9, 2001 21:06 -0400 Whistling in the Dark > wrote: > >> At 10:50 AM -0700 4/9/01, Michael Walton wrote: >>> Alaemon: You know, no one really knows... >> >> "I like my coffee like I like my women." Strong. Dark. Bitter. Slightly sweet. yours, wistful, * * * * * Jason Schneiderman jadasc@ma.ultranet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:04:44 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" It's amazing what sort of ideas can hit you when you start singing in the shower. Blame Moe. It'll probably hurt less that way... ============================== Gone to Graveyards Vignette the First - ----- "He did WHAT!?!" The reliever squealed in equal parts agony and terror as Baal clutched its developing wings. "They say he killed her, Dread Lord," it sobbed, twisting its celestial form in a futile attempt to escape the Prince of The War's relentless grasp, "I am but the messenger! I beg you, please let me go!" Those few witnesses present to hear the thud of the reliever's broken form shattering against the nearest wall shivered as its Forces unraveled. Baal frowned, wiping the last traces of the reliever's soul from his claws. "The idiot has no idea what he has unleashed," he said in a voice chill as the grave. - ----- "You let this happen?" The doors to the Library had not even finished falling to its floor before Michael's eyes burned into Yves', six blazing suns bearing down into two contemplative pools. "Bad enough you let the Hyena do what he did unto Gabriel, but HOW could you let THIS happen?" The depths of sorrow in the Archangel of War's gaze finally let itself show, as his anger burned away in the face of the Archangel of Destiny's passivity. "If you truly wish to know," Yves said with quiet sadness, "Then look into my eyes, and know the Truth of it." Michael stared into Yves' eyes in shock. "You would permit such a thing? You COULD permit such a thing?" "I could do nothing to prevent it," Yves said at last. "Aside from myself, only two others of our kind have borne a burden such as this before you. And at last, you know why." "Perhaps I misjudged you," Michael eventually said. "Perhaps," replied Yves as he lay a gentle hand on his fellow Archangel's shoulder, "But that is behind us now." - ----- The old man laughed as he uprooted another of the flowers growing on the roadside. "Another gone," he thought, grinning his approval to the grass beneath his feet as it turned increasingly brown, then tore the next in a series of flowers from the soil in which they grew, "And another, and another, and another..." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:27:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Rolland Therrien wrote: > >Dear god, this has been done to death you know. > > > >Just repeat to yourself "Angels do not have genders" until it sticks. > > Unfortunetly, that concept doesn't apply to In Nomine, where the > Archangels -clearly- have male or female avatars and appearances. Blandine > always shows up as a semi-illusionary woman, Michael always shows up as a > battle-worn veteran grunt, Novalis incarnates the "Earth-Mother" imagery, > etc. Yes, they do have preferred genders that they manifest as. And this has absolutely *nothing* to do with preferred sexuality at all. Look at Blandine and Beleth for crying out loud. Why would Michael and David be any different? Jeez... I blame TV for the whole "a girl in love with a girl is okay, but a guy in love with a guy is just yucky" meme... it's brainwashed an entire planet. Wonder what Nybbas has against guys. And Michael DOES show up as female sometimes. See Superiors 1. He just uses male more often because the males of humanity tend to be more warlike. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! "If this television craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons." -- Boston University president Daniel Marsh, 1950 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:33:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Charles Glasgow wrote: > Besides, she's the only female Archangel [1] besides from Blandine who feels > emotionally mature, seasoned, and wise enough > [1] "Gabrielle" has been male for 99.999999% of his existence Okay, I'm gonna hold up a big sign on this one to make sure it gets across.... Boy Archangels do not have to date girl Archangels. They are ANGELS, not people, and their "gender" is a matter of convenience, Word, and archtype. Heaven would be, for example, MUCH MUCH more surprised and shocked at the news that Michael was dating Novalis than it would be by the news that Michael was dating David. This is canon (q.v., Blandine/Beleth). Please understand this. Note that the big sign wasn't meant just for you, Chuck... it's for everyone on the list who doesn't seem to understand this point for some reason. There's no such thing as 'gay angels' or 'straight angels' because their concept of "gender" doesn't work like that. There IS no true gender; choosing a gender to manifest as is like choosing what sort of clothing you want to wear. Some people wear the same kind of clothing every day; others change it up more often. Doesn't mean a damn thing inside. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! If I had a shiny gun, / I could have a world of fun Speeding bullets through the brains / Of the folk who give me pains; Or had I some poison gas, / I could make the moments pass Bumping off a number of / People whom I do not love. But I have no lethal weapon; / Thus does Fate our pleasure step on! So they still are quick and well / Who should be, by rights, in hell. -- Dorothy Parker, "Frustration" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:34:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" Waiting with bated breath for part two.... - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! Though they broke my legs / They gave me a crutch to walk / Laws to guide me / And a crutch to walk. / Amen. -- Chumbawamba, "Today's Sermon" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:06:18 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > >>Nyet. Uriel led the slaughter. And how could Heaven's most perfect >>knight >>ever have slain any but worthy foes in combat? > > >Laurence did lead the slaughter, I feel, a little more literally. Yes. If you remember Laurence's dissonance conditions, they involve never disobeying a commanding officer. It's very very likely that while he served Uriel, one of his Malakite oaths was "I will obey my Liege Lord without question or hesitation." So if he was ordered to fight, he'd go fight. jo _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:20:53 -0700 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >From: "Charles Glasgow" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:08:28 -0500 > > >A *nightmare*... yes. Blandine *does* separate the Marches into >categories >of "acceptable" and "not acceptable", and she is merciless about expunging >the "not acceptable". She is not unconditionally accepting of everything >in >the Marches. > >And Huitsilopochtilie and similar gits are most definitely nightmares on >feet, ain't they? > >-- >Chuckg Admittely, my knowledge of Aztect religion is small (i.e. virtually nil), so I'm forced to use generalities. Bear with me here. It is a modern (and Christian) simplification to describe a lot of ancient spirits and gods as purely evil. They had important purposes in the ancient cultures, and were regarded with a mixture of fear, awe, respect, etc. The worshippers relationships were complicated, even with ones who appear to modern eyes as malignant. An example is the Hamatsu or Cannibal Spirt in Canadian West Coast First Nations culture. This is supposodely a giant from the northren mountains who takes the form of a giant monster bird when hunting and carries off victims to its hut with cries of "Hap! Hap!" ("Eat! Eat!"). Seems like a being of pure evil, something that Blandine would shed no tear if purged, no? As a rite of passage, First Nations of the Hamatsu dance clan would perform a dance where their spirit is supposedly carried off by the bird. The person is filled with the power of the spirit, but at first he is consumed by it. He leaps around, howling, and tries to bite anyone he sees. With the aid of the tribal shaman, he eventually gets used to the power of the spirit and recovers his sanity. Then he uses the supernatural power that he gained from union with the Hamatsu to grant good fortune to the tribe and help guide their spiritual well-being. All the major gods and spirits of a culture form an important function. That is why they were created. Laurence, who does see such things in black and white, would certainly find nothing wrong with destroying them. Blandine would see the importance of them to the cultures and so would be more careful about obliverating them. - -Bevan - ------- "We've alway been under seige. The 'Real World' keep shoving us into cornors - -- so we've built some worlds of our own. Now whoever's controlling this... wants to take those worlds away. Well, I call that interplanetary war." -T. Campbell, "Fans: the Fandom Menace" _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:27:30 -0700 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:33:51 -0400 (EDT) > > >Note that the big sign wasn't meant just for you, Chuck... it's for >everyone on the list who doesn't seem to understand this point for some >reason. There's no such thing as 'gay angels' or 'straight angels' because >their concept of "gender" doesn't work like that. There IS no true gender; >choosing a gender to manifest as is like choosing what sort of clothing >you want to wear. Some people wear the same kind of clothing every day; >others change it up more often. Doesn't mean a damn thing inside. > Heh. I might disagree with that to a certain extent. Blame it on taking Issues in Fine Arts in University and reading M. Butterfly. As my prof. defined it, "sex" is physical, "gender" is a state of mind. By that definition, no angel has a sex, but they do have a gender, which can change. I think that Michael primarily thinks of himself as a man, Blandine as a woman, etc., even though they are not physically that. Gabriel thought of herself as a man for most of her life, then underwhent a lifestyle change and thought of herself as a woman after that. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:29:24 -0700 From: "Bevan Thomas" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Laurence continues to do the same thing. He continues to be introlerant of non "divine" faiths and he refuses to allow Ethereals a scrap of Essence. He may have been forced to behave that way then, but Laurence hasn't changed. >From: "Jo Hart" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:06:18 > > > >Yes. If you remember Laurence's dissonance conditions, they involve never >disobeying a commanding officer. It's very very likely that while he served >Uriel, one of his Malakite oaths was "I will obey my Liege Lord without >question or hesitation." > > >So if he was ordered to fight, he'd go fight. > > > >jo >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:52:06 -0500 From: "Bradley Paranial" Subject: Re: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" >From: "Prodigal" >Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com >To: >Subject: IN> "Gone to Graveyards" >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:04:44 -0500 > >It's amazing what sort of ideas can hit you when you start singing in the >shower. Blame Moe. It'll probably hurt less that way... >============================== >Gone to Graveyards >Vignette the First Novalis' Dead Mike's Pissed Ba'al's pissed (Though for diffrent Reasons) Sammy's toast. Kewl, hope to see the rest. Brad. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:58:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Haagenti, Malakim of Novalis On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Maurice Lane wrote: > And, for the others > > 8. Janus > 9. Jordi > 10. Marc > 11. Novalis > 12. Yves Annnnnnnnnnd.... 13. Zadkiel Different colored wings. That's about it. 14. Litheroy Um... he'd cry a lot, probably. I can't imagine Litheroy as any other choir, and somehow, I don't think he could, either. Not being able to sense the Truth anymore would just suck. 15. Christopher Child molestation suddenly becomes a terminal disease. The kids get a little less nurturing and a little more 'tough love' and discipline, but things that would hurt them seem to disappear before they have a chance to. (The best defense is a good offense, you know.) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! "Human germ!" -- Shrapnel (Decepticon), _Transformers: The Movie_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:50:21 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:33 AM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > > > Boy Archangels do not have to date girl Archangels. They are ANGELS, not > people, and their "gender" is a matter of convenience, We know, Reverend. We just don't particularly care, 'cause it's more fun for us to speculate the other way. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Re: heavenly love and all that (was:RE; malakite blandine) - --- cassandra benner wrote: > Perhaps david and oannes once had something, but oannes wore > david down It's puns like this that erode my confidence in this list. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "Holding a grudge is like being stung to death by one bee." -- William Walton (no relation) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:10:42 -0400 From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Glasgow" To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:01 PM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > This conflicts much in my mind with the image of Laurence being a > remorseless butcher of the innocent. *Uriel* may have lost his perspective > to the point where he couldn't tell the difference, but Laurence was not > Uriel -- he is Uriel-*plus*, the being that God trusted to be the Commander > of the Armies of God after Uriel showed that he'd lost his way. Objection your Honor. Counsel is engaging in speculation. There is no evidence to support that God believed Uriel was wrong, lacking perspective, or that he had lost his way. Counsel simply seeks to enforce his own personal beliefs on what is essentially unknowable. Speaks Defense of Uriel Foundation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:37:47 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:10 AM Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine > Objection your Honor. Counsel is engaging in speculation. There is no > evidence to support that God believed Uriel was wrong, lacking perspective, > or that he had lost his way. Counsel simply seeks to enforce his own > personal beliefs on what is essentially unknowable. Your Honor, let the record show that immediately following the incident in question, God relieved Uriel of his command and forcibly retired him from all serving duties with the Host. It is not merely a personal belief of Counsel that being relieved for cause is indicative of a lack of faith in a commanding officer's judgement and/or an expression of profound disapproval in his recent performance. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:58:15 -0400 From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." Subject: Re: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Glasgow" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:37 AM Subject: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) > Your Honor, let the record show that immediately following the incident in > question, God relieved Uriel of his command and forcibly retired him from > all serving duties with the Host. It is not merely a personal belief of > Counsel that being relieved for cause is indicative of a lack of faith in a > commanding officer's judgement and/or an expression of profound disapproval > in his recent performance. *shrug* Counsel has offered nothing more than a repeat of his prior argument. No point in responding further. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:14:11 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John J. Maurer, Esq." To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:58 AM Subject: Re: IN> Uriel (was Re: Malakite Blandine) > > Your Honor, let the record show that immediately following the incident in > > question, God relieved Uriel of his command and forcibly retired him from > > all serving duties with the Host. It is not merely a personal belief of > > Counsel that being relieved for cause is indicative of a lack of faith in > > a commanding officer's judgement and/or an expression of profound > > disapproval in his recent performance. > > *shrug* Counsel has offered nothing more than a repeat of his prior > argument. Your honor, the defense is materially misrepresenting the situation via incomplete context. Given that a "repeat of my prior argument" includes substantive supporting evidence, in no manner would a repeat of my argument be 'only an expression of my personal belief'. Does the defense wish to maintain that Uriel was *not* actually relieved of his post? Or to maintain that being relieved for cause, forcibly retired, and replaced is *not* an expression of a lack of confidence by one's Superior in one's ability to continue to satsifactorily carry out one's assigned duties? If so, Counsel would very much like to see Defense provide substantive evidence in support of such! > No point in responding further. *stern Seraph glare* - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:16:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: Malakite Blandine Rolland Therrien wrote: > Unfortunetly, that concept doesn't apply to In Nomine, where the > Archangels -clearly- have male or female avatars and appearances. Just as clearly, those genders are just a matter of habit. Gabriel changed his/hers in historical record. Dominic is emphatically indifferent. I'm actually a little surprised that Jean, an Elhoite, isn't encountered as Jeanne more often, or the deliberately nonhuman Jordi as Georgette. Janus might switch to Jane (or Juno) just for the confusion it would cause. How much of a celestial's gender is chosen as a result of public expectation? If Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" catches on enough, Blandine might find it expedient to present ITself as Blandin. Given enough popularity for Joan of Arc, Mrs. Peel, Chicks in Chainmail, Xena, etc., Laurence and Michael might switch to Lauren and Michelle. True, a Superior might run pressure the other way -- keep Dream a feminine Word -- but only if they cared about their habitual gender. They probably do care, but how much? GM's call, surely. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2147 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.