IN> Re: Preventing destiny and fate

[Bill Adlam]

Elizabeth McCoy wrote:

> The operative data to deal with would be in Superiors 3: Hope and
> Prophecy, in the Yves section. In particular, on p. 111 (Destiny and
> Choice box), and p. 124 (Pushing the Symphony box).

Also page 92 of the Game Master's Guide.  The vignette Jonathan
recalled is on p90, by the way.  The GMG doesn't address the question
of whether informing someone of their Fate or Destiny will invalidate
it  (I don't know about S3, as I've lent it to someone).  This turns
out to be an awkward problem.

Suppose it is not interference - then a Servitor of Destiny with the
Divine Destiny and Divine Logic attunements could easily convince
mortals they can escape Hell and earn a place in Heaven through certain
specific actions.  Being convinced of the reality of the afterlife, and
exactly what limited set of virtues they must practice to be saved, the
humans will be very likely to do as they are destined, unless the bar
is set very high.

This seems too easy, but more importantly it breaks the suspension of
disbelief, for me at least.  In such a world, Yves' servants would work
their way methodically through as many mortals as they could, as
quickly as possible.  Almost everyone would have been persuaded of
their potential, which is not the case in real life.  For example,
no-one has ever proven to me that I'll go to Heaven if I become a
conscientious nurse and never drive under the influence of alcohol.

Suppose informing someone of their destiny or fate is interference. 
Then an angel of Destiny can spot someone sliding towards their fate,
and warn them that their sins will damn them.  Even if the person
continues in their selfish ways, they will escape Hell when they die
because their fate is faulty.  Just as bad, a demon of Fate can keep a
saintly individual from Heaven just by telling them why they deserve to
go there.  This interpretation also has the problem that Yves has taken
a lot of trouble to tell humanity in general terms the means of
salvation, and he would not have done this if it were
counterproductive.

After all that, I reckon that informing someone about their specific
fate and/or destiny is interference, if they haven't reached it already
and they place some credence in the information.  The effect of this
interference depends on its source: when angels push too directly they
drive people away from salvation, while unsubtle demonic intervention
makes damnation less likely.  'Less likely' here could mean that it
psychologically inclines the person to the contrary - this would
diminsh free will, but no more so than some infernal resonances and
attunements.  It could instead, or as well, mean that the criteria are
interpreted more strictly.  Destinies are not always sharply defined,
as the examples for Hemingway and Hitler in the core book indicate, and
fates too can probably be fuzzy.

Changing the strictness of someone's fate or destiny would be something
of a change, and it's as far as I would want to go in altering them. 
It seems to me a person should keep the same destiny and fate always,
even if reincarnated (and from that it would follow that they should be
defined in general terms, not achievable only at a certain time or
place, but possible for any incarnation).

Sorry for the long-winded-ness,

Sagitta