Steve Simmons wrote: Jot writes in response to me: > According to my memory from _Issola_, a demon does not *require* a > master, a demon *can* be controlled. (Hmm...I think it was _Issola_) . . . > My take on this is there is a big difference between CAN and MUST > when it comes to demons. >Yes, it was Issola, but the distinction doesn't work the way you think >it does. What separates a God from a demon is that a demon CAN be >compelled. If Bolk *requires* a master, then he CAN be compelled. >Therefore cannot be a god. But he could be a demon. The MUST doesn't >affect the situation either way. > >Of course, we could be misinterpreting 'must' have a master as to mean >'can be compelled by that master'. It could well be that Bolk must have >someone for whose betterment he works, but that he doesn't have to go >along with a specific order if he thinks there's a better way to do >things. In that case, he might not be a demon either. Didn't Morrolan (I think it was Morrolan) once explain to Vlad that a God is a God because it cannot be summoned or controlled, but if that God ever WERE summoned or controlled it would then be referred to as a Demon - such a statement seems to imply that the difference between Gods and Demons is one of semantics.