D&D 4E Angels in 4e: a possible future problem

[Khuxan]

(1e Planatars and Solars could never be corrupted, which I think was more fitting the cosmology).

Surely angels of all beings should be corruptible, given the main source material.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Angels are actually a broadly present phenomena not tied to any singular religion. If you examine the mythology involved you see it across not only the Abrahamic triad but also various forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, many of the African Henotheistic or Monolatric faiths, even systems as divergent as the various AmerInd mythologies. And in all cases the key trait of defining these entities is their service to a deity or deities as an independent actor at the behest of a patron/superior. Going any deeper into the issue or examining the issue of alignment in these contexts would definitely cross the line of acceptability in this forum. But without stepping across the line we can say from mythology that the central defining essence is that they are spiritual entities which are not gods and serve gods.

Now as far as mechanics go I've always run the Aasimar/angels as divine servants first and only. Created by deities of all alignments to serve them and beholden to that deity rather than any alignment. Making the distinction between Angels which serve gods, and Celestials who are physical manifestations of the abstract alignment of Good and organize themselves in their own realms and hierarchies serving an alignment based rather than deific based agenda. Fiends all being the opposite of celestials. In fact one of my gripes about 4e is that they took the background and history of the devils which was uniquely D&D and turned it into an overused Judeo-Christian analogy.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Just because most modern Christians might think of angels as they appear in "Precious Moments" and all that doesn't mean we should use that view on them.

Which is what I was saying--I was just defining that, if we see this in a "classic archetype" in the game setting, they still are beings serving good gods. And in Zoroastrian angeology, they don't serve "the bad guys".

So I was just trying to explain that saying Angels can be all alignments doesn't really fit. The disagreement we seem to be having is that you're saying that angels can be evil. I was just pointing out that an Angel of Death can be a good servant for a good diety--that the alignment of good wasn't meant to always be "warm and fuzzy".

It gets back to the "is the paladin evil for killing the kobold babies".

Surely angels of all beings should be corruptible, given the main source material.

Well, Devas were more based on theosophy, which is why you Devas tied to the Astral plane, the elemental planes, and the energy planes.

The way it worked in 1e was the cosmology was meant to be thousands of demons and devils for every few deva, planetars, and solars. There were only 99 of them total. That's why solars were so damned powerful.

Basically, I hated seeing "fallen solars" in game terms--I think if they fall they become a demon prince or devil or some "unique guy". Solars who fall should lose their powers--this was sort of handled in a 2e supplement dealing with the celestials.

 

[Raduin711]

From what I've heard of the 80s (I wasn't even alive then), the controversy and fuss actually drove up the sales of D&D, getting it free publicity and making it seem like rebellion against the establishment. Maybe this will do the same.

I was born in 1980, and wasn't fully into D&D until I was a tweenager, but I still ended up having to explain to my open-minded mother that D&D was not satanic or evil. That whole debacle was really more infuriating than anything.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Angels are actually a broadly present phenomena not tied to any singular religion.

Yes, but I think other words were used for those not in the Abra-zor religions. Words like Daimon, Genius, Spirit, Deva, etc. I guess I just object to a classic archetype of good being translated into a generic servant of a deity.

It's nit-picky, but I probably wouldn't have objected if they kept the term deva.

 

[Zelster]

I for one look forward to our new demon-possessed angel-slaying overlords.

Anything that will help motivate people like Jack Chick to create more anti-D&D pamphlets/comics. Bring back Black Leaf the uber thief!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I guess I just object to a classic archetype of good being translated into a generic servant of a deity.

Classic Archetype of Good from whose perspective is the question. We can't really go into that here due to board rules. But just ask yourself there at the keyboard WHY do you think of them as uniformly Good and what basic assumptions that flows from.

 

[JohnRTroy]

If you compare angel in the dictionary to terms such as demon, daimon, deva, you'll see that angels are usually considered good servants, as one of the synonyms "a person having qualities generally attributed to an angel, as beauty, purity, or kindliness." Daimons are neutral, demons usually imply evil.

If it's defined like that in the dictionary, regardless of whether it comes from the bible, fairy tales, stories, novels, etc...it usually means that's the classic view of how people perceive the word. Thus, I just object to a term used for a classic archetype that doesn't fit the view as much as another term would have.

Like I said, if I decided to make "demon" a generic term for deital servant, a lot more D&D fans heads would explode. I just think the word was used in a stupid manner.

 

[Incenjucar]

Dictionaries are not scholarly texts.

D&D tends to pull up scholarly stuff when it can get away with it.

This is an example of that. Thankfully, they can get away with it.

I will say it's too bad yugoloths were ever called daemons when daemon would actually cover celestials AND fiends and things like genies.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you compare angel in the dictionary to terms such as demon, daimon, deva, you'll see that angels are usually considered good servants, as one of the synonyms "a person having qualities generally attributed to an angel, as beauty, purity, or kindliness."

Which dictionary is that, because Merriam-Webster doesn't say that in the definition of angel.

an·gel
Pronunciation:
\ˈān-jəl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English engel & Anglo-French angele; both from Late Latin angelus, from Greek angelos, literally, messenger
Date:
before 12th century

1
a: a spiritual being superior to humans in power and intelligence; especially : one in the lowest rank in the celestial hierarchy
b: an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
2: an attendant spirit or guardian
3: a usually white-robed winged figure of human form in fine art
4: messenger harbinger <angel of death>
5: a person like an angel (as in looks or behavior)
6: (Christian Science) inspiration from God
7: one (as a backer of a theatrical venture) who aids or supports with money or influence
8: angelfish

Only 1a, 1b, 2, and 4 would really count in this discussion, and none of those state "goody two-shoes."

I just think the word was used in a stupid manner.

And you seem to be relatively alone in that regard.