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

[Jack99]

My point is, angels are still commonly identified with the Celestial Realms (or "Heaven") and servants of good. It doesn't make sense for them to mess with that archetype to be a "generic god servant".

It makes perfect sense if you are trying to piss off the Christians to give the game a cooler edge.

 

[Khuxan]

If the word 'archon' or 'deva' had been used for the new generic celestial messengers in 4e, no-one would have batted an eye.

Except Hindus, for whom deva are beings of "high excellence".

To put this further in perspective, if 4E had used a prominent component of some other widely-followed current-day real-world religion and tried to change his/her/its moral significance, who here thinks that there would not be an outcry once the followers of that religion became aware of it?

Daeva, in Zoroastrianism, are "wrong gods".
Asura (found in the Book of Exalted Deeds), in Hinduism, are demonic deities.

In both of these cases, demonic or malevolent beings have been recast as paragons of good.

I have no problem with there being unaligned (rather than good or evil) messengers of the deities in D&D, but to suddenly change their name from a long-used D&D-specific term to a concept from a specific religion, when such a name is not a good fit and has the potential to be inflammatory, strikes me as a poor decision.

The Bible refers to "angels of evil".

 

[The Shadow]

It has been suggested that a lack of responses on the 'angels are intrinsically good' side is somehow an indication that the point of view is not wide held, or is in some way invalid.

So now I try to respond to this line of argument while trying to make it clear it is not a personal attack, and trying not to discuss religion event while discussing an iconic concept from several modern-day religions, which some posters seem to think are open to attack.

Oh, joy. And people wonder why we don't post.

Yeah, no kidding. And Mourn, may I suggest that knowledge that isn't publicly verifiable by everyone can still be objective? Else the existence of blind people, for example, would lead to the conclusion that color is purely subjective. (Of course, color does have subjective elements, no question - I'm talking about it's mere existence.)

I understand the desire to have generic divine servants in the game, but I do agree that using the word 'angel' for them is a little odd. It's at odds both with previous editions and with popular culture. (I also agree with others that 'deva' or 'archon' would have worked quite well for such servitors.) I mean, the phrase 'angel of Bane' strikes a bit of a discordant note.

And no, I'm not seeing any huge mythological precedent for it. 'Angel' is a Greek word used pretty exclusively by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. While there is plenty of precedent in mythology for gods having all sorts of servitors, they aren't generally called 'angels'.

Personally, I think the best solution would be to have unique servitors for each god with their own names, but that would admittedly be a lot of work.

P.S. I just noticed that with the new devil fluff, devils are probably pretty much on the outs with *all* gods, even the evil ones. I mean, no god wants his servitors getting uppity ideas, right?

 

[Kunimatyu]

It makes perfect sense if you are trying to piss off the Christians to give the game a cooler edge.

Or as a purely design decision, so that Angels are a useful part of the Monster Manual.

 

[The Little Raven]

And Mourn, may I suggest that knowledge that isn't publicly verifiable by everyone can still be objective?

And may I suggest that religion, and beliefs derived therefrom, are not objective at all? To argue otherwise would be to tell people of a particular faith (or lack thereof) that they are wrong, with no evidence to support your claim. Thus, while Christians can claim angels are good, (based on their beliefs) and atheists, like myself, can claim they aren't good (based on mine) and there is no right or wrong answer.

 

[The Shadow]

Except Hindus, for whom deva are beings of "high excellence".

Very true, but the game versions are based off another source. Granted, Theosophy doubtless took the name from the Hindus, but little else.

Daeva, in Zoroastrianism, are "wrong gods".
Asura (found in the Book of Exalted Deeds), in Hinduism, are demonic deities.

In both of these cases, demonic or malevolent beings have been recast as paragons of good.

Also true, but you draw the wrong conclusion. They weren't recast as beings of good; quite the opposite.

'Asura' was the Persian name for a divine being. 'Deva' was the Hindi name for a divine being. (I'm simplifying, I know, but close enough.)

The two cultures, being antipathetic, used the other's name for a divine being as their name for demons. ie, "The other side's a bunch of devil worshippers." Both were originally names for good beings, but were recast by cultural enemies to be evil.

The Bible refers to "angels of evil".

Do tell. Just where, pray? Chapter and verse, please.

If you're referring to Psalm 78:49, other translations render it as 'messengers of death'. 'Evil' is here being used in the sense of 'physical evil', ie, misfortune or destruction, not moral evil.

 

[The Shadow]

And may I suggest that religion, and beliefs derived therefrom, are not objective at all? To argue otherwise would be to tell people of a particular faith (or lack thereof) that they are wrong, with no evidence to support your claim. Thus, while Christians can claim angels are good, (based on their beliefs) and atheists, like myself, can claim they aren't good (based on mine) and there is no right or wrong answer.

I can't make a substantive reply to this post without violating the rules. So I will content myself with saying that your mere assertion does not make it so. It is you who make the claim that no evidence at all can be advanced. I do not accept that claim.

Though I will certainly grant that completely compulsive, unanswerable evidence cannot be advanced. I am not claiming that people who disagree with me are idiots; only that I have reasons for my disagreement beyond personal taste. It's quite possible for something to be objectively true, yet disagreed about by reasonable people. In that case, at least one side has to be wrong, yes.

Faith is not blind; it is not a leap in the dark. It is, as someone once said, a leap in the light. A leap, yes - it goes beyond the evidence. But not contrary to it, or in the absence of it.

Anyway - back to angels, good or bad. We're drifting off-topic (mea culpa) because I don't think *anyone* is saying, "Christians think angels are good, and they are objectively right, so D&D is wrong to depict them as serving evil gods."

I think the argument is more, "In the source material they arise from, in previous editions, and in the popular mind, angels are associated with good. So seeing them serve evil gods is jarring, when a more neutral term would avoid this problem."

Pointing to this or that incident in the Bible is kind of beside the point because, all theological considerations aside, Biblical angels are exclusively servants of the God depicted therein, who is the maker of The Whole Shebang. (And is also constantly described as 'righteous' and 'holy'.) There are no Biblical angels serving other deities - good, evil, neutral, non-aligned, or otherwise. When other deities are depicted at all, which is rare, they are depicted as fallen angels - in a word, devils.

The fact that certain incidents involving angels in the Bible are destructive doesn't argue against them having a Good alignment in D&D terms. D&D celestials have always been quite capable of laying on the smackdown.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm a Christian. I basically can't say anything more without starting flamewars or getting banned, but you have to understand that close-mindedness is NOT a Christian trait. Its a human one.

I think recasting Angels as pure "deity servants" is entirely appropriate. They serve the will of their master. If I wanted my D&D world to reflect Christian thought, I'd make it monotheistic. I don't. Therefore, angels of all alignments? Entirely appropriate.

The sin of Lucifer was not wrath or lust or any of the classic bad guy stuff. It was pride, and the Deity the Devils slew in D&D 4e could have been LE already, and the same root sin, pride, and violating the natural order, still applies.

 

[DonTadow]

Angels in fourth Edition are no longer paragons of Good, but are emotionless servants of the gods, both good and evil. That's all well and good, but it opens up a potential issue.. All those folks who proclaim high and loud that D&D is "Demonic" will be able to point at Angel monsters and say "See! They promote the idea of slaying Angels! With Demonic characters, no less!"

...I'm not saying I don't like the idea. I love the notion of Angels as emotionless servants of the gods. But it does leave the game more open to crticism from the religious loonies.

That's true, but we can point at Magic and say they did it first.

 

[Piratecat]

This is a conversation that can't be held without involving real-world religion. As such, closed it goes. A topic like this may be better suited for www.circvsmaximvs.com.

In the future, please stay far, far away from real-world religion when discussing game stuff.

You will now hear an angelic klunk.