Excerpts: Angels

[Lackhand]

Which made absolutely ZERO sense when you consider that devils/demons are supposed to work in their own interests, the two Fiendish Codexes (3.5 books) even saying as much. Devils/demons who are merely minions of evil gods (1) runs counter to that premise, and (2) are JUST. NOT. INTERESTING.

With 4e, instead they make the angels those who willingly attach themselves to the causes of deities. Which frees up devils/demons to finally be powers unto themselves. Now, evil gods who want infernal/abyssal assistance are going to have to bargain on the terms of the likes of Asmodeus and Orcus. And all of a sudden things actually got, you know, INTERESTING.

Well... I hate to disagree with you, but I do. Because we already had that -- the devils and demons were, as you say, free agents. The real problem as I perceive it is that we already had this particular problem fixed with, as you say, demons & devils. Great.

But now there's nobody to be the absolute servitor of some dark god, because angels' motivations are relatively mundane, as such things go.

Lord Tyrian said it best upthread -- astral spirits invested with divinity, tortured by free will and self-change. It's the only way to fly

 

[AverageCitizen]

Which made absolutely ZERO sense when you consider that devils/demons are supposed to work in their own interests, the two Fiendish Codexes (3.5 books) even saying as much. Devils/demons who are merely minions of evil gods (1) runs counter to that premise, and (2) are JUST. NOT. INTERESTING.

I didn't have the two fiendish codexes. Sounds like I would not like them. I prefer to kinda stick to the source material, you know, where they devils/demons work for the Devil. The idea of thwarting the dark one and his minions is apparently interesting enough that just about every major piece of fantasy fiction in the last century encompasses it, but I guess if you don't like it then you don't like it.

With 4e, instead they make the angels those who willingly attach themselves to the causes of deities. Which frees up devils/demons to finally be powers unto themselves. Now, evil gods who want infernal/abyssal assistance are going to have to bargain on the terms of the likes of Asmodeus and Orcus. And all of a sudden things actually got, you know, INTERESTING.

Asmodeus is an extra-cannonical biblical figure, a subject of Satan and was the nemesis of the arch-angel Raphael, who was sent from God. I personally think that his real-world myth is a lot more interesting than what they've written up for him. As a matter of fact, I think they're trying to move away from judeo-christian myths as much as possible to make the game more politically correct.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Well... I hate to disagree with you, but I do. Because we already had that -- the devils and demons were, as you say, free agents. The real problem as I perceive it is that we already had this particular problem fixed with, as you say, demons & devils. Great.

Except that we didn't.

But now there's nobody to be the absolute servitor of some dark god, because angels' motivations are relatively mundane, as such things go.

Because devils and demons are not meant to be the servitor of some dark god. They are meant to be powers unto themselves, and 4e is finally making that a reality.

 

[Lackhand]

Except that we didn't.


Because devils and demons are not meant to be the servitor of some dark god. They are meant to be powers unto themselves, and 4e is finally making that a reality.

but this is what they were in previous editions, too.

I mean, sure, when you look at a dark temple, you are forced to wonder "Hey, who staffs this pit of ebon despair?" -- and, yes, the only answer you come up with is demons. Or devils. Or yugoloths. Or whatever.

But. This didn't stop the Blood War from being its own thing, Orcus from warring with Demogorgon, or the Lords of the Nine getting significantly more air time than the gods that share their layers. Not to mention -- Graz'z't or Nerull, who did all those adventure paths get written about?

I sort of see where you might be going with this; since angels can be Evil, demons and devils don't have to be, and the angels can more naturally align with the dark gods, leaving the fiends free to frolic without deific oversight.

But I don't think it's the "Angels as mercenaries" that enables this -- it's "Angels come in many flavors, and some serve god X, whilst others serve god Y".

Or, alternate phrasing: I don't think having any individual angel be capable of accepting a Better Offer helps with the demon/devil independence issue. However, I'm behind you all the way if all you're saying is "Yay! We now have an answer for 'Who staffs this temple of ebon despair!'".

 

[Darth Cyric]

I didn't have the two fiendish codexes. Sounds like I would not like them. I prefer to kinda stick to the source material, you know, where they devils/demons work for the Devil.

So you like the same ol' tired good vs. evil fluff. Gotcha.

The idea of thwarting the dark one and his minions is apparently interesting enough that just about every major piece of fantasy fiction in the last century encompasses it, but I guess if you don't like it then you don't like it.

Most fantasy literature is unimaginative pulp fiction, and thus isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

As a matter of fact, I think they're trying to move away from judeo-christian myths as much as possible to make the game more politically correct.

No, if they were trying to be more PC they wouldn't have even brought back the names of angel, devil and demon in the first place. Instead they're trying to set up the possibility of some juicy extraplanar political theatre.

If I want Judeo-Christian myths I'll read those.

 

[DandD]

Actually, the reason I'm a fan of 4e gods is because this is exactly how real world religion works.

I know, you specifically didn't want this response, but it's definitely not just about the greek Olympians.

And that's all I'll really say to avoid the "no religion" hammer.

I agree that this is how religions work, meaning, the cult to a god. Gods themselves however shouldn't need a specific number of followers. That wasn't so in the real world. Quite contrarily. After a conquering civilization overthrew another one, they assimilated their gods into their own pantheon, or said that such and such god is their own god with just another name. And then, the older gods were relegated to the status of house spirits, or spirits partaining to such and such places, or somehow made into servants of their new god. It's a really funny amalgamation.

As for me, I'll make the gods quite uncarring, or at least very detached from mortal affairs, as for them, it's the big picture that must matter the most.

And I still prefer astral robots with wings created from the gods themselves, instead of astral mercenaries. Whatever the dudes and dudettes at WotC will say, that's how it will be ingrained in the mind of the peoples who will read about their Angel article.

 

[Darth Cyric]

But. This didn't stop the Blood War from being its own thing, Orcus from warring with Demogorgon, or the Lords of the Nine getting significantly more air time than the gods that share their layers. Not to mention -- Graz'z't or Nerull, who did all those adventure paths get written about?

Right, the devils and demons were fighting in the Blood Wars, fighting their own internal conflicts ... except those who were working for gods. And how were they working for gods? That part was never explored in the past. It was just assumed that evil gods had devil/demon servants because they were evil and could probably wipe out the Nine Hells/Abyss with a thought if the devils/demons didn't cooperate.

I sort of see where you might be going with this; since angels can be Evil, demons and devils don't have to be, and the angels can more naturally align with the dark gods, leaving the fiends free to frolic without deific oversight.

But I don't think it's the "Angels as mercenaries" that enables this -- it's "Angels come in many flavors, and some serve god X, whilst others serve god Y".

Funny, because I never said the word "mercenary" once about angels in my original post. Read it carefully again, I said, "willingly attach themselves to the causes of deities." Could be deity X or deity Y.

However, I'm behind you all the way if all you're saying is "Yay! We now have an answer for 'Who staffs this temple of ebon despair!'".

Which is pretty much what I was getting at. If an evil god wants demons and/or devils in his service, he'd better prepare to do some real bargaining.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Right, the devils and demons were fighting in the Blood Wars, fighting their own internal conflicts ... except those who were working for gods. And how were they working for gods? That part was never explored in the past. It was just assumed that evil gods had devil/demon servants because they were evil and could probably wipe out the Nine Hells/Abyss with a thought if the devils/demons didn't cooperate.

Actually it was the other way aroud, Devils/Demons could wipe out Gods if they interfered too much. 2e sources said that Set and Sekolah and other Gods of Baator had to bend to Asmodeus' rules or he'll have them booted out of the Hells.

 

[AverageCitizen]

So you like the same ol' tired good vs. evil fluff. Gotcha.

Most fantasy literature is unimaginative pulp fiction, and thus isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I said major fiction, not most.

I'm not that well read, but these came off the top of my head. (There is no way to make that not rhyme.)

1. The Dark is Rising Trilogy by Susan Cooper
2. The Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander
3. The Shannarra series by Terry Brooks
4. The Belgariad/Mallereon by David Eddings (They only count as one cause they're almost the same.)
5. The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordon

I deliberately left out Tolkien cause I figured we're all tired of hearing about it. I hardly consider these to be 'pulp fiction and thus not worth the paper its printed on.' They are classic. They are about the battle between good and evil. Now, I'm aware that good vs. evil isn't the only way to tell a story. Actually, the most important thing is the hero's journey within himself. (Read the Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campell.) But it is not tired. It is classic.

No, if they were trying to be more PC they wouldn't have even brought back the names of angel, devil and demon in the first place. Instead they're trying to set up the possibility of some juicy extraplanar political theatre.

If I want Judeo-Christian myths I'll read those.

We're steeped in Judeo-Christian myths. Its part of why this stuff is interesting. Using angels vs demons to represent good vs evil draws on familiar concepts and symbols and allows us to paint a story using a familiar pallete. Mixing in 'juicy extraplanar politics' is like mixing in neon green and yellow. It will get old fast. The new system allows for one new story: x betrays y because of z. I can see some good potential there, to be sure. But wiping all allegiances and the flavor associated with the has left us with only one trick. And its not good enough to last another 2000 years.

 

[Stogoe]

Angels aren't monsters. Or at least, they shouldn't be.

There you go again, shoving your idiosyncratic "should"s into a game for all of us.

My D&D is almost always about meaningful Good vs. Evil. Its why I like the game.

I enjoy the Good vs Evil as much as the next guy. But part of my enjoyment of that trope is "there's no backup." There's no immortal, unstoppable army of celestial do-gooders that you can give a ring to when you screw up. It's just you. Fewer allies, more threats: just the way I like it.

it would not take much space to have a Angelic Rituals section listing all the rituals angels usually have.

I certainly hope there isn't. You're the DM, give them the rituals you want them to have. Don't waste page count.