Excerpts: Angels

[small pumpkin man]

What I noticed is that one could construct a new symmetry for 4E.

My original idea to hinge this on where the Angels. They seem similar to Archons, in a way. Both appear to be mercenary like. While Archons are made from the Elements (Fire, Ice,...) which fits the Elemental Chaos, Angels are made from higher concepts (Valor, Vengeance), fitting the Astral Sea.

If one would want to construct a "Great Wheel", it would probably have the Feywild as good, the Shadowfell as Evil, the Astral Sea as Law, and the Elemental Chaos as, well, Chaos.

Interestingly, every single one of these realms seem to have his own "Underdark" equivalent. The Abyss in the Elemental Chaos, the Hell in the Astral Sea, the FeyWild Underdark/Feydark in the Feywild. I am not sure if the Shadowfell also has an Underdark element, but it should have, being a "dark mirror" of the material world.

There are some breaks in the "alignment" symmetry. The feywild is also Chaotic, and possibly even more so then Good. Each of the Underdark equivlanets off course is also evil, so evil is not limited to one of the planes.
Aside from the alignment, Shadar-Kai or Eladrin don't look similar to Archons or Angels, either.

I tihnk you may be misunderstanding what they meant, they said they were getting rid of "needless" symmetry, which is there merely to be symmetric, "we have a fire and an earth Magi, obviously we need a water one too". Symmatry which is interesting and makes sense is good, Archons were made to fight the armies of the Gods by the Primordials, they were made to fight Angels, the fact that they look and work similar is not some sort of coincidence, or divine balancing, it has a specific reason in the plot of the world.

As for putting the wheel into the PoL system, all you have to do is make the alignment planes Astral Dominions, the idea that the seperate planes (Astral, Shadow, etc.) fit in the alignment boxes runs directly counter to how they've been described.

 

[med stud]

I got to think about an interpretation of a famous description of the actions of an angel, about angels not being the extension of a god's will:

God: The Egyptians are defying me. After everything I have done, they still won't let my people go. I have a service I want you to do for me.
Angel: Shoot.
God: I want you to go to Egypt and kill every first born child, except for the children of my people.
Angel: What do I get for not killing the children of your people?
God: They will sacrifice animals and put the blood on their doors.
Angel: Works for me.

Not exactly as canon, but still. If the angel did exactly what God wanted, there would be no reason for the Hebrews to put blood on their doors.

Another example:

God wants Lot and his family to escape Sodom (or Gomorra, I don't remember which). To punish the city, he lets loose an angel. For their own protection, Lot and his family is adviced not to look back. Lot's wife looks back and turns to salt. Now, if God was in full control of the angel, there would be no need for that instruction. He could just tell the angel that Lot and his family is of limits for it.

---

Both of those encounters with angels tie in with the 4e paradigm. The angels serve the gods but they still have their own agendas. The angel of vengeance can strike someone, but it will strike on it's own terms. It needs some kind of motivation to not strike the ones that the god wants to protect.

 

[VannATLC]

They're not "removing the ideas of good and evil" they're making it so people have to be evil through actions, instead of just having "evil" stamped on their foreheads.

When a Paladin breaks into the Red Dragon's lair and beats him to death with a pointy stick is he doing something evil? How about if a Paladin of Slaughter breaks into a Gold Dragon's lair and does the same? Is it the reasoning behind the acts that makes one "good" and the other "evil"? Or is it because in one case it's a member of "team Good" going and slaughtering a member of "team Evil" and the other case it's the opposite? Is it okay because one of them literally radiates Goodness and the other Evil? Consider that radiating Goodness has the exact same effect on Evil as radiating Evil has on Good. You could change the alignments to "Red" and "Blue" and get the same effect ("Is killing this guy okay? Well he's on Blue team and we're on Red, so yeah.").

Very few people wake up and say "What a lovely day to get some Evil done." Most people believe what they are doing to be Good, or at least in the pursuit of Good. And, at the risk of Godwining myself, even Hitler fundamentally believed what he was doing to be right. The Allies disagreed and so he was bombed to smithereens. When the US Army bombs and Al Quaeda headquarters they claim that it is a good thing they did it, when Al Quaeda bombs a US Headquarters, they claim the same thing. Such claims are mutually exclusive. And the debate on who is right will essentially devolve into the two groups of people shouting at each other while gesticulating wildly, (note that this is a hot button issue, and I would rather we not devolve into shouting at each other and gesticulating wildly.).

On the other hand, if you allow people to be judged by their actions, and for conflicting views of what good and evil are, you allow for the concepts of good and evil to take hold, instead of the rubber stamp "You're on Team Evil, therefore it's okay for me to kill you and take all your stuff."

For example, Hextor could send an Angel of Vengeance after a party that broke into one of his temples and slew his high priest, but Heironious could do exactly the same thing. The two gods play by essentially the same rules, they're just on different sides. But then if I were to bring in a pacifist god (deified Ghandi or Buddha, if you will) he's not going to send an Angel of Vengeance no matter what, it doesn't fit into his idea of what good is. The question is does that make him "good"? Does that make him "more good" than Heironious? Are the two ideologies incompatable? Does that mean that Heironious makes war on Buddahdiety because of this incompatability? How does such a god exist in a world where other gods are empowering people with the ability to call pillars of fire to smite their enemies?

Yes, you've removed "good" and "evil" as absolutes and labels, but by making it so that nobody radiates pure goodness, you've reintroduced the concepts of good and evil, and that's a welcome change.

I squee at your post! <3

And whole-heartedly agree. Its long past time something like this was done.

Average_Citizen; Do you really think that some degree of realistic moral relativism is *bland* compared to Black and White absolutism?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tihnk you may be misunderstanding what they meant, they said they were getting rid of "needless" symmetry, which is there merely to be symmetric, "we have a fire and an earth Magi, obviously we need a water one too". Symmatry which is interesting and makes sense is good, Archons were made to fight the armies of the Gods by the Primordials, they were made to fight Angels, the fact that they look and work similar is not some sort of coincidence, or divine balancing, it has a specific reason in the plot of the world.

As for putting the wheel into the PoL system, all you have to do is make the alignment planes Astral Dominions, the idea that the seperate planes (Astral, Shadow, etc.) fit in the alignment boxes runs directly counter to how they've been described.

I am not saying this is needless symmetry (especially as I noticed the "breaks" of symmetry in a few areas.) It was, more or less, an academic exercise.
Symmetry is certainly not the main motivation here at work.

I particularly like the idea of the Archons made from "Elemental Stuff" and Angels made from "Higher Concepts".

Your point about the Archons being fought vs the Angels is a good one - I forgot that, or rather didn't remember if there was this relation between them. And it's a... "natural" symmetry - off course enemies try to have armies that can fight each other (preferably beat the other sides army).

 

[Mirtek]

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.

Well, technically there is not really any difference between a dark deity and an archfiend. Actually many archfiends were indeed dark deities and many dark deities were archfiends.

Orcus used to be just a lesser deity with his realm in the Abyss, not really much different from deities like Umberlee and Kali who also had their realms in the Abyss.

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

I think he more likes the good old D&D fluff as described in supplements like Faces of Evil or Hellbound: The Blood War

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 the deities of Chaos and Law were still much into the blood war. They just stopped storming the battlgrounds in person and personally laying waste to lesser fiends. However, concerned with their cosmic principle. they still provided huge armies for the cause of chaos/law

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.

Actually it wasn't that clear. Sekolah seemed to be truly slowly losing ground, but he was only a lesser power. Set, as a greater power, was holding his territory and even send out his own armies to retalitate by raiding Baator

 

[EonEdge]

I think that way to many people are hung up on a few poorly written points, like mercenaries and angels doing what they do for wealth, and what not.

No I don't like the idea of gods renting out angels when they need one, but luckily that is nowhere in the fluff I read. It just said that angels are mercenaries, mercenaries who will work for money, favor, or for an idea.

Like an American soldier who joins the army for money.
Like an American soldier who joins the army for the GI Bill or other benefits that being in the army offer.
Or like an American soldier who joins the army because he wished to fight terrorism or defend his country.

I use American cause I live in America and can only speak for reasons why Americans join the army, I have had friends who joined the army for each of these reasons.

Now each of these three examples are all mercenaries. Does that mean that if Iranian soldiers tried to hand any of them some money they would betray thier country? Not likely.

Does this mean that when thier service to the American army is done, that they will go offer thier service to another army? also not likely. I feel that this example captures the spirit of what WotC was trying to convey in thier controversially written fluff.

 

[EonEdge]

I also think that some people misunderstand the "purpose" of angels. Angels are used to perform mission of which they are suited for. An Angel of Vengence is used to to get revenge. Pelor uses an AoV to get revenge. Bane also uses an AoV to get revenge.

The reason WotC gave them a certain amount of free will and made them a race of thier own is so that Bane can't send an AoV to kill a child that might one day threaten his plans. The AoV will just turn to him and say "That's not my job, go get the Angel of Baby Smiting for that, or call me when he grows up and burns down your most powerful temple."

In this way angels, whether they work for Bane, Pelor, Lolth, or whoever cannot be used for a deities dirty work, unless the work itsself falls under thier own goals, ie vengence, valor, baby smiting, snuggles.

 

[katahn]

I always understood a mercenary to be a paid professional soldier who when they are doing working for their current client will go find some other client to be a paid soldier for. A soldier that works for a national government and then, when their term of service is complete and they elect to not re-enlist, retires to civilian life. While both get paid, the implication is that the men and women serving various national militaries are not mercenaries in any but the most disparaging of senses. Similarly, unless the fluff material indicates that it is a widespread or common phenomenon for angels to switch which god they work for then I think the label of "mercenary" is at best misleading.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I always understood a mercenary to be a paid professional soldier who when they are doing working for their current client will go find some other client to be a paid soldier for. A soldier that works for a national government and then, when their term of service is complete and they elect to not re-enlist, retires to civilian life. While both get paid, the implication is that the men and women serving various national militaries are not mercenaries in any but the most disparaging of senses. Similarly, unless the fluff material indicates that it is a widespread or common phenomenon for angels to switch which god they work for then I think the label of "mercenary" is at best misleading.

You mean they might have learned the lesson to use a thesaurus and still got it all wrong?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not to distract from the fascinating discussion of angles and their pin-head-dancing but I have to say you reminded me of several months I spent devouring book after book of the Belgariad as a young teen. I was really pulled into the story as it went on.. and on.. and on...

And then I realized it was crap.

But you had fun then. I admit, its not as "good" as others, whatever tha means, but its most entertaining and the World building and character dialogues are great.

There is great fantasy out there (see The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss for a recent example), but 90% of what is on the shelves is not worth the paper it is written on.

Song of Ice and fire. Sadly still in work...