Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3971671" data-attributes="member: 32164">Still waiting on this one. Why can't &quot;angels&quot; fill the roles of guardian, protector, messenger and soldier of the gods?The demon/devil dichotomy works like this. Devils are evil, and for their own reasons are interested in corrupting mortals. Demons, however, are evil in the &quot;wantonly destructive&quot; sense. It has nothing to do with how they behave in combat and everything to do with their motivation.To make a similar division work, there would have to be a clear enough dichotomy between &quot;angel&quot; and &quot;archon&quot; that both terms are worth preserving. While I can certainly agree that &quot;demon&quot; and &quot;devil&quot; are iconic enough that both terms should be preserved as slightly different &quot;flavors&quot; of evil outsiders, I don't see archons as having enough &quot;traction&quot; to merit a similar distinction.I think one can make a fairly strong case that even people who study gnosticism would agree that &quot;angel&quot; is more widely recognized than &quot;archon.&quot;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So, what's the clear dichotomy between angels and archons? Why does the game need both &quot;flavors&quot; of good outsiders?Now, I suppose you could have a dichotomy that &quot;angels&quot; motivation is to serve their gods and that archons &quot;protect the innocent.&quot; But that doesn't fit with the classic theory of &quot;guardian angels.&quot; So instead, all angels get&nbsp; &quot;serving the gods&quot; and the ones serving &quot;good&quot; deities get &quot;protecting the innocent.&quot; And what exactly does that leave for archons? I can't figure it out. And apparently, the designers decided to preserve their &quot;martial flavor&quot; rather than their &quot;good flavor&quot; and make them &quot;the mercenary armies.&quot; Flavor them with elements and voilá! New monster.Why is this take less &quot;correct&quot; than the other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 3971671, member: 32164"] Still waiting on this one. Why can't "angels" fill the roles of guardian, protector, messenger and [i]soldier[/i] of the gods? The demon/devil dichotomy works like this. Devils are evil, and for their own reasons are interested in corrupting mortals. Demons, however, are evil in the "wantonly destructive" sense. It has nothing to do with how they behave in combat and everything to do with their motivation. To make a similar division work, there would have to be a clear enough dichotomy between "angel" and "archon" that both terms are worth preserving. While I can certainly agree that "demon" and "devil" are iconic enough that both terms should be preserved as slightly different "flavors" of evil outsiders, I don't see archons as having enough "traction" to merit a similar distinction. I think one can make a fairly strong case that even people who study gnosticism would agree that "angel" is more widely recognized than "archon.";) So, what's the clear dichotomy between angels and archons? Why does the game [i]need[/i] both "flavors" of good outsiders? Now, I suppose you could have a dichotomy that "angels" motivation is to serve their gods and that archons "protect the innocent." But that doesn't fit with the classic theory of "guardian angels." So instead, all angels get "serving the gods" and the ones serving "good" deities get "protecting the innocent." And what exactly does that leave for archons? I can't figure it out. And apparently, the designers decided to preserve their "martial flavor" rather than their "good flavor" and make them "the mercenary armies." Flavor them with elements and voilá! New monster. Why is this take less "correct" than the other? [/QUOTE]

Verification