[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 197 KB, 1170x683, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
42247421 No.42247421 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]


Why is "Angels" both the name of the species, and the name of the lowest level species?

Why are archagels considered the most powerful angels, but also 2nd tier scrublings?

>> No.42247459


>> No.42247476

Why is "Man" both the name of our species as well as a generic individual with a Y chromosome?

>> No.42247508

Because of patriarchy.

>> No.42247512
File: 1.54 MB, 3353x4213, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here's a cherubim

>> No.42247531

Because we refer to ourselves as huMANs

>> No.42247549

The tiers are not strictly linear. Angels and Archangels are the classes exclusively responsible for serving as messengers to humanity; thus, an Archangel is the highest-ranked being you will ever interact with and therefore is at the top of the scale.

>> No.42247555

No. That's completely false.


>> No.42247559

>Why is "Angels" both the name of the species, and the name of the lowest level species?
Maybe the lower levels aren't yet worthy of further distinction?

>> No.42247567
File: 193 KB, 1000x1255, 1332563370817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Well depends on the mythology, canon, or apocrypha you decide to follow and piece together from the bits spread around, anon.

For games, in the In Nomine system at least, every celestial being is pretty well codified and defined.

>> No.42247571

Because yeoman fell out of use.

>> No.42247582

Semiotics does not work that way, silly linguist.

>> No.42247607

>Why is "Angels" both the name of the species, and the name of the lowest level species?
Angel is a category. The others are titles and stations. A being referred to simply as an Angel is one with no greater station.

>> No.42247707


So what would angel with no station's actual name be?

>> No.42248023

An Angel.

>> No.42248285
File: 224 KB, 693x800, Ophanim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Don't forget the Ophanim

Ironic how actual biblical angels are meant to be fucking terrifying as well as awe inspiring

>> No.42248309


Ophanim are Thrones you dingus

How little research have you done?

>> No.42248325

>if I'm ignorant of what the word means, I can make it mean whatever I want to suit my political agenda

And this is why our culture is dying.

>> No.42248341

That's literally how language works.

>> No.42248345
File: 1.82 MB, 1865x700, Serphim.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is what a Seraphim is supposed to look life

If you actually saw its face, you'd go blind
Depends on the translation. I actually didn't know they were the same till just now

>> No.42248361


It's not "ironic", it's fucking incorrect

One stupid passage has some weird looking angels and you faggots ignore the fact that in every other instance they are just immaculate flying humanoids that usually don't even have wings

>> No.42248395

Ezekiel is part of the old testament, which is considered canon in the vast majority of Christian dogma.

>> No.42248397
File: 47 KB, 580x325, seraphim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


No exposed head or feet. The point of covering themselves was to shield their eyes from looking upon God, and to shield their feet, which were too unclean to have revealed in His presence.

>> No.42248405

Fun fact: Saraphim shares the same root as the typographical serif, which was so named because they added "wings" to the symbol.

>> No.42248418


Of course, I'm not saying it doesn't count or anything, just to generalize that passage to all angels, is blatantly incorrect

>> No.42248577
File: 41 KB, 375x523, Christopher Lee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>This is what a Seraphim is supposed to look life
>If you actually saw its face, you'd go blind

I really hate this "blinding beauty" bullshit. It reminds me of a story I read where a chick player pulled out her tits at the table and the DM ruled everyone was stunned for 1d4 rounds so she could kill them all and take all their stuff.

Yeah, i found it. This dumb fucking shit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1mk1yw/whats_the_most_shocking_move_a_player_has_ever/

Fuck blinding beauty and any RPG that will use that shitty uninspired ability.

>> No.42248683


It was actually so that the seraphim would not look upon god, not that their own faces could not be revealed

>> No.42249566

Fucking fanfiction

it goes
>Chayot HaKodesh
>Bene Elohim

>> No.42249762

Well looks like they failed the save and not because she was beautiful but because she just flashed them out of nowhere.
And then she murdered them to bring back to the group she's originally from that the GM is also running, truly she is the murderiest of hobos

>> No.42249884

>No. That's completely false.
Why wouldn't the male domination in every history-making field also be reflected in the language?

>> No.42250519

Because people are lazy with grammar

>> No.42250806

Angels have always been interesting to me. We try to make them seems as human as possible when in fact most faiths describe them as incredibly alien. In most RPGs they are winged humanoids unless they're made out to be the villains, in which case they are usually more alien.

I'm sort of hoping MtG releases a set with weird-as-fuck Angels in it.

>> No.42250836

In other word... angels are eldrict beings from outerspace just like nyarloteph?

>> No.42251225

Yea, that's retarded. Not that the other list is original, but you do realise that 'Elohim' is God, right? It is literally the plural word for 'God'. Ever wondered why all angels have 'el' at the end of their names? That's why.

>> No.42251269

Holy shit that's metal

>> No.42251282

if you draw parallels to Christianity from Lovecraft's work, he smiles a little.

His work was always intended to be lampshading abrahamic religion. Be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

>> No.42251753

There is only one archangel mentioned in the bible, Michael. There is also no information on Thrones, Dominions and all that stuff other than that they exist.

>> No.42251787

Yeah, old school Biblical angels are fucking insane

>> No.42251825

Nephilim rule.

That is all.

>> No.42251844

>That's literally how language works.
No, mostly just English. Other language have formalizing institutions.

>> No.42251864

Because in old english "man" meant Human, and "wer" was Male and "wif" was Female. But lacking a neutral gender tone, the male tone became the default, so "man" became equal to, then overtook, "wer" in use, until there were only men. As for "wif," it came to be said "wifman," or female human, which degraded to "wiman," and eventually the "woman" of today.

>> No.42251875

"Be not afraid."

>> No.42252050


>> No.42252236

This name always makes me think of transformers.

>> No.42252260


>> No.42252297

That's an actual angel name?

>> No.42252326

No, it's one of the names of God, which isn't quite what we're talking about but at the same time it is super cool.

>> No.42252444

Technically it's not the literal name of God but the title for the name. We don't know the actual pronunciation of the name since ancient Hebrew didn't write vowels.

>> No.42252903

So does anyone have a site or link to what angels are "supposed" to look like then? Or will I have to just dig my old bible out and try to figure out what the hell they're describing to me?

>> No.42252944

"angels" are just messengers of god.

the seraphim, cherubim, and so forth are never described as "angels" in the bible and serve other purposes - for instance, the cherubim who guard the garden of eden. it's only in later sources that all the beings who serve god are conflated with angels.

>> No.42252954

>try and figure out what I'm seeing

Just like everyone who's ever seen one, there's a reason the first thing they often say is "Be not afraid."

>> No.42252961

No, it refers to the 4 letters of God's name, YHWH

>> No.42252967

Okay, so dust off my old bible and hope to God that my players don't flip their shit when I start introducing Old Testament style angels into my campaigns.

>> No.42252991

It would depend on which ones. The beings who went to Lot were human looking, and apparently beautiful enough lots of people wanted to fuck them at the snap of a metaphorical finger.

The guardian of the gate of Eden is really just described as a figure with a burning sword.

Ezekiel has the most weird ones, with the wheels with eyes and animal headed ones and so on.

So its up to you.

>> No.42253005

The general idea of the campaign is just sort of a collision between a bunch of different mythologies, and the "Rulers" of each one is not happy with the situation.

So for the most part it would be the more human-looking ones, but I do vaguely remember that during Revelations God had absolutely no issues bringing in real fire power if need be.

>> No.42253018

Michael, *The* Archangel means "one who is as God" and is generally considered the captain of general of heaven. He's the one who actually, personally kicks Satan's shit in during the war in heaven and locks him in the abyss. And he is not depicted as anything weird or frightening to humankind so humanoid Angels for the majority of your angelic beings are probably a good idea to go with.

>> No.42253033

Also depending on which branch of the faith you are from he may have incarnated as Adam.

Humanity was always Nephilim.

>> No.42253039

>the original "four letter word"

>> No.42253042

So read Ezekiel, figure out if any of the really fucking weird ones have any place in the campaign what so ever, and then just assume everything else would be the human like ones unless Revelations states they'd use something else then?

>Humanity was always Nephilim.
Not going down that road for this campaign, but that's certainly an interesting tidbit to keep in mind.

>> No.42253051

If you're one of those modern day Arians (Mormons and JWs) sure, but heresies are not descritive of orthodox philosophy in any capacity.

>> No.42253074

The idea is that the Angels that are most common in the background bible are those that deal with humans; the human looking Angels.

The ones in Iasiah and Enoch are the angles that don't interact with humans such as seraphim and cherubim. Hence the weird look.

>> No.42253077

>He's the one who actually, personally kicks Satan's shit in during the war in heaven
Wasn't that Gabriel?

>> No.42253123
File: 27 KB, 181x256, Mobile 1930.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Angels are for the most part the only divine creatures humans ever directly deal with. Thus, they have become the name of the species as we know them; because they are the most familiar and widely recognized.

>> No.42253131

Gabriel is actually Satan's replacement.

>> No.42253152

Only the lowest two are angels. That's not the name of the race

>> No.42253178
File: 1.09 MB, 693x800, uguuphanim.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>tfw no qt angel gf

>> No.42253327

Sorry. I'm quite ill at the moment and thinking is becoming less focussed. I saw on a documentary years ago something about something something Adam = Angel Mike something something.

I thought it was Coptic belief, had I remembered it was from fanfiction.net I wouldn't have not typed anything.

Fuck you captcha. Cashew nuts are not peanuts.

>> No.42253403

aaah man
love the throne angels
dudes are so unique

>> No.42253408

Don't worry about it, if heresy wasn't insidious people wouldn't fall for it.


>> No.42253515


Old Testament Angels are freaky eldritch beings and can be surmised as a sign of God's Otherness compared to his creations, it is the ultimate symbol of God's inability to truly connect with Mankind.

New Testament Angels, on the other hand, are glorious upgrades to the Old Testament. Radiant and humble, their humanoid shapes and mannerisms suggest God is making a true effort to bridge the gap between Him and His people, which is ultimately done through Jesus.

Since The Fall occurred way back during the Old Testament, it would make sense that Satan and his demonic hordes resemble the Old Testament "Wheels within Wheels" more than a proper Humanoid shape, which they could probably only assume for limited periods of time (exceptions being Succubi/Incubi.)

>> No.42253582

So full on "Jesus Christ what in the actual fuck" for Lucifer and his merry band of traitors, and 18+ CHA on the actual angels, then?

Or did someone else take over Lucifer's position as the devil at some point before Revelations?

>> No.42253597

......there are exceptions within your time-tables, of course......

Angels with more comprehensible forms debuted in the old testament. The conclusions you draw about the appearance and functions of angels and demons should probably not be universally applied.

>> No.42253652

>The conclusions you draw about the appearance and functions of angels and demons should probably not be universally applied.

Nothing is truly universal, but there would clearly be trends for each side.

>> No.42253702



Tl;dr: God learned he could connect with humans better using sexy messengers.

>> No.42253712

Abbadon guards The Bottomless Pit but Satan has gotten out of it.

>> No.42253726

Check your anglophone privillege cis scum!

>> No.42253740


First time God tried to connect with humans using sexy messengers the humans tried to rape them.

That kind of turned God off from the whole "humanoid shape" thing until Roman times.

>> No.42253808
File: 492 KB, 587x557, 1337841010204.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>First time God tried to connect with humans using sexy messengers the humans tried to rape them.
Is this about the attempted rape of the two angels-in-disguise in Sodom, during which Lot offered his two daughters to the raping horde instead who refused because they absolutely, positively wanted to rape the newcomers?

Had very little to do with angels being sexy and everything to do with how Mediterannean cultures viewed (and to a certain extent still view) gay sex. You know how it's not gay unless balls are touching? Back then it wasn't gay as long as you were on top. In fact, being on top made you a manly boss because you were penetrating another man as if he were a woman, thus bringing shame upon him and literally emasculating him. The desire of the horde to rape the two angels was simply a matter of showing these newcomers how we do things 'round here and that they shouldn't get too uppity.

The same applied more or less in Rome:

Our word "pathetic" directly comes from the Roman term used to indicate a man who was penetrated by another man.

As for Lot offering his two daughters in their stead, that was most likely a veiled insult. "You want to emasculate these two newcomers? Nah, try these two defenceless girls, they're more your speed."

>> No.42253827

So what, there's just a point during the new testament where nobody's exactly sure what the fuck Luci was actually doing? Well, probably something along the lines of "Fucking with humanity", but then again in that sense Lucifer has always been what would happen if Loki lost his sense of humor.

>> No.42253891

Please correct me if I'm fucking up. Been a long time since I read Genesis.

Satan was cast into Hell after his failed rebellion. Since then he has possessed a snake, got in to a betting game with God and walked with Jesus in the wilderness. I Know I'm missing some stuff here but the point is that he got out or can strongly influence and perceive outside his prison.

Unless "Hell" in this instance is cut off from God. In which case he is still in Hell an will be until he honestly seeks redemption.

>> No.42253912

Roaming too and fro about the earth and going up and down in it I imagine. After Jesus bitch slapped him during the temptations we don't see the arch-fiend again until eschatology gets in during Revelation.

And Abaddon is Hebrew for destroyer and is a title for the arch-fiend, same as Apollyon is in Greek.

They're not supposed to be separate entities.

>> No.42253915


I also read the theory that it's a translation issue, in that the strangers wish to "know" the angels. Now, in Biblical writing "to know X" actually has three meanings. The first is to have knowledge of X, the second is to engage in carnal acts with X and the third is to play host to X. In the third interpretation of the word "know", that means that the story is about keeping the faith secret and not permitting angels to come into tainted contact with heathens.

>> No.42253920
File: 64 KB, 374x374, 1399578805883.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>until he honestly seeks redemption.
Didn't Victor Hugo write a poem where that happens and Satan and God have a baby? I'm pretty sure someone wrote something about God and Satan making up and having a child, not sure if it was Hugo or someone else.

>> No.42253954

While it is a primary point in western theology since, oh at least Aquinas, that nothing is *beyond* redemption; Satan will not ask due to his pride.

And Satan was not cast into Hell, that's Milton. The abyss is not the lake of fire and the chaining in the abyss is a future event.

>> No.42253976

Considering that most of our knowledge on how Hell is actually structured comes from fucking Dante of all people, I wouldn't be surprised if Hell is actually just God not really giving a fuck anymore.

See, that's always been my main problem with Abrahamic lore, they always have a thousand names for the same thing. I know Lucifer was his name as an angel, and then after that the stories just cycle through shit to make sure any outsider (like myself) will the thoroughly confused when they look in.

>> No.42253978

Shit, I meant Augustine.

Fuckum meus

>> No.42254009

In the bible the only thing I remember on what Hell was actually like was Jesus describing a fire that won't go out and maggots that won't die.

These could be the sensations of being cut off from God.

>> No.42254011

When speaking the true name of God is everything from a super-duper sin to a way to destroy reality if you get the pitch juuuuust right, you come up with lots of other titles. And then that leaks over to other entities as well because it stands to reason Bad Things will happen if you say their names too.

>> No.42254070

Satan is not Lucifer.
According to the original theologies, Satan isn't even a bad guy, he's just doing his job. He exists and was created by God to test mankind and to prove their worthiness.

>> No.42254279


wasn't one of the descriptions of Lucifer simply being cast out into the outer darkness. IE. his punishment isn't being locked away or even actively punished but simply being cut off and ostracized.

Which also kind of explains why he pops up so much. hes not actually banned from anything he just doesn't even get a "Son I am disappoint" and it feels hella bad yo.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.