Angels in films get on my nerves (spoilers)

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, this conversation got started recently in a thread about homebrew that was based partially off the movie Gabriel. Have absolutely nothing bad to say about the homebrew btw, just the movie.



:smallconfused: I take it you didn't much care for it? I wasn't even going to bother watching it but I happen to catch a glimpse of it when one of my friends were watching it and it got my attention.

My honest opinion of the movie was mixed but that was mostly because of the ending. The beginning was a tad slow to gain momentum but I sure as hell enjoyed the ride. It made me think and do a bit of soul-searching. I love forms of entertainment that I can actually relate to, instead of just passing the time. I ended up buying the movie. Sits nicely next to my copy of Constantine and the Matrix movies.
I just grow tired of angels either being Roma Downey or Douche bags With Wings/Fiends With A Good Alignment. The Gabriel movie was the latter.

I didn't get any soul searching out of it, I'll just put it that way.

If everything was reversed and it was a 'good oriented' place, the demons wouldn't become good guys. They'd start some underground deal beneath angelic notice or begin the process of corrupting folks, maybe work their way up to positions of power. Y'know, go about it intelligently.

In Gabriel, and almost every other angelic-based fic the angels either become totally corrupted themselves in the presence of evil or go in with guns blazing. They are weak-willed emos or idiot rampagers on a crusade.

I just don't like how angels are always made to look like they are jokes while fiends are 'cool', despite the fact they often lose. These films purposely go out of their way to brings angels down.

I mean, seriously, despite the fact you lose most of your heavenly powers, you are still stronger, faster and more knowledgeable than almost any human and a soup kitchen is, and I quote, 'the best I can do'?

BULL!

I wasn't aware that intelligence and subtelty was evil and thus only fiends could use it. There is a middle ground between just charging in, guns blazing and squirming on your belly.

[thompur]

Have you seen DOGMA and/or PROPHECY? These are two films with angels in them that I enjoy. YMMV. Although in the case of the latter film, it may be mostly due to the performance of Christopher Walken. As for DOGMA, it has good and bad angels, without the good angels being a danger to diabetics.

Also, do you watch Supernatural?

Oh, and how about the movie MICHAEL, with John Travolta?
I'd be interested to get your take on these.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Have you seen DOGMA and/or PROPHECY? These are two films with angels in them that I enjoy. YMMV. Although in the case of the latter film, it may be mostly due to the performance of Christopher Walken. As for DOGMA, it has good and bad angels, without the good angels being a danger to diabetics.
Hmm, sure haven't. Will definitely look them up.



Also, do you watch Supernatural?
Probably my favorite show. I like the angels.. sometimes. The intro of Castiel was awesome. However, though I still enjoy something besides demons, Castiel is going down the path of corruption and the rest are the douchebags with wings/demons with a good alignment.

I think if more angels were like that guy from Book of Eli it'd be awesome. Bad ass but kind, thoughtful badasses without dripping naivete.

[Vaynor]

As suggested above, Dogma, definitely watch that. It seems to have the interpretation of angels that you're looking for.

[Eldonauran]

These films purposely go out of their way to brings angels down.

Ahhh, I see that we think very much a like on this subject. I am very aware of how the angels are beaten down upon, made to like stiff, formal, uncouth and aloof, while the demons, or 'fallen angels', are made to feel more comfortable, cool and 'awesome'.

I liked the movie despite all of this, because Gabriel would not give up. In D&D terms, he was the 'Paladin', portrayed correctly and would not bend in the face of evil. Sure, he did something (a certain scene in the movie) that very well could have caused him to fall, and very well may have, but his belief that he could be forgiven, all of them could be forgiven, sustained him to the very end.

His faith was tested and since he was given mortal form, he tasted the fear, hate and other negative human emotions, only to overcome them in the end. As an 'Arc' or angel, he was a pure spirit and had no knowledge of these things, only that the 'fallen' had given into them and forsaken the 'Light'. The other 'arcs' gave up and were too weak-willed or scared to keep fighting.

I guess that is why I liked the movie so much. I'm a sucker for a great story where the hero is dragged through the mud, dirt and other unmentionables, only to come out shining in the end.


DOGMA

I always found this movie humorous but quite good. +1 for recommending

[Gorgondantess]

Try Dogma, definitely. Alan Rickman plays the Voice of God. What more could you want?:smallwink:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Yeah, Dogma looks like a comedy, so we'll see how I like it.

Wish they'd make more angel-based action stuff. Legion was just screwed up.

[Froogleyboy]

Dude, Dogma is one of the best movies in the world.

[Eldonauran]

Legion was just screwed up.

I have yet to see that movie. Something tells me that I may not like it.

[Bhu]

In Gabriel, and almost every other angelic-based fic the angels either become totally corrupted themselves in the presence of evil or go in with guns blazing. They are weak-willed emos or idiot rampagers on a crusade.

I just don't like how angels are always made to look like they are jokes while fiends are 'cool', despite the fact they often lose. These films purposely go out of their way to brings angels down.

I mean, seriously, despite the fact you lose most of your heavenly powers, you are still stronger, faster and more knowledgeable than almost any human and a soup kitchen is, and I quote, 'the best I can do'?

BULL!

I wasn't aware that intelligence and subtelty was evil and thus only fiends could use it. There is a middle ground between just charging in, guns blazing and squirming on your belly.


A lot of this is due to cultural bias about Angels and Demons. There are many who say Angels have no free will (which argument I will not get into), and thus they are robotic. They're either fanatics because they have no choice, or weak willed because they have no resistance to whatever gives them an order.

The angels looking like tards while the demons get to be cool is also partially a cultural thing. Demons are supposed to be tempters. If they didn't seem hip, who would believe their lies? And the easiest way to make them look cool is to make their opponents look...well, not.

[The Glyphstone]

I have yet to see that movie. Something tells me that I may not like it.

That's your sanity calling to you. Listen to it.

I haven't seen Legion, but I've read a lot of other opinions on it. As Howard Taylor (Schlock Mercenary author) puts it, on a list of 2010 movies from 1 to 10, Legion ranks in as Eleventy-Billion and Three.

[Optimystik]

This thread needs more Tilda Swinton. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-sFPLGwwYg)

[Orzel]

A lot of this is due to cultural bias about Angels and Demons. There are many who say Angels have no free will (which argument I will not get into), and thus they are robotic. They're either fanatics because they have no choice, or weak willed because they have no resistance to whatever gives them an order.

The angels looking like tards while the demons get to be cool is also partially a cultural thing. Demons are supposed to be tempters. If they didn't seem hip, who would believe their lies? And the easiest way to make them look cool is to make their opponents look...well, not.


This mostly. Many people believe that, since good angels know the true ruler of the world and know how powerful that person is, they are having a strong free will would be nearly impossible to have and be sane. Thus the hopeless, weak-willed, or robotic angels we see. Humans and the evil ones have the "gift" of doubt. This allows them to be cool since they think they can be the system somehow.

Because of this it's often hard to write interesting angels since they know who's in charge and who wins.

[Eldonauran]

{Scrubbed}

[Dienekes]

Eldonauran, the board has a bit of a strict policy on discussing actual theology, and actually discussing Satan may be crossing the line. You might want to edit out your post before you provoke the angry eye of the admins.

[Thrawn183]

I should note that the TV version of Dogma is heavily censored in comparison to the original. I found this out the hard way when I convinced my mother to rent it from blockbuster one day. That said, she really liked it. While the movie blasts a lot of the "dogma" that exists, it doesn't feel irreverent.

[ondonaflash]

A lot of the Angel stuff goes back to Milton's Paradise Lost, a fictional story wherein some Angels Revolt... and it doesn't work out for them very well. The Fallen Angels are very sympathetic, especially their leader... which sort of backfired for Milton.

(One of the downsides to that book is that occasionally your Uneducated Individual will hear about it and assume that it is considered Dogma, that can be annoying.)

Of course there's the other issue. If you are an angel, you have a direct line to the ultimate and most benevolent being in the universe (ostensibly), that means if you are doing something, anything at all, it must be the Righteous Thing to Do, because you are wholly incapable of acting in any other way. If you're following your orders, they are obviously Righteous Orders, because otherwise you wouldn't have been given them. Ergo, You are right, those who try to stop you, or those who are killed on the way, are wrong, and its all just that simple.

And on another note Zachariah from Supernatural has a line that I love "My true form has six wings and three heads... one of which is a lion."

Some of the problem is that society's perceptions of angels have changed. In the Classical Era your average angel was a soldier in god's army. Seraphim have seven faces all staring in different directions. Archangels wield swords of fire and killed more people than any given demon. It was impressive, nowadays Angels are chubby babies with bows, or austere berobed sissies.

[Serpentine]

I think you'd probably like the French film Angel-A. It stars Jamel Debbouze, the man with the gimpy arm from Amelie and Asterix and Obelix and Cleopatra (or whatever it's called), and an extremely tall, statuesque woman. The poster looks like this:

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/angel-a.jpg

Damn that lady's tall... But anyways, it's definitely got a strong, intelligent, likable, definitely (though not naiively) Good angel.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Oooh, now THAT looks awesome. It come with subtitles?

[Serpentine]

Of course. At least, the one I saw did...

And just cuz I think it's pretty cool, here's a shot from a scene of it (I don't think it's spoilery, but you might like to consider the possibility before you look at it):
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg48/lostsaintBKNY/angel-a_movie_image_rie_rasmussen1.jpg

Edit: Actually... The other day I was trying to think of a scene I remembered where someone at least threatened to stamp on someone through the temple with a stiletto. I think it may've been this...

[Avilan the Grey]

Of course. At least, the one I saw did...

And just cuz I think it's pretty cool, here's a shot from a scene of it (I don't think it's spoilery, but you might like to consider the possibility before you look at it):
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg48/lostsaintBKNY/angel-a_movie_image_rie_rasmussen1.jpg

Edit: Actually... The other day I was trying to think of a scene I remembered where someone at least threatened to stamp on someone through the temple with a stiletto. I think it may've been this...

Well Samara does it through the throat. Not the temple. But hey...

[Anung Un Rama]

Nikki's super strong alter ego does that at some point in Heroes.

The angels in supernatural have always struck me as cool but I have to agree, I'm not going to be happy until someone portrays them as the madness inducing powerhouses they are. I mean come on, theres an Angel thats just a flaming wheel... covered in eyes.

[Serpentine]

Not sure who Samara is, but Nikki could well be it. Great image, anyway...

[Avilan the Grey]

Not sure who Samara is, but Nikki could well be it. Great image, anyway...

One of the characters you can recruit in the wonderful game Mass Effect II. When you meet her the first time she is in the process of "interrogating" a number of "female"* mercenaries and kills the leader by pushing her heel through her throat.


*Really members of an One Gender Race (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneGenderRace) of Blue Skinned Space Babes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GreenSkinnedSpaceBabe?from=Main.GreenSpaceBabe) (of which Samara is a member).

[Rappy]

The only media angel I've ever truly been fond of is Aziraphale from Good Omens. Of course, that may be more from him being written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman than anything else. Also, as that's a book rather than a film, it's not very relevant here, so...

Yeah, I should probably see Dogma some time instead of just hearing about it second-hand.

[Eldan]

Dogma...

Well, it's set in the same universe as Clerks, and it shares some characters. I had mixed feelings about the movie: the angels and demons were pretty cool, the overall story not bad, but at least half of the jokes were simply annoying and stupid.
Basically, I thought it was good as long as it didn't try too hard to be funny.

[thompur]

A couple of important notes about DOGMA:

1. It is rated R, mostly for Language and Violence, but mostly for language.

2. You get a lot more out of it if you really listen and pay attention to the dialogue. It is a Kevin Smith film after all.

If you're watching the DVD, watch the extras, especially the deleted scenes. You'll ask yourself "Why did they delete these scenes? They're Awsome!"

[Optimystik]

Dogma: Jay, Silent Bob, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Professor Snape and Chris Rock, all in the same movie. And Alanis Morissette as "I AM" Herself. What more could you want? :smalltongue:

[Haruki-kun]

I just don't like how angels are always made to look like they are jokes while fiends are 'cool', despite the fact they often lose. These films purposely go out of their way to brings angels down.

Welcome to my world. :smallsigh:

[paddyfool]

Heh. You've left out some classics:

Sugary-sweet angel: It's a Wonderful Life

Whimsical, highly intelligent angel: A Matter of Life and Death (haven't seen this since I was a teenager, but it seemed weirdly genius then).

Weirdly alien angels, watching over all of us: Wings of Desire (best avoid its lesser remake, City of Angels, however ... actually, this may have helped start one of the tropes you hate).

[Frozen_Feet]

I find it somewhat funny that one of the most accurate representations of angels I've seen in media might be Neon Genesis Evangelion.

[Jan Mattys]

I've been known for being strange, but between these two (I tried to look for suitable for work images, with roughly the same degree of intended awesomeness, but ymmv):
http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt47/Furry_MegJade_photos/4a1dscd.jpg
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg238/dafinestpapi13/Angel-3.jpg

...I definitely find the latter more terrifying, imposing and overall badass. The first one plays on my fears, the second one looks like a teacher, eager to be compassionate as long as you're obedient, but a teacher you really don't want to upset.
And don't even get me started on the principal.

[Shadowcaller]

I always liked the angels in the Diablo games (haven't read the books, but Tyrael looks damn cool at least).

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/107/4/6/Archangel_Tyrael___Diablo_2_by_Dahlieka.jpg"]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/107/4/6/Archangel_Tyrael___Diablo_2_by_Dahlieka.jpg

[Keshay]

The problem with making a "cool" angel story would be in actually generating the conflict. If one were to stick to strict interpretations of what happens when angels (or better yet Archangels) get involved its the equivalent of "Rocks fall, all the badguys die (lose are banished, etc...)"

It does not matter who the adversary is, the Archangel (in most cases Michael. Gabe does the talking, Mike does the fighting) wtfpwns whoever he's sent after because he has the ultimate authority on his side.

The often mentioned "War in Heaven" was fought by one guy versus everyone who rebeled. And he won, easily. That does not make for a terribly interesting story. I personally think it kicks ass, but the LCD likely would not shell out $15 to watch a hour and a half movie about one guy fighting thousands never in any danger, never in any doubt of the final outcome. (well unless it was really really pretty and had neat 3d, recent events have taught us that no matter what, those things can make any abortion of a story the highest-earning movie of all time).

Angels are not the instrument for storytelling of the sort you'd like. They do not undergo character development, they can not be tested, they can not be tempted (all those that could, were and they have been dealt with). I too would like to see more cool angel stories/movies, but anything that comes out will never be able to stay faithful to the source material and still be relatable or marketable.

[Serpentine]

Paddyfool: A Wonderful Life?

[Haruki-kun]

I've been known for being strange, but between these two (I tried to look for suitable for work images, with roughly the same degree of intended awesomeness, but ymmv):
http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt47/Furry_MegJade_photos/4a1dscd.jpg
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg238/dafinestpapi13/Angel-3.jpg

...I definitely find the latter more terrifying, imposing and overall badass. The first one plays on my fears, the second one looks like a teacher, eager to be compassionate as long as you're obedient, but a teacher you really don't want to upset.
And don't even get me started on the principal.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/approveofthispost.png

[paddyfool]

Paddyfool: A Wonderful Life?

Thanks, that was it! Post fixed.

[Serpentine]

Well, here's an artist's impression of the "canonical" cherub:
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/258/5/7/Cherub_by_lvl9Drow.jpg'spretty awesome.

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

Dear VT: Do not bother to read anything with Garth Ennis' name attached to it.

He really enjoys writing the "corrupted/evil angel" stuff.

[Frozen_Feet]

The often mentioned "War in Heaven" was fought by one guy versus everyone who rebeled. And he won, easily. That does not make for a terribly interesting story. I personally think it kicks ass, but the LCD likely would not shell out $15 to watch a hour and a half movie about one guy fighting thousands never in any danger, never in any doubt of the final outcome. (well unless it was really really pretty and had neat 3d, recent events have taught us that no matter what, those things can make any abortion of a story the highest-earning movie of all time).

...sounds awful lot like, you know, every other action film ever. To give you an example, in any James Bond movie, the tittle character takes on gazillion foes, gets the girl plus what-not, and we always know he wins because he's ****ing James Bond. That doesn't stop James Bond movies from being good.

[Sholos]

...sounds awful lot like, you know, every other action film ever. To give you an example, in any James Bond movie, the tittle character takes on gazillion foes, gets the girl plus what-not, and we always know he wins because he's ****ing James Bond. That doesn't stop James Bond movies from being good.

Yeah, but Bond also "fails" for a short bit somewhere in there. He's not perfect.

Anyways, on recommendations, I'm surprised no one's mentioned Touched By an Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touched_By_an_Angel).

[Optimystik]

Anyways, on recommendations, I'm surprised no one's mentioned Touched By an Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touched_By_an_Angel).

I thought of it... but I think that show covers angels in too much of a religious context for these boards, for all that it's basically Quantum Leap with Della Reese.

[Tavar]

Didn't he specifically mention Touched by an Angel as what he doesn't want? At least, that's what I get when I google the name mentioned in the first post...

[Starbuck_II]

The often mentioned "War in Heaven" was fought by one guy versus everyone who rebeled. And he won, easily. That does not make for a terribly interesting story. I personally think it kicks ass, but the LCD likely would not shell out $15 to watch a hour and a half movie about one guy fighting thousands never in any danger, never in any doubt of the final outcome. (well unless it was really really pretty and had neat 3d, recent events have taught us that no matter what, those things can make any abortion of a story the highest-earning movie of all time).

No. I'm not sure where you are getting your stories.
It was Luciers fallen angels (about 1/3rd of heaven and himself) vs rest of heaven.
Lucifer was pretty high rank before rebelling so it wouldn't be that bad a match.

[Frozen_Feet]

... I still think Ol' Mikey booting out a host of fallen angels from Heaven would make a wickedly good action movie. Or a videogame. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[Manicotti]

I can't remember what the angels were like in the His Dark Materials series by Phillip Pullman, but that might be worth a look.

[Mauther]

As far as depiction goes, I actually like Constantine. Gabriel was the right combination of ascetic and kick ass. As far as attitude goes, I seem to remember having fond memories of Michael Landon in that old show Highway to Heaven, which was just an earlier less sappy version of Touched by an Angel (which still sounds like an NBC Dateline special). Landon was one of the old school acters who could do earnest spirituality without falling into vapid smiles and hand over heart monologues. Yes we're looking at you Roma Downey.

Slighty diverting the topic, in the angel themed movie Legion... do they ever discuss why angels are using guns. As soon as I saw that, all I could think of was http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=63331 the single quotable line from Star Trek 5. It annoys me when people shoehorn the physical/mundane into the spiritual because the screenwriter is lazy/inept.

EDIT: Curses, I can't find a decent "What does God need with a starship" image to link...

[Lord_Gareth]

Y'know, Trib, your complaint is actually a lesser facet of one I have - why does good always equal stupidity? More accurately, when the "hero" does something "underhanded", he's using clever means to even the odds, but when the villain does it, he's being a treacherous, evil snake. Honestly, when I was reading Eragon (an act I regret to this day, as I now feel obligated to finish the set) and I heard that Galbatorix kicked his opponent in the crotch, my ninjutsu training (not kidding) yelled "Awesome, he fought smart!"

And honestly, almost all of it is cultural. Lemme be the first to tell ya, we're a little effed up in the USA. As a nation, we're still recovering from the Victorian era and all the spewing garbage it inflicted on our culture, and we continue to hold onto a lot of outdated thoughts, teachings, and dogmas like they're holy writ ("Never hit a girl," "Don't kick when they're down," "Boys don't cry," et cetera). Filmakers who grow up in this environment or who wish to cater to it are naturally going to create heroes who fit into these thoughts and ideas, and when they do, we get stupid heroes and intelligent (yet doomed) villains.

Nothing saddened me more than the day someone screamed, "Stop being so smart, prick!" at me.

[Neon Knight]

I can't remember what the angels were like in the His Dark Materials series by Phillip Pullman, but that might be worth a look.

Considering Phillip Pullman's... position on things, I can safely say that you should actively avoid His Dark Materials if one is seeking more sympathetic portrayals of angelic beings, as he is far more likely to employ the approach the OP is seeking to avoid.

Speaking from memory, I can also state with certainly that the angelic beings in His Dark Materials are depicted most unfavorably.

[Tavar]

Not quite true. The "fallen" angels have a fairly positive treatment, representing that they're actually in the right in this. Granted, I don't think that it's what the OP is really asking for.

Perhaps something by Neil Gaimen? I think he had a series focusing on Lucifer/other angels, but I'm not sure how it actually treats the subjects you want.

[Lord_Gareth]

His treatment of Lucifer and angels in general was very interesting in the Sandman series (in which Lucifer abandons Hell). The demons therein aren't particularly intelligent either, which, in a way, make sense. After all, they're fighting a losing war against an omnipotent being which, frankly, probably doesn't give a damn about them anymore.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Yes we're looking at you Roma Downey.
Despite that Roma Downey could touch me whenever she liked.


Slightly diverting the topic, in the angel themed movie Legion... do they ever discuss why angels are using guns.
Why do angels use guns in practically everything? Beats me.


And honestly, almost all of it is cultural. Lemme be the first to tell ya, we're a little effed up in the USA. As a nation, we're still recovering from the Victorian era and all the spewing garbage it inflicted on our culture, and we continue to hold onto a lot of outdated thoughts, teachings, and dogmas like they're holy writ ("Never hit a girl," "Don't kick when they're down," "Boys don't cry," et cetera).
Yeah, I prefer more the old warrior's addage: 'Courteous words or hard knocks is the knight's only language'.

If the alternative is you lose, WIN and win WELL.

My mom actually used to teach me that even if a girl attacks you, don't hit her. My Dad looks right at me and goes, 'If protecting yourself means hitting a girl, she just gave up her rights to chivalry and you better hit back'. Which of course set my mom off. He usually backs down to her but in this regard he just looks at her and goes, 'If a girl was trying to kill me I'm not going to let her do it, simple as that'.

[deuxhero]

I thought this was going to be a topic about how they are always portrayed as wing humanoids, when such an appearance is used like... twice (The one in Sodom and the ones on the Arc) in the original, rather than the interesting mix and match animals and masses of eyes and wings they are normally given.

[nyarlathotep]

Y'know, Trib, your complaint is actually a lesser facet of one I have - why does good always equal stupidity? More accurately, when the "hero" does something "underhanded", he's using clever means to even the odds, but when the villain does it, he's being a treacherous, evil snake. Honestly, when I was reading Eragon (an act I regret to this day, as I now feel obligated to finish the set) and I heard that Galbatorix kicked his opponent in the crotch, my ninjutsu training (not kidding) yelled "Awesome, he fought smart!"

Sort of off topic but the main problem with Eragon is that the "heroes" are not just underhanded, they are outright evil. Sacrificing slaves to find an enemy's location is never acceptable.


And honestly, almost all of it is cultural. Lemme be the first to tell ya, we're a little effed up in the USA. As a nation, we're still recovering from the Victorian era and all the spewing garbage it inflicted on our culture, and we continue to hold onto a lot of outdated thoughts, teachings, and dogmas like they're holy writ ("Never hit a girl," "Don't kick when they're down," "Boys don't cry," et cetera). Filmakers who grow up in this environment or who wish to cater to it are naturally going to create heroes who fit into these thoughts and ideas, and when they do, we get stupid heroes and intelligent (yet doomed) villains.

Nothing saddened me more than the day someone screamed, "Stop being so smart, prick!" at me.

I would actually argue that as a culture, at least in media, we have the opposite problem. We have come to be exceedingly cynical and as such anyone who doesn't act in an underhanded manner is hopelessly naive and doomed to failure and any authority has to be evil. Angels falling either under the hopelessly naive category because they are too upright or under the evil because they represent a heavenly authority.


I thought this was going to be a topic about how they are always portrayed as wing humanoids, when such an appearance is used like... twice (The one in Sodom and the ones on the Arc) in the original, rather than the interesting mix and match animals and masses of eyes and wings they are normally given.

Well sort of. All of the angels humans would really ever interact with are winged humanoids in all depictions. Archangels for the really special people like chosen ones and prophets, and the low level angels that are just called angels rather than a special name are also winged humanoids. I only becomes a problem if the works specifically calls them seraphim or something.

[GolemsVoice]

in the original, rather than the interesting mix and match animals and masses of eyes and wings they are normally given.

Actually, those look way scarier than many "normal" demons or fiends. Those eyes.... those faces. Especially if you look at the picture Seraphim's posted.

[Tyrant]

Why do angels use guns in practically everything? Beats me.
If I recall correctly (yes, I watched Legion no, it wasn't that great), the one who is using guns (Michael) has basically become human at that point. The ones he is gunning down are humans who are now possesed (by angels) who are out killing everyone else. Since their bodies are human, guns are the fastest way short of heavier military ordinance or some type of NBC weapon to kill a lot of them really fast. He tries it against Gabriel. He fails. Gabriel is very clearly faster and stronger than any human could hope to be and the bullets (and exploding gas station) do nothing to him.

[Starbuck_II]

If the alternative is you lose, WIN and win WELL.

My mom actually used to teach me that even if a girl attacks you, don't hit her. My Dad looks right at me and goes, 'If protecting yourself means hitting a girl, she just gave up her rights to chivalry and you better hit back'. Which of course set my mom off. He usually backs down to her but in this regard he just looks at her and goes, 'If a girl was trying to kill me I'm not going to let her do it, simple as that'.

I agree. My mom gave me permission to hit girls after girls threw rocks at me when I was younger.
Haven't yet had to use it, but I'm glad I am no longer powerless. I'm too lawful.:smalltongue:

[White_North]

A lot of the Angel stuff goes back to Milton's Paradise Lost, a fictional story wherein some Angels Revolt... and it doesn't work out for them very well. The Fallen Angels are very sympathetic, especially their leader... which sort of backfired for Milton.

(One of the downsides to that book is that occasionally your Uneducated Individual will hear about it and assume that it is considered Dogma, that can be annoying.)

Well, in Paradise Lost, the whole point is to make Satan sympathetic. Milton was the first writer to ever give a more ''human'' voice to Lucifer, instead of him being a ball of seething evil. He wanted to picture what he called ''Luciferian logic'', which means that he wanted to show the reader that Lucifer wasn't completely aware that he was doing evil, but that he was so self-involved and so engrossed in his own martyr image that he couldn't even contemplate the possibility that he was wrong. This served as one of the main messages of the poem: that obsession with the self and self-righteousness are slippery slopes, as they prevent you from questioning yourself, leading you further down the path of sin. It's not a coincidence that the sin most commonly associated with Satan is Pride.

However, the problem is that nowadays, Paradise Lost has had such a huge cultural impact that the dramatic figure of Lucifer has become part of the collective unconscious. However, most people haven't actually read the poem, so instead of taking away the lesson that Lucifer was a drama queen who was so obsessed with his own alleged martyrdom that he fell, people simply equate Satan with ''opressed angel who rebels against the tyrannical authority of God'' (which, ironically, is exactly how Lucifer saw himself in the poem).

But more to the point, the coolest angel I've ever seen in any medium is definitely Abdiel, the angel who acts as the counterpoint to Satan in Paradise Lost. He is the first to stand against the horde of Fallen Angels and he's portrayed quite well. He's not a goody-two-shoes character who opposes Satan because God tells him to. He's actually portrayed as making the conscious decision of opposing Lucifer, because he manages to not be seduced by Satan's self-involved rhetoric and sees that what he's doing is not rebelling against authority: it's just becoming slave to his own hubris.

[JonestheSpy]

Weirdly alien angels, watching over all of us: Wings of Desire (best avoid its lesser remake, City of Angels, however ... actually, this may have helped start one of the tropes you hate).

Really, Wings of Desire is an amazing movie, and certainly the best film in which angels figure prominently. Nope, not action - practically anti-action, really - but go rent it anyway.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q243/etiennesandre/wings.jpg


And it's got Peter Falk playing himself! Except for a few little details...

[Bhu]

Dear VT: Do not bother to read anything with Garth Ennis' name attached to it.

He really enjoys writing the "corrupted/evil angel" stuff.

Do you mean Preacher? I remember God as being corrupt in it, but they rarely showed angels.

[comicshorse]

Do you mean Preacher? I remember God as being corrupt in it, but they rarely showed angels.
Apart from the two who set up a casino in LA and became, respectively, a coke addict and a sex addict:smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

Actually, those look way scarier than many "normal" demons or fiends. Those eyes.... those faces. Especially if you look at the picture Seraphim's posted....Seraphim?
Assuming you're actually talking about me, that artist did a bunch of those, by the bye.

[Killer Angel]

In Gabriel, and almost every other angelic-based fic the angels either become totally corrupted themselves in the presence of evil or go in with guns blazing. They are weak-willed emos or idiot rampagers on a crusade.


Ever watched "Michael" with J. Travolta?
Definitely a different kind of angel... :smallcool:

[smellie_hippie]

I'm just cruising this thread to see what some people's responses are to Dogma. I absolutely love that film... I put it in a top 5 category to show my son once he hit 16ish.

[WitchSlayer]

People have problems with Angels because they're genuinely good, sorta like Superman but to a heavenly degree.

[CurlyKitGirl]

{Scrubbed}

[ondonaflash]

-snip-

That.

Also, props on making it all the way to Leviticus, since large chunks of those books are geneologies and books of Hebrew law and are dry as a bone to read.

[CurlyKitGirl]

That.

Also, props on making it all the way to Leviticus, since large chunks of those books are geneologies and books of Hebrew law and are dry as a bone to read.

Eh, it's not all that bad, true, I read it as fiction and I skim over the genealogies, but it can be a bit dull. I'm also using this blog (http://biblecritical.blogspot.com/2009_12_06_archive.html) on accasion too.
And what follows below is one of the best literary versions of an angel that's a warrior of god and terrifying, yet still human.
The Old English Exodus A Verse Translation by Damian Love
"Heaven's candle flared;
this new night-watch was need to guard
over the host [of the Isrelites] lest the horrors of the desert
clutch at them suddenly and sunder their lives,
grey heath-terrors, great storms of the sea.
Thisfore-runner had fiery tresses,
bright rays brandishing terror
of hot flame on the heads of the army,
of burning them up in the open waste
unless they were bold and obeyed Moses:
swathed in light it shone - shields gleamed." (lines 115 - 125)
. . .
"The foe came on ruthlessly
in war-bright mail - till the mighty angel
guarding the people drove the proud ones [the Egyptians] aside
so the enemies could no longer see each other
eye to eye." (lines 203 - 207)

I also remember reading either a book or a review of a film that talked about angels represented as - ah! It was one of Madelien L'engle's books - just 'preferring human shape because their real shape would drive a human insane' even though they felt uncomfortable wearing it.
Just like with my quoted passages above (that was about the pillar of fire which was an angel (you can see an amazing visual representation of it in The Prince of Egypt)) it's blatantly inhuman and quite cruel - threatening to kill those who disobeyed Moses, but it's also human with its fiery tresses. ANd in another passage inbetween (I couldn't find it sadly) the pillar if fire/angel was explicity a warrior.
Just the right mix of human looks and an utterly alien morality, conception of obedience, (God's desires), personality and actions. It even mixes the inhumanity of the pillar of fire with a human look.
Lovely.
No wonder I rhapsodised over it in my essay. :smalltongue:

[GolemsVoice]

...Seraphim?
Assuming you're actually talking about me, that artist did a bunch of those, by the bye.

Serpentine, I'm sorry. Take it as a compliment, and think that I though of you as an angelic figure. That does NOT look like they just used everything they had left after Creation and stuck it on somebody.

[Keshay]

{Scrubbed}

[Douglas]

This is getting dangerously close to discussion of real world religion. I'm pretty sure discussing depictions of angels in popular media is an acceptable topic for these forums, but if we don't return to strictly that topic right now I expect Roland will be locking the thread soon.

[Serpentine]

Serpentine, I'm sorry. Take it as a compliment, and think that I though of you as an angelic figure. That does NOT look like they just used everything they had left after Creation and stuck it on somebody.http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/serpentine16/Avatarables/Serpentine/SerpentineAngel.gif


This is an interesting topic, lets not lose it.

[Deca]

The best way to portray Biblical angels would be as not as much mercy and kindness but more stone-cold badass. Mighty and vengeful.
The fact that some of them seem to look vaguely Lovecraftian also helps.

[JadedDM]

You think Angels have it bad now? I keep reading articles that are suggesting that once the Twilight craze is over, Angels will be the new big thing for preteen girls to obsess over. That's right, Angels will be the new white, sparkling vampires.

[Serpentine]

Hrm.
If they made vampires sparkly and girly, will they make angels... what, goths or something? :smallconfused:

...

Actually, I kinda like that image :smalltongue:
(feathers moult, though, so you'd have to make it patchy rather than layered to show the regrowth...)

[Avilan the Grey]

You think Angels have it bad now? I keep reading articles that are suggesting that once the Twilight craze is over, Angels will be the new big thing for preteen girls to obsess over. That's right, Angels will be the new white, sparkling vampires.

Where did you read that? I have a hard time seeing that; at least outside the US. Angels are not cool like vampires.
...Come to think of it they would have to make them the opposite of vampires. Part of the whole "girls love vampires" thing, as far as I understand it, is the old "I can change him" thing. Wouldn't that have to be the opposite for angels? "I can lure him into sin"?

Btw the biggest problem with Twilight is not the fanbase based on 11 and 12 year old girls. It's the fanbase based on 40 year old women. As the TV tropes entry about double standards points out, having 200 40 year old men queuing outside a Hannah Montana concert would be viewed as all kinds of creepy... But having 200 40 year old women squeeing over the Hotness that is young Mr "Vampire" is apparently fine...

[Quincunx]

Of course they will. Angels were last popular in the early '90s and that's the next period scheduled to be robbed for ideas. They were far on the "soft, squishy personal guardian" end of the scale then, also.

[Avilan the Grey]

Of course they will. Angels were last popular in the early '90s and that's the next period scheduled to be robbed for ideas. They were far on the "soft, squishy personal guardian" end of the scale then, also.

Except for that movie with Travolta, the whole Angel thing didn't make much of an impact outside the US then either, AFAIK.

[Deca]

Btw the biggest problem with Twilight is not the fanbase based on 11 and 12 year old girls. It's the fanbase based on 40 year old women. As the TV tropes entry about double standards points out, having 200 40 year old men queuing outside a Hannah Montana concert would be viewed as all kinds of creepy... But having 200 40 year old women squeeing over the Hotness that is young Mr "Vampire" is apparently fine...

Well, technically, Edward is actually really old. Which only makes his cradle-robbing creepier.

[Killer Angel]

Btw the biggest problem with Twilight is not the fanbase based on 11 and 12 year old girls. It's the fanbase based on 40 year old women. As the TV tropes entry about double standards points out, having 200 40 year old men queuing outside a Hannah Montana concert would be viewed as all kinds of creepy... But having 200 40 year old women squeeing over the Hotness that is young Mr "Vampire" is apparently fine...

This is going off topic, but I can't resist (http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/7/23/633839569142980630-twilight.jpg)... :smallbiggrin:

[Manicotti]

Considering Phillip Pullman's... position on things, I can safely say that you should actively avoid His Dark Materials if one is seeking more sympathetic portrayals of angelic beings, as he is far more likely to employ the approach the OP is seeking to avoid.

Speaking from memory, I can also state with certainly that the angelic beings in His Dark Materials are depicted most unfavorably.

That's true as well. I don't care either way since Pullman has about the same literary talent as Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyer.

[comicshorse]

That's true as well. I don't care either way since Pullman has about the same literary talent as Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyer

In your opinion

[Eldan]

Someone mentioned Lucifer (the Vertigo comics). Not what I'd recommend.
In the Gaiman written comics, Lucifer was an interesting character, abandoning hell when he figured that it was just part of god's plan, and he had enough of it. Duma, the angel of silence is a really interesting character as well.
But then, in the Lucifer spin offs? Duma is still a likeable and sympathetic angel, but pretty much every other angel, especially Amenadiel the Throne who gets more coverage than the others except maybe Michael, is pretty much self-righteous, intolerant and arrogant.
Not saying that it isn't well-written and entertaining. Just that it doesn't contain the kind of angels Tribble wants to see. Except for Duma, but he isn't featured very often.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

The best way to portray Biblical angels would be as not as much mercy and kindness but more stone-cold badass. Mighty and vengeful.
The fact that some of them seem to look vaguely Lovecraftian also helps.
Well, then again you also have the 'messengers' which is what Angel actually means originally.

Then you have the singers. I wrote up a template for angels called the Heavenly Chorist. Just imagine a dozen angels slowly walking forward towards a mass of slavering demons, singing ominously and slowly building in volume. As they come closer the hoard begins to back away and finally panic as their heads explode.

Seems to be a whole lot of types really.

Btw, the only minute worth watching of Legion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hybriWzv6g

[Ossian]

This should have been posted long ago:

Angels, why it is really really stupid to draw their attention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO7FGYT8p0c)

On the other hand I fully agree that the moaning and whining Angel cliché is now really old and tired. They are so urban, so fit, so wearing a trench coat, and we cannot understand how painful their existence is, because they speak to God, and we are puny and ignorant compared to them, and they refer to God either as their best beer-buddy or as their angry boss who does not give a crap about them while he seems to love all of us nature-defiling imperfect humans because of...Luv. Go figure. So they either proceed with some kind of apocalypse or become convenience store clerks.

Really, it does not work anymore. Reminds me a lot of those smart kids in high school who would get only straight A++ in the hopes of pleasing the prof and to show how clever they are, and then got all pissy when someone who was not them would get a compliment for a bright assignment.

Dogma had a lot of that, but the God character was hot and a REAL surprise (I had no idea it would be...that person) and Alan Rickman is always 5-stars, so yeah, totally worth it.

O.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

This should have been posted long ago:

Angels, why it is really really stupid to draw their attention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO7FGYT8p0c)
...I swear, the Japanese have the pseudonatural template.

What the holy hastur?

[kamikasei]

They're not meant to be angels. They're just called Angels. Perfectly clear.

[Mauther]

Another good depiction of an angel on film (at least the small screen) was Sammael in the Millenium epidose "Powers, Principalities, Dominions and Thrones". It was one of the better explanations for why angels might actually do something about evil despite letting most evil occur. OK, its basically that the Lord is mysterious and not for human minds to understand, but its delviered with a bored/annoyed panache. And it does show how the battle between heavan and hell could play out without mortals catching on.

If we're including print and games, I'd like to give a special shout out to In Nomine, the old Steve Jackson game from the late 90's. It did a real neat job of giving diverse angels from soldiers to diplomats to pacifists (and does the same thing for demons as well). I also like some of the changes they made from traditional descriptions. For instance, in the game Michael is not the leader of the heavenly host, that honor goes to Laurence (who is depicted like a traditional renaissance angel curly blond hair, lithe, chain mail… you know pretty). Instead, Michael is heaven’s champion, kind of God’s Chuck Norris, and doesn’t want to be bothered with command. I believe the phrase “threw his rebel ass out of heaven” was used in the original sourcebook to describe the result of the Lucifer/Michael smackdown. In the original version Michael was depicted as a butch due with blood up to his elbows, in the last release I saw they changed it so that Michael only appeared as non-human (more a vague shape) so as to remain unknowable by men. Anyways, In Nomine has great right ups on both the motivations and style of angels for anyone wanting more reading.

[KnightDisciple]

They're not meant to be angels. They're just called Angels. Perfectly clear.They're more like aliens.

[Yulian]

The angels in supernatural have always struck me as cool but I have to agree, I'm not going to be happy until someone portrays them as the madness inducing powerhouses they are. I mean come on, theres an Angel thats just a flaming wheel... covered in eyes.

Yeah, I think that's something the OP was sort of missing. In most of the tales they appear in, and I'm not speaking purely of the Abrahamic ones, but in other stories from that region and timeframe, messengers of the divine are terrifying and otherworldly.


People have problems with Angels because they're genuinely good, sorta like Superman but to a heavenly degree.

No. They really aren't. Or at least, very much tended not to be. They are sent to kill, bring cities down, attack prospective prophets, lay entire armies to waste, deliver plagues, deliver sense-shattering visions, and so on. Lemme quote here:

Luke 2:8-10

8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people."

Notice a few details in there? First, the shepherds are automatically terrified. Next, the divine messenger, first thing, tells them not to be afraid. That would be because up until then, the appearance of an angel usually meant the area was about to become very dangerous to every living thing in it.

The Prophecy, a truly good film, said it quite well.


Thomas Daggett: Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?

Serpentine, that pic you posted of one of the "living beings" was great. The description of them is really difficult to parse, but that artist did a great job. Although I always thought the heads were arranged radially around the neck myself.

The RPG In Nomine (which Mauther mentioned) is a fine example of angels and demons being portrayed in very complex and divergent ways, depending on what they are. The angels run the gamut from winged serpents with many eyes, to divine animals, to radiant clouds that strike all who see them with madness, to burning wheels, to shadowy, metallic figures, to androgynous beings of light, to people with wings.

They are also portrayed as complex beings, with many ways of behaving, from the new agey nice guys, to terrifying holy warriors, and a lot in between. The system needs some work, but GURPS released a version of it (the main game is published by SJ Games, so it was easy for them to convert) that works better, IMHO.

Oh, but if you want nice and subtle ones in a film, go see Bless the Child. Several beings in that film may or may not have been angels (their timing was impeccable) and the appearance at the end of undeniable angels was very uplifting and hopeful.



And honestly, almost all of it is cultural. Lemme be the first to tell ya, we're a little effed up in the USA. As a nation, we're still recovering from the Victorian era and all the spewing garbage it inflicted on our culture, and we continue to hold onto a lot of outdated thoughts, teachings, and dogmas like they're holy writ ("Never hit a girl," "Don't kick when they're down," "Boys don't cry," et cetera). Filmakers who grow up in this environment or who wish to cater to it are naturally going to create heroes who fit into these thoughts and ideas, and when they do, we get stupid heroes and intelligent (yet doomed) villains.


Say what you will, there is a whole subgenre of action heroes who fight to win. Steven Seagal, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham, Vin Diesel, Bruce Willis...their characters tend to take every advantage in a conflict they can get their hands on.

I personally have been studying Krav Maga for a while now. It's basically all about "fighting dirty" and just winning or getting away intact. If you find yourself in a "fair" fight you have obviously made some sort of mistake.

Back to angels. I do agree that the angsting and whining doesn't suit the portrayal. If anything, they were always shown like living extensions of divine will, utterly confident and sure of their task of the moment.

Oh, and about Evangelion...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/Coeloptera/absolutterror.jpg

- Yulian

[Tavar]

Not film, nut you might like one of Mark Twains short stories. I think it was the "Mysterious Stranger", but I'm not sure. In any case, it has a Angel in it, and from what I remember, he's portrayed as very alien.

[Indon]

It's really hard to depict someone who is exceptionally more good than average, in much the same way that it is exceptionally hard to depict someone more intelligent than average, and I think that has a lot to do with the Angel thing.

[Yulian]

Not film, nut you might like one of Mark Twains short stories. I think it was the "Mysterious Stranger", but I'm not sure. In any case, it has a Angel in it, and from what I remember, he's portrayed as very alien.

Truncated version can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhb45_5FkQ&feature=related

This is a vignette from The Adventures of Mark Twain, 1985 claymation film.

- Yulian

[JadedDM]

Where did you read that? I have a hard time seeing that; at least outside the US. Angels are not cool like vampires.
...Come to think of it they would have to make them the opposite of vampires. Part of the whole "girls love vampires" thing, as far as I understand it, is the old "I can change him" thing. Wouldn't that have to be the opposite for angels? "I can lure him into sin"?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i71b756a8035722a28d4dc267cb8ac788?utm_source=fee dburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thr/film+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Film%29&utm_content=Google+Reader


"Twilight" comparisons are inevitable, and angels have been identified as the next trend in young-adult fiction with vampire and werewolf tales having inundated the market. "Fallen" and titles like Becca Fitzpatrick's "Hush, Hush," which was moved from a 2010 publication date to this past October, present angels as otherworldly hotties who are immortal and possess bad-boy charm. "Fallen" is the first cherubic title to receive major Hollywood attention.

This is Hollywood's thinking, anyway. It could be you're right and this flops, though. Also, I think the whole Twilight thing was less of "I can change him" but more of a "he's perfect in everyway and yet only loves me, a regular, average everyday girl" kind of thing. And since angels are supposed to be 'perfect' (well, compared to mortals, I guess)...

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Naw, if angels were 'perfect' there would never have been any to fall.

It is somewhere interesting though how they do play it out that angels are generally better than humans, but yet we have more potential.

To put it in D&D terms, they may be able to advance to 20 HD, but we can take levels forever, even though most never get beyond 1st level commoner.

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright, before I go off and say this, I would like to state that I am not - repeat, am totally completely freaking utterly not - attempting to start a religious discussion, attack anyone's religion, or code of moral beliefs. If anyone would like to debate religion with me, feel free to PM me. Moral beliefs may become on-topic once this post is done, but we should probably start our own thread if it swings that direction.

That said, who says angels are "good"? They're will-less servants, or alien inhuman entities, or divine hit men, or demigods, or whatever, and as such probably don't even factor human morality into their thoughts. The quashmallim of White Wolf's stellar Promethean: the Created are excellent examples of this idea - amoral beings of unimaginable power that exist for a single purpose in service to a mysterious being/force/idea known as the Principle, willing to do anything and everything to accomplish this purpose. An angel might be intelligent, stupid, kind, cruel, or anything in between, but the Purpose - that is all, and that kind of cold dedication can be more terrifying than any display of power or "divine radiance".

Frankly, the mythologies and cultures that spawned angels are blood-soaked and morally complicated on the best of days. Warrior cultures came up with the idea of angels - after all, Satan literally means "Adversary" - and formed them into divine armies and soldiers. Just because they're on your side doesn't mean they're good, and just because they're serving the god you pray to doesn't mean they're on your side. In Good Omens, the armies of Heaven were going to more or less slaughter anyone and anything in their way of battling Hell, and the end of the freaking world certainly doesn't sound like anything nice to me. I, personally, am much more intrigued by the terror of an angel's loyalty than any sugar-coated fuzzies I could get by thinking of a being of "pure good" (how do you get that in a morally gray world, by the by?) or some raging divine badass.

[Jahkaivah]

That said, who says angels are "good"? They're will-less servants, or alien inhuman entities, or divine hit men

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/1272568160320.gif

[Serpentine]

Serpentine, that pic you posted of one of the "living beings" was great. The description of them is really difficult to parse, but that artist did a great job. Although I always thought the heads were arranged radially around the neck myself.The creator says this about it: "This has been the hardest angel (or demon) to translate to image. I read SOO many sources to try to pin down a consistent image for these pain in the balls. Here's what I got: 4 wings, stature of a man, fourfold face BUT the main face is an ox OR the human face is the center of the wings (how does that work at all?), arms and hands of a man, eyes within their wings, hooves of bull or calfs or ox, and a flaming sword. I drew this guy a few times before settling on this one. I know there are even more things I can change with him but I give up, this is what I'm going with. Mythology is too crazy sometimes."
Apparently what we now call "cherubs" are actually "putti", and look like this:http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/258/f/2/Putti_by_lvl9Drow.jpg
Hey, how about Bayonetta? I haven't seen enough of the game played to comment on the morality or deeper demeaner of the angels in it, but they are certainly alien and unknowable, and of terrifying appearance. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent shots of them.

[GolemsVoice]

a being of "pure good"

Well, that's actually one thing I think they CAN be. No matter which religion or mythology they are tied to, angels are in any case MORE than men. This may mean that they are utterly amoral, since their purpose and their creator are above human morals, but it can also mean that they can be perfect. No human can be perfect, so this world isn't perfect. But, you see, angels aren't humans, so why judge them on the same standart? Black and White morality is bad, that's true, but I don't see why a gray and gray world would top an angel from being the personification of pure good they are often viewed as. Of course, problems will arise when those two worlds collide, when the pure good angel comes into a world where he will often be unable to make everything right, but that's where we get a story.

[Indon]

That said, who says angels are "good"?
That concept, I imagine, is an extention of the concept of omnibenevolence. If God is good, then so are the people working for said God.

It's also a good parallel to demons. The big bad guy's a really bad guy, so the little bad guys must also be bad guys.

Certainly there can't be good people working for bad ones, or bad people looking for good ones, right? :P

[Starbuck_II]

Well, that's actually one thing I think they CAN be. No matter which religion or mythology they are tied to, angels are in any case MORE than men. This may mean that they are utterly amoral, since their purpose and their creator are above human morals, but it can also mean that they can be perfect. No human can be perfect, so this world isn't perfect. But, you see, angels aren't humans, so why judge them on the same standart? Black and White morality is bad, that's true, but I don't see why a gray and gray world would top an angel from being the personification of pure good they are often viewed as. Of course, problems will arise when those two worlds collide, when the pure good angel comes into a world where he will often be unable to make everything right, but that's where we get a story.

No, most religions cast angels as more than men.
Some religions do see angels as humans. Whether pre or post humanity.

[GolemsVoice]

No, most religions cast angels as more than men.

Just what I'm saying.

[Starbuck_II]

Just what I'm saying.

No, you said all.
I quote:
No matter which religion or mythology they are tied to, angels are in any case MORE than men.

I said most not all do. I was correcting it as all is usually a wrong statement in logic. :smallbiggrin:
There are always exceptions.

[GolemsVoice]

Ah, we indeed ARE on the internet. You're right of course, there are always exceptions. But I think the general image is that which I mentioned, don't you agree.

[TSGames]

Such nitpicking in this thread!

As for angels being 'will-less servants,' if they don't have a will, how do they fall? As I understood it, part of being an angel meant having power and a will that is far above your normal human, but that all of your being is directed toward servitude of the higher power(otherwise you fall); it's not that they have no choice, rather it's more a choice between server your creator or GTFO. Anyway, I always figured that it makes sense that demons would be represented as 'cool' because they are the tempters of man, whereas angels generally don't seem to be too active in the world unless they are ordered to do something. it's all the difference between the one dwelling removed from us, high in lofty heaven, and the other crawling through the muck with humanity and dragging him deeper in: we can relate better to the one that's closer.

[GolemsVoice]

Yes, as somebody said, demons are often protrayed as being active all the time, while Heaven sends in celestial task forces just when something needs to be done. If we follow this logic, demons can afford to fail, while angels can't.

[Mauther]

{Scrubbed}

[Mauther]

{Scrubbed}

[Lord_Gareth]

{Scrubbed}

[Indon]

See, I think the differences in opinion here arise - again, avoiding religion here - in the difference between absolutist and relativist morality. For angels to be perfect, perfection must actually exist. In such a world, Earth sucks because mankind is not perfect, and the touch of the imperfect upon the flawed is, naturally, painful, destructive, and inscrutable.

See, the thing is though, absolutist morality requires a source - a universal law, or a divinity, or whatever, that serves to define what is RIGHT from that which is WRONG. Which is where we get into relativist moralities.
I don't know if a morally perfect angel is incompatible with a relativist morality.

What if said morally perfect angel just analyzed all relevant variables, including cultural environment, for the morally optimal solution?

Even then, though, I think writing a morally superior entity would be really hard, because if an author were aware of a 'better' moral code than most follow... why isn't he instead teaching people to follow it right now?

[Starbuck_II]

Murder is wrong, right? How about in self-defense? Revenge for your slaughtered family? Is the hit man, who expedites the evils of others, doing something especially heinous, or is he no more accountable than a weapon? Surely his clients would simply hire someone else, no?

Murder is considered wrong legally, but killing isn't.
Otherwise police/swat/etc couldn't have guns.
Murder is illegal killing.


I mean, think about it. In the Middle East, there have been - and, at times, remains - men who have killed their wives rather than let them vote. These people are motivated by the absolutist belief, enforced by years of culture, that women doing such a thing isn't just wrong, it's unholy. They believe in absolute Right. And as such take actions that most people view as Wrong.

Again, that a legal issue. Over there it isn't illegal so not murder.

But really can't discuss more than that since boards code.

[Frozen_Feet]

Even then, though, I think writing a morally superior entity would be really hard, because if an author were aware of a 'better' moral code than most follow... why isn't he instead teaching people to follow it right now?
But what if he's writing a story about it to teach it to other people...?

...

Oh wait, forbidden topic.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Angels aren't going to be any different. They're convinced that they're doing Right, and as such are beyond reproach. And that way lies blood and death.

To play devil's advocate on this:

The difference is that the angel's boss is the one deciding right and wrong. If the angel's boss says something is a-ok, it is rendered the very definition of a-ok. Absolute morality exists because there is an absolute arbiter of all matters moral that determines Good and Evil.

Angels are perfectly good because they have perfect understanding of what Good is. It might look complicated to human eyes, but that's only because humans have incomplete knowledge of the moral rulings of the universe. Angels have complete knowledge, and from there obtain the ability to be absolutely moral.

So yes, angels could very well be quite different. Because what they think is right is coming strait from the being deciding what right is.

Just two cents of thought.

[GolemsVoice]

So yes, angels could very well be quite different. Because what they think is right is coming strait from the being deciding what right is.

That thing right there. Angles are the servants of the highest power, and we can assume that, if anything is perfect, this highest power is. So while the human world may be greay in grey, to difficult and with too much variable to figure out for any given human at any given time, angels are NOT humans. I'd be willing to accept that, therefore, they CAN do absolute right, or at least know what the best solution is at any given time. The people they help are still human, so even the angel's help may be touched by the imperfection of the world, but I think an angel should be able to incorporate this into it's plans.

See it that way. A human might see the work of an angel as wrong, and it may bring suffering to his life, but angels generally only act when there's an actual target around, so while the action might have brought pain and suffering, it might yet have avoided even more pain and suffering.

Bottom line: Angels shouldn't be jugded by the rules of humanity. We do not need to assume that because something is so in the world we know, this might automatically affect angels, too.

It's late at night here, I'm hoping I'm making any sense.

[Ryuka Tana]

I don't know if a morally perfect angel is incompatible with a relativist morality.

What if said morally perfect angel just analyzed all relevant variables, including cultural environment, for the morally optimal solution?

Even then, though, I think writing a morally superior entity would be really hard, because if an author were aware of a 'better' moral code than most follow... why isn't he instead teaching people to follow it right now?

"Ooh, I know this one, pick me!" Waves hand eagerly in the air.

"Okay, if I were told right now, that I was, beyond a doubt, right, by some force I had no reason to disbelieve, do you know what I would do? The same thing I'm doing now, letting people suffer in their ignorance, except those who give me reason to help them."

"Here's the thing, if you assume there is a higher moral code that everyone would benefit from, doesn't mean anyone gives a damn. In fact, I wholly believe that I know it, and what I believe is people don't deserve that knowledge, they have acted time and again in such a way that proves that humans, on a grand scale, would rather be ignorant and selfish."

"You could say that I am doing the same thing (or would be doing the same thing hypothetically), but my philosophy (which hypothetically is a 'higher moral code' in this example) tells me that I am giving them the ignorance and selfishness they so desire. They don't want my solution, because it might inconvenience their ability to suck as human beings."

[Soras Teva Gee]

Even the most dedicated saint causes accidental or incidental harm, and no one these days is a saint.

Without getting too in-depth to this you do realize this rather misinterprets what a saint is?

Most people use it too mean really good person who lacks flaws, almost real life Sue-ishnes, while really the sum of ones morality has next to nothing to do with actually being a saint. A saint rather is perhaps simply, sincerely repentant. In pretty much every branch of Christianity the numbers of saints vastly exceed those referred to as such and St. Whoever is merely recognized as such. Becoming a saint is likewise very simple, and much more common then is generally given credit.

I bring this up because I find that media tends to have a very, I guess, materialistic view of morality. Like good and evil can be reduced to weights on a balance scale. Which at least with Christian theology is completely missing the point.

(Disclaimer: This text written without religious disclaimer.)



Even then, though, I think writing a morally superior entity would be really hard, because if an author were aware of a 'better' moral code than most follow... why isn't he instead teaching people to follow it right now?

Given the existence of author tracts I would say many many authors try to do exactly that. Every single piece of media with an Aesop or other such message is the author attempting to convert the audience to their way of thinking. Unfortunately Sturgeon's Law still applies to such efforts.

[snoopy13a]

Given the existence of author tracts I would say many many authors try to do exactly that. Every single piece of media with an Aesop or other such message is the author attempting to convert the audience to their way of thinking. Unfortunately Sturgeon's Law still applies to such efforts.

Do you mean "Nothing is absolutely so" or do you mean "90% of everything is crud?"

I'm really not sure why a saying by some obscure science-fiction author is given so much credence. It really is just his own opinion. Plus, the two sayings are contradictory :smallsmile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

[Sholos]

See, the thing is though, absolutist morality requires a source - a universal law, or a divinity, or whatever, that serves to define what is RIGHT from that which is WRONG. Which is where we get into relativist moralities.

Murder is wrong, right? How about in self-defense? Revenge for your slaughtered family? Is the hit man, who expedites the evils of others, doing something especially heinous, or is he no more accountable than a weapon? Surely his clients would simply hire someone else, no?
You are misrepresenting absolutist morality. Absolutist morality simply says that, for a given situation, there is a (or possibly more than one) "right" solution(s), and others are wrong. It may say "X is always wrong, no matter the situation," but that is not a guaranteed position.


I'm a gray and gray morality kind of person because, frankly, it's a big world ... If you want to treat your fellow humans with kindess and respect - be a "good person" - you have to think about what you're doing and choose the most right - or, at times, least wrong - action.
How are you defining "right" and "wrong", though? Isn't "right" and "wrong" different for different people? How do you tell somebody that what they're doing is "wrong" without some sort of external definition of the term?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Yeah, this isn't really going to work here. Especially if people insist on real world scriptures. But in general, I'd advise that people avoid real world religion rather than seeing how close to the line you can go or trying to disclaim responsibility by claiming "this isn't religion." Please review the Forum Rules.