In regards to the OP, you generally don't hunt living being with benign intentions.
There are clearly some angels who are fallen but not evil, like the author of Book of the Damned. However, these are the rare exceptions. Generally, when a being of pure good falls, it falls all the way down to monstrous Whore Queen evil. Probably not going to take any chances with redemption for these. For the exceptions, the focus would probably be on redemption.
Those are my thoughts.
In regards to celestials and fiends in general, don't muddy it up too much. If a creature is an evil outsider, it's evil. Literally made up of and radiating the stuff. You have a better chance redeeming an aboloth or the hordes of Belkzen. If it is a good outsider, it is good. Not kinda good, not self-righteous jerk, but a literal holy being of righteousness. Everything that good people aspire to being. That's why fallen angels are noteworthy. They are rare, almost unique individuals, and very, very different from the beings they previously were.
Mortals are ambiguous and changeable. Angels and Demons are not. Showing them otherwise, I'm looking at you pop culture, is a disservice.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit to occasionally enjoying some of the very things I railed against, like the superstar competition.)
So, mentioning free will and inherent alignments, please allow me to be kind of gauche and quote myself ().
One of the mistaken views I see often is that being an inherent alignment somehow prevents or removes free will, as if an alignment were a single choice in every situation instead of broad outlines of behaviors according to variations of ethics, personality, and an act of will.
First, to clarify: free will is only completely "free" insomuch as a creature does not have any guidelines that it follows. Ergo, a will that has any guidelines isn't entirely free. That is to say, alignment is constraining, but only to an extent.
So! In that way even monotheistic cultures have that fallen angels are, in fact, free willed agents (which is how they fell in the first place) and have arrived at a locale from which they cannot leave (because they've broken themselves). There are indications in various monotheistic tenets that angels (fallen or not) have regrets, curiosity, emotions, thoughts, and experiences of their own. This isn't that discussion, but I'm placing that there to counter the fallacy that monotheistic beliefs have a single-slide away from good. :)
Alignment is the general tendency of the application of free will in particular moral or ethical direction (or lack thereof). That's it. It's how its applied.
Outsiders such as demons, devils, daemons and the like are inherently evil, but that's because they're the direct result of free will that's been repeatedly applied to the method of evil. If they do lose "free will", it's because they've already chosen to be evil, long before they achieved their current state. Also, if this argument is made (which I don't think anyone believes in this thread), than good, chaotic, and lawful creatures must have the same restriction.
That good creatures can fall is obvious, but that evil creatures can be redeemed is less so, but, in D&D, at least, possible, if difficult. An evil creature that remains an inherently evil creature while holding to the path of good will always find it awkward and difficult, though they can continue to do so. An analogy I used in another thread, is the idea of us learning to paint with our feet. Can we do it? Oh, yes, and some of the most amazing things have been accomplished... most often by those lacking arms. They lacked the "necessary" tools to perform the things we take for granted, but have adapted and become more proficient that the rest of us. An inherently evil creature doing good is the same: it lacks the basic elements that we might consider necessary to do things, kind of loses out on using some of its most useful talents, but can become far better at it than many inherently good things.
Anyhoo, that's just my thoughts...
And then, of course, is this post, which is probably one of my favorite posts that I've made for humor and insight. It's way too big, so instead I'll stick with the summary I made above. :)
How does that relate to any of this?
Well, though the passage speaks of men, not angels, the application (in Pathfinder, at least) is similar, so, if you please, allow me to quote the Bible:
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
It's quite possible for a creature to become so corrupted that they can't feel it when they're doing "wrong" anymore. I'd say the celestials would probably try and evaluate if their fallen sibling was there, yet, or not (or just crazy).
I use all of that (and Matrix also had no sequels :P)
Another great take was in the movie Constantine, wherein Gabriel sides with the Antichrist - great stuff. I'm not a big Keanu Reeves fan, but I loved that flick, especially how they portrayed Satan.
Don't care what you say, but I refuse to acknowledge that movie as having anything to do with John Constantine.
When I saw the movie, I was completely unaware of the comic character (having given up on DC years ago). So I read up on him in a Wiki, and it said that he (the comic character) even made a statement once (after viewing 'other universes/alternate Earths) that he thought he saw a dark-haired version of himself.
Its not the same Constantine. That line means the comics gave a nod to the movie, but that was it. Now if you want to talk about just plain bad, lets discuss Ghost Rider.
And to bring this full-circle and back to topic, as much as I dislike Nicholas Cage, I think the take on angels in the movie City of Angels was pretty interesting (which covered the whole 'fall' angle quite nicely).
Not Constantine I can't hear you Lalalala!!!!
Isn't a part of redemption the person being redemmed wanting it?
Yup.
Good Point.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
With all of it's faults, I have to give the first movie credit for bringing in the Original Ghost Rider.
Its not the same Constantine. That line means the comics gave a nod to the movie, but that was it. Now if you want to talk about just plain bad, lets discuss Ghost Rider.
Way off topic:
Tacticslion:
I find it funny that I can read your post as the opposite of 'Joker Immunity.' In that the insane can/should be killed because they can't be redeemed.
"I caught BIlly murdering Mrs. Kravitz. He knows he did wrong and is sorry."
"We'll sentence him to prison."
"I caught Ted murdering his fifth girl. He shows no remorse and says if he's let loose he'll do it again. Clearly he has no understanding of right and wrong."
"Better kill him then."
With all of it's faults, I have to give the first movie credit for bringing in the Original Ghost Rider.
Its not the same Constantine. That line means the comics gave a nod to the movie, but that was it. Now if you want to talk about just plain bad, lets discuss Ghost Rider.Way off topic:
** spoiler omitted **Tacticslion:
I find it funny that I can read your post as the opposite of 'Joker Immunity.' In that the insane can/should be killed because they can't be redeemed.
"I caught BIlly murdering Mrs. Kravitz. He knows he did wrong and is sorry."
"We'll sentence him to prison.""I caught Ted murdering his fifth girl. He shows no remorse and says if he's let loose he'll do it again. Clearly he has no understanding of right and wrong."
"Better kill him then."
He was just an excitable boy they all said
@Matt:
... to a point, actually, presupposing there's nothing better that can be done with them.
And when you're dealing with something like the Joker (who really is a complete sociopath who can and will kill repeatedly and can't otherwise be stopped), it's really the best option.
Similarly, when you're dealing with an angel that's gone beyond the deep end and isn't interested in redemption... well, then, you've got to do what you've got to do.
That is, ultimately, the only justifiable reason to kill a sentient creature: you've reached a situation where there is no impasse... either they will continue threatening (reasonably believed to possibly lead to killing/deeply harming) that which is important to you, or they are dead (or destroyed).
(Killing other, non-sentient creatures is mostly a side-effect of survival: to eat, gain "coverings" from their hides, and other needed supplies.)
If you think you can, reasonably, cure something of its insanity, well... do so! But if others suffer because of it... well, you're kind of at least part of the fault.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The etymology of Peri derives from... Paraika (as in Paraika Divs). If that helps.
Hence the fallen angels they once were - in Persian mythology - were Divs. Which derive from Genies in PF, but perhaps they have an angelic component as well. Certainly Jinn are associated with fallen angels, though in part they exist because orthodox (as opposed to folk) Islam doesn't accept the possibility of angels falling. Hence the Jinn, as fallible as humans, to explain the existence of evil, neutral, and good spirits of the world.