Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Current Official Stance on the Monotheist Religion in the World (Possible spoilers)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That's a really fascinating list, MorsRattus.

    Comment


    • I could probably cut some of the Orthodox angels without losing much thematically but they also provided one of the only places for me to give Frost access.

      Comment


      • I think having them is perfectly fine. I have 19 Archdemons in my personal roster, and having that many puts them on very close to even terms, so I definitely like this list a lot. I know a lot more about demons then I do about angels, so this is very informative to me as well.

        Comment


        • That’s great work MorsRattus! I went with a narrower list using the 7 days of Genesis to fill in the connecting tissue, with the idea a lot of the other Angels are there at lower rank or working solely in Heaven, but focused on the seven princes before the Throne (+ Samael).


          Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

          Comment


          • The other tricky thing is finding places to put Lover as a Calling, since having Calling access is important, and while Lover is not solely about romantic love, this is definitely one of the more uptight pantheons. (This is part of why I decided to keep Ramiel even with Enoch's naming Ramiel among the leaders of the Watchers.)

            Comment


            • I don't see the need to cover every Purview or Calling. A gap in a pantheon is less of a problem for PCs than it is an opportunity for something they could rise to fill.


              Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MorsRattus View Post
                My own take on the group, the Shekhinah Heavenly Host uses a larger and somewhat eclectic group based on the various angels I was actually able to find details on between the Abrahamic faiths, Enoch and selected other apocrypha and deuterocanon. My list is: Azrael (Angel of Death and Renewal, largely folk Judaism and Islam), Barachiel (Archangel of Blessings and Family, mostly Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic), Cameal (Archangel of Strength, mostly Judaic and some Christian lore), Gabriel (Messenger and Left Hand of God), Samael ha-Satan (Accusing Angel, Angel of Disaster, Tempter of the Righteous, mostly Judaic, possibly formerly held the Mantle of Lucifer before that somehow became a Titan), Haniel (Archangel of Joy, mostly Judaic), Jegudiel (Angel of Praise and Craft, mostly Orthodox), Jophiel (Angel of Wisdom and Art, Judaic and some Christian, I went with him being cognate with Tzaphkiel/Zuriel/Dina because there's so little on those guys), Metatron (the Recording Angel, the Lesser Name, Enochian), Michael (Right Hand of God, Commander of the Host), Raguel (Angel of Justice and Speech, Judaic), Ramiel (Archangel of Hope, I made him cognate with Jerahmeel and hinted that he might be the same Ramiel as from Enoch and thus somewhat tempted by the flesh), Raphael (Archangel of Healing), Raziel (Archangel of the Mysteries, mostly Judaic), Sandalphon (the Heavenly Chariot, Angel of the Kingdom, Judaic), Selaphiel (Archangel of Prayer, Judaic and some Catholic and Orthodox), Uriel (Archangel of Light and Repentance, I made him cognate with Phanuel), Zadkiel (Archangel of Freedom, Judaic).

                My primary take on them is Judaic, and I was looking at the Kabbalah as an idea for their purview. My take on them and the Abrahamic faiths is 'the Shekhinah really like rules, and they gave out a lot of them to various different human groups with the idea that any human ruleset would be necessarily imperfect, due to imperfect humans. They were really shocked when everyone started fighting over the differences in the rules or coming up with their own takes on it but have never been able to figure out a good way to prevent it, because every time they've tried to fix it it seems to get worse.' Their primary weakness being their own rigidity, after all. The angels themselves are largely unified, albeit with some internal fights (the more aggressive purity-focused angels don't like Samael much, Metatron and Raziel tend to bother the revelatory angels because they both are inherently about divine mysteries that cannot or should not be directly revealed, and Zadkiel is a dove in a very, very hawkish pantheon) but the same traits that make them rigid and bad at things that are completely new also make them a very strongly united 'pantheon.'
                I'm actually impressed with your take. As a believer, I have some small issues with it, as obvious, in terms of finding some flaw (as: revelation of multiple laws did not play out as intended) in the divine work through the angels. Yet, I still think you handled a sensitive thing as well as you could given the task, i.e. adapting holy matters to a game based on non-abrahamic pantheons and defective gods. Narratively that's a very clever way to put it, especially the issue of 'we gave multiple laws and then updated them and humans just turned it for the worst'.

                You could even add a Muslim twist to it saying that that's why after Muhammad - peace and blessings be upon him - they just stopped sending prophets and declared difference of opinion a divine mercy, multiple interpretations as legitimate and people's various customs as to be respected unless they contrast directly with revelation (these are legal principles in many forms of traditional Sunnism - by which I mean the opposite of Salafism and Wahhabism). They just figured things were getting too messy and it was better sending a last one, while allowing Judaism and Christianity to keep being practised through paying the jizyah. If the assumption you use for your angels' belief is that those two (Judaism and Christianity) are correct as well and better than the rest (which degenerated supposedly in polytheism), this would be a neat way for them to keep things under control as much as possible, i.e.: preventing the new religion from outright destroying the other Abrahamic two.

                The fact that Christianity (particularly the Divine Commedy) and Islam also see the biblical prophets as residing in various heavens, that gives you some ideas for how previous prophets advanced. Now Scions would not be prophets any more, but saints (if you take a Muslim approach,that is, otherwise it's up to you to choose what the Scions are) of various sorts (inlcuding what Christianity deems as individuals with the charism of prophecy, which Muslims would see as a particular type of saints who resemble prophets in some respects), but they could interact with the now elevated previous Scions like the previous prophets through dreams, journeys through the heavens and visions. Muslim saints often are said to reflect the qualities of one prophet or another (some resemble Abraham, some Moses, some Jesus, some Solomon, and so on), which is also a concept you could use in some way.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hermeticus View Post
                  You could even add a Muslim twist to it saying that that's why after Muhammad - peace and blessings be upon him - they just stopped sending prophets
                  That will of course bring an obvious rebuttal from another tradition in the Abrahamic family...



                  Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

                  Comment


                  • And honestly, it'd be more than 3 anyway. After all, Samaritans, Yazidis, and Mandaeans all still exist. You may want to include Manicheans as well, but I honestly think that tradition could support its own independant pantheon.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post

                      That will of course bring an obvious rebuttal from another tradition in the Abrahamic family...

                      Oh well yes, I didn't think of that... The tendency is to speak of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as the Abrahamic faiths, one easily forgets the rest... Even the Druze, Baha'is and Ahmadis (who generally count themselves as Muslims but are not recognised as such by a huge portion of Muslims) would count in that, now that I think of it. So, ok, I guess reconcilement is harder than expected. Either one picks a stopping point where the angels say: "nope, that wasn't us, we've got nothing to do with that and the ones after" or they basically never learnt their lesson and are still trying to fix humanity by progressive revelation disregarding the fact that the majority of humanity keeps refusing to instal the new updates and runs on the version they started with.

                      Comment


                      • Some of this comes down to how we define a "Prophet". There's the connotation that Scion I think uses at points of one who forsees the future or Fate, but that's not an accurate definition of the Abrahamic concept. Some prophets do that, but it's usually via an act of revelation from an angel, rather than an inherent transmitted ability. Closest that comes to mind in that regard would Joseph's ability to interpret dreams to foretell the future. Really wish Scion would just use the term "Oracle" for that.

                        Prophet in the Abrahamic tradition generally means someone God communicates with who is often empowered to deliver God's miracles. Even here though, many of the Prophets deal with Angelic intercessionaries rather than directly hearing God's voice the way Abraham and Moses are described having heard it. It was Jibril who recited the Quran for Muhammad (PBUH). I don't know how to rectify Medieval Christian Saints who spoke with angels and could be vessels through which miracles occurred while still alive, with the firm concept in Islam that Muhammad (PBUH) was the final Prophet.

                        Unless we assume that "Prophet" refers specifically to one through whom God delivers scripture. And Tzadik/Saints/Wali are also Chosen Scions, but not entrusted with revealed scripture the same way.

                        That still leaves the Mormonism problem, but honestly there's so many metaphysical problems getting that to jive with other traditions (not least of which being that angels and human souls are literally the same thing, with both pre- and post- mortal existence), that that's the least of my concerns.


                        Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post
                          Some of this comes down to how we define a "Prophet". There's the connotation that Scion I think uses at points of one who forsees the future or Fate, but that's not an accurate definition of the Abrahamic concept. Some prophets do that, but it's usually via an act of revelation from an angel, rather than an inherent transmitted ability. Closest that comes to mind in that regard would Joseph's ability to interpret dreams to foretell the future. Really wish Scion would just use the term "Oracle" for that.

                          Prophet in the Abrahamic tradition generally means someone God communicates with who is often empowered to deliver God's miracles. Even here though, many of the Prophets deal with Angelic intercessionaries rather than directly hearing God's voice the way Abraham and Moses are described having heard it. It was Jibril who recited the Quran for Muhammad (PBUH). I don't know how to rectify Medieval Christian Saints who spoke with angels and could be vessels through which miracles occurred while still alive, with the firm concept in Islam that Muhammad (PBUH) was the final Prophet.

                          Unless we assume that "Prophet" refers specifically to one through whom God delivers scripture. And Tzadik/Saints/Wali are also Chosen Scions, but not entrusted with revealed scripture the same way.

                          That still leaves the Mormonism problem, but honestly there's so many metaphysical problems getting that to jive with other traditions (not least of which being that angels and human souls are literally the same thing, with both pre- and post- mortal existence), that that's the least of my concerns.
                          Indeed, the issue is complicated because, while all abrahamic traditions acknowledge the importance of prophets and that they receive communication from God, their definitions of prophethood vary, in part actually in order to be able to maintain themselves to be right and the others as wrong.

                          The definition of prophet in Judaism must be such that Jesus and Muhammad cannot be included, or do not necessitate obedience and abandonment of Moses' law.

                          Christianity's definition must be able to exclude Muhammad as well as prophets deemed not such by this or that group. For example, Catholicism has mechanisms in place to exclude the founder of Mormonism and whoever sets up a movement seen as heretical from prophethood or at least from the duty of belief and obedience.

                          Islam does the same with later religions, like the Bahai faith, although in this specific case (of Islam) there is an explicit source (the verse stating that Muhammad is the seal of prophets and the hadith saying there will be no prophet after him), but even that has been subject to debate, not to mention alternative interpretation by Baha'is to justify their following of Baha'uLlah.

                          To complicate things further, even saints and walis receive inspiration (ilham) and private revelation (in Catholic terms), so there's much literature trying to define how that happens and how their experience and authority differs from the religion's founder's one.

                          Finding a single interpretation that fits all is basically impossible because theologians design them so that they would be irreconcilable, even if for only a subtle point. That point is what makes some believe they must follow an entirely different law and others think they must stick to the previous one.

                          The closest thing to reconciliation is to take the last religion to pop up (ex: Bahaism, because I know little about Mormonism), as it usually admits the previous ones were also revealed and allows for their continuation in some lesser form, and make that the true one in the abrahamic pantheon, but still with likely necessary modifications.

                          Comment


                          • Jesus is more of an issue from a Jewish perspective than Mohammad (PBUH) I think. Nothing in Judaism precludes the idea that G-d could make revelations to other peoples. Only that no such revelation, if true, would supersede His Covenants with Abraham and Moses for the Jewish people. Obviously Muslims disagree with that interpretation as the next prophet always supersedes the previous, but that can be a theological disagreement two people of faith can hold even if Gabriel/Jibril is standing there confirming “yes I did deliver that message to Muhammad”.

                            As a Jew claiming to be the messiah promised by Isaiah, Joshua Ben Joseph of Nazareth presents a much bigger theological problem for Jews in-setting if he’s still running around as a supernatural being. So unlike in our world, where Jews see him as a mortal man who was one of many radical preachers crucified by the Roman governorship at the time, I suggest the possibility that he’s seen as a Scion (nephillim) of an unknown pagan god (sheyd) who reinterpreted his own nature through the lens of the Judaism he was raised with. His continued existence in-setting is thus no different than Dionysus or Anat’s existence as not baring on the Jewish people’s Covenant with G-d. Definitely not the promised messiah since he didn’t cast the Romans out and establish an earthly kingdom of G-d, as Jews had interpreted Isaiah as promising.
                            Last edited by glamourweaver; 10-05-2018, 04:18 AM.


                            Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post
                              Jesus is more of an issue from a Jewish perspective than Mohammad (PBUH) I think. Nothing in Judaism precludes the idea that G-d could make revelations to other peoples. Only that no such revelation, if true, would supersede His Covenants with Abraham and Moses for the Jewish people. Obviously Muslims disagree with that interpretation as the next prophet always supersedes the previous, but that can be a theological disagreement two people of faith can hold even if Gabriel/Jibril is standing there confirming “yes I did deliver that message to Muhammad”.

                              As a Jew claiming to be the messiah promised by Isaiah, Joshua Ben Joseph of Nazareth presents a much bigger theological problem for Jews in-setting if he’s still running around as a supernatural being. So unlike in our world, where Jews see him as a mortal man who was one of many radical preachers crucified by the Roman governorship at the time, I suggest the possibility that he’s seen as a Scion (nephillim) of an unknown pagan god (sheyd) who reinterpreted his own nature through the lens of the Judaism he was raised with. His continued existence in-setting is thus no different than Dionysus or Anat’s existence as not baring on the Jewish people’s Covenant with G-d. Definitely not the promised messiah since he didn’t cast the Romans out and establish an earthly kingdom of G-d, as Jews had interpreted Isaiah as promising.
                              How do the Jews deal with the Muslim interpretation of Jesus as Messiah?

                              Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, messenger (i.e.: a prophet with a new divine law to give, unlike the prophets between Moses and Jesus who were mostly there to work within the law revealed to Moses, aiding in its preservation), the second highest ranking prophet and... as the 'masih', AKA Messiah of the end of time. They distinguish the two positions of messenger (which implies being a prophet) and messiah. In his first coming, Jesus comes as prophet and messenger and then ascends to heaven. When he returns, in the time of the Dajjal (the anti-christ), he will no more come as prophet (also because that role has been sealed by Muhammad), but as the 'Masih' to kill the 'Masih ad-Dajjal' (literally, the impostor Messiah, AKA the anti-Christ) and to rule in justice for some time according to the divine law given to Muhammad. In this period, he will marry, have children, and be counted as a member of the community of Muhammad, rather than as a member of the Jewish tribes (Quranic commentaries point out, from the way Jesus is narrated to have addressed the Jews in his time, that he was the only prophet who would not call those he was sent to 'o my people', and then explain how his having a Levite mother and no father entailed him not actually counting as part of the people of Israel, hence he counts as part of Muhammad's community). Then he will die, being in some interpretations the last wali/saint to die (so when he comes back, since he's no more a prophet, he's in the saints' category, though he's obviously in a league of his own in that regard), and more or less quickly after him, depending on the interpretation, the world will end.

                              So, in short, that would reconcile the claim to be the messiah with the idea of the messiah still having to come. Is there any group of Jews that goes with this idea or is it only found in Muslim sources?

                              Comment


                              • The idea of an anti-messiah is theological nonsense to Judaism, and the Jesus thing is complicated by the fact that there were a ton of self-proclaimed messiahs at the time; to the Jewish perspective, the difference is that Jesus is the one whose personal cult made it big. Temporal success has no relation to theological truth, especially when Jesus is unable to find any textual basis for a lot of his arguments rather than personal charisma, claims of messianic power and...welll, Paul isn’t helping, either. Decisions made by early Christians to pick and choose what parts of the Law still applied add fuel to the fire here.

                                There is a fairly famous Jewish story about a literal divine miracles being defeated in debate because the text is king. Personal charisma and power don’t matter if you can’t cite your dang sources, rabbinically.

                                Jews would also extremely reject the idea that an unknown or even nonexistent father made someone not a Jew, because Judaism is matrilineally transmitted by tradition.

                                E: a group known as Jews for Jesus exists, but in practice, they are...Christians.
                                Last edited by MorsRattus; 10-05-2018, 06:37 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X