"angels" sounds too Judeo-Christian to me, and should be reserved for the Christian God's servants...
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
Mon, 2007-07-23 17:01
#1
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
Tue, 2007-07-24 11:15
#3
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
I've never seen "aasimon" used outside of Planescape material.
The AD&D Monster Manual II has three categories of good aligned outsiders: the Devas (Astral, Monadic, and Movanic), Planetars and, Solars. The Solar is described as "the most powerful of spirits".
The 3rd edition Monster Manual grouped these all together with archons, guardinals and eladrin as "celestials".
3.5 Monster Manual split these categories up, giving guardinals and eladrin their own categories and renaming the remaining celestials, "angels".
-420
Tue, 2007-07-24 14:52
#4
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
"Aasimon", much like "tanar'ri" and "gehreleth", is too difficult for 3rd edition gamers to pronounce. So they called it "angel" instead, to allow players to get back to rolling dice.
Tue, 2007-07-24 15:44
#5
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
I'm rather against the reverting back to angels, devils, demons, etc. Granted, the only reason they were named Aasimon, Baatezu, Tanar'ri, etc. was because of political correctness, which I deplore, but the writers of Planescape took that otherwise poor idea and turned it into something wonderful. Changing them back now would just be taking away flavor from the setting.
However, call me a clueless 3e-er if you will, but I must say that some of the names are damn difficult to pronounce. Adding the hard "y" to Baatezu took me some time, and the hard "g" to Sigil. It's because when I first read those names, there was no pronunciation guide. Only later did I find mention of a more proper way to say them. Some words I'm still confused about, such as genasi (gen-asi' or djen'-asai?). And then there's the Celtic pantheon, which forced me to actually learn how to pronounce Irish from a non-game source.
Tue, 2007-07-24 16:37
#6
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
I'm all right with them using Demon and Devil to a certain extent. Remember that the first 2e product to even use such words was a Planescape product.
Especially with Demon, it's been worthwhile to use that, because in addition to Tanar'i there are Loumara and Obyriths now which are also Demons. Now if only FCII made an attempt to mention and name the Ancient Baatorians, then we'd at least have a valid categorization for 'Devil'.
Tue, 2007-07-24 19:41
#7
Angels/Aasimon
Well, I still prefer "Aasimon" as a term rather than "Angels", because the term "Aasimon" doesn't leave the players expecting Michael or Gabriel to show up! While lots of different religions have demons and devils, mention the term "Angel" and most folks assume that you are referencing the Judeo/Christian beings, not generic "good supernaturals"... In other words, don't call it an "Angel" unless it is a Angel, is the way I see it... (besides, the "Angels" listed in the 3.5 Monster Manual are all good-aligned, whereas Biblical Angels seem more like Lawful Neutral, and not strictly speaking Celestials... but I digress...)
Tue, 2007-07-24 23:57
#8
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
For the same reason that we now have "Horned Devils" etc... they reverted to using the 1st names for many of the creatures.
They actually didn't use the word "angel" in the 1st edition Monster Manuals. They didn't have a single word that encompassed devas, solars, and planetars back then. "Aasimon," which was coined for the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix several years before Planescape, was the first time such a word existed. That book was the first use of the word "fiend" as a generic word for lower planar creatures, too.
Monte Cook has said he wanted to use the word "angel" in the 3.0 Monster Manual, but at the time WotC wouldn't allow it because they feared people would get confused with Magic: The Gathering cards that have angels on them. So they were all lumped together as "celestials," which is a term Monte Cook invented during his time writing for the Planescape line. In 3.5 people got a little saner, and decided to allow the creatures formally known as aasimon to be known as angels instead. Celestial is still the general term for upper planar outsiders.
The word "angel" means messenger, and it seems a very appropriate word for the servants of the gods. As a game term, it's new to the game as of edition 3.5. I like "angel" as the word commoners use, and "aasimon" as the word (in Celestial) that the aasimon use to describe themselves.
Wed, 2007-07-25 07:43
#9
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
pronounce Irish from a non-game source.
well there is your problem, most of those names should be pronounced in the Cymraeg (welsh, but welsh is a saxon term for forigner) form.
oh and most Buddhist I've met when speaking in english use the term angels.
Fri, 2007-07-27 04:18
#10
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
I actually like that there are different words. They make room for nuance. The current Demon split is a good example of this. Most demons are tanar'ri, and all tanar'ri are demons, but there are others. Terms like Aasimon and gereleth make room for similar stretches of imagination.
Thu, 2007-08-16 19:04
#11
Why are Aasimon now called Angels in 3.5 Edition?
I'm in favor of the PS interpretation. Non-PS books are by primes, and while The D-words are valid internally, they scream clueless, as do terms like "Nine Hells." Not to mention that they anger a fiend as much as paying in silver.
For the same reason that we now have "Horned Devils" etc... they reverted to using the 1st names for many of the creatures.