06-30-2010, 09:54 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Boston
|
a thought on Malakim
Malakim can only experience good as the absence of evil.
It's the defining phenomenological feature of what it is to be a Virtue, and it extends far beyond the domain of the moral. A Malakite art critic could identify the flaws in a work, technical or otherwise, but never give it higher praise than "perfect!" A Malakite economist could understand the thesis that people starve because they are exploited, but not because of insufficient technology (until you explained what Lightning is up to.) The Virtue simply can't understand any problem whose solutions doesn't involve her kicking someone's ass, even if "someone" and "asskicking" can be defined expansively. Hence the Malakite reputation for Spartan tastes, over and above the humdrum ascetism of the other selfless. Hence too their inability to Fall - they cannot be tempted by the possibility of happiness, a state they have never experienced. And hence the desperate necessity of their Oaths, better understood as leashes than points of honor. Nothing can ever be as free of flaw or evil or selfhood as nothing itself - there is a reason Purity was the first Malakite Word - and any Virtue not so restrained would kill the whole world, if she had the capability. The Powers, able to evaluate situations from all angles, can be trusted with consequentialist ethics; blackwings need their chains. Nobody's quite sure what they'd do with them if Heaven ever won the War. Perhaps they'd recognize they had no place in such a world, and would turn their flaming swords on each other and themselves. More likely their programming would just identify new nails for their hammers, a plague God never considered how to recall. |
06-30-2010, 05:21 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
A very interesting take on the Malakim, to be certain. I'm not so sure I personally agree -- at the very least I think I'd contend that the nature of the Virtues stark outlook on life is about as varied as the Words they serve, but your presentation works admirably well for most dark games.
If I had to make a counter argument, it would be this: a Malakite can see the good in people as well as the bad, and the sins -- and virtues -- these people possess are all relative to their own conscience. In a way, I'd contend that this makes the Malakim more aware of the shades of gray as they exist on Earth, even when they're constrained to a life of black and white. When a Malakite looks at a person, he doesn't just see the absence of evil. He sees the presence of good. A Malakite might look at a woman and find that the most ignoble thing she's done all week was blowing off the homeless man who was desperate for change because she was in a hurry and needed the money for tolls, and that might be overwhelmed by the most noble thing she's done all week -- especially if she was a social worker who'd just helped a single mother get back on her feet, even when it meant putting them up for a day out of pocket. While such a creature would be an admittedly rare sight, I think that there are some occasions that give the Virtues pause and make them think, That's more than the absence of greed. That's charity at its finest. If we really wanted to get dark, we could say that the awareness of these shades of gray distort the Malakite perspective even more. When you have to kill a Sorcerer who had the potential for Sainthood and you were the only one who could recognize it, how would it make you feel when you snuffed it out? A Malakite of Stone would be far more likely to examine an operation and look immediately for the cracks than would a Malakite of Flowers, I think. But the Malakite of Stone would forever be a pessimist, because no matter how strong something is, he would know that it had room to grow stronger. As I said, the Words are a quintessential factor when it comes to making a determination about perspective. I don't know that I'd agree about the way a Malakite would examine an art piece. Remember, Virtues are called Virtues for a reason. Vice is just more prevalent. Your point on Geases was far more fascinating. In a way, yes, they're like leashes, but not every Malakite would see them as such. The restraints are oaths that these creatures placed upon themselves, sworn to remind them of what they uphold and how. But not all of them function as leashes; there are oaths that function as "musts" as well as "must nots." Lilim can force others to inaction as well as action, and thus so it is that Malakim can force themselves to action, as well as restraint. Many oaths are more than "suicide before surrender" and "death to the wicked." What about the Malakite who swears to foster creativity wherever she finds it? Or a Malakite who swears never to ignore a plea for mercy in a human being? Just as there are Malakim who swear to punish the guilty (and I often change the oath to "punish" instead of "not suffer to live" -- a lot harder to play a Malakite cop who wantonly wastes every drug dealer and burglar she comes across than one who actually makes arrests), there are Malakim who swear not only to protect the innocent, but to guide and nurture them. I hope the counterpoints were convincing.
__________________
"A knight's a sword with a horse. The vows, the sacred oil and the lady's favors, they're ribbons tied 'round the sword. Maybe the sword's prettier with the ribbons, but it'll kill you just as dead." |
06-30-2010, 05:40 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
Quote:
|
|
07-01-2010, 05:16 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
Quote:
A Malakite cop who has sworn "never to suffer evil to live if it's my choice," could just as easily handcuff a drug dealer, use a Song of Entropy to break the handcuffs, and then shoot him square in the chest as many times as she liked under the right circumstances. She couldn't do that sort of thing often, but she would probably try to do it as often as she could if she believed that she could get away with it without jeopardizing her role (you could argue that doing this even once jeopardizes her role -- and it certainly wouldn't be without consequences -- but quite a few Malakim would probably take the gamble). Put a shank in his hands, make sure there aren't any witnesses, type out a well-written narrative and BAM! Instant justification. Also, it seems to me that the cop would be preoccupied with finding ways to hunt "evildoers" after her shift was up, without any mercy or compassion. As I gather, this is generally the case with all Malakim. Who is to say that the aforementioned cop would not simply ignore the criminals she wished to kill, arrest the ones she did not, and then waste them all after her shift? Some superiors might issue orders to obey mortal laws, others may see it fit to allow a Malakite to bend the laws as she wished so long as she wasn't caught. Novalis would come down hard on a Malakite for such behavior, but Michael? The guy that drinks blood from the skulls of his fallen enemies? He'd be more likely to propose a toast. A Malakite who is sworn to punish evil is different. She could take the same drug dealer, kidnap him, lock him in a room for a week and get him hooked on his own stash, then cut him loose and be satisfied that not only does he know what pain he's caused his clientele (provided he wasn't already hooked to begin with), but he probably owes somebody very important a significant amount of money -- and that leads her to the source of the evil. A Malakite who was under the previous restriction would be immediately compelled to slay the drug dealer as soon as he was alone, particularly if she deemed him "evil." This is not to say that there aren't ways around the first oath. In the example I provided, a Malakite who allowed the small-fry to live in addiction and then killed his employer could technically absolve herself of the dissonance (if she even gained any) from not killing the small-fry. I prefer the second because it doesn't weigh upon the player with the same heavy-handed restrictions, but it still entitles them the power to employ the death penalty at their discretion.
__________________
"A knight's a sword with a horse. The vows, the sacred oil and the lady's favors, they're ribbons tied 'round the sword. Maybe the sword's prettier with the ribbons, but it'll kill you just as dead." |
|
07-01-2010, 05:31 PM | #5 |
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
OK, time to get all picky and legalistic. The oath says to not suffer evil to live, not evildoers.
In the case of demons, the Malakim undoubtedbly see the two as one and the same. To a Virute,these are beings who have deliberately set themselves against everything God stands for and must be destroyed ... either through execution or redemption. Fine and dandy. But mortals are a different case. They commit evil, but they can't be truly said to embody it the way a demon does. So a Virtue doesn't have to cap every drug dealer or execute every rapist ... but they do have to make sure that that particular evil is extinguished. If that means forging evidence so the drug dealer gets 15 years instead of probation, so be it. If that means arranging for the rapist to be "accidentally" castrated, so be it. The way I read it, Malakim don't have to kill every last wretch. Not when there are so many other interesting options available.
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking” --Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger" |
07-01-2010, 05:40 PM | #6 |
Untitled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
An intriuging take... but one that I believe confuses "evil" and "evildoer".
Nobody in In Nomine, with the exception of Kronos (and possibly Lucifer), is "evil". Some beings may commit evil acts, but even the most debased Shedim have the Destiny "Redeem". A Malakim, if he's being played correctly, will know that and take the appropriate action. Yes, sometimes the appropriate action is to Vessel-kill the demon and send him back to Hell, but sometimes it's to get the demon (or human) to make restitution and undo the damage he's done - killing the evil and ensuring it won't happen again. Malakim of Novalis are no doubt very good at hating sins while loving sinners. Edit: I see I was scooped by RM... but we took different tacks on the subject, so I'll leave my reply in place.
__________________
Rob Kelk “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” – Bernard Baruch, Deming (New Mexico) Headlight, 6 January 1950 No longer reading these forums regularly. |
07-01-2010, 06:09 PM | #7 |
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
I seem to be doing that lately. I'm glad you left your response up, though; as you say, it reaches into some corners I didn't consider.
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking” --Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger" |
07-01-2010, 06:22 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Boston
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
My purpose here isn't exegetic - I'm not trying to figure out what canon is really trying to say, or even worried if I contradict it - so "counterpoints" might be the wrong word. Your preferred interpretation is definitely closer to the assumptions of canon - my goal here is to make angels weirder and more alien (I want to do a series on each Choir and its associated Band.)
I think it's worth noting what the category of "honorable actions" specifically excludes. Suppose the social worker in your example had written a sonnet - and that this was the action she took most pride in this week, and which will ultimately result in adding more pleasure to the universe than any of her social work. I don't think this counts as an honorable action, or at least it wouldn't be for the typical person (who, let's suppose, our social worker is) - it's not concerned with fulfilling moral duty. So I wouldn't say this shows the Virtue recognizes a distinction between the presence of greed and absence of charity - the social worker's act is interpreted as atypically dutiful, but not supererogatory. Malakim sense and absorb the order of most shameful to most honorable behavior of those they Resonate, but they reformat it to their own scale (under this interpretation.) Malakim don't kill every last wretch because they have Oaths to prevent them from doing so, and because they understand the idea of tactical restraint. But it's clear to other angels that that's what they would do if fully unwound. Every angel is a bit bizarre and alien to anyone outside of its Choir, but Malakim are just conspicuously terrifying. Last edited by Matthias Wasser; 07-01-2010 at 06:25 PM. |
07-01-2010, 06:31 PM | #9 | |
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
Quote:
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking” --Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger" |
|
07-01-2010, 06:47 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Boston
|
Re: a thought on Malakim
Additionally: despite all this I'd wouldn't have Virtues feel any hatred for the wicked. (Because "guy who wants to wipe all Xs from the Earth, without bearing any ill will towards Xs" violates some of our intuitions about human psychology, and angels should do that.) I'd characterize it as more motivated by anxiety, if anything, to distinguish them from the dispassionate Powers.
|
Tags |
angels, malakim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|