On the Origin of Malakim

[Methariel]

Well, I guess Darwin will forgive me to caricature his book's title - if he notices it at all while strolling around Jordi's Savannah and Novalis' Glade, having a friendly chat with St. Francis of Assisi.

But I want to know what you think where Malakim come from. Of course, canon states that the first Malakim formed during the Original Fall in response to Lucifer's rebellion and the fighting in Heaven. But what enabled the first Malakim to change from whatever Choir to that of Malakim?

I think there are - at least - two possibilities, each having its own implications:

---

1. Uriel and the others changed their Choir spontaneously, their anger and rage being so great that it transformed themselves. The Choir-change was self-induced.

This opens up the question why all angels that became Malakim became Malakim - and not something else. Were Uriel's and David's changes models which they emulated while changing themselves? But how could they conceivably do that? Being in rage is a process which often prevents any rational thought. How could they still change themselves in a way that has them showing the same characteristics? Every Malakite is bound by four oaths, two of them being the same for every one. And how could they do that by emulating Superios, who are ineffable and thus even more difficult to understand - and copy - than ordinary angels?

Another question is: Could it happen again? Could angels again change their Choir spontaneously when experiencing an appalling fury of extraordinary magnitude? Or was the First Fall an event of such singularly shocking betrayal that there is no repetition conceivable? And if it could happen again, would they change into Malakim again - which would hint at something in angelic nature which made the original process inevitable - or could they develop into something else? (We're not discussing Falling here, only changing Choirs.)

---

2. Uriel, David and the other first-generation Malakim were unutterably sad, frustrated and, perhaps, above all else, furious by Lucifer's betrayal and the rebellion of a third of the Host. In response to those feelings, God intervened.

So the Choir-change was not self-induced, but the work of IN's Almighty. This leaves up two possible motivations I can see at the moment for him acting in such a way:

a. God saw the threat that Lucifer and his rebellion meant to the other angels, Heaven, and perhaps Himself. To counter this threat, he transformed the angels most deeply affected and most determined to stop the rebels into Malakim, creating a weapon for Heaven to fight the demons.

This leaves the question why Michael wasn't transformed. He was probably the angel who was most determined to stop Lucifer. In fact, it was him who defended God's Truth against Lucifer and threw him out of Heaven. He was probably angry and sad, too. So why was one Seraph Archangel changed, the other not? Maybe as a statement - Seraphim being embodiments of Truth - that Truth triumphs over the Lie?

And why do these new weapons need oaths?

b. God didn't act simply to create a weapon, but because he saw the anguish which put the rebellion many angels into. He wouldn't let his beloved creatures suffer that much from pain and fury and so changed them into something better suited to coping with rage.

This would perhaps explain why Michael wasn't transformed. He probably was able to adapt to the situation without a fundamental change in personality and outlook. Uriel, on the other hand, was Purity, and Lucifer's act spoiled the whole Symphony - something which the Seraph Archangel might not have been able to bear without changing. The same goes for David. After all, Heaven's brotherly unity was shattered and he needed help.

This might even explain the oaths. Malakim are born from rage and suited to give in to it and become violent. To counter that and give themselves something to hold onto, they're bound to Honor. This restrains them somewhat. Even for them there are limits. Mindless rage without limits is something for demons.

---

But after all, it probably remains ineffable. No. 1. has implications about the angels themselves, the alternatives of no. 2. about IN's God. Still, I'm curious what your take on it is and if you find a third (or fourth and fifth) possibility.

Personally, I'd probably go with no. 2., choosing between a. and b. with regards to the campaign's Brightness and Contrast.

With best regards,

M.