New MM Powerset...Angel Summoning

[Xandyr]

We have Demon Summoning....why can't we have Angel Summoning? I would need to think about how to suggest it. Obviously, there's different types of Angels (Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels, Angels), and different powers that could be utilized.

  A part of me thinks that there would be some type of inherent ability... perhaps a small self (or small AoE) heal with each succesful hit, or maybe a -to hit debuff( since the enemy would be "overwhelmed" with the Angels). Maybe the tier 3 pet could be an ArchAngel (which from my quick search-fu states are the most powerful Angels), and it could be more of a "controller"....dishing out holds/fears/ -to hit/ Heals and some damage).

 

 Anyway...the idea of Angel Summoning came to me while I was tinkering with my Demon MM, and thought I'd throw that out there.

 

Anyone else have any ideas?

[Rudra]

*sigh* Dominions, not dominations. Angels are lowest tier. Archangels are tier just above them. Just because anime and similar cast archangels as the top angels does not hold true if you're going to go the actual biblical route the way it looks like you want to. Also, I could only really see angels and archangels as combatants. They are the only ones with the numbers for it and the only ones who really serve that purpose. That said, I'm against this thematically. Demons may be willing to pretend to bend knee and serve for the sake of accomplishing their goals, but angels have always been portrayed as not being subservient to humans for any reason. Instructive? Yes. Protective? Yes, but only a single angel. A human summoned army of them? Never. Maybe if this was a control or buff set with the tier 9 power being Summon Angel, I would agree, but not as an MM primary set with you summoning 3 different tiers of angels.

 

(Maybe if you expanded the base, it could work. A divine MM summoning angels, devas, and kami perhaps? That still makes no sense though....)

[Rudra]

Here's a dumb thought that goes against what I said but could work:

 

Tier 1 pet: Summon Acolyte/Holy Warrior. (Summon 1-3 human followers.)

Tier 2 pet: Summon Angel (Summon 1-2 angels. For whatever reason, you get up to 2 angels to aid in your crusade.)

Tier 3 pet: Summon Archangel (Summon 1 archangel to aid you in your crusade.)

 

The question of why angels would help the character if the character is committing evil as a villain or rogue, if the character is a villain or rogue, is still a problem. Fallen angels perhaps? Stick with the demons then. ... Yeah... I can't find a rational reason for this to thematically work... disregard this post.

[golstat2003]

Ehhh I disagree Rudra.

 

This is a comic book fantasy. It’s not based on a traditional biblical Christian religion or any religion.

 

they can make anything work for an mm set.

Edited April 17, 2022 by golstat2003

[Rudra]

Only reason I brought up biblical references is because the OP opens with the reference. I am curious though. How would you set it up and what justification would you have for angels engaging in or supporting villainous behavior? Demons supporting heroic or villainous behavior is established in several formats, but not angels. I'd be interested in your reasoning.

[golstat2003]

No reasoning needed. it’s a fantasy video game that crosses genres of sci if, medieval fantasy, comic books, gun fu, post apocalyptic themes, lovecraftian themes, multiversal doppelgänger like themes, etc etc.

 

It’s simply not needed for a game this old that crosses so many random genres.

 

As far as I’m concerned they can add anything as an mm set as long as they make it fun and well made.

Edited April 17, 2022 by golstat2003

[Ghost]

Not actual angels, but manifestations of them.

 

[Zeraphia]

The only thing that makes this hard for me to "accept" is that mastermind is a very traditionally "evil" role. I know it's 2022 and we've had null the gull for years but still the emphasis on evil thematic powersets (mercenaries, zombies, demons, beasts (I guess this can sort of be a slight rulebreaker), thugs)... and then you arrive at angels which make no sense to how they would be considered evil. A corrupted angel is just a demon. 

 

If you're willing to throw the above aside, I think it makes for an interesting concept, but you need to define what the T2's would be. You have angels (regular) that are the lowest tier, and the T1 being the Archangel, but who would the T2's be? Imaginative Wardens?

 

I'm actually in support of the suggestion, but I think it would require a bit of re-envisioning for what MM as a class was supposed to be. 

[Mr. Apocalypse]

I am on the side of opposition, for the many reasons listed above. MM in name alone, for me, invokes evil as a theme. I can understand the arguments for this as well, but I don't think they outweigh the reasons against.

 

Also IMO, there are far better things that the developers could spend their time on that would have much greater positive impact on the community as a whole.

 

I could see, and get behind, animation modifications to the existing sets that could fill this perceived void without the need for a new primary.  Maybe the ability to custom skin your pets, as done on that other private server, could possibly work here if done with a little more refinement than their current execution. That would still require a lot of animation work, to get it right, as simply reskinning pets causes a lot of broken animations from what I have seen, on that other server.

[golstat2003]

52 minutes ago, jeolman1 said:

I am on the side of opposition, for the many reasons listed above. MM in name alone, for me, invokes evil as a theme. I can understand the arguments for this as well, but I don't think they outweigh the reasons against.

 

Also IMO, there are far better things that the developers could spend their time on that would have much greater positive impact on the community as a whole.

 

I could see, and get behind, animation modifications to the existing sets that could fill this perceived void without the need for a new primary.  Maybe the ability to custom skin your pets, as done on that other private server, could possibly work here if done with a little more refinement than their current execution. That would still require a lot of animation work, to get it right, as simply reskinning pets causes a lot of broken animations from what I have seen, on that other server.

 

Ultimately skin customization would solve such suggestions as these, but as you correctly pointed out that's not simple, as shown by the hackiness on other servers.

[FDR's Think Tank]

If we are getting The Angel Summoner, I hope they can also release a powerset for the BMX Bandit. ( 

 

 

Really, you could tweak this a bit and make it a "Cultist" Summoner type. It could have regular lethal/toxic damage, but with Upgrades, you get Energy/Psychic Damage.

 

First off, you'd have the Acolyte Summoning for Tier One.

 

Your ranged attacks would be dagger/shuriken/boomerang throws.

 

Your Tier Two would be Bishops.

 

Your Minion Upgrades would be Rituals... granting your faithful that special damage type.

 

The "Angel" would be a top tier summon. As to whether it's actually from Heaven... or some alternate plane of existence, that's up to the player. It could just as easily be a High Elemental, a Dragon, or some sort of Reaver. You could even have a skin set with the Grim Reaper.

 

Of course, this takes time for the Devs to make minion costume sets that are generic enough to satisfy the players imagination. I think Power Proliferation is going to be their focus on expansions, but it would be awesome to see more Mastermind Sets. It's too bad there isn't a way to streamline creating Mastermind Powersets, because it's the hardest to do... Not counting what they did with Warshades and Peacebringers... which would theoretically be great for power proliferation for shape shifters, exo suit specialists, or other Lore specific Toon types.

[Coyotedancer]

My wolves and lionesses resent being tagged as "evil" just because the game calls their pack leader a "Mastermind". 

Come to think of it, said-Mastermind would probably be pretty ticked off by that herself... <_<

 

The argument that we can't have goodie-goodie minions because somehow "All Masterminds are EEEEEBBBIIIL!" is a little silly.  There are no purely good or evil ATs. There never were. Even when we were trapped making our Masterminds red-side plenty of roleplayers had characters that never twirled a single moustache.  😝 

 

 

[Greycat]

On 4/17/2022 at 2:24 PM, Zeraphia said:

The only thing that makes this hard for me to "accept" is that mastermind is a very traditionally "evil" role. I know it's 2022 and we've had null the gull for years but still the emphasis on evil thematic powersets (mercenaries, zombies, demons, beasts (I guess this can sort of be a slight rulebreaker), thugs)... and then you arrive at angels which make no sense to how they would be considered evil. A corrupted angel is just a demon. 

 

If you're willing to throw the above aside, I think it makes for an interesting concept, but you need to define what the T2's would be. You have angels (regular) that are the lowest tier, and the T1 being the Archangel, but who would the T2's be? Imaginative Wardens?

 

I'm actually in support of the suggestion, but I think it would require a bit of re-envisioning for what MM as a class was supposed to be. 

 

I think we can ignore the whole "this is what the name is, so it's EVIL!" thing. There's no difference between, say, a "mastermind" and a "squad leader." Even the powersets - mercenaries are not necessarily evil, for instance. They're a squad of guys in uniform with guns. If we could reskin them they could be a SWAT team, private security, any number of things.  Same with thugs. Same with brutes, as long as we're looking at ATs - it's the "tough guy that punches things." What makes a "brute" more evil than a "tank?" Hard to say tanks (the mechanical sort) haven't been used in evil acts.  Zombies? I have zombies who are fulfilling oaths, working willingly.  Demons? The whole "working towards redemption" thing isn't a new idea.

 

There's zero reason to use "but they started on redside back when the two were "sorta separate games but not" so they're good/evil" as reason to argue against... well, almost anything. That's long past, both with side switching and Praetoria (which didn't ever restrict that way) and the terms are irrelevant as anything other than a label you see at character creation.  As far as re-envisioning what MMs as a class were meant to be... no, not needed at all. They were, and are, the only pet-centric archetype, and there's never been any confusion about that (unlike "what's the point of tanks/brutes/scrappers?" that comes up.)

[Rudra]

I'm not running off the "masterminds are evil" premise. My line of thinking is that when you are playing a villain, how do you justify angels robbing banks, kidnapping people, and just generally doing anything evil?

[PeregrineFalcon]

12 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I'm not running off the "masterminds are evil" premise. My line of thinking is that when you are playing a villain, how do you justify angels robbing banks, kidnapping people, and just generally doing anything evil?

I have a Willpower/Broadsword Tanker, on villainside, that looks like an angel. White feather wings and all. How would you justify that?

 

If you're going to say that a Mastermind with Angel pets shouldn't be able to go villainside, then, by that same premise, villains should not have access to white wings or the angel halo costume parts.

 

It's up to the player to justify their individual choices in game, not the developers.

[Gobbledigook]

Tier 1 fat little babies with their winkies out?

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Gobbledegook

[InvaderStych]

43 minutes ago, Rudra said:

My line of thinking is that when you are playing a villain, how do you justify angels robbing banks, kidnapping people, and just generally doing anything evil?

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

It's up to the player to justify their individual choices in game, not the developers.

 

I'll just agree 100% percent with this and quietly walk away.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by InvaderStych
meme repair, isle 2

[Rudra]

42 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

It's up to the player to justify their individual choices in game, not the developers.

And with that response, I walk away. I have no way to argue with that.

[Naraka]

4 hours ago, Rudra said:

I'm not running off the "masterminds are evil" premise. My line of thinking is that when you are playing a villain, how do you justify angels robbing banks, kidnapping people, and just generally doing anything evil?

 

I find the scarier villains to be those that are Lawful Good. Because not only do they feel fully justified in the actions they take (the robbing banks, kidnapping and whatnot) but also it would mean that the ones who they are perpetrating these acts on are the actual evil ones.  It's not robbing banks, it's striking at a corrupt capitalistic structure that supports only the rich and keeps the poor and powerless subjugated. It's not kidnapping people, it's taking them up in your custody for you to judge. And holy wars always have the blood of the innocent shed which is why they must happen so further innocence won't have to suffer.

 

And who is going to judge such a character's acts as unjustified? The evil criminals that must be smote? The hypocritical heroes constantly scrutinize their own power and actions? The rogues or vigilantes whose fickle morality is just a leaf in the wind?

 

If an Angles motif were to be implemented, they should aim for something just as monstrous as demons, kind of like the Laguna in Bayonetta. 

[Rudra]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Never played Bayonetta. Was put off by the gun heels. Contrived is contrived. Others can play it and have fun , no judgement, just not for me. I also disagree with the Lawful Good villain comment, but as I am disinclined to get into yet another argument about the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic/Good-Neutral-Evil alignment system with yet another person, I'm just going to point out that I conceded the discussion to @PeregrineFalcon and again, walk away.

[Naraka]

10 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 

 

Are you talking about the Bayonetta stuff or the morality chart stuff?

 

As far as walking away, I'm not even making the same argument as PeregrineFalcon or even arguing for or against the set itself. If anything, I'm playing devil's advocate (sort of ironic) since we're dealing with a piece of fiction which is tailor made to be manipulated by creative observers. Rather than question how something could be evil when it's suppose to embody the essence of good and righteousness, explore what even *IS* good or how our perspective of righteousness might just be flawed...or even that the subject of our perception (angels and holy figures) may have just been zealots drunk on worshipping beings of power without any moralistic foundation that was only later built upon.

 

But the reason I mentioned the Laguna from Bayonetta is because the perception of protagonist and antagonist is flipped there but it doesn't hide behind moral ambiguity. Even then, the monstrous angels still make good antagonists and here, can fit a multitude of concepts besides being holy or angelic. 

[Rudra]

14 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Are you talking about the Bayonetta stuff or the morality chart stuff?

Bayonetta.

[Pbuckley818]

Two cents here. "Angel" minions could be used by villains, without doing anything contrived or stupid. (though I do argue letting people do whatever they like is fine) If you can bind a Demon to your service without it's consent, surely you might be able to do so (at least in a Comic Book styled universe) to an Angel. Hell that might make such a villainous character extra evil, forcing angels to commit wicked deeds in his service. Keep in Mind CoH does not seem to use any given gods or cosmology beyond its own. What it does borrow from is mostly Greek, and Celt and even then it does it's own thing with it.

These "Angels" could simply be the Good counterpart to Demons, so them being bound or enslaved to a villain could easily work. Simply add that note. There are also some villain groups in game that have goons with an Angelic Appearance, the Furies have their Sirens for example (I think those are the names) so it could just be that the Villain is summoning something that only appears angelic, but is very much not. I'd also call them celestial, not angels, just to avoid getting too specific in what they are intended to be. (and minimize dumb arguments between angry busybodies.)

So all you'd have to do is lampshade the other possibilities in the powers flavor text, like so; “The Mastermind may call upon the aid of otherworldly beings, who resemble Heavenly Messengers. These beings may truly be benevolent spirits who hail from a higher plane of existence, or only superficially appear as such. Regardless these spirits heed the Mastermind either out of genuine loyalty, or supernatural compulsion.”

All of this is coming from someone who hates the trope in media where they twist angels into being evil, or agents of elemental order, or any sort of other contrived nonsense. There are ways to do this without devolving into what I'd personally consider pure stupidity.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Pbuckley818

[Coyotedancer]

18 hours ago, Rudra said:

I'm not running off the "masterminds are evil" premise. My line of thinking is that when you are playing a villain, how do you justify angels robbing banks, kidnapping people, and just generally doing anything evil?

 

Obviously, your particular set of angels are the naughty, rebellious sort.... You know, the ones who defied their boss on the whole humanity-thing? 

 

Or they aren't really "angels" at all. They just look the part. (What? You think humans are the only ones who cosplay? Or who enjoy pulling one over on some gullible mortals? 😝 ) 

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Coyotedancer said:

Or they aren't really "angels" at all. They just look the part.

 

Vorlon MM.