argonian

@argonian

yh I do remember that especially w/ the bunch of aenguls and daemons that were written originally (that a majority were scrapped v early on). I just know towards like 2.0 - 4.0ish that the distinctions made through the portrayal of good v evil (501forehead lol).

Benbo's assessment is probably more accurate to the current belief of how they exist, but once again isn't something we can define them solely off. My personal opinion is that I'd like Aenguls and Daemons to be defined by the players IC. So religions and various other groups can either damn certain ones as "good" or  "evil" or whatever they wish. This is really something we will be addressing, since our Aengudaemonic overhaul was really waiting on the conclusion of the removal of the mathic age, since that will help shuffle the pantheon in a way that isn't always going to end in "Gazardiael will betray everyone and the universe will reset" once again.

Like I believe Xan to be insanely 'daemon' like with traditional aspects of intervention, though his agenda and morals align with the original idea of keeping "static" instead of changing.  Where as the Wandering Wizard was seen as an aengul, but would be seen as a catalyst of change and "hope" for the descendants while also intervening greatly. It's something we want to make either decently consistent across the board, or harmless enough where we can truly give players agency in trying to interpret divinity without having to inform themselves through OOC posts

@ScreamingDingo

Well I mean it's important the players make their own distinctions, but there's also an OOC distinction between them in the lore. Yet, there doesn't seem to be much of a rhyme or reason as to it. I've even seen some, like Dragur, been bounced between the two by players in OOC posts.

@Wretched's explanation is pretty good but I wish there was actually an official definition of sorts, because otherwise while it may work today, it might not work when the next batch of Aenguls and Daemons get approved. Either that or the OOC distinction should just be abandoned entirely IMO. 

Another thing to note is that in the original lore it sometimes refers to "Aengul and Daemon" singular and, Libyan broken-English aside, that could've borne some significance and be worked into an explanation. Idk what the "official" creation lore is these days so idk if this could work, but you could define them each by a shared origin. Maybe Aenguls came from the original Aengul singular or whatever. Another thing worth considering are the Towers of Aemon and Daemon, two towers with weirdly important sounding names in Aegis that IIRC were never actually used or explained. Point is there are a few ways you guys could define them by their origins, and explain weird parts of old lore in the process, if you wanted to avoid defining them by their roles or whatever.

@argonian

The towers of Aemon and Daemon were protected by like the 8 Daemons that like balanced the world after Horen died or some ****, by a bunch of daemons that got scrapped when the pantheon got defined from 2.0 onwards. The "official" creation lore is most of the aengudaemons are born from fragments of the blown up creator and manifested w/ that energy and became what they are today. It's stuff we'll be looking at and definitely approaching. I've very recently been reading up on the ancient **** relating to the towers and the original "pantheon" that was defined as inspiration and trying to tie all these concepts into the modern agenda.

Dragur is defined as a daemon in the same sense as metzlti was a daemon, they delved in basically frankenstein esque creation schemes and they created life outside of the descendant scope (dragaars and kha/hou-zi respectively). They were conduits of change, if we go by the definition of Benbo.