Talk:Fallen Angel

The atrocious grammar of the Malthael section aside, I'm beginning to question the need for this article, or rather, its validity. I say this because:


 * As far as I can tell, there's no actual in-universe distinction of a "fallen angel." Nothing that states "an angel becomes fallen when x" happens. The only reference I've found is the quest "The Fallen Angel" from D2 and "the fall of Izual" art from D1, but that's just as likely to be hyperbole. For instance, the term "renegade angels" is used in the Gavel of Judgment flavour text. If the definition of fallen is an angel which leaves Heaven (more on that later), then why "fallen angel" as opposed to "renegade angel?" Point is, the basis for the title seems to be in question.


 * Corrupted Angels already exist as a monster type in D3, and their manner of transformation is established - demonic corruption. Going by Storm of Light, I would extend that to any angel created by the corrupted Crystal Arch would count as one too (only one in the book, probably the first and only). Point is, the line between fallen angels and corrupted angels is vague, and there's current overlap (see next point).


 * Izual meets the definition of a corrupted angel - being altered through demonic means. As such, his existence is not the basis for a fallen angel article, rather, it is warranted for inclusion in a Corrupted Angel article.


 * Malthael is an iffy listing. No, he isn't a corrupted angel, not in the demonic sense already. But in the categorization sense, it isn't needed, because there's no reason to list Malthael as "fallen" and not every other member of the Reapers who's an angel (and with Urzael and the death maidens, that's a fair few). Malthael's "fall" exists to an attributable source (death). If fallen angel means "cast out of Heaven," then he doesn't fit the definition because he left on his own accord, was transformed through an identifiable source, and the nature of that blanket transformation is/should be addressed in the Reaper article.


 * Currently, that leaves Tyrael and Inarius. Tyrael has been outright stated to be a "mortal angel." Physically, that is the key distinction, it is a unique one. Inarius left Heaven of his own accord. Fallen from grace by the end of the Sin War, sure, but if the definition of a fallen angel then shifts to one who has fallen from a place of power, then it still enters a vague area. And currently, only applies to Inarius in that context.


 * So, in essence, while I created this article as a form of housekeeping, it seems the time's come to clear house. The definition of what constitutes a fallen angel is vague, it overlaps with corrupted angels (of which there is clear basis for an article in both gameplay and lore terms), and info on the characters listed is already covered on their own pages. So, open to discussion, but right now, inclined to delete. Usual 24 hour period applies.--Hawki (talk) 08:44, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 09:57, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * The real-world term "fallen angel" means an angel that has been cast out of Heaven. This definition alone cannot be taken as is because the context between it and the Diablo-verse are not really comparable. So to rephrase the definition; fallen angels were those who sided with the Devil during the war in Heaven. Now if compared to the Diablo-verse, I think this would basically imply any angel who directly fights against the High Heavens - regardless the circumstances behind their actions, whether manipulated by demons, or by choice. I would not classify Tyreal as a fallen angel as, though he may have been thrown out of the High Heavens, he did not turn evil. As for the overlap with corrupted angel, I would word it like this: all corrupted angels are fallen angels, not all fallen angels are corrupted.


 * That distinction could work - that technically excludes Inarius though. But it's still a definition that we're essentially making up, and leaves Corrupted Angels (which will have an article) and Reaper angels (whose actions as a whole are covered in the Reapers article). So it seems we're essentially repeating info that is/will be covered on other pages anyway.--Hawki (talk) 10:17, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 17:58, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this could be chopped down to what is basically a disambiguation page with a little explanation of various angels and links to their respective pages. I'm sure at least 50% of the content here could be tossed or relocated to more appropriate locations, but I'm not certain a complete removal is really necessary. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if this article was deleted, but I guess the fact that the term "fallen angel" actually exists in the Diablo-verse (as scarce as it may be) makes me inclined to say we should keep it. I honestly don't know how often someone browsing the Diablo Wiki might type "fallen angel" into the search bar, but since it is a real term outside the universe and is also use in many other quasi-religious games, I wouldn't discount it happening. Just my own opinions on the subject.


 * How about a category page? I'd be more comfortable with that as a category page doesn't necessarily make a statement based on the universe itself, just how we choose to categorize things (the category page for background classes is another example - a background class is a term that's never been used, but I judged it the best term to use for the type of categories going into it). As such, we're free to use our own criteria and explain it on the page itself, as long as we establish that it's our own set of criteria and not necessarily an in-universe one.--Hawki (talk) 21:42, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 22:37, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that a category for fallen angels is necessary. If that's the most you think it deserves, you might as well go ahead with the deletion.


 * Well, no, I don't think it 'needs' anything per se, but I'm trying to find a middleground. If you have no objections to deletion, I'm inclined to delete it because even if the term is used in-universe (and as far as I can tell, it's only been done so in a hyperbolic manner), there's no actual in-universe definition of what the term entails, and while I'm aware of fallen angels in Abrahamic faiths, they don't dictate the laws of the setting. That, and there's already an angel page. We don't have pages for "renegade demon" (followers of Lilith) or "corrupted sorcerer" (e.g. the Summoner) for instance.--Hawki (talk) 22:45, May 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * Fallen Angels are physically diffrent from regular angels unlike renegate Demons. Malthael and Izual have change much physically and isn't any longer regular angels, so this intresting page is very good to have. Also why cannot someone writhe that this don't have a cannonical name. Vendanis (talk) 13:42, May 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Grammar. Learn to use it. And no, one can't just write articles because they feel like it, there has to be enough canon behind it and a distinct name. For this page, there's no distinct canon for its name, nor any info that isn't already covered on afformiated pages. Anyway, that said, at this point in time my inclination is to delete the page and make a category, but the premise of:


 * A category page is based on a distinction the wiki makes by its very nature, so it's less a statement of "this exists" and more "this is how we choose to categorize something."


 * Criteria for inclusion would be "any angel that has left and/or turned against the High Heavens." Includes, by that definition, individuals (e.g. Tyrael, Inarius) and monsters (e.g. Corrupted Angels).


 * Becomes a sub-category of the "angels" category with standard superlative grouping (e.g. Tyrael is in the categories of "angel" and "Angiris Council," would fall into a "Fallen Angels" category too.

This admittedly does have problems with that categorization in some cases - not sure if Lycander (returned) and Balzael (served Malthael, but served Heaven in his own mind and never became a Reaper angel) can count, but luckily, they're the exceptions rather than the rule.--Hawki (talk) 21:12, May 28, 2014 (UTC)