I'm really not sure where to put this, since it seems to fit here and in worldbuilding, so...sorry if it's in the wrong place.

I was asking a Christian Astrophysicist that I respect a great deal a series of questions about writing fantasy, and I asked him about stuff related to the fall, and...I should just quote the question I asked, and his answer:



And part of his reply after explaining his beliefs on the Nephilim (that they are not half-demon people, basically), was:

I agree with this, and kicked myself a little for forgetting...but at the same time this brought questions...how much and what kind of artistic license do you think we have? I know there are obvious no-nos, but what are your thoughts on this subject (artistic license in fantasy)?
Do you think that Tolkien's version of angels, etc. was using a little too much artistic license?

That's a really good question, Lyncanis. I've thought about this a little bit... I think that you really can do just about anything, as long as your readers understand that it is fiction. Now, you could go too far, such as making Satan good, but I doubt you would do that. So... really... I think you could be as creative as you want, just in the understanding that what you write is fiction, unless you personally are wanting to be closer to the way things really work. Maybe it's just personal preference here?

On a side note, would you like me to get you more information about demons being able to reproduce? I have some preliminary knowledge, and I can get more from my dad, who's looked more into it. I can send it to you via PM.

This is a very tough issue. At the moment, it's my policy that nothing can work different morally in a fantasy story than it does in God's reality. I only have things different physically.

For example, anything that went against God's law would be out. You couldn't have a fantasy world where stealing was okay.

Anything that went against God's character would be out. For example, if you have a Creator, the Creator should reflect the attributes of God -- you couldn't have an evil God.

There are also things that would be very confusing and could easily be construed to mean things you didn't -- things such as having more than two genders, having magic from a non-"God" source, etc. My brain is moving a little slowly today, so I can't think of a lot of examples...

When it comes to physicality, however, it seems one could do most things safely. Sure God created the law of gravity just as He did the law of not stealing, but if someone reads your book where there is no gravity, they are not going to be tempted to go out and break the law of gravity, and also the law of gravity only reflects God's character insomuch as it instills order in the world.

Stealing, on the other hand, would not only be likely to tempt a reader if shown as right, but also reflects the nature of God's moral law, and of Himself. The principle that you can own something, and it belongs to you, and someone else must not take what is yours is a core part of the second greatest commandment - to love our neighbor as ourselves. To love men because they are made in God's image.

I don't know if this post is remotely helpful, or makes any sense, but those are my current thoughts.

Thanks for the reply.
I agree...I think it can be personal preference...I just, I don't know, I'm inconsistent in this point sometimes without realizing it...I guess.

What I mean is, I started this to see what people's thoughts were, thanks for the reply, I think I agree with you for the most part, I think that I'll probably be making Nephilim-type creatures be possible in Vadra (I don't believe they really are, but I know that that is a controversial topic), and this would be an example of artistic license.
I think I actually prefer to be a long way off from how things usually work in a lot of ways (of course not in ways that are set in stone, like God's nature, etc.), you may have seen me elsewhere on the forum arguing for the possibility of using Reincarnation in a fantasy (not meaning the hindu or whatever version of it, just that you could have a race that goes through several bodies before their soul goes to judgement or paradise, etc.), and stargazing/telling the future from the stars (the way Centaurs could in Narnia).

All that to say, I agree with you here, I guess. *can't figure out why he just said all the stuff he just said exactly, but still thinks it fits somehow*



I'd be happy to hear your position on demons, and your dad's! Bring on the PMs!

I think it was helpful, it draws some lines we cannot cross, and that is important.
I agree here for the most part as well. I think that moral standards would be the same in another world since the same God would be creating it if it existed. But do you think that the spiritual beings would be the same too then? *is hopefully not ignoring any of your post*

Nope, I don't think you ignored anything. Much of it was rambling, anyhow.

As for spiritual beings, I haven't settled that entirely yet. I'm skeptical of spiritual beings having abilities they don't have in God's created world, simply because then you seem to tamper a bit with what God would allow... it can get tricky. For instance, if you allow "angels" to sin... or if you allow "grey" spiritual beings who are neither "angel" nor "demon" based... you're treading on pretty thin ice. I'm not sure I could label it as wrong, but it seems to have the potential to be confusing, which is something to watch out for, I think.

However, we also don't know everything about spiritual beings. The scenario you mentioned may not be expressly biblical, but does it conflict with any biblical principle about spiritual beings that you know of? I can't think of any. It's more along the lines of things we don't know about spiritual beings, which is still something to be careful of, but not quite as big a deal as conflicting, I think.

(glad that I didn't ignore anything!)

I agree here too, we should be very careful here, but I think that it'd be all right to do something similar to what Tolkien did, making a different but not completely incompatible system of Angels/Demons. I guess I view it similarly to making other physical races, the Bible says that man was made a little lower than the angels (if I'm understanding correctly), if you can go what if? about physical races with spirits, why not what if? about spiritual ones? (I'm not necessarily trying to ask the question again, I'm just stating my perspective)

I think you could even have 'races' that aren't really at all like angels, demons, or normal races (Gandalf was sort of like this, and so was the Balrog, from the demonic side of things).

Does that make sense at all?

It makes sense.

See, that's one of those things where I don't condemn what Tolkien did, but don't really think it best. Not so much because he made the races physical, as that (as far as I know, Tolkien nerds correct me if I'm wrong ), he made them able to do wrong and to fall, like man, and yet made them higher than man. To me, that messes with the "man made in God's image" thing a bit, which is something to be careful with.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just at this point I wouldn't do it.

Totally understandable, I want to be careful in this too, and if you feel like you shouldn't do something, or shouldn't do it yet, then you shouldn't do it.
I'm not sure if you've seen it, but there's a thread that could relate to that: *can't remember title exactly even though he just looked at it, thinks it's something like: 'Theological Insights on Race Creation' If you don't have time to read it yet, I'm bringing it up because it mentions how each race should reflect one or some of the attributes of God in some way better than any other race, think of it, since God's "image" is sooo impossible to completely capture in any one thing, having different races reflect different parts of it would help a lot with that, and is similar to how man is created in God's image.

Anyway, I think that Gandalf was less than an angel (maybe he wasn't intended to be, but I wouldn't know that, it's just how it came across to me). Plus, I'm not completely certain that Angels cannot sin at all or make mistakes without being thrown out and becoming Demons, aren't the demons the ones that actually went and rebelled against God with Satan? *shrugs, isn't quite sure what he believes in this area*
Even still, if angels do never sin or make mistakes, I think it'd be okay to have some lower type of angel that can in a fantasy world.

Artistic Liberty - Since we are writers, we create. So that is within our artistic license. Storytelling is a gift that God has given us, and we should definitely use it for His glory. Keeping that in mind, whatever does not bring Him glory, or introduces something that could be confusing or contradictory to what He has said should be avoided.
Magic needs to be treated with care and clear distinctions as to what it is and as to what it is not. I understand that some writers may say that while magic is forbidden and bad in this world, that it does not have to be in other worlds. This may be true, but the same could be applied to murder. I do believe there are ways to portray magic that is not necessarily portraying magic in the same sense as it is on earth.
So, basically, if it goes against what we know to be moral in the Bible - don't do it. If it could be confusing, treat it with care. And by confusion, I don't mean what may cause confusion with debatable theology between denominations (end times, baptism, women's roles, etc.), but rather what Christianity clearly is.
So we have liberty, and I believe we have a lot of it. There really is a lot of freedom that God gives us when He allows us to create things. It's really great. But there are certain things that need to be approached with care, and some things that should not be approached at all.

Angels/Nephilim - As far as angels and nephilim, the area is more grey because the Bible does not focus very much on angels, so we are only given little descriptions of what they are, how they interact, their characters, etc. And the subject of nephilim seems to be a debatable one on earth, so there definitely is artistic license here. However, this is the beginning of subjects where treading with a little bit of care is needed. I don't think too much power should be given, and I think there needs to be a distinct separation between them and humanity and them and God.

Tolkien - From reading the Silmarillion, I would say that this is an example of someone who is treading on very, very thin ice. I personally believe he goes too far with his angel equivalents. It seems to me that the people of the world call too much upon the Valar, rather than just Eru Ilúvatar. They appear more like deities than angels in this respect, which I am not fond of. However, I can understand the reasoning behind this artistic license - I just don't necessarily agree with it. And otherwise, I do like the allegory in his books.

A really awesome post.

Thanks for your contributions, Cheyenne! A very thorough and thoughtful post.
I agree with you completely here. I think that Tolkien's Valar should have pointed people to Illuvatar, just like angels tell people in the Bible not to worship them, but God.

Thank you! I'm glad you liked it.

If angels cannot sin, how does one end up with demons?

Excepting some of Tolkien's early drafts of his mythology (these instances were changed in later drafts), I cannot recall a time when the Valar or Maiar 'did wrong'.

Gandalf was a lesser angel who took on a human-esqe form.

I agree with the general concensus: angels being portrayed like this is not ideal, but they weren't intended to be portrayed as angels -- they were intended to be gods of an English mythology. The Valar have numerous similarites with Greek mythology for a reason.

As a side note related to the Nephilim discussion. Tolkien has a fascinating part of his mythology in which a lesser angel (not demon) marries an elf and has a child.

That is interesting, thank you for showing up and straightening us out on those, Student of Tolkien.

Yes. I bow to my honorable colleague in all matters concerning Tolkien.

A good Bible verse regarding this is Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

We cannot portray anything as good that the Bible says is evil, and we cannot portray anything as evil that the Bible says is good. With physical things (like fantasy creatures), we have a lot of freedom within the realm of a story to be creative, but we should be careful with how far we take this, and morality must always stay the same.

This is one of those issues where "license" is a (somewhat) less than helpful word; "freedom" is IMO better---but, as with most areas of the Christian life, it is to be responsible freedom. (Which is, alas, a nowadays a buzzword more parroted than imitated in the quasi-Reformed circles I've moved in recently.) "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."

But that's just restating the question . The passage of Scripture that I think might be most helpful is Paul's instructions about what to think about ("whatever is true, whatever is noble," and so on). The underlying principle here is that we shouldn't aim to avoid "no-nos", but to positively and proactively glorify God and edify---just as with the other aspects of worldbuilding, if something is true (in the way our world is set up---this usualy means "Biblical"), or if it's edifying and helpful to the reader, it may be suitable to include in the story in question. Some things are suitable in some stories but not in others (for example, it might be reasonable to build a story around a false cosmology to show how things would be were it actually true, but it's probably unwise to use that cosmology for a story set in our world with an entirely unrelated point.).


It's worth noting that Tolkien was a Roman Catholic (and wrote well before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, at that); many of the details of his cosmology etc. that Protestants would think as at best "artistic license" are based in what was to him orthodox theology. The Valar, for example, are in many respects fairly closely drawn on the Catholic view of the saints. (Less on the angels than a lot of readers seem to assume ...) For the rest, as someone pointed out above, he was deliberately developing an "English mythology," something that would resonate with both his countrymen and the English of earlier centuries.

I hope that's helpful.

*chuckles*

Interesting.

This freshmen bows to the senior Student of Tolkien.

Thanks everyone for replying and the advice, I don't have time to be really specific, but everything was helpful, and just for the record I'm not planning on going as far out as possible, rather I'm reminding myself that I can indeed do things in a fantasy world differently than if I were writing about the real universe (such as having supernatural "angel" type beings that are different from angels in our world, differences in history structure, whether or not everyone fell in my fantasy world, etc).

Thanks everyone.

Bryan Davis (author of the awesome Dragons in Our Midst books) wrote a really good article on this subject that I thought I'd share here. http://dragonsinourmidst.blogspot.com/2 ... at-if.html

Thanks Seer! *bookmarks to read later* I'm always thinking about this...