A New Angelic Branch

[Ferociousdragon]

There are many demonic places in Dungeon Crawl. But is it that often you see angelic areas, or even angels as opponents at all? The game has only a couple places you can encounter angels: a rare floor type in Pandemonium, and an occasional floor in a Ziggurat. That's about it. This topic is to propose and discuss the making of a branch dedicated to holy beings. There are a few good reasons for an angelic branch:

1- It makes otherwise incredibly rare creatures more present in the game.

2- It increases the diversity of enemies the player fights in the endgame. Most of the endgame usually contains unholy beings, so adding this would have to make people adapt to the new enemies (especially if undead or otherwise unholy themselves).

3- It makes more sense than a random floor in an otherwise completely unholy branch. (I personally think it should be removed in conjunction to that.) Is it supposed to be an outpost where the angels plan their assault on evil?

There should also be several holy monsters introduced so there can be enough material for the branch. I think that one thing that could make this branch unique is the inability to bribe it with Gozag. Any attempts to bribe the angels will instead anger them and cause them to get might on sight. Another unique thing could be the 3 good gods (if you don't worship one) periodically unleashing holy wrath on you for trespassing. (This becomes considerably worse if you worship an evil god and drastically worse if you are undead or demonic.) They won't mind as much if you enter with sufficent piety (although some of the monsters will still attack). If you are an unholy creature or otherwise affiliated with evil, your regeneration could stop or slow down, respectively, so zombies, demons, and evil god worshippers should come in with ways of regeneration (Makhleb would be the best choice in this situation, with healing powers for killing.)

Adding a new angelic branch would strengthen the presence of otherwise almost never seen enemies, increase diversity in endgame opponents, and put angels in a better spot than a dimension housing the demons they hate. If you have any suggestions, feel free to post.

[Sar]

The most obvious problem with that is that there isn't enough holy enemies to fill a branch.

Also, it seems a bit harsh to undead players.

[Ferociousdragon]

A) I mentioned making holy creatures to fill the branch with.
B) Even unholies will only encounter wrath periodically in there, and regeneration loss can be compensated by healing tools. In addition, evil god worshippers already would experience a bit of this. Besides, the number of living species is pretty high compared to demonic or undead species. I'm sure a skilled player could live with these maluses.

[nicolae]

Holy branches have been suggested before, and it's not likely they're going to take off. At least now worshipping good gods doesn't make holies neutral anymore, which was a big issue with past proposals.

[KoboldLord]

There are actually already several holy monster designs that were implemented in previous versions. They were removed because they were awful for gameplay. The remaining holy monsters also have the potential to be horrible gameplay experiences; they're mostly okay in small doses but clearing a level with dozens or hundreds of them is excruciating. Holy Pan is not the sort of thing that needs expanding to fill a whole branch, it was excessive already.

[Sar]

You mentioned that there should be new holy monsters but you didn't give a single example of what they could be.

And all (?) holies have their attacks branded with "holy wrath", which causes them to do stupid amounts of damage to demons and undead. That's what I meant by "unfair" to those characters. At least holy Pan is skippable and Zigs are 100% optional.

[reaver]

The big problem with this is that "Holy" enemies are defined in such a way as to make them poorly designed right from the get go.

"Holy" damage basically punishes certain character types (undead/demonic/evil god worshipping) just for existing, with no possible countermeasures.

Since they're "angelic" they have arbitrary blanket immune to Poison, Negative Energy, etc. (this is a general problem with the holiness system imo)

Most of the fancy (Ophan, Seraph, Cherub) holy monsters could be improved by removing the Holy tag and changing their holy damage to physical damage (and modifying their interaction to other Holy monsters)...so why bother building a branch around them?

[Ferociousdragon]

Hm... I see.
If this is the case, then modifications would probably be needed to make holy enemies viable for their own branch. I would insist on an amulet of unholiness to counteract the angel's holy baloney. Anyway, it would take away the normal holy vulnerability for undead and demons. (rHoly) If, while under a good god, you inadvertently wore it not knowing what it was, you'd take it off and be forgiven. Wearing it voluntarily would be met with penance. Either way, I think this would help out majorly with the angel's unfair advantage, if you found one. (Of course, this would coincide with the branch implementation [or maybe holy priests in the dungeon], since before that it would be mostly pointless.) They could be a fairly common treasure in the infernal regions.

[duvessa]

https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12312&p=172914#p172914

[kuniqs]

Demonic branches's challenge lies in torment, which most races in the game are not immune to. Even that, undead characters have other problems in those branches (dispel undead, no drinking, no corpses)

Angelic branch would heavily penalize undead/demonic PCs without really any drawback for living, non-evil PCs.

And besides.. populating a floor with hard to kill devas who smite like crazy is harsh even for non-undead.

[Sar]

most races in the game are also not immune to hellfire

[Berder]

Some branches are much easier or harder for certain characters depending on what they are. Spider is murder on low-ac high-ev melee characters due to webs and paralysis, and not usually easy for blaster casters either due to noise and ghost moths, but it's a cake walk if you have a lot of AC and an axe. Shoals is particularly lethal if you're a high-ac low-ev character with no ranged attack, but much less lethal if you're a blaster mage or a merfolk with javelins. Abyss is the safest 3rd rune if you have plenty of stealth, but if you're a noisy tin can it can be a dangerous slog. V:5 is a lot more difficult if you make a lot of noise such as qaz or blaster mages.

I think these variances in difficulty for different character types actually make the game more interesting, as long as you aren't forced to do the hardest branches every game.

The important part is that branches should be randomized from game to game, like the lair branches are. That will make each game more different and lead to strategic choices of which branches to do in a given game.

[grisamentum]

"Holy" is a pretty poor theme for monsters generally.

But I don't think the disadvantage for unholy characters is really that large. I did holy pan as a demonspawn and had no problems whatsoever killing seraph and other holy monsters.

[kuniqs]

most races in the game are also not immune to hellfire

None are. What was your point?

[bcadren]

most races in the game are also not immune to hellfire

None are. What was your point?

Hellfire ignores AC and EV; meaning only robust characters with high fighting take relatively little damage from it. My 'Troll Dragon' (TrTm^Chei) win, had high enough HP and enough regen that the 3d30 damage wasn't anywhere near the worry it would be for a normal character (almost 500 HP in form; means even if all hit max damage, it'd take 6 blasts of hellfire to kill him.) Inversely; I've kind of thought of Torment as borderline problematic, because it ignores AC, EV and HP to do the same damage regardless. Lots of rN will step this down, but it's still directly multiplicative damage that's the same for a MiFi, a SpEn or even a DESu.

That said; what you'd really need to make a holy branch 'work' is something to make the monsters demonstrably different than 'demonic' monsters. The only real difference they have now is that they aren't affected by Holy Word and they use attacks that specifically punish undead/"evil"...almost ONLY attacks that do these things. A damage type by itself makes them all about as interesting as a Hellion without the rest of the hell monsters. I'd talked briefly about the idea to make a holy branch before and from a flavour perspective it gets a lot of 'cool' factor; but from a practical one; unless you have a new mechanic to make it more interesting than tedious (Holy Pan is either easy or tedious depending on your character when you get there; never fun. Tomb is almost always tedious; actually fun for like Mummy of Kiku).

Anyways; start with a portal concept for a one-floor version, not a whole branch. Whole branch is far more likely to fail.

[Quazifuji]

Seems like there are two problems here. One is that most current holy enemies are more annoying than interesting, which is a difficult problem to solve without just removing them, and at that point the "we already have holy enemies" argument is gone.

The other issue is that the current criteria for a holy enemy is way too narrow, always being immune to certain things and getting extra damage against evil characters. This seems an easier problem to fix. Do holy enemies have to all have holy weapons and negative energy and poison immunity? There isn't any real reason for that, except they already do (I mean, there's flavor reasons, but the design philosophy of the game pretty heavily prioritizes gameplay over flavor).

So I don't think the whole "it would suck for demonspawn/undead/evil god worshippers" argument is relevant, because we could easily make holy enemies not all do holy damage, and if a holy branch were going to exist I would argue that we should. We don't need to be constrained by what traits holy enemies in the game have if those traits are both not interesting and poorly suited to a whole branch (both of which I, personally, think are true).

Granted, the whole point is moot if the actual existing holy enemies are still annoying and wouldn't make for a fun branch even if the holy damage were removed, because then you have to design new enemies to make a holy branch, and at that point you're just designing a new branch from scratch that maybe uses some artwork we already have. Granted, there's been discussion of merging or shrinking Pan or Hell to make room for new branches that give more variety in extended, and if that happened a holy branch could be a reasonable theme, but a theme alone isn't a whole lot if the existing enemies aren't going to stay.

[duvessa]

Well if you change holy to be like living then "holy branch" is no longer a worthwhile concept because it's not different from "living branch". The unique aspects of the actual existing holy enemies are exactly the ones that have been pointed out to be terrible (halo, immunities, holy damage, divine retribution); if you take away those properties then you're left with bigger hog (holy swine), bigger orc knight (cherub), angel (this one is actually kind of ok), flying Saint Roka (daeva), another dragon since apparently we need 20 of those, bigger not-slow salamander firebrand (ophan), dire elephant (apis), and [insert one of the 20 late-game uniques that is never worth fighting here] (seraph). Ophan is definitely better than salamander firebrand since it is not a salamander, and should replace it, but other than that these monsters don't have unique gimmicks other than "being holy monsters", and the other monsters with their gimmicks are generally better since they don't have the massive design disadvantage of being holy monsters. Daeva is probably also a better monster than Saint Roka, so that leaves us with 3 existing holy monsters that are actually good, 2 of which are already used a lot and don't need their own branch.

[tedric]

Beneath the specific arguments in the OP (which have been rebutted/responded to rather well with the realities of "holiness" as it is currently implemented in Crawl) is an assumption that there "should" be parity (or at least less disparity) between holy and unholy/undead/demonic content in the first place. There is no a priori reason to think this is true. It's not even true in real-world mythologies, where the divine is often closely linked with death and the difference between demons and angels is sometimes one of personality or even mood rather than alignment with an ultimate cosmic order. So why should Crawl's mythology (and game elements derived therefrom) conform to an arbitrary binary between things that are not actually opposites to begin with?

[tasonir]

Holy in crawl is somewhat like the Legendary mechanic in magic the gathering: something that sounds really cool, but is ultimately only a drawback. [Legendary in MTG simply means you can't have two of them at once - there is absolutely no benefit to it.]

For a more specific holy mechanic that bothers me, I ran into Seraph twice on my last run, once in holy pan, and again on the orb run (after killing him in pan, no less - I guess he isn't truly considered a unique). The part that really scared me is he is capable of summoning angels, which quickly get spammed and out of control, yet because he "worships TSO" in as much as a monster can, you can't abjure his summons - TSO shields them from the spell. I was able to solve this in pan by controlled blinking next to him and finishing him off quickly, but the orb run has -Ctele and it's much more difficult to deal with. Breaking a level 6 spell like this seemed a bit harsh to me, perhaps I rely too much on it.

[mps]

I don't have a strong opinion about the idea of an angelic dungeon branch, but it does not seem obviously out of bounds to me for monsters to have mechanics that put undead at a relative disadvantage or that break a level six spell. There doesn't seem to be much worry about mummies and ghouls sucking for other reasons and torment immunity is a pretty good intrinsic in the extended endgame otherwise (good in the midgame too, can use torment scrolls with impunity). It doesn't seem obvious to me that summons you can't abjure are a bad thing in themselves either, as optional extended endgame content.

The concern that such a branch would probably require a lot of new monsters and there are a lot of monsters already is more convincing to my mind.

[tasonir]

To be fair, if you're running holy pan you know that Seraph is there, and exactly what room he spawns in as well. But you can't quite call him extended end game content since he can also be part of the orb run now, so you can run into him on a 3 rune game, and you'll be under -Ctele when you do.

[mps]

To be fair, if you're running holy pan you know that Seraph is there, and exactly what room he spawns in as well. But you can't quite call him extended end game content since he can also be part of the orb run now, so you can run into him on a 3 rune game, and you'll be under -Ctele when you do.

True, I'm just talking in connection with a holy themed dungeon branch.

[BobIsDead]

I've thought this before. I'm sure many people have. The problem is that holy enemies aren't developed enough to have a dedicated branch. And people see little reason to develop them as a group, as they're so rare. Kind of a cyclical problem there. At first, I was frustrated with it. Then I realised that not every enemy type needed its own branch. (Though, seriously, what's taking us so long on getting a dedicated nonliving branch?)

Umm... but if one were to create a holy branch, it would need to be more than just a holy branch. Like, that's the lore-based theme, but what's the gameplay theme? Several ideas spring to mind, but I don't want to go into them, for fear of going off on a tangent. I guess if one were thinking larger than that, one could also think about how to change the holy type to make it fit in better with the rest of the game, but I kind of like it being a bit of a wild card.

Another idea is the same advice I've seen (and have attracted) before. Make a portal out of it and, if that works, we'll see about a branch. In addition to this, perhaps think about a branch/portal that contains holy enemies, not one that is based around them. For example, if there was a cathedral-themed area, that could contain a variety of priest enemies, but would also allow for one or two vaults containing holy enemies. Similar ideas could be applied to an afterlife-themed area or a celestial-themed one. Basically, if you want to see holy enemies more often, you don't necessarily need to base an entire branch around them.

[Ferociousdragon]

@BobIsDead
Sure. It would be good to try out with a holy portal, with a few holy, as well as many holy affiliated living beings; if angels are so annoying except in small doses, they can be rarely spawned as enemies, spawned as bosses, or occasionally summoned by a high priest. They'd take back seat to holy living opponents, helping to retain some of the theme without most of the said to be arbitrary advantages that angels and seraphs have.

Holy living enemies could include:
Priest (Zin): Attacks with lesser holy attacks, and a long sword.
High Priest: Same as priest, but stronger with ability to summon one angel max.
Paladin (TSO) : Heavily armored warrior with claymore that has a sword of holy wrath
Great Paladin: Holy juggernaut that can summon an angel to it's side. Very dangerous, especially to undead.
Holy Caller (Zin): Rare and weak, but capable of summoning several angels. Kill the summoner fast.
Healer (Elyvilion): Also weak, but can heal, protect, and cast charms on allies.

[kuniqs]

How about ecumenical temple's evil twin: a branch that contains god-themed enemies of, say, 3 random gods, with a temple/cathedral/stonehedge theme?

[grisamentum]

@BobIsDead
Sure. It would be good to try out with a holy portal, with a few holy, as well as many holy affiliated living beings; if angels are so annoying except in small doses, they can be rarely spawned as enemies, spawned as bosses, or occasionally summoned by a high priest. They'd take back seat to holy living opponents, helping to retain some of the theme without most of the said to be arbitrary advantages that angels and seraphs have.

Holy living enemies could include:
Priest (Zin): Attacks with lesser holy attacks, and a long sword.
High Priest: Same as priest, but stronger with ability to summon one angel max.
Paladin (TSO) : Heavily armored warrior with claymore that has a sword of holy wrath
Great Paladin: Holy juggernaut that can summon an angel to it's side. Very dangerous, especially to undead.
Holy Caller (Zin): Rare and weak, but capable of summoning several angels. Kill the summoner fast.
Healer (Elyvilion): Also weak, but can heal, protect, and cast charms on allies.

I don't see much variety there. All I see there is a bunch of smiting and summoning more angels.

Things "holy" enemies (living or not) should/could be doing:

1. reciting a version of the axioms of law at you (silence, paralysis, confusion, etc, based on monster HD)
2. abjuring your summons
3. summoning spectral versions of uniques you've killed
4. blessing an ally with "inner cleansing flame" so that if it's killed it explodes in a cleansing flame (alternatively, releasing gouts of holy fire when injured, like the dithmenos ability)
5. gaining strength for every holy being killed in its LOS
6. removing good mutations
7. casting high level Fire spells

A particularly powerful Holy (like a unique high priest of Zin, or a Seraph, etc) should use Zin's Sanctuary or Imprison so that it can recover.

[njvack]

I don't have a real opinion on a holy branch in general; there doesn't seem to be a real clear line on what branches "should" exist in Crawl. But on a few proposed effects:

3. summoning spectral versions of uniques you've killed
4. blessing an ally with "inner cleansing flame" so that if it's killed it explodes in a cleansing flame (alternatively, releasing gouts of holy fire when injured, like the dithmenos ability)
5. gaining strength for every holy being killed in its LOS

Making further reasons to skip uniques (as 3 does) and lure monsters to 1v1 fights (which 4 and 5 do) would be problematic.

Also, I think Sanctuary as a monster effect would be irritating and problematic -- there are lots of special-case-y things you'd need to block, and ultimately it becomes another "walk away from this effect" situation. Unless it imprisons you in the sanctuary as well, in which case it's "let monsters beat on you while you can't do anything about it" which doesn't sound great.

[grisamentum]

I don't have a real opinion on a holy branch in general; there doesn't seem to be a real clear line on what branches "should" exist in Crawl. But on a few proposed effects:

3. summoning spectral versions of uniques you've killed
4. blessing an ally with "inner cleansing flame" so that if it's killed it explodes in a cleansing flame (alternatively, releasing gouts of holy fire when injured, like the dithmenos ability)
5. gaining strength for every holy being killed in its LOS

Making further reasons to skip uniques (as 3 does) and lure monsters to 1v1 fights (which 4 and 5 do) would be problematic.

True. Skipping uniques can be an issue. Although the ability to lure monsters to 1v1 fights is situational. If we're talking about a single-level portal then it entirely depends on the layout of the level.

Also, I think Sanctuary as a monster effect would be irritating and problematic -- there are lots of special-case-y things you'd need to block, and ultimately it becomes another "walk away from this effect" situation. Unless it imprisons you in the sanctuary as well, in which case it's "let monsters beat on you while you can't do anything about it" which doesn't sound great.

Nobody in a Sanctuary is allowed to attack, I think? But I don't see how it's any more irritating or problematic than Nergalle casting Death's Door. Or monsters that create flaming clouds. You can stand in them and fight, or you can walk out of them. Monster sanctuary is just a combination of both: stand in it and get hit by Holy Word (and perhaps some kind of non-evil affecting effect) or walk out of it. And we're also talking about a single unique with this spell - not frequent encounters with it.

I guess the real problem is that attacking breaks the Sanctuary, but if you're not a follower of Zin, there's no penalty?

[njvack]

True, a portal can guarantee layout that'll make effects work better. Well, so can the level layout more generally.

Nergalle casting ddoor is really irritating, and I'd hate to see it as an area of effect. If no one in the sanctuary can attack, I don't see how it's of much benefit to the monster. I guess they could heal, but the player can be healing then (and improving positioning), too. In general, I think Sanctuary works better as a player effect because Crawl is player-vs-world. Similarly Imprison -- it'd be kind of like getting hit with the Tomb card, which is generally good. Unless you weren't in danger, which would just make it irritating.

[grisamentum]

True, a portal can guarantee layout that'll make effects work better. Well, so can the level layout more generally.

Nergalle casting ddoor is really irritating, and I'd hate to see it as an area of effect. If no one in the sanctuary can attack, I don't see how it's of much benefit to the monster. I guess they could heal, but the player can be healing then (and improving positioning), too. In general, I think Sanctuary works better as a player effect because Crawl is player-vs-world. Similarly Imprison -- it'd be kind of like getting hit with the Tomb card, which is generally good. Unless you weren't in danger, which would just make it irritating.

It would depend on the effect that standing in Sanctuary had, I think. I see your point about it not working in a world vs player situation (as opposed to player vs world). For example I've used Sanctuary because I had somewhere to go (ie the stairs, while carrying the Orb) and I just wanted to get through.

But if it were an effect that compelled that made the player choose between "do I wait out these negative effects" or "do I retreat and allow the fight to reset" - that seems like a legitimate choice tactical choice. Again, like standing in a particularly bad cloud. Perhaps the twist on monster Sanctuary is that you can attack to dispel the effect, but immediately suffer a Zin or TSO wrath.

[jejorda2]

Similarly Imprison -- it'd be kind of like getting hit with the Tomb card, which is generally good. Unless you weren't in danger, which would just make it irritating.

I know that I've changed tactics after I used a potion then got teleported away. I guess imprison could be effective against players who have limited access to some buffs.

Imprison + Mark or Recall or summoning might be neat, especially if Imprison paralyzed (or just -Tele) while the walls were up.

[BobIsDead]

Hmm... some more thoughts on how this could work. Let's say we go with the Temple/Cathedral theme. I picture a bunch of rooms connected by doors. No narrow passages/places to fight enemies one-on-one. Enemies would be found in clusters, but each individual cluster would be spread out.

As for enemies, as well as a smattering of the preexisting holy enemies, here's some ideas for some enemies that might work well together in this environment.

• Ely Priest: Primarily a healer, obviously. Also able to reduce effectiveness of the player's attacks. Either just reducing the damage or "pacifying" the player's weapon to make it more likely to miss.
• TSO Priest: Able to buff allies. Also able to surround self with a holy aura that protects allies inside it from negative energy, evil spells, and attacks from summoned demons/undead.
• Zin Priest: Has a number of nasty smiting attacks, each based around dealing more damage (as well as additional effects) depending on whether the target is undead, demonic, a worshipper of an evil/chaotic god, or mutated.
• Martyr: Able to redirect attacks towards self if in range. Poor attacks but high HP and regeneration.
• Paladin: Wields weapons of holy wrath. Wears heavy armour. Able to surround self with a holy aura that inspires courage in all allies inside it, making them attack harder.
• Inquisitor: Wields strong weapons. Wears heavy armour. Able to seal doors and staircases, often trapping the player in with a roomful of enemies.

I think the above would go some way to solving the "holy enemies are a dick to undead" problem. Some of that would still be there, but it'd be far more manageable. Also, the theme is slightly more realised, being based around enemy cooperation. The ideas would probably still need to be developed so that the possible enemy combinations felt very different in terms of their team dynamic.

[edgefigaro]

I don't have time to flesh this thought out, but I've been brainstorming about this for a spot.

Holy Branch is set up like tomb, as in it has an entrance. Tower 1-5 --> Heaven 1-3. First layer of tower is a larger area where you have to enter the tower. Lots of mages and such inside the tower, not just limited to holy creatures though. There are more holy creatres the further up you go.

Tower 1 outside has strong living creatures and a few holy creatures running around the grassy areas.
Floors 2-5 of tower are smallish, mazey. Expect to have to go up and down a couple times.

Heaven is set up to be more like tomb (not in feel, but in difficulty/awfulness). Not fleshing this out atm.

[duvessa]

there are already bennu so you might as well add the rest of the holy monsters to tomb imo

[bcadren]

there are already bennu so you might as well add the rest of the holy monsters to tomb imo

I feel like that would take Tomb from the hardest branch for non-Undead...to just plain the hardest branch for everyone. Still be less annoying to put up with Holy Damage than torment (IMO); but geez aren't Holy Pan and Tomb annoying enough seperately? Why combine them?

[ion_frigate]

A common objection, seen in this thread and elsewhere, to a holy branch is that it'd be too arbitrarily cruel to undead/demonic characters. So here's a question: why not just make holy monsters less arbitrarily cruel to undead/demonic characters? Holy wrath and cleansing flame being particularly punishing to undead and demonic characters exists for two reasons I can see: flavor and player-monster symmetry. Those are both generally considered to be not-great reasons to keep a feature. If there's no overly compelling reason to keep this feature as-is, and it's one of the things preventing further development and use of holy enemies, I say get rid of it. Make the damage from holy effects only slightly worse for undead and demons.

Or, alternately, one could give holy monsters weapons that work well against the living as well as ones that work against the dead. For example, flaying could easily be rebranded as Inquisition-style torture. Or here's another idea: a new holy brand called 'flagellation' - it inflicts extra damage on the living, proportional to piety with a good god (so holy monsters would all use it pretty effectively) or Invocations skill while worshiping a good god. That would certainly break up the monotony of holy wrath weapon after holy wrath weapon, as well as making it less guaranteed to get a universally useful weapon out of a holy monster.

[kuniqs]

Or here's another idea: a new holy brand called 'flagellation' - it inflicts extra damage on the living, proportional to piety with a good god (so holy monsters would all use it pretty effectively) or Invocations skill while worshiping a good god. That would certainly break up the monotony of holy wrath weapon after holy wrath weapon, as well as making it less guaranteed to get a universally useful weapon out of a holy monster.

Or - make holy wrath work also on evil monsters, but to a lesser degree.
You can play the holy trio without consequences, so I don't see a difference between this super-pain brand and worshipping the shining one 'till you bless your weapon.

[Shard1697]

What on earth would even be the point of an angelic branch in the first place beyond flavor?

The game has only a couple places you can encounter angels: a rare floor type in Pandemonium, and an occasional floor in a Ziggurat. That's about it.

There's also only a couple places you can encounter greater mummies, and that's more than enough of them already.

[BobIsDead]

What on earth would even be the point of an angelic branch in the first place beyond flavor?

The game has only a couple places you can encounter angels: a rare floor type in Pandemonium, and an occasional floor in a Ziggurat. That's about it.

There's also only a couple places you can encounter greater mummies, and that's more than enough of them already.

I think the issue of developing things beyond pure flavour has already been discussed. But to address your second point, I don't think that a couple of floors of Zig or one specific type of floor in Pan is in any way comparable to the Tomb, at least in terms of accessibility. Also, greater mummies are a specific monster, whilst holy is (theoretically, at least) meant to be an entire monster type on par with demonic, living, undead, etc..

Sure, I don't see holy monsters as being developed enough to allow a branch devoted solely to them. But it's also easy to see why people would be frustrated by how holy monsters are hid out of sight, feel rather unintegrated with the rest of crawl.

[roctavian]

A portal vault with holy-type enemies that necromutates any non-undead character while inside. It should warn players that worship gods like TSO etc. but otherwise causing penance is fine.