# New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon



## Deverash (Jan 2, 2008)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071221a

Interesting article.  Down at the bottom are stats (in 3e terms more the pity) for 3 fire archons, the bottom 2 having 3e stats with a 4e feel.


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2008)

So, if I'm reading this article correctly then "out with the old" includes lantern archons and hound archons?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm sorry to see the old-style Celestian archons go, but on the other hand I'm glad to see more interesting elemental creatures that fit the (meta)setting better.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jan 2, 2008)

Heh heh heh, "angelic furries".

Glad to see someone noticed, and good riddance.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 2, 2008)

Good article, I liked the 4E explanations. I don't agree about the archons at all. Mythology is filled with gods and their servants that have animal heads, or bodies or whatever. This seems to imply that doesn't make sense unless you are an animal or werewhatever yourself. Bah. 

So, all servants/angels/whatever of humanoids are going to look like them exclusively? That doesn't make sense at all to me, but whatever. I'm hopeful someone will eventually do a third party expansion that puts some old skewl stuff back into the game.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 2, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Good article, I liked the 4E explanations. I don't agree about the archons at all. Mythology is filled with gods and their servants that have animal heads, or bodies or whatever. This seems to imply that doesn't make sense unless you are an animal or werewhatever yourself. Bah.
> 
> So, all servants/angels/whatever of humanoids are going to look like them exclusively? That doesn't make sense at all to me, but whatever. I'm hopeful someone will eventually do a third party expansion that puts some old skewl stuff back into the game.




I'm not sure I agree that the article was implying whatever god you worship should look like you. I could appear as a giant three eyed monk fish with wings if you so wanted.... But there should be some sort of reason for it. (Perhaps the worshipers live on the edge of a great lake and rely on the monk fish as a source of food and economy...)

The Archons didn't have any reason really at all to appear as they did. They just were...


----------



## NilesB (Jan 2, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> So, all servants/angels/whatever of humanoids are going to look like them exclusively? That doesn't make sense at all to me, but whatever. I'm hopeful someone will eventually do a third party expansion that puts some old skewl stuff back into the game.



I wouldn't mind angels that looked like like wheels of flame or four winged Bulls with a hundred glowing eyes myself; be both cooler than the old archons certainly.


----------



## Mortellan (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't need to read this article, all I need to know is from the blurb: Archons are -cool-.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 2, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> I don't need to read this article, all I need to know is from the blurb: Archons are -cool-.




Incorrect.  They are actually quite hot.


----------



## Grymar (Jan 2, 2008)

Nice article.

I like the abilities of the 3rd stat block...teleport + a fire burst is a killer combination.  The flanking rules are interesting, but rather tough to remember.


----------



## withak (Jan 2, 2008)

"Cool" article, but I really wish they'd just come out and give us some real 4e stat blocks, instead of just 3e-izing them first.


----------



## Shroomy (Jan 2, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> "Cool" article, but I really wish they'd just come out and give us some real 4e stat blocks, instead of 3e-izing them first.




That would be nice, but giving us 3e stats does avoid the problems of the "Ecology of the Death Knight" article, which was a nice read, but useless in terms of current play.  A little bit of utlity for the current system is not a bad thing IMO.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 2, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> "Cool" article, but I really wish they'd just come out and give us some real 4e stat blocks, instead of 3e-izing them first.





Why not both? It's not taking up any extra paper so they don't have to worry about page count. Best of both worlds. A living 'review' of the new system and some current game mechanics for those who will be playing for the next six (or more) months.


----------



## withak (Jan 2, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Why not both? It's not taking up any extra paper so they don't have to worry about page count. Best of both worlds. A living 'review' of the new system and some current game mechanics for those who will be playing for the next six (or more) months.




Perhaps I wasn't clear. (Looking back at my post confirms this; oops.) I'm asking for more, not less.  

I'd prefer to see actual, real 4e crunch, in addition to the 3e-ized versions of the same creatures.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Why not both? It's not taking up any extra paper so they don't have to worry about page count. Best of both worlds. A living 'review' of the new system and some current game mechanics for those who will be playing for the next six (or more) months.




That's easy. Since we already have a pretty good idea of how all the numbers in the system scale (+1 per 2 levels), I imagine that 3 levels of one monster would be enough to reverse engineer the game. And they're not quite ready to have us do that just yet.

Did everybody notice that this article is a late-posted entry from _Dragon #361,_ rather than the first article from _Dragon #362?_ The article is dated December 24th.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 2, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Why not both? It's not taking up any extra paper so they don't have to worry about page count. Best of both worlds. A living 'review' of the new system and some current game mechanics for those who will be playing for the next six (or more) months.



I am guessing that they aren't ready or willing to give a 4e statblock yet (of any creature).  

Personally, I liked the article.  It was well structured, with "why these kinds of archons", some knowledge (planes) info, basic ecology stuff, and three scaled samples.  I liked the part about creating fire archons and their weapons and armor.  I wonder how a fire archon blade will fare in the hands of a PC? or an enemy NPC that has stolen one?

Theres some good idea mining stuff in here.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Did everybody notice that this article is a late-posted entry from _Dragon #361,_ rather than the first article from _Dragon #362?_ The article is dated December 24th.



I wonder if someone from their content management department forgot to press "push live" before going on vacation.


----------



## IanB (Jan 2, 2008)

I assume from the reference to horse-headed angels we can infer that guardinals are gone too.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Jan 2, 2008)

Nice article, but it's the art that really impressed me.  Great design, very evocative and cool, and executed in an interesting style, not the cartoony figures floating in the void of 3e art.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 2, 2008)

One of the areas I hope the DI proves it's utility in is in making older material useful.

For example, when 4e comes around, if the Death Knight isn't in the Monster Manual, how about updating the ecology article with stats for it? If it is in the Monster Manual, how about stats for unique Death Knights?

By making the older material useful and updating it, it adds utility to the back list and provides ongoing reasons even for fans of the 'original' material. (Assuming such a beast exists already.)


----------



## Lord Zack (Jan 2, 2008)

Well these are pretty cool, but I'm not calling them Archons. They'll probably be servants of Imix the Archomental or the Efreet or maybe both in my 4e Planescape campaign. All in all 4e's treatment of the Elemental Planes has me a bit intrigued, like the fact that they will supposedly be more accessible and useful for play though I will keep the structure of the Greet Wheel's elemental planes rather than the Elemental Chaos, though some ideas from that might be also integrated into Limbo.


----------



## Gan Stiggür (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello.

It´s my firts post in this site...

and it´s a great article!!!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

While the visual is kind of interesting, I have always been curious about elemental/insubstantial sorts of creatures that wear armor. What's the point/function, other than just to look neat?

[EDIT- I realize they actually have armor calculated into the AC of the archons, but just from a non-gaming standpoint, would it really have any kinds of tangible benefits to such creatures?]


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 2, 2008)

Only Hound, Warden and Owl Archons had animal heads, and they were based on Angels called the Cherubim.  Yes the Cherubim were originally more animalistic, and not "innocent baby angels" as they were later depicted.  Guardinals I believe are vaguely based on Shamanistic Guardian Spirits, but there wasn't ever anything much to support that.

But to some extent I feel that 4e should have better explanations on what spirits are. Since spirits are a rather universal term.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> While the visual is kind of interesting, I have always been curious about elemental/insubstantial sorts of creatures that wear armor. What's the point/function, other than just to look neat?




If you read the article, you'll notice that the fire archons aren't insubstantial. They're more like Efreet or Djinn, in that they're associated with the element, not made of it. So they're more "burning" than disembodied fire. Think of them being more like "the Human Torch" than some walking mound of flames.

In that case, armor and weapons are wholly appropriate. Just as they were for the Efreeti on the cover of the 1e DMG (or 3e's _DMG II_).


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 2, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Heh heh heh, "angelic furries".
> 
> Glad to see someone noticed, and good riddance.




We're currently playing a plane-hopping, Stargate-esque campaign with a hound archon PC.

There *are* a lot of Scooby Doo jokes.  I'm not blaming the designers for that, but it is hard not to chuckle at the situations that come up when you have a giant bipedal dog guy in your adventuring party.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If you read the article, you'll notice that the fire archons aren't insubstantial.




Huh- yeah, you're right- it's in the physiology part. I hadn't really gotten too far past all of the other mentions of "living flame". 

Still, I wonder why creatures of flame would wear metal armor- since it seems that it would be a poor material for them to work with. Why not rock, or something of an alien (elemental fire) material?


----------



## Shroomy (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Did everybody notice that this article is a late-posted entry from _Dragon #361,_ rather than the first article from _Dragon #362?_ The article is dated December 24th.




Chris Thomasson said they were having technical problems with the _Dragon_ webpage and their IT guy was already out on the holiday.  So instead of overloading a shaky system, they were going to reserve some of the content for after the 1st.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 2, 2008)

Am I the only one who thinks these things look kind of . . . boring?  I mean, they're miles better than the old bonfire-with-a-face fire elementals, but . . . I dunno.  They seem a little bland.  Maybe it's the cheesy-looking flame-shaped armor that's bugging me.

Still, definitely an improvement over the old elemental scheme, and I won't miss the furry archons, either.

Anyway, looks like some editors' notes slipped through the cracks and got posted in the sample stats:



			
				[url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071221a]Ecology of the Fire Archon[/url] said:
			
		

> Speed 30 ft. in breastplate (6 squares), base speed 40 ft. *{{see skill points below; original text just said 30 ft. (6 squares)}}*
> Melee mwk scimitar +14/+9 (1d6+6 plus 1d6 fire/18-20) or
> mwk scimitar +10/+5 (1d6+6 plus 1d6 fire/18-20) and
> mwk scimitar +10 (1d6+3 plus 1d6 fire/18-20)
> ...



I guess they're talking about speed below 30 ft. inflicting a -6 penalty to Jump.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's easy. Since we already have a pretty good idea of how all the numbers in the system scale (+1 per 2 levels), I imagine that 3 levels of one monster would be enough to reverse engineer the game. And they're not quite ready to have us do that just yet.



Well, we've already seen the stat card to the Spined Devil so I don't see the Flame Archon really telling us much more than we already know. A 4e _character_ is what we'd need to see to really begin to sink our teeth into the new edition...


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 2, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Well, we've already seen the stat card to the Spined Devil so I don't see the Flame Archon really telling us much more than we already know. A 4e _character_ is what we'd need to see to really begin to sink our teeth into the new edition...




Exactly.

It's an interesting read, but it's yet another non-preview "preview" of 4E.  After a while it gets a little tiring.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 2, 2008)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> It's an interesting read, but it's yet another non-preview "preview" of 4E.  After a while it gets a little tiring.



 Late February Early March is when its all coming out


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 2, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I could appear as a giant three eyed monk fish with wings if you so wanted...



Where'd you learn that?

Oh, well, after the guardinals were killed off, so the traditional archons. Can't say I'm happy about that, I'm sure they could've found a great name for the elemental archons (and I'd argue from the flavor that archon is a misnomer). The fire archons do look interesting, though, and we're seeing some of the workings of the monster roles here. The sidebar hints a bit at dangerous environment, but we already knew it'd exist.

I'm kind of wondering if the same figure may have influenced Magic's Flame(-)kin in a way.


----------



## Abstraction (Jan 2, 2008)

I like it, but...do they think Lolth should be an elf now, instead of a spider?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 2, 2008)

> Well these are pretty cool, but I'm not calling them Archons. They'll probably be servants of Imix the Archomental or the Efreet or maybe both in my 4e Planescape campaign. All in all 4e's treatment of the Elemental Planes has me a bit intrigued, like the fact that they will supposedly be more accessible and useful for play though I will keep the structure of the Greet Wheel's elemental planes rather than the Elemental Chaos, though some ideas from that might be also integrated into Limbo.




This.

I like 'em well enough. Fiery humanoids with fiery empires and fiery armor is all well and good. Though the bit about the arcane forge might be a little too much magitech for some worlds, I generally enjoy the sprinkling of magitech, so it doesn't bug me much. They've got some potential.

Archons, however, they are not. Archons are crusading celestials from the Mountain of Heaven, and they haven't given me a real reason to buy into their name change. The animal-headed spirits are evocative of Egyptian deities and the like, they just need a bit more commitment to the archetype (hound archons who serve loyally beside mortal princes, for instance).

I think I like the term "Imixians." Humanoids wreathed in fire? Sound perfect for an ancient cult once dedicated to this Archoelemental that immolated themselves, and then _didn't die_, due to Imix's dark blessings.

Or to make them more generic, we could call them the "Suri" or the "Sorkhi" or the "Agnites" or the "Chvarog" (going to some Indo-Iranian fire references, though Chvarog is close to Svarog, which is Slavic). Or the "Kolovrati" (from the Slavic word for the Swastika, which is associated with the sun and fire). Or the "Belenids" (from Belenus in Celtic folklore). "Flamekin" or "Cinderkin" sound pretty good, too.

Some of those names sound SERIOUSLY AWESOME, more so than "Archon," in fact. Chvarog especially....good name for a warlike race of flaming people, methinks.


----------



## Drammattex (Jan 2, 2008)

Love it.

Perhaps this was already apparent to others, but it seems as though the special attacks/abilities creatures are getting when at half hp (or "bloodied") serve as an indicator to tell the PCs exactly that: "Hey DM, about how many hp does he have left? How bad does he look?" 

I like this because it seems to let the monster get a good hit in while simultaneously communicating to the players how they're doing without forcing them to go out of the game and ask the DM for an update. Nice.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 2, 2008)

There's some interesting information about the assumed history of the setting.  From the Fire Archon article:



> Fire archons believe that the honor of being the primordials' first soldiers belongs to them, but that is a secret only the gods and primordials remember. Regardless of which type was first, the presence of the archons turned the tide of battle in the primordials' favor. Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained. Their uncontrolled creation pleased the primordials and worried the gods.
> 
> Thus it was that one deity devised the plan that would starve the archon armies of troops. Rather than combat the archons directly, the gods' forces attacked the creatures and energies that served as the archons' source. To create an archon, one needs another elemental being. Virtually any kind will do. That creature is then remade into an archon in a magic foundry built upon a well of elemental power. The angels, exarchs, and gods set about destroying any elementals they encountered and diverting or ruining the largest sources of elemental energy in the Elemental Chaos.



When I read this, I remembered this from the Devils & Demons article from a few months back:



> In the Abyss, which gapes like a festering wound in the landscape of the Elemental Tempest, demons teem, eternally divided among themselves simply by their insatiable lust for ruin. Legend says that the Chained God, Tharizdun, found a seed of evil in the young cosmos, and during the gods’ war with the primordials, he threw that seed into the Elemental Tempest. There, the evil seed despoiled all that came into contact with it (some say it tainted Tharizdun himself) and created the Abyss as it burned a hole in the very structure of the plane. Elemental beings that came too close to the Abyss became trapped and warped. Any desire they have turns to the longing to obliterate the gods, creation, and even one another. They became demons.



So if we needed a "why" for what Tharizdun did, perhaps trying to destroy the source or the archons' power was it.  Perhaps Tharizdun wasn't such a bad dude before his corruption and he and the other gods were simply desperate for a win against the archon army.  He was making an honest effort to beat the enemies of the gods, but he ended up making a terrible mistake and went insane or was otherwise corrupted by it.  This is pleasingly dark to me ...


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Some of those names sound SERIOUSLY AWESOME, more so than "Archon," in fact. Chvarog especially....good name for a warlike race of flaming people, methinks.



Well, FWIW I think there are going to be four types of archons - water, earth, air, and fire archons.  But I don't mind them calling themselves different name (Chvarog is a pretty good one IMO).


----------



## Voss (Jan 2, 2008)

Once again, overuse of the word 'cool' and inherent contradictions built into the article.


> Archons tend to avoid building or creating anything





> Fire archons craft weapons and armor of amazing quality and stunning appearance



Honestly, whats going on with this garbage?  I was fine with not creating things (except possibly field fortifications).  Embodiment of the destructive aspects of fire, but not stupid.  Interesting stuff, created for war and all that jazz.  Except, for some reason, they do create things, even though they don't.  In fact, they're really, really good at it.  Sloppy.


Don't like the 'elementals weren't cool enough, partly because they were flaming or stony ogres (just punched things), and partly because we didn't inflict bad fluff on you.  And clearly that needs to be fixed'.   Aiieee.

Sigh.  I like the idea of 4e.  D&D is in crying need of a new edition, as the accumulated problems of a metric ton of useless splatbooks, and there is a lot of fundamentally broken stuff just in the core books.  I even like most of the 4e mechanics I've seen so far.  But every time the developers open their mouths, they irritate me.  They come across as bipolar children on a sugar high- everything is either awesomely cool or utterly emo, and they seem completely incapable of communicating what they're doing and why.

If they'd stop with the marketing blather and just publish mechanics, I'd be a lot happier.


----------



## TPK (Jan 2, 2008)

As the player of a fire-themed wizard character, I say,

INTERESTING ELEMENTAL PLACES AND CRITTERS YAY!


----------



## FadedC (Jan 2, 2008)

So apparently they like making arms and armor but not building towns and cities. Seems perfectly in flavor for them. Maybe worthy of a mild editing change but certainly not worth wringing your hands over. There will always be things to nitpick.

I never liked the bizarre animal headed angels myself. I don't mind gods with animal features, but that should be specific to the god and the culture and not built into every divine servent of every good god. It just seemed like the incarnation of rigtheous fury should be more awe inspiring and look less like a furry.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I like the idea of 4e.  D&D is in crying need of a new edition, as the accumulated problems of a metric ton of useless splatbooks, and there is a lot of fundamentally broken stuff just in the core books.  I even like most of the 4e mechanics I've seen so far.  But every time the developers open their mouths, they irritate me.  They come across as bipolar children on a sugar high- everything is either awesomely cool or utterly emo, and they seem completely incapable of communicating what they're doing and why.
> 
> *If they'd stop with the marketing blather and just publish mechanics, I'd be a lot happier.*




Beat me to it.  I want to like 4e, I know it's time for a new edition and it's important to the future of the game that the next edition remains popular.

But every time the designers spew out their fluff text it makes me nauseous to see how they've mangled it.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> Well these are pretty cool, but I'm not calling them Archons. They'll probably be servants of Imix the Archomental or the Efreet or maybe both in my 4e Planescape campaign.




I will keep the name _archon_. My new 4e campaign has a Hellenistic feel to it. Archon is a title for noble or ruler, so it fits very well.



> All in all 4e's treatment of the Elemental Planes has me a bit intrigued, like the fact that they will supposedly be more accessible and useful for play though I will keep the structure of the Greet Wheel's elemental planes rather than the Elemental Chaos, though some ideas from that might be also integrated into Limbo.




I have to say that I have always disliked the Great Wheel. The new cosmology looks like it will be easier for designers and homebrewers to create a model that works within it.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

I knew the Guardinals were dead. James Wyatt said as much in the Monster Podcast. 



> Though the bit about the arcane forge might be a little too much magitech for some worlds, I generally enjoy the sprinkling of magitech, so it doesn't bug me much. They've got some potential.



I haven't read the specific article, but if it's just "A magic forge", I don't think that's necessarily magitech. 

Try this on for size - a magical anvil that a God or some other Entity has. And this is where he creates living entities. He slaps a fiend and a human down on his anvil, and hits them with his Hammer of Making until they are fused together, and then purified into their final form.



> I never liked the bizarre animal headed angels myself. I don't mind gods with animal features, but that should be specific to the god and the culture and not built into every divine servent of every good god. It just seemed like the incarnation of rigtheous fury should be more awe inspiring and look less like a furry.




I'm pretty sure that the Hound Archons had a reason for being dog-headed; weren't they hunters (i.e. bloodhounds), or protectors (i.e. watch dog)? Loyal and dependable? 

Just saying that there might be some symbolic reason for the choice. But, I agree that animal-head = some sort of association. I'm pretty sure Anubis had a reason for being animal headed. Bast was fiercely protective, and actually a war goddess at one time, and thus a lioness - but after a time her depictions and venerations became less fierce, because domestic cats are more tender towards their offspring, she was seen as a more domesticated cat (according to Wiki).


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Once again, overuse of the word 'cool' and inherent contradictions built into the article.
> ....
> Don't like the 'elementals weren't cool enough, partly because they were flaming or stony ogres (just punched things), and partly because we didn't inflict bad fluff on you.  And clearly that needs to be fixed'.   Aiieee.




I don't understand why the word _cool_ bothers people. I use it myself - a lot. Maybe too much.  

Personally, I found the flavor text to be just that - flavorful. I am looking forward to incorporating these creatures (more or less as written) in my next campaign.

There has been flavor text that I don't like - the over-reliance on intelligent design in R&C for example. I know people get tired of hearing it, but it is really easy to change. Very little of the 'flavor' text from 3e ever made it into one of my games. Luckily for me, the 4e flavor text is more appealing to me than that in 3e ever was.


----------



## Voss (Jan 2, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> So apparently they like making arms and armor but not building towns and cities. Seems perfectly in flavor for them. Maybe worthy of a mild editing change but certainly not worth wringing your hands over. There will always be things to nitpick.




Not really a nitpick.  The author is directly contradicting himself.  The social write up is all about war and conquest and destruction.  Thats their theme.  A pure force of destruction, not creation, artificially made for that purpose.  If they really need something, they enslave someone else.

Then, he completely contradicts himself, and their suddenly really, really good at making things.  To the point that they automagically make masterwork items.

This is just sloppy, both the writing and the proofing.


Kennew- the text for the archons themselves doesn't bother me too much.  Primordials vs. the gods is a little trite, but at least its mythic.  (the creature forge bothers me a bit, however).  Its more the way they try to convey ideas.  It falls flat, and frankly, it grates, since I'm not even sure that kids today even use that term anymore.  The 'cool' thing is a product of the crappy writing style.  It pops up 6 times in that article.  Its time for a writing class and a complementary thesaurus.


----------



## Sonny (Jan 2, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> So if we needed a "why" for what Tharizdun did, perhaps trying to destroy the source or the archons' power was it.  Perhaps Tharizdun wasn't such a bad dude before his corruption and he and the other gods were simply desperate for a win against the archon army.  He was making an honest effort to beat the enemies of the gods, but he ended up making a terrible mistake and went insane or was otherwise corrupted by it.  This is pleasingly dark to me ...



Ha! As soon as I read that, I thought the same thing. Oh that's why, he threw an evil and potentially devastating object into the Elemental Chaos! I do appreciate how the story team's work has been coming together so far. It's one of the unique aspects to this edition that I really look forward to learning about.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 2, 2008)

> Well, FWIW I think there are going to be four types of archons - water, earth, air, and fire archons. But I don't mind them calling themselves different name (Chvarog is a pretty good one IMO).




Hahaha, I should do a poll like back in the Warlord days....

"Fire Archon or *Chvarog*?"

The fluff kinds of warrants them having a unifying base word for all the types of "living elementals," but that's the kind of thing that doesn't need to be "archon" at all, and could actually sound cooler if it wasn't. 

I'm a fan of "Adama" or "Adamas" or "Adamae" for 'em. That's a biblical reference, and puts the creation of these creatures in a "playing god"/"frankenstein's monster" kind of light, which seems to be what the fluff is going for, since these are artificially created life-forms. You could also reference golem legend -- call them all "Yetzirah," or hyphenate it so that it ends in "emet." You could go rather generic, calling them "Elementalkin" or "Homunculi" or reference their origins calling them "Arcanasoul" or "Magecraft."

So maybe...

"Fire Archon or *Adama Chvarog*?" 

Maybe that's a bit much, though...

"Fire Archon or *Chvarog Arcanasoul*?"

Hmm...kinda like that last one.



> Don't like the 'elementals weren't cool enough, partly because they were flaming or stony ogres (just punched things), and partly because we didn't inflict bad fluff on you.' And clearly that needs to be fixed.




Well, they were kind of lame. I mean, they're human-intelligent creatures presumably of complex society who spend all their time....walking up to things and punching them after being summoned by wizards.

The Archoelementals started to give them some cool, but not much was ever done with those guys.

Elementals aren't being jettisoned entirely, just being given new buddies to pal around with. I'm sure the Azer will be cavorting with these guys, too. The fluff fits fine enough to give them a rationale to fight PC's (warlike and fire go together well). That's already one up on the Elementals of old.


----------



## Voss (Jan 2, 2008)

I never actually thought of elementals as having a society.  I always thought of it as wizards summoning embodiments or fragments of the basic elemental essence (embodied by the plane itself).

I just dislike the statement that they have to given some defined culture and purpose to deserve being in the game.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 2, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Heh heh heh, "angelic furries".
> 
> Glad to see someone noticed, and good riddance.



 You make baby Horus cry.







In Counter Collection 5: Summoned Creatures, I based the Hound Archon on the Egyptian breed known as the Pharaoh Hound. You can see them in this free sampler:

http://fierydragon.com/downloads/cc5_webenhancement.pdf


----------



## Lord Zack (Jan 2, 2008)

It's not easy to change if flavor if the flavor requires monsters that are no longer in the game. But I'm not as upset as I used to be, after all I like making monsters. The fact is, since there are people who like both possibilities, either way some one's disappointed, so I'm not going to throw a hissy fit if I don't get my way. It'd be nice to see the Great Wheel rather than the new cosmology in my opinion, but not essential, since with just a bit of work I'll have my 4e Planescape.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Archons, however, they are not. Archons are crusading celestials from the Mountain of Heaven, and they haven't given me a real reason to buy into their name change. The animal-headed spirits are evocative of Egyptian deities and the like, they just need a bit more commitment to the archetype (hound archons who serve loyally beside mortal princes, for instance).




I like you.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Archons, however, they are not. Archons are crusading celestials from the Mountain of Heaven, and they haven't given me a real reason to buy into their name change. The animal-headed spirits are evocative of Egyptian deities and the like, they just need a bit more commitment to the archetype (hound archons who serve loyally beside mortal princes, for instance).




Meh. IMO, _Planescape_ and the Great Wheel are both severely overrated. As a matter of fact, I never liked them, and I'm happy to see them bite the dust.

Current archons have precious little "traction," to borrow a term from the designers. With three "good" alignments, you need generic angels ("angels"), lawful good angel-types ("archons"), neutral good angel-types ("guardinals"), and chaotic good angel-types ("eladrin"). If you do away with the alignment system and the Great Wheel, you can cover your generic "good outsider" by just grouping them all under "angels."

Both Archons and Guardinals partially involve the concept of "furry warriors for good." I don't think all the animal headed spirits are evocative of the Egyptian deities except by way of being "animal-headed." So it doesn't work for me in the slightest.  Yes, there's more to archons than that, but some of the concepts are pretty absurd. Critters with swords for arms? Little glowing balls of light?

Given all the different types, archon is a word without much meaning in D&D (other than "warrior outsider"). On the other hand, "Archon" is a much cooler word than the critter(s) it currently represents.

By comparison, this new creature they're calling a "Fire Archon" seems to have a solid concept and is visually appealing. It's only vaguely related to the previous version, and I can see how the alignment change might bother some. On the other hand, how many different categories of "good outsider" do we really need?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Or to make them more generic, we could call them the "Suri" or the "Sorkhi" or the "Agnites" or the "Chvarog" (going to some Indo-Iranian fire references, though Chvarog is close to Svarog, which is Slavic). Or the "Kolovrati" (from the Slavic word for the Swastika, which is associated with the sun and fire). Or the "Belenids" (from Belenus in Celtic folklore). "Flamekin" or "Cinderkin" sound pretty good, too.
> 
> Some of those names sound SERIOUSLY AWESOME, more so than "Archon," in fact. Chvarog especially....good name for a warlike race of flaming people, methinks.




Just goes to show that different people have different tastes. To me, those names don't sound "seriously awesome" in the slightest. Most of them sound like good names for second or third rate monsters. By contrast, this looks like a first rate monster, so it should have a first rate name. And archon fits the bill just fine.

How do you pronounce "Chvarog?" I think it's a little absurd to constantly include unpronounceable monsters in the game. Ixitxachitl, anyone?

Let's stick to names that are easily pronounceable in English, please.

I wish _Planescape_ fans would stop trying to insist their setting flavor is the be-all and end-all of D&D. Archon is a cool name that may have joined the game as part of _Planescape_, but it has now been repurposed. And that's fine. Or do you want everything that's imported into Core D&D from elsewhere to remain true to that source?

'Cuz I rarely hear people saying treants should go back to Tolkien's version.


----------



## epochrpg (Jan 2, 2008)

At first I was really quite thrilled with the concept-- elemental Angels.  This goes back to mythology, and I am always alright with the game making changes to become more in tune with real mythology.  (E.g. if they said Gorgons were no longer metalic bulls, and were instead a race from which medusa was but a single member, I'd be totally ok with that).  

So I was really excited about this-- a flavor change I actually liked!-- and then I got the bitter aftertaste.  Fire Archons are conquerers who either work for the Efreet or self replicate to conquer like the Borg or something.  So now angels are no longer good, but apparently also either "unaligned" or even possibly evil.  I am all for having "unalligned" as an option-- but not for ANGELS!  Similarly I don't want to see vast arrays of demons who are not evil.  If they allow Paladins to be unaligned, they just broke D&D!  Hopefully, they won't go that far, but yeesh!

They could have kept the militaristic aspect and still had the Fire Archons be a force for good-- they are the soldiers in the armies of heaven, or the gatekeepers who hold the unworthy out of paradise.  Those would have been fine.  As is, it seems like they are trying to make some sort of statement, for the sake of making a statement, and this gamer doesn't like it.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 2, 2008)

Sonny said:
			
		

> Ha! As soon as I read that, I thought the same thing. Oh that's why, he threw an evil and potentially devastating object into the Elemental Chaos! I do appreciate how the story team's work has been coming together so far. It's one of the unique aspects to this edition that I really look forward to learning about.



Yeah, I've never been so interested in learning about the "lore" of the setting before.  I'm also interested in how they're mixing together the old and the new.

Right now, I'm wondering what Tharizdun's "seed of evil" actually is and how it got there ...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Can't say I'm happy about that, I'm sure they could've found a great name for the elemental archons (and I'd argue from the flavor that archon is a misnomer).




I have to agree that it's a very poor choice of nomenclature, IMO. Not only are these things not what are remotely traditionally associated with Archons (in D&D terms), but they don't even really connect with the etymology of the RW term "archon" in any fashion. They're more like... Fiery Spartans, or something.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> They could have kept the militaristic aspect and still had the Fire Archons be a force for good-- they are the soldiers in the armies of heaven, or the gatekeepers who hold the unworthy out of paradise.  Those would have been fine.  As is, it seems like they are trying to make some sort of statement, for the sake of making a statement, and this gamer doesn't like it.




Why do we need multiple classifications for the "armies of heaven?" What's wrong with all of them being "angels?"

To me, that's the core of this. Archon's a decent word that, once you toss out the 9 alignments, is duplicative of "angel." It's just like "Eladrin" - a decent word that's without meaningful purpose once you toss the Great Wheel. So instead, they've decided to retain the militaristic and crusading nature of archons rather than just retain their "place" on a Wheel that isn't a default part of the game anymore.

The armies of heaven have "angels," so they don't NEED archons too. As concepted in 3e, they're redundant. I think you'll still see more elemental angels. But that's not the point here.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Once again, overuse of the word 'cool' and inherent contradictions built into the article.




Good catch on the contradiction, I'm not sure I would've caught it on my read through. That being said, the article does underscore the importance of an Archon's armor, so crafting fancy armor would sort of be like getting a new look from an "image consultant" right after a scoring a big promotion.

Here's another contradiction for you. The text states that Archons neither need nor have Darkvision, yet the stat blocks give them Darkvision? Maybe this is just because the Elemental creature type confers Darkvision?

Personally, I don't get why beings of elemental chaos insist on organizing themselves in groups of five. It's very modron'ish. I know they're downplaying the alignment aspects and are generally doing away with the whole law vs. chaos distinction, but it just seems weird and tacked on.

Only six usages of the word "cool" and they were all near the bottom. At least they aren't using cool for the main portion of the flavor text. It makes me wonder if the stuff at the bottom was an addendum by another author or something he was directed to write by marketing.

I was actually quite surprised at how long the article was. Lot's of extra detail I'm not really used to seeing. That being said, I wish the writing weren't so damned clunky. A good 75% of the time it reads like the narrative voice over at the beginning of a bad 80's fantasy movie. Don't just tell me what an Elemental Foundry is, describe it!! Most of the flavor reads like someone outlined all of the relevant parts in bullet points and then stitched it together with connecting words.

Anyhow, the 4E-like mechanics are interesting and I think I'll be using the Blazesteel Archon in the inaugural game of my new setting on Sunday. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> So now angels are no longer good




Some might argue that angels were never truly indicative of good, since they spent time engaging in widescale genocidal activities (destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), murdering innocent children because of the actions of the king (slaying of the firstborn of Egypt), and turning a woman who cared about the fate of those she left behind into a pillar of salt (Lot's wife). Now, some will argue that these were good acts because they were God's will, but there are plenty of others that would argue otherwise.

And archons aren't all angels, y'know. They were servants of the Demiurge, and took on the role of both angels and demons. Being unaligned beings makes more sense.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 2, 2008)

> So apparently they like making arms and armor but not building towns and cities. Seems perfectly in flavor for them. Maybe worthy of a mild editing change but certainly not worth wringing your hands over. There will always be things to nitpick.



The article seemed clear enough for me. They don't like making structures, they want to be marching off to war. If it has to be done they would rather have slaves do it. The only place they hav any knack in making things happens to be the armor and weapons, which comes more as instinct than skill.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Honestly, whats going on with this garbage?  I was fine with not creating things (except possibly field fortifications).  Embodiment of the destructive aspects of fire, but not stupid.  Interesting stuff, created for war and all that jazz.  Except, for some reason, they do create things, even though they don't.  In fact, they're really, really good at it.  Sloppy.




That cracks me up (I glossed over that part, too, until you pointed it out.) Especially in light of their justification for creating the "new" archons:



> The elementals of 3rd Edition have no needs, no clear desires or motivations, and no culture, yet they attain human Intelligence, speak, and can manipulate objects. They exist in limitless numbers on the elemental planes, but they build nothing and make no lasting impression upon the game.




So- we don't like elementals because they're ubiquitous and of human intellect, but don't build or do anything, and only hit things.

Let's replace them, then, with elementals that don't build anything, exist only to hit things, but do so in cool new ways.

Rather than- well, let's explore what these old elementals are, and do some interesting new things with them to explain these issues we had with them before.

Hm.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> At first I was really quite thrilled with the concept-- elemental Angels.  This goes back to mythology, and I am always alright with the game making changes to become more in tune with real mythology.  (E.g. if they said Gorgons were no longer metalic bulls, and were instead a race from which medusa was but a single member, I'd be totally ok with that).




I guess I've never understood the connection between _archon_ and good. It always felt to me like they had grabbed a word and defined it for D&D purposes. I am not sorry to see that connection severed.


----------



## Imban (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Meh. IMO, _Planescape_ and the Great Wheel are both severely overrated. As a matter of fact, I never liked them, and I'm happy to see them bite the dust.
> 
> Current archons have precious little "traction," to borrow a term from the designers. With three "good" alignments, you need generic angels ("angels"), lawful good angel-types ("archons"), neutral good angel-types ("guardinals"), and chaotic good angel-types ("eladrin"). If you do away with the alignment system and the Great Wheel, you can cover your generic "good outsider" by just grouping them all under "angels."




From the flavor that's been revealed so far, Eladrin are now fey, Guardinials no longer exist, Archons are all evil elemental ex-footsoldiers of the Primordials, and Angels are now divine servitors - and divine, I will note, is far from limited to good. I think 4e has moved to generally eliminate all monolithic good groups in the cosmology, actually - while Bahamut certainly has Good Angels under his command, I see Bane commanding Angels himself, as well.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I have to agree that it's a very poor choice of nomenclature, IMO. Not only are these things not what are remotely traditionally associated with Archons (in D&D terms), but they don't even really connect with the etymology of the RW term "archon" in any fashion. They're more like... Fiery Spartans, or something.




In earlier editions, we often had things like lamia nobles, salamander nobles, etc.... Archon serves the same purpose, but with a cooler (  ) sound to it.

In metaphysics, archons are powerful servants of the _demiurge_, but they aren't necessarily good or evil. I don't know if the designers were thinking along these lines, but the name seems fine to me.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Some might argue that angels were never truly indicative of good, since they spent time engaging in widescale genocidal activities (destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), murdering innocent children because of the actions of the king (slaying of the firstborn of Egypt), and turning a woman who cared about the fate of those she left behind into a pillar of salt (Lot's wife). Now, some will argue that these were good acts because they were God's will, but there are plenty of others that would argue otherwise.



This.

Angels are instruments of God's Will. 

I especially expect that the God of War ain't going to have happy angels.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 2, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I guess I've never understood the connection between _archon_ and good. It always felt to me like they had grabbed a word and defined it for D&D purposes. I am not sorry to see that connection severed.



Archons come from various Greek schools of thoughts, probably one of the first conception of Angels.  In Gnosticism they were creations of the Demiurge (aka God/Satan) and weren't really a good thing, but other schools of thought like Platonism they are the servants of The Gods/God.


----------



## Imban (Jan 2, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> In earlier editions, we often had things like lamia nobles, salamander nobles, etc.... Archon serves the same purpose, but with a cooler (  ) sound to it.
> 
> In metaphysics, archons are powerful servants of the _demiurge_, but they aren't necessarily good or evil. I don't know if the designers were thinking along these lines, but the name seems fine to me.




Well, the thing is... these aren't powerful or regal anything. They're zerglings. That's a bit weird if you're trying to draw on the meaning of the word "archon".


----------



## Khairn (Jan 2, 2008)

I enjoyed the article and liked the concept.  Praise for the designers & 4E that I admit has been rare from me.

But the need to build the justification for the changes on the bodies of earlier editions is still a pet-peeve.    I agree with John Snow above when he says


> I wish Planescape fans would stop trying to insist their setting flavor is the be-all and end-all of D&D.



  I'm not saying that I dont like the Great Wheel or Planescape, as I very much do.  But I agree that no setting flavor is the "be-all and end-all of D&D".  As gamers , we each create the worlds we want to play in, and no vision is the sole way it has to be.  

That is why comments such as these from the article ...


> Yet such inventions, *were a band-aid on a scar over thirty years old*



 that refer to the vision of earlier D&D as a poorly healed wound ... tick me off.  If WotC wants to sell me on 4E, great, I'm all ears & eyes.  But each time they do so by saying they are fixing something that has been broken or scarred for many years, they try to raise themselves up, by casting the earlier editions, and those gamers who enjoy playing them, down.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Well, the thing is... these aren't powerful or regal anything. They're zerglings. That's a bit weird if you're trying to draw on the meaning of the word "archon".




"Archon" doesn't imply regal. That's assigning something to it that doesn't exist in real world mythology. It implies "servant of the Creator." And the Creator needs things like destruction and dissolution. Just like Satan was a servant of God, as demonstrated when him and God sit down and have a chat in the Book of Job... even though God is supposed to be good, and Satan is supposed to be evil.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> From the flavor that's been revealed so far, Eladrin are now fey, Guardinials no longer exist, Archons are all evil elemental ex-footsoldiers of the Primordials, and Angels are now divine servitors - and divine, I will note, is far from limited to good. I think 4e has moved to generally eliminate all monolithic good groups in the cosmology, actually - while Bahamut certainly has Good Angels under his command, I see Bane commanding Angels himself, as well.




That's....a really good point.  

So, angels are the direct servants of the gods. Devils are fallen angels who killed their god and were exiled from the heavens and locked away. Demons are a corrupted part of the elemental chaos.

And all other "outsiders" are more complex. Fire archons are apparently (one of many groups of?) leftover foot soldiers of the primordials.

Maybe I'm weird, but I look forward to seeing the whole setup. It sounds intriguing.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 2, 2008)

My understanding was that the archons were never angelic furries.  They were a D&D take on the animal-aspected angels depicted in writings and art during the medieval period.

So by keeping the name, but getting rid of the creatures, it's yet another instance of "out with the old, in with the new, even if the new has no inherent value".

I guess I'll have to see how these elemental beings work, and what they're like.  Are they any good, or are they yet another take on "outsider wolf crossed with water elemental", "outsider wolf crossed with fire elemental", etc.....the type of "balanced yet boring" design that seemed increasingly prevalent towards the end of 3E.

Banshee


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 2, 2008)

> I am all for having "unalligned" as an option-- but not for ANGELS!




In 4e, "Archon" has absolutely nothing to do with "good outsider." Instead, it means "artificially created elemental-humanoid lifeform." These aren't elemental angels (which, I agree, would be pretty freakin' awesome). They're just elemental-people-golem-warforged guys. They're still pretty cool, but they're not angels.



> Current archons have precious little "traction," to borrow a term from the designers. With three "good" alignments, you need generic angels ("angels"), lawful good angel-types ("archons"), neutral good angel-types ("guardinals"), and chaotic good angel-types ("eladrin"). If you do away with the alignment system and the Great Wheel, you can cover your generic "good outsider" by just grouping them all under "angels."




You can buy into the idea that Archons are Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven and Slayers of Demons without having to buy into the Great Wheel, Planescape, or any of that. Like how demons and devils are different variations on fiends (one is a rapacious destroyer, one is a subtle manipulator), perhaps Archons and, say, Devas are different variations on Angels (one is a warrior-caste of aggressive angels, the other is more of the "watcher and protector" type). 

You don't need any kind of generic or alignment-based angels to keep Archons as Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven.



> Both Archons and Guardinals partially involve the concept of "furry warriors for good." I don't think all the animal headed spirits are evocative of the Egyptian deities except by way of being "animal-headed." So it doesn't work for me in the slightest. Yes, there's more to archons than that, but some of the concepts are pretty absurd. Critters with swords for arms? Little glowing balls of light?




Ever read the Bible? Tongues of flame, halos of light, wheels of fire, creatures with swords coming out of their mouths, four-headed chimerae? This is some of the inspiration for the Archons (the Egyptian deities also figured into it, I'm sure). 

Guardinals are pretty solidly animistic avatars of good, but Archons have a much stronger tradition of mythic excellence in the various Judeo-Arabic-Christian angelologies. This could have been expanded on, honed tighter, and made more clear, just like the idea of "devils are the corruptors" are being made more clear.



> By comparison, this new creature they're calling a "Fire Archon" seems to have a solid concept and is visually appealing. It's only vaguely related to the previous version, and I can see how the alignment change might bother some. On the other hand, how many different categories of "good outsider" do we really need?




Alignment change? No, these are pretty much creatures that have nothing whatsoever to do with any earlier edition's versions of "Archons." Wizards is just guilty (not for the first time) of being boneheaded about name selection. Instead of giving them evocative new names, they had to go and use something with a history already because they couldn't think of anything better. That's kind of sad, but then I'm repeatedly getting the impression that names are just not what this 4e team is good at.



> Just goes to show that different people have different tastes. To me, those names don't sound "seriously awesome" in the slightest. Most of them sound like good names for second or third rate monsters. By contrast, this looks like a first rate monster, so it should have a first rate name. And archon fits the bill just fine.




Not especially, if  you follow the trail of the word. It means "ruler" in Greek, and was later adopted in certain forms of Judeo-Christian-Arabic angelology with awkward angel titles like "Heirarchies" and "Principalities." At the very least, the "Fire Archon" should probably be the Level 30 Terrasque of the Fire Elemental Monsters, but if the 3e stats are anything to go by, they're low-mid level threats at best. 

It *sounds* cool, sure, but it doesn't really mesh entirely with "low-level armored fire people." You could make it, but when it already has a strong association with an existing, much-beloved group, why would you want to bother? Either don't use it at all, or make that group worthy of the name (like they made Devils more worthy of the title).



> How do you pronounce "Chvarog?" I think it's a little absurd to constantly include unpronounceable monsters in the game. Ixitxachitl, anyone?
> 
> Let's stick to names that are easily pronounceable in English, please.




Unpronounceable? Like the Ixitxachitl? I oughtta slap you silly for such an absurd hyperbole. If you're more interested in conversation, come on down to the level of rational discussion, and tell me, briefly, how you would pronounce that word?

Betcha there's a better than 1-in-20 chance you'll get it close enough to right to not matter.

"Archon" is almost as hard to pronounce in English as "Chvarog" is (that's ARK-on, for those asking). 



> I wish Planescape fans would stop trying to insist their setting flavor is the be-all and end-all of D&D. Archon is a cool name that may have joined the game as part of Planescape, but it has now been repurposed. And that's fine. Or do you want everything that's imported into Core D&D from elsewhere to remain true to that source?
> 
> 'Cuz I rarely hear people saying treants should go back to Tolkien's version.




Did I mention PS anywhere?

No, my argument has a lot more to do with the fact that Wizards just quite frequently blows at coming up with names, and that the old concept of Archons was not so goofy as to be un-salvagable if they applied the same logic to this as they did to the rest of the monsters.

Obviously, they didn't think it worth their time or effort.

Obviously, they need every cool name they can get.

Obviously, this leads to descisions that are kind of dunderheaded in my opinion, including "Archons are now artificially created elemental people" and "Dryads are now mini-treants."

I would not, necessarily, make the same arguments for the guardinals, or the eladrin, or the Great Wheel, or Sigil, or anything else having to do with the old editions' cosmology.

So don't mischaracterize my argument.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 2, 2008)

> Mourn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Just wanted to point out: the "furry angel" concept is one tied to the Cherubim, who are believed to be derived from the Sumerian shedu or the Phoenician lammasu. In Judaic and early Christian art, Cherubim are depicted as animal beings, often drawing on the lion, ox, and eagle specifically (mentioned in the book of Ezekiel) in additional to human features.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Old testement angels were _executors_ of YHWH's will. They got the job done.




Doesn't make them good.



> That is the Gnostic's use of the term.




Which is where D&D picked it up from. The only other uses of the word archon are for temporal authorities, which is a far cry from the use Gygax put them to (which is more in line with their Gnostic origins, despite the shoehorning into the alignment system).


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Kennew- the text for the archons themselves doesn't bother me too much.  Primordials vs. the gods is a little trite, but at least its mythic.  (the creature forge bothers me a bit, however).  Its more the way they try to convey ideas.  It falls flat, and frankly, it grates, since I'm not even sure that kids today even use that term anymore.  The 'cool' thing is a product of the crappy writing style.  It pops up 6 times in that article.  Its time for a writing class and a complementary thesaurus.




I don't have gods in my campaign at all. At least they never appear and never intervene. While celestials, infernals and elementals exist, they have no more clue as to the nature of the divine than do any of the characters, although they may claim that they do.

I like the concept of the forge, but as a place rather than a device. Elementals that are drawn into the forge emerge transformed into archons. Devils, efreet and celestials prowl the region of the elemental chaos surrounding the forge, seeking to recruit the elemental archons for their own purposes.

I understand what you are saying about the writing style. I cringe whenever any designer tries to construct _realistic_ dialogue. I still remember one "hypothetical discussion" between players. One of the players said his fighter was "going sword and board, man." The editor in me became nauseous. I overuse the word _cool_ myself, but only in speaking. 

I think the authors of these previews are trying too hard to sound conversational (and failing miserably). I have learned to overlook this middle-school style to get to the ideas behind the trite and puerile wording. That's what I like.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So by keeping the name, but getting rid of the creatures, it's yet another instance of "out with the old, in with the new, even if the new has _no inherent value_".



Emphasis mine.

No inherent value says who?

That also implies that the Old had inherent value.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> That is why comments such as these from the article ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To be fair, I admit that calling it a "30 year old scar" is fairly said to be a bit of writer hyperbole. But I understand the point they're trying to make, and it's a good one.

However, I think you may have misread the point of that line. The "scar" referred to has nothing to do with archons and everything to do with elementals that:

"exist as neat creatures to summon or put in a dungeon and nothing more."

That's pretty much the point of elementals as conceived 30 years ago. Nobody ever worried about "what they did in their home plane" or how to reconcile "intelligent beings" with "instinctual elemental." If you're going to send people to the elemental planes, you should know how the base elementals behave there. Which D&D has NEVER addressed.

Similarly, the designers are correct when they say their mechanics are "either boring or complex. Most of them simply walk up to a PC and hit the character with a fist...The flip side of this includes mechanics such as the air elemental's whirlwind. Any mechanic that makes a person look up weather conditions in the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ is just begging to be "forgotten" by the DM."

That's the "scar" they're referring to: elementals that don't really _feel_ "elemental" and have mechanics that are either boring or too complex to use in play. Personally, I'd like to see the default elementals be basically "elemental beasts" of roughly animal intelligence (like the "furies" in Jim Butcher's _Codex Alera_ series). More intelligent elementals should have a culture and function in their home plane.

To me, that would definitely be an improvement.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 2, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I enjoyed the article and liked the concept.  Praise for the designers & 4E that I admit has been rare from me.
> 
> But the need to build the justification for the changes on the bodies of earlier editions is still a pet-peeve.    I agree with John Snow above when he says
> I'm not saying that I dont like the Great Wheel or Planescape, as I very much do.  But I agree that no setting flavor is the "be-all and end-all of D&D".  As gamers , we each create the worlds we want to play in, and no vision is the sole way it has to be.
> ...




That's one of the major problems I'm having with 4E.  It just makes the whole thing too much of a sales pitch, because frankly, I think that in many ways, the settings that came out in 3E (at least as produced by WotC) didn't hold a candle to some of those that came out in 2nd Ed. (IMO).  I *liked*, those "flawed", "scarred" settings.  I *liked* Dark Sun, Birthright, Planescape, and Al-Qadim.  All four of those were really nice settings, IMO.  Eberron's neat and all, but...

I *do* think that 3E FR was superior to 2nd Ed. FR, as it addressed many of the complaints I had about FR in 2nd. Ed.

Some of the statements coming out seem to say that the things I *like* are flawed.  If they were flawed, then either one of two things will happen....they make them better, and I like the new product, or their idea of a fix is to turn it into something I don't like.

I don't know why they have to change the meaning of some of this stuff....like Eladrin.  Admittedly, the new flavour seems cool.  But I liked the "old" eladrin.  I liked the Veil.  I liked their ties to Arvandor/Olympus etc.  But the new eladrin are really just rebranded Faerie-folk.  And if that's the case, why do we have to call them Eladrin?  It's a made-up name that was tied to a Celestial outer planar race....when really, the new Eladrin, as mentioned, are Faerie-Folk......but not the little sprites and brownies of typical D&D but the beatiful, inhuman, and sometimes terrifying creatures of Otherness.

Why not just call a spade a spade?  I'd be happy if they just called them "Sidhe".  Done.  Easy.

In 3E, the game was built, with completely new rules that did allow us to use those rules to run older settings.  I finished my Planescape campaign using 3E rules.  With 4E, you basically have to throw out everything that came before because they're changing everything.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 2, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> No inherent value says who?
> 
> That also implies that the Old had inherent value.




It had 800 years of it.  

The new meanings have....oh.....24 hours now of history now? 

Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.....for like 2400 years.  Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.

If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.

Banshee


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Similarly, the designers are correct when they say their mechanics are "either boring or complex. Most of them simply walk up to a PC and hit the character with a fist...The flip side of this includes mechanics such as the air elemental's whirlwind. Any mechanic that makes a person look up weather conditions in the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ is just begging to be "forgotten" by the DM."




Can someone please tell me why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental???


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 2, 2008)

I really don't care for this article.

I don't like the portrayal of the gods, including the good deities, as being a bunch of ruthless genocidal warmongers who nearly wiped out a whole plane. I also don't like the vagueness in which the primordials are described.

My biggest problem, however, is the portrayal of Fire Archons as being little more than Warforged made from fire. Their basic background and nature is not very different at all, other than being made by inhuman, rather than human, hands. It doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think the result is very interesting.

I also don't agree with the term "Archon" being used for such creatures. It is a great term for angelic/divine beings, especially if angelic beings are going to serve non-good deities just as much as they serve good deities. "Angel" is a term that doesn't work well when combined with "evil", but "archon" is fine in that context. Just because they don't want archons to have animal heads doesn't mean they should change them to be something so completely different.

I really like the changes to demons and devils, but I don't like this change to the meaning of archon at all. If they wanted to make Elementals more interesting, they should start with much more fundamental changes, rather than just slapping armor on them, making them soldiers, giving them a new name, and calling it a day. This change disappoints me, and I thought I could expect better from WotC.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 2, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I like the idea of 4e.  D&D is in crying need of a new edition, as the accumulated problems of a metric ton of useless splatbooks, and there is a lot of fundamentally broken stuff just in the core books.  I even like most of the 4e mechanics I've seen so far.  But every time the developers open their mouths, they irritate me.  They come across as bipolar children on a sugar high- everything is either awesomely cool or utterly emo, and they seem completely incapable of communicating what they're doing and why.
> 
> If they'd stop with the marketing blather and just publish mechanics, I'd be a lot happier.





Hear, Hear!!

And I agree and the abuse of the C-word.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's the "scar" they're referring to: elementals that don't really _feel_ "elemental" and have mechanics that are either boring or too complex to use in play. Personally, I'd like to see the default elementals be basically "elemental beasts" of roughly animal intelligence (like the "furies" in Jim Butcher's _Codex Alera_ series). More intelligent elementals should have a culture and function in their home plane.
> 
> To me, that would definitely be an improvement.




Those are some good points.  I don't mind more complex elementals, and ones that have a purpose.  I'm just not sure why they have to be called Archons.

Yes, elementals as previously devised, were pretty boring.  I've never liked them much.

Banshee


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Did I mention PS anywhere?



Did Devyn say you did?

He didn't quote you, he didn't say "Kamikaze Midget".


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It *sounds* cool, sure, but it doesn't really mesh entirely with "low-level armored fire people." You could make it, but when it already has a strong association with an existing, much-beloved group, why would you want to bother? Either don't use it at all, or make that group worthy of the name (like they made Devils more worthy of the title).




I'm not trying to be snide. I'm just asking. Archons in 3e are a _much beloved_ group? They were the butt of many a joke in games I've played, but I've never heard anyone call them beloved before.



> "Archon" is almost as hard to pronounce in English as "Chvarog" is (that's ARK-on, for those asking).




I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Many words in English derive from Greek and have the hard, aspirated _ch_ sound, including mythological names such as Achilles, theological terms such as christian and scientific terms such as chrysalis. The pronunciation of archon is pretty obvious. I'm not saying that I don't like the word _chvarog_, so don't slap me or anything, but its pronunciation is not readily apparent to English speakers.



> Obviously, this leads to descisions that are kind of dunderheaded in my opinion, including "Archons are now artificially created elemental people" and "Dryads are now mini-treants."




I'm sure you can tell that I approve of the change in archons, but I have to add that I am also fond of the changes in dryads. As a euhemerist, I tend to use supernatural creatures in  my games as _races_, with most of the really fantastic stuff scraped off. To me, the new dryads evoke a very real world feel. Just as sailors in the real world could see seals and think meremaid, woodsmen in my campaign could see the 4e dryad and think sexy wood nymph.

What works for one gamer, doesn't for another. The flavor of the new edition seems to be much more in accord (or at least easier for me to alter) than that of previous editions.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> And if that's the case, why do we have to call them Eladrin?  It's a made-up name that was tied to a Celestial outer planar race....when really, the new Eladrin, as mentioned, are Faerie-Folk......but not the little sprites and brownies of typical D&D but the beatiful, inhuman, and sometimes terrifying creatures of Otherness.




It's because Eladrin invokes "Eldar," which were the super awesome elves that went to Arda when they were called by Manwe... just like the eladrin were elves that were called into the Feywild by Corellon.



> Why not just call a spade a spade?  I'd be happy if they just called them "Sidhe".  Done.  Easy.




Because sidhe live in mounds in the earth, which is where the name is derived from. Not really celestial elves if you read the real mythology.



> With 4E, you basically have to throw out everything that came before because they're changing everything.




Sounds like a creative limitation to me.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> It had 800 years of it.



Archons exist only in some gnosist texts. 

Wow, rich history firmly rooted in mythology there, Bob.



> If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.



I can't name you a single fantasy book that _has_ a Dryad in it, so I think you're "Most people who read fantasy" is really reaching, there.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.....for like 2400 years.  Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.




In the old Scooby-Doo cartoon, they looked like trees and couldn't turn into women - until you pulled their masks off.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 2, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Archons exist only in some gnosist texts.
> 
> Wow, rich history firmly rooted in mythology there, Bob.



It is a use in real mythology, though, so it _is_ a valid use. Also, Gnostic Christianity is rather commonly referenced in other fiction.



> I can't name you a single fantasy book that _has_ a Dryad in it, so I think you're "Most people who read fantasy" is really reaching, there.



Well, _The Chronicles of Narnia_ has traditional Dryads, and the novel _Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD_ has a Dryad or two. Not to mention the fact that one or two Dryads must have show up somewhere in the Xanth novels. These books are not exactly obscure, so I would say that "most people who read fantasy" is rather appropriate.

Of course, anyone who reads Greek myth will also be well aware of traditional Dryads, and that is a fairly wide group itself.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 2, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It is a use in real mythology, though, so it _is_ a valid use.



Right, and mythology is treated so well in D&D. Like a race of scaley, half-snake medusa and minotaur instead of a single one. And Gorgons are petrifying-gas breathing metal bulls. But that's valid because it's just always been that way in D&D, right?

Elves are also those things that help build shoes. So why are they tall guys who like magic?

It's in mythology, so it's _valid_; where are my Cobbler Elves in the PHB?



> Also, Gnostic Christianity is rather commonly referenced in other fiction.



Aside from Xenogears, where? 



> Well, _The Chronicles of Narnia_ has traditional Dryads, and the novel _Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD_ has a Dryad or two. Not to mention the fact that one or two Dryads must have show up somewhere in the Xanth novels. These books are not exactly obscure, so I would say that "most people who read fantasy" is rather appropriate.



So unless they've read those three series, they don't qualify as "Most people who read fantasy"?


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, they were kind of lame. I mean, they're human-intelligent creatures presumably of complex society who spend all their time....walking up to things and punching them after being summoned by wizards.




Yes, but the point of elementals (IMHO) was that they are not-human, a fire elemental is fire "incarnate" a earth elemental is living earth, etc.they can have 10 int but thier intelligence is not human at all, and I don't even think they have a society,not one comparable to ours at least (and why should have? They are immortal, don't need to eat, or to reproduce, or any other material need, for what we know they don't even have the need, or the ability to learn new things. Why they would need a society for? The point behind elemental is that they are not human, they are alien, this fire archons? they are a little too human-like for my taste, they are essentially orcs, fire orcs, that blow up when they die. it is just another race the PCs can fight. oh-hum. :\ 

And about "punching you after being summnoned" how that behaviour  is different from that of any other summoned creature?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It is a use in real mythology, though, so it _is_ a valid use. Also, Gnostic Christianity is rather commonly referenced in other fiction.




But their D&D use is removed from their mythological roots. In D&D, they're lawful good (basically, the paladins of the Outer Planes), and in mythology they range from good guys to the most vile beings you could ever conceive of. Evil serves the Demiurge, just as good does, so D&D archons are too limited to properly represent that mythological archetype. Breaking them down into unaligned beings that were created by the Primordials to serve their will makes them fit even better with their original conception.


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2008)

Can anyone explain why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental?


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 2, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Because sidhe live in mounds in the earth, which is where the name is derived from. Not really celestial elves if you read the real mythology.




Since when have the 4e creative team seemed at all interested in the meaning of words?



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Sounds like a creative limitation to me.




Could you explain _exactly_ what you meant by this statement?  I'm intensely curious.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You can buy into the idea that Archons are Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven and Slayers of Demons without having to buy into the Great Wheel, Planescape, or any of that. Like how demons and devils are different variations on fiends (one is a rapacious destroyer, one is a subtle manipulator), perhaps Archons and, say, Devas are different variations on Angels (one is a warrior-caste of aggressive angels, the other is more of the "watcher and protector" type).
> 
> You don't need any kind of generic or alignment-based angels to keep Archons as Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven.




Actually, I need two things.

One, I need "the Mountain of Heaven" in my cosmology. Now, it might be there, but it might not.

Secondly, I need to have to draw a distinction in my campaign between "Angels" and "Archons." In 3e, "angels" are generic good outsiders who can enter all the "good" planes. Archons are specifically _lawful good_ outsiders from one particular plane.

Now, you may find "archons" more evocative than angels, but I see angel as pretty generic and capable of encompassing all that was implied by Archons.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Ever read the Bible? Tongues of flame, halos of light, wheels of fire, creatures with swords coming out of their mouths, four-headed chimerae? This is some of the inspiration for the Archons (the Egyptian deities also figured into it, I'm sure).
> 
> Guardinals are pretty solidly animistic avatars of good, but Archons have a much stronger tradition of mythic excellence in the various Judeo-Arabic-Christian angelologies. This could have been expanded on, honed tighter, and made more clear, just like the idea of "devils are the corruptors" are being made more clear.




Strangely enough, yes. And I don't recall ever seeing the word "archon" in it. I recall a fair number of references to things you're talking about, and they're all called "angels."



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not especially, if you follow the trail of the word. It means "ruler" in Greek, and was later adopted in certain forms of Judeo-Christian-Arabic angelology with awkward angel titles like "Heirarchies" and "Principalities."




The key word there, as far as I'm concerned, is "angelology." As in "the study of *angels.*"

Which is what I was saying. Mythologically, "archon" isn't truly a distinctive category from angel. Whatever distinction it possesses in D&D is a result of its use to date - mostly as a part of the _Planescape_ setting (more on that below). It's kinda like the distinction between "demons" and "devils."



> Unpronounceable? Like the Ixitxachitl? I oughtta slap you silly for such an absurd hyperbole. If you're more interested in conversation, come on down to the level of rational discussion, and tell me, briefly, how you would pronounce that word?
> 
> Betcha there's a better than 1-in-20 chance you'll get it close enough to right to not matter.
> 
> "Archon" is almost as hard to pronounce in English as "Chvarog" is (that's ARK-on, for those asking).




That word is "ish-it-SHACH-ittle," and the reason I brought it up was intentional hyperbole. It was, however, in the AD&D (1e, that is) _Monster Manual_, so it's not totally inappropriate. It's the ultimate example of nonsensical spelling in D&D. It's not even, IIRC, made up - it's just an Aztec word.

I'm guessing the word would be pronounced "Chuh-VAR-og," but maybe it's "Kuh-VAR-og." The point is that it's pretty untypical in english to type the letter combo "chv." Maybe I can suss it out, but it's far from standard.

So yes, I freely acknowledge the hyperbole inherent in the _ixitxachitl_ example, but my point was that simpler is better.



			
				Kamikaze Midegt said:
			
		

> Did I mention PS anywhere?
> 
> No, my argument has a lot more to do with the fact that Wizards just quite frequently blows at coming up with names, and that the old concept of Archons was not so goofy as to be un-salvagable if they applied the same logic to this as they did to the rest of the monsters.
> 
> ...




I was not intentionally mischaracterizing your argument. As far as I can recall, the first separation I'm aware of in D&D between "Angel" and "Archon" originated with _Planescape_. That's irrespective of their original uses in Judeo-Christian mythology, where, IMO, it's pretty hard to get a solid read.

So I regard the specific differentiation of Archons as distinct from Angels as being derived from _Planescape._ Personally, I'd have no problem with keeping them separate. I would also have no problem combining the concepts and making use of the "lesser" name for another concept in game.

It sounds to me like you're saying "Where WotC changes things I like, I'm not going to object, but when they change things in ways I don't like, they're being "dunderheaded."

Am I still mischaracterizing your argument?

If so, please explain why Archons, as is, are cool enough to deserve a slot alongside angels? What distinguishes them? Convince me. 'Cuz I'm not seeing it.

At which point, "archon" is just a cool name waiting for a use.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 2, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental?




You haven't heard?  It's because D&D v3.5 is broken and badwrongfun. 

I heard that in 4e you won't have to worry about weather at all because every day will be sunny and bright, unless your party contains some tieflings, and then it will be suitably dark and gloomy, of course.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental?




Presumably he's referring to things like the effects of high winds on PCs (penalties to attack rolls, DCs to retain balance, etc.), which to my knowledge, have never been required to run an air elemental attack.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Since when have the 4e creative team seemed at all interested in the meaning of words?




When did Gygax seem at all interested in it? He's butchered plenty of mythological concepts.

But, oh wait, that's in the past, and nostalgia makes the things he made better than anything made afterward.

And in case you didn't read the post I quoted, he was saying "call a spade a spade," when in fact his "spade" is not a spade.



> Could you explain _exactly_ what you meant by this statement?  I'm intensely curious.




Sure.

If you have to throw away all of your previous written campaign content (fluff) because of changes in 4th edition, instead of just adapting the system to your fluff (or vice versa), then the problem lies in your own limitations. I've adapted the same campaign setting through multiple game systems and revisions (ranging from D&D to 7th Sea's old system to oWoD to nWoD), without having to throw away everything I've worked on.

If I can do it, other people can, since I'm no rocket scientist or divinely inspired writer. If they can't, then that's a limitation they need to overcome.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Since when have the 4e creative team seemed at all interested in the meaning of words?



I don't know, but I sure know the people critical of 4e have.

Had they chosen "Sidhe", there'd be griping about it being inaccurate for some other reason.

If I know people, _especially_ fans, there is no lengths to which they are willing to go to find _something_ to complain about.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 3, 2008)

One thing mentioned in this article, that everyone has over-looked is the question about what are Exarchs?

I assume they're something like angels.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Jan 3, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental?



It doesn't require the DMG, just table referencing in the MM.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Right, and mythology is treated so well in D&D. Like a race of scaley, half-snake medusa and minotaur instead of a single one. And Gorgons are petrifying-gas breathing metal bulls. But that's valid because it's just always been that way in D&D, right?
> 
> Elves are also those things that help build shoes. So why are they tall guys who like magic?
> 
> It's in mythology, so it's _valid_; where are my Cobbler Elves in the PHB?



And what does this have to do with what I said? You downplayed their mythological basis, I said that kind of downplaying was somewhat unjustified. Whether or not mythology is treated well in D&D is irrelevant to that exchange.




> Aside from Xenogears, where?



Well, that is one thing that proves my case. Thanks. While it was not intentional, reference to Gnostic Christianity comes up with regards to The Matrix, and there are several other places, though I would need to look them up. The fact that you knew of one immediately, when it does not even use explicit references to Gnosticism, proves my point sufficiently if you ask me.




> So unless they've read those three series, they don't qualify as "Most people who read fantasy"?



Why would I claim something so absurd? Don't be ridiculous. But my examples do counter your implicit claim that Dryads are not in any significant fantasy fiction.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't know, but I sure know the people critical of 4e have.
> 
> Had they chosen "Sidhe", there'd be griping about it being inaccurate for some other reason.
> 
> If I know people, _especially_ fans, there is no lengths to which they are willing to go to find _something_ to complain about.




They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 3, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> When did Gygax seem at all interested in it? He's butchered plenty of mythological concepts.
> 
> But, oh wait, that's in the past, and nostalgia makes the things he made better than anything made afterward.




Where did I say that I thought Gygax did everything right?

EDIT:  Bah.  Pointless bickering.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Where did I say that I thought Gygax did everything right?




I never said you did. It's merely the implication that the current developers are upstarts for re-imagining things different from tradition or mythology, while Gygax is often praised for the same exact thing. The only thing that makes it acceptable is the rose-colored glasses that come with nostalgia.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.




Could we get an explanation of this, please?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.



And to the next guy they're not. 

So where do you go now?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> And what does this have to do with what I said? You downplayed their mythological basis, I said that kind of downplaying was somewhat unjustified. Whether or not mythology is treated well in D&D is irrelevant to that exchange.



1) I don't think they have much of a mythology in the first place.

2) Downplaying mythology is what D&D's been doing for 30 years.



> Well, that is one thing that proves my case. Thanks. While it was not intentional, reference to Gnostic Christianity comes up with regards to The Matrix, and there are several other places, though I would need to look them up. The fact that you knew of one immediately, when it does not even use explicit references to Gnosticism, proves my point sufficiently if you ask me.



No, I knew one off the bat because it's the only one that someone has said to me, "That's gnosticism right there". In fact, I didn't even know about it until then. That's not "It's rather common" like you stated if I can only think of _one source_. Common implies it's all over the place. 

If it's so common, I expect you to give me a list of 8-9 off the bat.



> Why would I claim something so absurd? Don't be ridiculous. But my examples do counter your implicit claim that Dryads are not in any significant fantasy fiction.



You said "Most people who read fantasy fiction knows what a dryad is". Which implies that most have read books with dryads in them. But you can only name three series that have dryads in them, then surely most fantasy readers have read those three series/books. I've never even _heard_ of the second two, and I've been reading fantasy for over ten years.

You're overgeneralizing what you think "Most" people in any category know or read.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 3, 2008)

> Which is where D&D picked it up from. The only other uses of the word archon are for temporal authorities, which is a far cry from the use Gygax put them to (which is more in line with their Gnostic origins, despite the shoehorning into the alignment system).




Misconception here.  Archons are not Gary's creation.  I believe Jeff Grubb can be blamed for Archons.

Gary's view of the cosmos was that of just the Deva-Planetar-Solar (NOT ANGELS), along with the real "Cherubim-like" creatures--Lammasu, Shedu, Hollyphants, Moondogs, etc.  If you read his articles and the Gord books, those creatures were pretty much incorruptable, occupied all of the Upper Planes.  They were so powerful that there were fewer variations needed--A solar could take out 1000 greater demons, for instance.  They also appeared to be incorruptable, with statements saying their souls could not be imprisioned or trapped, immune to level drain, etc.

I guess this is why I disliked the 1e and 2e additions to the Upper Planes.  I just saw Archons, Guardians, and Eladrin as weak attempts.  I really wish people would've fought to preserve the concepts Gary introduced--such as incorruptable Solars (instead of the cliche's even good designers like Mona and Monte Cook did with the "fallen Solars"), or Modrons that were not "clockwork".


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Misconception here.  Archons are not Gary's creation.  I believe Jeff Grubb can be blamed for Archons.




Sorry about that. The early days are so difficult to track carefully that most things get labeled as "Gygax."



> I really wish people would've fought to preserve the concepts Gary introduced--such as incorruptable Solars (instead of the cliche's even good designers like Mona and Monte Cook did with the "fallen Solars"), or Modrons that were not "clockwork".




Incorruptibility is dull, as is "pure eeeeeee-vil," which is why I'm glad they opted not to use that.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> No, I knew one off the bat because it's the only one that someone has said to me, "That's gnosticism right there". In fact, I didn't even know about it until then. That's not "It's rather common" like you stated if I can only think of _one source_. Common implies it's all over the place.
> 
> If it's so common, I expect you to give me a list of 8-9 off the bat.



Grant Morrison's The Invisibles has many Gnostic Themes.

Tool references Gnostic themes in a bunch of their songs along with Kaballah.

Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials novels (which includes The Golden Compass).

The DC/Vertigo comic-book series Lucifer.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You said "Most people who read fantasy fiction knows what a dryad is". Which implies that most have read books with dryads in them.



Yes, because people only know about stuff that they read in fictional stories.  This is getting pretty silly now... I know (just as an example) where the word _narcissism_ is derived from because as a fan of fantasy, I am curious about real world mythology.  Most fantasy fans will have a passing familiarity with greek myths (which the dryad is a part of) at the very least, because they permeate western culture (especially western fastasy culture).

Here is a brief list of dryads in the culture.  The Chronicles of Narnia are obscure, right?


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 3, 2008)

Did anyone notice the notes in the first stat block? Looks like the editor forgot to remove them...


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, because people only know about stuff that they read in fictional stories.  This is getting pretty silly now...



He said "If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is". So it's silly to expect that he's talking about reading fantasy? 



> I know (just as an example) where the word _narcissism_ is derived from because as a fan of fantasy, I am curious about real world mythology.  Most fantasy fans will have a passing familiarity with greek myths (which the dryad is a part of) at the very least, because they permeate western culture (especially western fastasy culture).



So, most people who read fantasy are familiar enough with Greek mythology to recall on obscure critter? 



> Here is a brief list of dryads in the culture.  The Chronicles of Narnia are obscure, right?



So most fantasy readers have read that?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Grant Morrison's The Invisibles has many Gnostic Themes.
> 
> Tool references Gnostic themes in a bunch of their songs along with Kaballah.
> 
> ...



Okay, that's 4. Got any more?


----------



## hectorse (Jan 3, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Grant Morrison's The Invisibles has many Gnostic Themes.
> 
> Tool references Gnostic themes in a bunch of their songs along with Kaballah.
> 
> ...




I think what he is asking are clear sources where you can telll: See, this is an archon angel or dryad sexy gurl. Instead I am just reading lyrics, and general likeness to gnostic christianity. I'm not satisfied


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

hectorse said:
			
		

> I think what he is asking are clear sources where you can telll: See, this is an archon angel or dryad sexy gurl. Instead I am just reading lyrics, and general likeness to gnostic christianity. I'm not satisfied



Well, that would be nice, yes.


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

Are we seriously arguing that dryads are obscure? Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years but we all had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology in school back then. Forget fantasy readers; I would venture to guess that a lot of people who never touch the stuff have at least been exposed to the concept of a dryad, even if they haven't retained it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years but we all had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology in school back then.




Public schools are a world away from this now. Here in San Diego, we had funding cut for all non-English, Math, or Science curricula a few years back. If you weren't learning basic reading, arithmetic or biology, the school system wasn't paying for it. Arts, drama, literature, all suffered.

But (un)surprisingly, athletics were untouched. Funny that.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Are we seriously arguing that dryads are obscure? Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years but we all had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology in school back then. Forget fantasy readers; I would venture to guess that a lot of people who never touch the stuff have at least been exposed to the concept of a dryad, even if they haven't retained it.



Now, I was homeschooled for my middle school years, but the closest High school ever came to discussing mythology was _Beowulf_, and the vaguest scratching of the surface of the _Illiad_.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 3, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW



And Warhammer Fantasy.







> ) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.. ..for like 2400 years. Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.



Fits better on my battlemat than a soft skinned fey who has to have wizard powers shoehorned in to have an viable role other than to be that target of satiric lusts. Even in the settings where the tree-birtch is their normal form, most folks still should think of the dryad as the beautiful tree girl, since more people will see her ‘false face’ and live to talk about it.







> If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.



They will be expecting a victim based on Greco-Roman mythology’s family of Nymphs. However, the new dryad has great potential as an extension of the “ancient gods of the old wood” hungry for human blood and sacrifice. EDIT: And I'll tell ya, I got more uses for a Blair witch tree birtch in my 4eMM than the hapless tree girl.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/woodelves/painting/converting_dryads/default.htm


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Unpronounceable? Like the Ixitxachitl? I oughtta slap you silly for such an absurd hyperbole. If you're more interested in conversation, come on down to the level of rational discussion, and tell me, briefly, how you would pronounce that word?



Time to take a deep breath, please!

It's fine to disagree with someone, but we ask you not to be rude about it.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 3, 2008)

Dryads are not obscure critters.  And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?).  It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR.  If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Well, _The Chronicles of Narnia_ has traditional Dryads, and the novel _Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD_ has a Dryad or two. Not to mention the fact that one or two Dryads must have show up somewhere in the Xanth novels. These books are not exactly obscure, so I would say that "most people who read fantasy" is rather appropriate.
> 
> Of course, anyone who reads Greek myth will also be well aware of traditional Dryads, and that is a fairly wide group itself.




There's also a half-Dryad in David Eddings' _Belgariad_ and _Mallorean_ (the chief heroine, in fact), so I agree that they're not exactly obscure.

However, I have no problem with Dryads, who are nature spirits, having a "combat form" in D&D. Make a nod to the original myth by saying they often appear to be "nymphs, elf-maids, or beautiful human women." And then mention that, when provoked, they can turn nasty.

That would certainly work.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay, that's 4. Got any more?




Da Vinci Code, the Matrix, From Hell (at least the graphic novel, not sure about the movie) Possibly the TV Show LOST... CNN (last year? Maybe the year before when they did that whole thing about the lost books of Judah?) ummm The Illuminatus Trilogy... Some of William Gibson's stuff... Parts of Snow Crash.

Gnosticism seems like a good source for mystical coolness... (at least thematically...)


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 1) I don't think they have much of a mythology in the first place.
> 
> 2) Downplaying mythology is what D&D's been doing for 30 years.



Just because Gnostic Christianity was a minor sect that no longer exists, does not mean it "did not have much of a mythology". It still was just as complex and real as any other religion, currently worshiped or not.

Also, as I said, D&D downplaying mythology is irrelevant to anything I have said in this thread.



> No, I knew one off the bat because it's the only one that someone has said to me, "That's gnosticism right there". In fact, I didn't even know about it until then. That's not "It's rather common" like you stated if I can only think of _one source_. Common implies it's all over the place.
> 
> If it's so common, I expect you to give me a list of 8-9 off the bat.



Xenogears, Xenosaga, The Matrix, Scrapped Princess, and probably many things I have never read. That is more than enough. Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?




> You said "Most people who read fantasy fiction knows what a dryad is". Which implies that most have read books with dryads in them. But you can only name three series that have dryads in them, then surely most fantasy readers have read those three series/books. I've never even _heard_ of the second two, and I've been reading fantasy for over ten years.
> 
> You're overgeneralizing what you think "Most" people in any category know or read.



I never said any such thing. Look back and see for yourself. I understand that you are confused somewhat (I responded to your response to someone else, after all), but none-the-less, you are putting words in my mouth.

And you never heard of Xanth? Piers Anthony's novel series that must have more than 30 entries, and used to hit best-seller lists frequently? It is atypical fare, but it is widely popular fantasy.

Also, for the whole fantasy in school stuff... I was exposed to Greek myth in the second grade, around the time that I was reading my school's copies of the Chronicles of Narnia books, as my very earliest introduction to the fantasy genre. Norse myth came a few years later. Tolkien came in High School. Around this time was mostly spent reading Anne McCaffery, Mercedes Lackey, Piers Anthony, Isaac Asimov, Terry Brooks, and various other relatively modern authors. I never once touched the old stuff like Lieber, Moorcock, Howard, or various other things you don't even see on bookstore shelves these days.

Rechan, what do you think is common and popular fantasy?


----------



## Klaus (Jan 3, 2008)

Regardless of the name, the Fire Archon (who I first thought would be a good creature) does look mighty awesome. Which brings me to:


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 3, 2008)

Great colour! I really like that one, too.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Dryads are not obscure critters.  And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?).  It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR.  If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.



Saying it's Obscure and saying "Most people who read fantasy aren't assumed to have read it" are two different things.



> Just because Gnostic Christianity was a minor sect that no longer exists, does not mean it "did not have much of a mythology". It still was just as complex and real as any other religion, currently worshiped or not.



But its level of prominence dictates something. As I referenced earlier, elves who make shoes are _also_ in mythology, but they by no means are on equal footing as Hercules. Just because it's _there_ means very little.

If you go back and read what I said, I said "Rich history firmly rooted in mythology" in a sarcastic manner. Gnosticism was brief and obscure, so it's not a rich history, and again, not deeply rooted if it didn't last a long time. 

If a sect of people popped up in the middle of no where for five years and created a Theory of Creation and then died out, and their theories were barely touched upon until late 20th century, that doesn't mean that their theory of creation and all their mythological ideas are on equal, strong, historical footing that have as much literary basis in Western literature and fantasy writing as _anything else_. It's a snapshot of a small group's ideas that disappeared, compared to legends and lore that have been prevelent for centuries. 



> Also, as I said, D&D downplaying mythology is irrelevant to anything I have said in this thread.



So D&D's downplaying mythology is irrelevent, but using Archons as angels is somehow wrong because it's downplaying mythology in D&D?

If it has nothing to do with D&D, then _what's the problem_?



> Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?



You're the one making the argument that gnosticism is common in literature. I'm sorry that you are having to back up your claim. If I was making a claim that Janism was influential and common, I would be expected to provide proof of that, because the burden of proof lies on myself. 



> And you never heard of Xanth?



No.



> Rechan, what do you think is common and popular fantasy?



Short answer? Knights, dragons, magic swords, witches.

Long answer: Do you really want an essay on what I think is common to most fantasy readers?



> I never said any such thing. Look back and see for yourself. I understand that you are confused somewhat (I responded to your response to someone else, after all), but none-the-less, you are putting words in my mouth.



I went back - you're right. I've confused you with Banshee.

Then why are you arguing his point that Most fantasy readers read this stuff if that's not what you think?


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I can't name you a single fantasy book that _has_ a Dryad in it, so I think you're "Most people who read fantasy" is really reaching, there.




FWIW, one of C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry stories has a dryad in it -- beautiful, magical, life tied to a tree. Paizo just republished the story in one of their Planet Adventure books (which is how and why I just read that particular story). For myself, though, I believe I learned about dryads through reading about Greek mythology when I was a kid; however, that was about the same time I started getting into D&D, so I have no idea where I first encountered the concept.

(Incidentally, that same Moore story also has what appears to me to be the origin of the spell _dimension door_: the evil sorceress that killed & tortured the dryad reaches behind her like she's turning a doorknob, then teleports away to the faint sound of a closing door. It turns out that she's using some kind of hall of doors that lead to multiple dimensions, but it seems like the clear inspiration for the spell to me.)


----------



## Terramotus (Jan 3, 2008)

Not to pick on you specifically, but your post had all of the points I wanted to hit.


			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> It had 800 years of it.
> 
> The new meanings have....oh.....24 hours now of history now?




If you're trying to tie it back to the Cathars... no.  It would actually go back farther.  I have no great knowledge of Gnostic texts (and I suspect nobody here does either - yay Wikipedia theology), but archon is a Greek word.  Greek gnosticism is much older than that, and I don't believe that Languedoc had any contact with the Greek-speaking world at that time significant enough to have borrowed words.  So wrong timestamp.

I have a challenge for you - go to your local game or book and ask people what an archon is.  I'm willing to bet that not a single person references gnosticism.   If someone does - bonus.  You've met someone pretty knowledgable. 


> Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.....for like 2400 years.  Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.
> 
> If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.
> 
> Banshee



Uh...  what exactly are they going to expect, then?  As long as they're female and pretty, that sounds pretty compatible with the Greek myths I know.  Do a Google Image Search for dryad and see what comes up - the first page is all somewhere in that range.  That seems a decent indicator of what most people think of.  Besides, Greek myth was never as organized or as universal as most modern books make it out to be and usually served the author's needs.  

I'm also going to call BS on any references to modern fantasy and expectations that the 4E designers need to hew closely to it.  There's a massive difference between mythology and anything created after the onset of mass culture: self-awareness.  The old stuff was local and generated out of the bugbears of the subconscious.  Modern works are all works of synthesis and come from a thought-world so different that it's nearly impossible for most modern people to comprehend the actual old mythology.  

Witness the attempts to organize it into a cohesive system.  "Greek mythology" is largely an invention of certain poets, such as Hesiod and Homer, and of later generations.  Everyone worshipped local gods.  Why do you think there are so many competing origin stories, multiple names and differing personalities for the same gods?  I'm not an ancient Greek scholar, but I have studied it, and I recall that it's probably not an accident that Homer and Hesiod wrote around the time when Greek culture was finally coming into its own and becoming conscious of itself.  Their works probably served a similar purpose to help define their culture as Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac did for the United States.

Anyway, the point of that tangent is that modern fantasy is a whole different ballgame.  It's put together with a consciousness of what came before from totally different areas, and for a totally different purpose.  The portrayal of various mythological creatures in modern fantasy amounts to little more than a temporary fad, as they change so often.  The stuff that hits you deep, where you live, is usually the old things, and modern fantasy is like a funhouse mirror held up to it.  I think Gaiman's been so successful because he's able to help people tap into that old mindset, not because he's doing anything particularly original.  But 20 years ago he would have been weird and out there.  

No modern fantasy is on anything more than equal footing with the 4E designers with regard to "mythological truthiness" (with the possible exception of Tolkien, due to his influence), since they're all just modern self-aware syntheses anyway.

Being upset at their moving in a different direction is like calling Star Wars a crappy movie because of the 70s haircuts, or dissing Cyberpunk stuff because it's focused on issues that people thought were important in the 80s.  Whatever.  Fads change.  You may be more attached to a particular older pop mythology, but it's all too far removed from the old real myths to give any of it a superior stamp of authenticity IMO.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> Witness the attempts to organize it into a cohesive system.  "Greek mythology" is largely an invention of certain poets, such as Hesiod and Homer, and of later generations.  Everyone worshipped local gods.  Why do you think there are so many competing origin stories, multiple names and differing personalities for the same gods?  I'm not an ancient Greek scholar, but I have studied it, and I recall that it's probably not an accident that Homer and Hesiod wrote around the time when Greek culture was finally coming into its own and becoming conscious of itself.  Their works probably served a similar purpose to help define their culture as Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac did for the United States.



I'm probably going to have to agree here. I've cross-referenced the Egyptian gods and two Greek Gods (Athena and Artemis), and both times I've checked on Wiki, it always goes on about how they were once this god, with this portfolio, and it transferred into this god, and...

I mean, Look at Bast, who went from a fierce warrior goddess to a domesticated protecter of home of and mothers (according to Wiki again).

One thing I've noticed about the Egyptian Gods is that it's like "This Egyptian God is pretty close, but somewhat different, from this North African God who lived down the street and two blocks West".


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> But its level of prominence dictates something. As I referenced earlier, elves who make shoes are _also_ in mythology, but they by no means are on equal footing as Hercules. Just because it's _there_ means very little.



Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it _somewhere_ in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.

Also, Hercules himself has no real equivalent in D&D, so even popular stuff that is widely known is on the same level as any other possible inspiration for D&D.



> If you go back and read what I said, I said "Rich history firmly rooted in mythology" in a sarcastic manner. Gnosticism was brief and obscure, so it's not a rich history, and again, not deeply rooted if it didn't last a long time.
> 
> If a sect of people popped up in the middle of no where for five years and created a Theory of Creation and then died out, and their theories were barely touched upon until late 20th century, that doesn't mean that their theory of creation and all their mythological ideas are on equal, strong, historical footing that have as much literary basis in Western literature and fantasy writing as _anything else_. It's a snapshot of a small group's ideas that disappeared, compared to legends and lore that have been prevelent for centuries.



An idea is an idea. If it serves as an inspiration for something, it is valid and useful. Long-term relevance to western thought is hardly what I would call an important consideration.




> So D&D's downplaying mythology is irrelevent, but using Archons as angels is somehow wrong because it's downplaying mythology in D&D?



I don't have any idea how this relates to things I have said. How many times do I have to say that I am not interested in this line of discussion?

But, if you insist on making me comment on this...

My opinion is that, thanks to the influence of Gnostic christianity, the word "Archon" is a great word for celestial beings, especially since "Archon" does not have the positive connotations that the word "angel" does in English, and it seems that celestials will not be necessarily good-aligned in 4E. Similarly, because of the influences of Zoroastrianism, and I think Hinduism, the words Ashura and Deva are also good terms for celestials that are not necessarily good. The value of these terms is not dependent on mythological accuracy for its own sake (though I do like mythological accuracy), but because these terms have very similar meaning in some usage, and I despise making up meaningless names for things in D&D. Common perception is more important than history.



> You're the one making the argument that gnosticism is common in literature. I'm sorry that you are having to back up your claim. If I was making a claim that Janism was influential and common, I would be expected to provide proof of that, because the burden of proof lies on myself.



Ugh, this is what I get for omitting the phrase "relatively widespread in literature despite its fairly obscure origin" because I thought it was unnecessary. Also, I have no objection to backing up my claim. I think I have, myself, and others in this thread have also done so. For what I was claiming, that it has a significant enough influence in fantasy and the popular imagination that it is recognizable, even a few examples is enough.




> No.



Really? Interesting.




> Short answer? Knights, dragons, magic swords, witches.
> 
> Long answer: Do you really want an essay on what I think is common to most fantasy readers?



I was talking about novels and authors, actually, since we were discussing (in a somewhat implicit fashion) whether or not the Chronicles of Narnia or Xanth are widely read and popular or not.




> I went back - you're right. I've confused you with Banshee.
> 
> Then why are you arguing his point that Most fantasy readers read this stuff if that's not what you think?



I never once argued any point on his behalf. This whole thing started when I was directly responding to your statement "I have never read a book that had Dryads", by citing a few examples of books that had Dryads in them. I was not backing his broad claim, but rather going against your claim (the implicit statement that Dryads are not found in fiction).

In other words, I am not claiming that everyone who reads fantasy should know what a Dryad is, rather I am claiming that knowledge of what a Dryad is classically supposed to be is not uncommon among fantasy. There is a difference between claiming "almost everyone should know it" and "it is common enough that many will". I am claiming the latter, but you are acting as if I am claiming the former.

I never even meant to make more than a single post on the subject, really. I guess it is hard for me to pull away from internet debates...


----------



## Terramotus (Jan 3, 2008)

Responding in a different post, because the other one was long.


			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Xenogears, Xenosaga, The Matrix, Scrapped Princess, and probably many things I have never read. That is more than enough. Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?



The Golden Compass too, but that's irrelevant.  Let's not turn this into a contest on which religion is cooler.  

Point 1) Hardly anyone who's read or watched those works can point to the specific pedigree of those concepts.  

Point 2) That particular religious milieu has not permeated Western culture the way Catholicism/Protestantism has.  It would be impossible for me to write fiction about a character or god dying on a cross without bringing to mind Christianity.  The word archon just isn't culturally loaded that way.  

Point 3) It doesn't matter because they're all just syntheses of ancient works anyway.  The creators of 4E have no strange obligation to stay true to the vision of the Wachowski brothers, or the writers of Xenogears, or anybody else.  When we're dealing with ideas with such a long pedigree, being older by a decade or so doesn't cut it for me.  

They're writing modern myth and using the old baggage for emotional oomph, just like the others.  If people enjoy the modern myth and the cultural baggage they've chosen to employ works out well, then they've succeeded.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jan 3, 2008)

For the most part, I like!

I really appreciate the effort being put in to make a unified cosmology for D&D. I like what I can infer bout all elementals and the changes seem well thought out. However, I do think they may have went a bit too far.  I don't think fire archons need a society or explanation for their armor. I think it's good enough for a wizard to summon one of these by instantly creating it from the raw essence of fire pulled from the Elemental Chaos. Where'd it get that armor and sword? Who cares? When you make one, that's what you get!

My biggest gripe: fire archons are rare minis in the DoD set (I have 2!) but this article makes it seem like I need at least 6 ( a leader and 5 followers.)

I only skimmed the last couple pages of this thread, but it seems like its becoming a debate bout mythology. I will say that I think the argument that D&D, esp. 4E is 'bad' or 'wrong' for deviating from Earth's mythology is flawed and unfounded. If it did adhere to mythology, it wouldn't be D&D, it'd be the _Mythological Earth RPG_.

EVERY game I can think of takes familiar names and words from the past and reuses them. Games Workshop (Warhammer) is probably the largest offender. But I don't really consider it an offense. In fact, it's part of what ensures success... look at all the familiar names and places in Howard's _Conan_ writings.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it _somewhere_ in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.




This made me chuckle, as I played it out in my head.

"Diminutive, shoe-making elves are a strong enough archetype that they should be replaced with shoe-making gnomes."


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Dryads are not obscure critters.  And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?).  It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR.  If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.




I agree that dryads are not obscure creatures. They are found in many literary and artistic references, as well as several fantasy series mentioned previously in this thread. I would disagree that the majority of people who regularly read fantasy have read the Narnia series. I usually have to explain the series to people (even gamers) I talk to. It is my experience that a distinct minority have read it.

I also have to say that the argument about the validity of changing things from their mythological origins is nonsense. Every ancient author had his own take on mythological features. Medieval authors reimagined mythological figures on a regular basis. As I told my college myth class, the mythological figures in _Clash of the Titans_ were no less valid than those same figures in ancient tales. Each author puts his/her own spin on the creatures and characters from mythology. The CotT version is just as valid, even if more recent. I cringe to say it, but the same holds true for that Kevin Sorbo Hercules series.

Mythology was not written in stone, even in the ancient world. Okay, sometimes it may have been. But you be sure that two myths written on stone, from different periods, would differ in many details.

For me, as a classicist and as a gamer, the new dryad is better in the context of a D&D game than the ones depicted in ancient wall paintings. The new version is more useful in a D&D game than the classical version. If you don't like the new version, remove its combat form. It's that easy.

This argument smacks of the attitude that says, I_ don't want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I don't think anyone else should have that option either._


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jan 3, 2008)

I hasten to add that just because some mythological names or concepts are included, that does not mean they all require representation, or that they must be rendered as faithfully as possible. Again, this would actually be counter productive.

Also, an invented world can't be completely divorced from all real-world influence. _Talislanta_ attempted this, and it was neat, but ultimately it didn't have traction, in part because one can't really relate to it since everything about it was pure fabrication.

'Archon' is a great name, so D&D should use it. And regardless of the roots, I like Fire Archons and Earth Archons better than Hound Archons.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This made me chuckle, as I played it out in my head.
> 
> "Diminutive, shoe-making elves are a strong enough archetype that they should be replaced with shoe-making gnomes."



Err... not really what I meant...


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 3, 2008)

What bugs me is that these Fire Archons are Archons in name only...  They're not Lawful Good, and have absolutely no connection to any of the previous kinds of Archons from 3.x.

...Of course, as I understand it, that was the basic idea.  Apparantly, Wizards seems to think that a new edition of D&D needs "Newer, Cooler" monsters.   This strategy gives me mixed feelings, to be honest.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> What bugs me is that these Fire Archons are Archons in name only...  They're not Lawful Good, and have absolutely no connection to any of the previous kinds of Archons from 3.x.
> 
> ...Of course, as I understand it, that was the basic idea.  Apparantly, Wizards seems to think that a new edition of D&D needs "Newer, Cooler" monsters.   This strategy gives me mixed feelings, to be honest.




Is that because you liked Archons the way they were? If so, fair enough. But that's a matter of opinion. Many of us like the new ones a whole lot better than the old.

So it looks to me like what we've got is some people clinging to what an Archon was in 3e as a sacred cow.

And they weren't ever going to be Lawful Good, 'cuz in 4e nobody's lawful good.

I'd like someone to explain to me why, without 9 alignments, we need more than just "angels" as "servants of the gods." Anyone?

Please. I want the explanation.


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 3, 2008)

I remember that Dreamblade mini - I agree with them, it rocked.  Hard.  The article is amazing, and I would love to have rules to play one as a PC.


----------



## Voss (Jan 3, 2008)

That depends.  I don't necessarily think we do, but I'll take a stab at it.  If its just a generic term, then probably not.  But if it means people shaped outsiders with wings on, yeah, we do.  Some gods won't have those.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it _somewhere_ in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.
> 
> Also, Hercules himself has no real equivalent in D&D, so even popular stuff that is widely known is on the same level as any other possible inspiration for D&D.
> 
> An idea is an idea. If it serves as an inspiration for something, it is valid and useful. Long-term relevance to western thought is hardly what I would call an important consideration.



Look. I'm not trying to argue with you the True Nature of Knowledge or Imagination or Mythology, or anything like that.

I'm talking about level of prominence and significance.

Hercules is a much more prominent figure in mythology and collective history. Thus, he's got more mythological traction than shoe elves. 

Have Shoe Elves gotten their own TV show? Inspired countless books and movies? Been told about for ages? No? Then they're not as impressive from a historical or mythological standpoint as Hercules. They lose compared to popularity.



> My opinion is that, thanks to the influence of Gnostic christianity, the word "Archon" is a great word for celestial beings, especially since "Archon" does not have the positive connotations that the word "angel" does in English, and it seems that celestials will not be necessarily good-aligned in 4E. Similarly, because of the influences of Zoroastrianism, and I think Hinduism, the words Ashura and Deva are also good terms for celestials that are not necessarily good. The value of these terms is not dependent on mythological accuracy for its own sake (though I do like mythological accuracy), but because these terms have very similar meaning in some usage, and I despise making up meaningless names for things in D&D. Common perception is more important than history.



Wait, what? 

Are you saying that archon is _okay_? 

I thought this whole time you were arguing that Archon was stolen from gnosticism and that's bad because it has its own mythology with gnosticisim and it's not okay to have that mythology corrupted? 

If you think Archon is okay to be stolen and stapled to extra-planar fire guys who fight wars for Gods and stuff, then why are we arguing?  



> I was talking about novels and authors, actually, since we were discussing (in a somewhat implicit fashion) whether or not the Chronicles of Narnia or Xanth are widely read and popular or not.



I honestly have no clue.



> I never once argued any point on his behalf. This whole thing started when I was directly responding to your statement "I have never read a book that had Dryads", by citing a few examples of books that had Dryads in them. I was not backing his broad claim, but rather going against your claim (the implicit statement that Dryads are not found in fiction).
> 
> In other words, I am not claiming that everyone who reads fantasy should know what a Dryad is, rather I am claiming that knowledge of what a Dryad is classically supposed to be is not uncommon among fantasy. There is a difference between claiming "almost everyone should know it" and "it is common enough that many will". I am claiming the latter, but you are acting as if I am claiming the former.



When you put it like _that_, I can't disagree. Perhaps the disconnect is that in the above, when I see "Many", I read "Most".



> I never even meant to make more than a single post on the subject, really. I guess it is hard for me to pull away from internet debates...



Tell me about it.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that "These guys aren't Archons, they're just fire guys who aren't angels" is an example of a larger trend for 4e. 

It seems that the 4e guys are just taking good names (Archon, Eladrin), and dropping them on something else that's Kiiinda but not really like it. "Archon serves gods, on another plane? Okay, check." "Eladrin look kinda like elves? Okay, check."

On the Podcast of Monsters, when asked "What monster wasn't done very well" or something like that, Wyatt said, "The Lamia. It's a good name, but bad execution. We're going to keep the name around." Suggests they're going to put the Lamia name on some other monster, rather than just convert the 3e Lamia because it's just sitting there collecting dust.

I don't really have a problem with this. I've never cared for the Planes. I've never used them at all in an adventure, ever went to them, and never attached much significance to most things in D&D. 

But it seems that, if it isn't complaining over taking a good name and stapling it to something else, it's complaints over NounNoun Monster names, or Wuxia/Anime Name names.

Nothing the 4e designers _do_ seems right. So I'm just taking this with another grain of salt.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 3, 2008)

My impressions:

I like the look.  It's not terribly original, but it's common for a reason:  it looks darned spiffy.

The concept is alright.  It's not terribly inspired, but there's plenty of room for unique societies of the things, and they have plenty of possible associations with the azer in particular.  That they're mercenaries by nature means they can even be made to work for good provided they get to do some serious ruining in the process.

The writing could really use an editor's love.  This has been true for a lot of what I've been reading, from the Elf entry to the Races and Classes book.  I'm sure there's a good reason behind it, what with the immense amount of work this edition is, but ...gah.

The marketing talk I absolutely abhor.  I doubt the writers get a choice, but this pandering marketing language is just one step from "pro-active where-its-at to the x-treme."

I also agree on the dissing of old editions being irritating.  I always just considered elementals more or less entities who pretty much just zenned constantly until someone went and interrupted their drifting through the elemental planes.  An educated, mature writer should have no trouble describing "new and improved" without having to snub their nose at what has come before.  Especially when a PR concern is at hand.

So, anyways.  This is nice.  Just hope they stop being so abusive to language and ideas.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Look. I'm not trying to argue with you the True Nature of Knowledge or Imagination or Mythology, or anything like that.
> 
> I'm talking about level of prominence and significance.
> 
> ...



Well, to varying extents, the Smurfs, the Keebler Elves, the Minish from Legend of Zelda, and the old cartoon David the Gnome all fit into the "Shoe Elf" concept, not to mention the classic Santa's Elves.

Honestly, I wonder if Hercules has as much prominence and significance in the modern day as that concept. You can't sell cookies with Hercules... People can't even get his proper Greek name Heracles right (so you end up with Hercules, the son of Zeus, ugh...).




> Wait, what?
> 
> Are you saying that archon is _okay_?
> 
> ...



Well, I don't know.  

However, I would prefer it if they just called the new Archons by the old name Elementals... Rather than leave elementals boring, only useful as the raw material for the cool creatures, I would have preferred Fire Archons to be just Fire Elementals or something. My biggest problem is that I wish more was done with Elementals, and they got rid of the nonsensical "faceless being made wholly of one element, all the same" issue. They really didn't fix anything.

I also admit to just liking the names Trumpet Archon and Tome Archon (which should have matching Sword, Staff, Orb, etc Archons). I prefer that design scheme to the Planetar/Solar  scheme you see with Angels.




> I honestly have no clue.



Fine enough. I really have no idea either. Names like Vance and Leiber are common around here, but I never even heard of them outside of ENWorld, so I can't claim I know much about what is popular and commonly read among fantasy fans.




> When you put it like _that_, I can't disagree. Perhaps the disconnect is that in the above, when I see "Many", I read "Most".



I see how that could lead to confusion. Again, sorry for starting this whole mess by butting into someone else's argument.




> Tell me about it.



Even now I can't stop debating with you... Internet debates are just too addicting.


----------



## med stud (Jan 3, 2008)

I like these creatures. They behave like fire in that they replicate, conquer, don't rebuild and finally they die out when there is nothing left to conquer.

The looks of them are good too and I don't care if they make masterwork swords and armor even while it's said that they don't manufacture stuff. You could say that magpies aren't creative and they don't build stuff even if they build their own nests; I don't think one exception is enough to be outraged of that issue.

I don't care two cents about how they use the name archon. IMO D&D has always mangled mythologies so the less they pretend that they are interpreting mythological phenomena the glader I am .


----------



## helium3 (Jan 3, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Regardless of the name, the Fire Archon (who I first thought would be a good creature) does look mighty awesome. Which brings me to:




I like that one a lot more than the ones in the articles. The background of the horde of fire creatures is a bit over done.

What's really cool is that picture looks like it belongs in my copy of Illustrated Tolkien.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> However, I would prefer it if they just called the new Archons by the old name Elementals... Rather than leave elementals boring, only useful as the raw material for the cool creatures, I would have preferred Fire Archons to be just Fire Elementals or something. My biggest problem is that I wish more was done with Elementals, and they got rid of the nonsensical "faceless being made wholly of one element, all the same" issue. They really didn't fix anything.
> 
> I also admit to just liking the names Trumpet Archon and Tome Archon (which should have matching Sword, Staff, Orb, etc Archons). I prefer that design scheme to the Planetar/Solar  scheme you see with Angels.




This is not an unexcellent idea. Archon is a flexible word; I'm perfectly comfortable with having two disparate groups rally under its banner. It means the "vaguely menacing beings from the Elemental Chaos" and the "eldritch-but-benevolent beings that back the flow of magic". Sort of (mostly)-Good-aligned Magic Elementals.

I think a similar take on Guardinals as has been thrown around -- spirit guides -- could be mucho nifty. Throw the lantern and hound archons over to that side of the fence, and there's a pretty nifty outsider split that totally is justified in 4e: The daevic and planetary angels, the eldritch-but-benevolent-towards-seekers-of-knowledge Mystical Archons, and the feral-but-benevolent-towards-spritually-aware Guardianals.

Want to have the groups look the way they used to? Give them a reason to cohabit. Hound archons and lantern archons, being drawn to the spirits of certain kinds of seekers of knowledge (mundane, rote thinkers like many scholars/general wild spirits of intellect?) often work with and identify themselves with Mystic Archons.

Voila.


----------



## Nathan P. Mahney (Jan 3, 2008)

The fire archons are cool, but I never had a particular attachment to the old ones.  I did like the old-school elementals, however, and I hope they haven't been ditched.  It didn't matter that they didn't have any readily understandable society or goals - they're ELEMENTALS!  They should be beyond human understanding.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to go along with the new stuff, simply because the 4e core D&D flavour rocks on toast.  But if you want that as well as the original archons, here's a tweak to the origins: fire archons weren't formed just from elementals, but from a fusion of the original archons and beings of elemental fire.  Not all of them got changed, so there are still the old furry archons out there in the planes somewhere, if you want them.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jan 3, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> One thing mentioned in this article, that everyone has over-looked is the question about what are Exarchs?
> 
> I assume they're something like angels.



Perhaps they're the servants of non-good, or specifically of the evil deities, analogous to but separate from angels?


----------



## Soel (Jan 3, 2008)

Background is cool enough. I don't like the image (there are a lot cooler Dreamblade minis that need a d&d transferral,) but I can always use the Reth Dekala's likeness (from Tome of Battle.)


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 3, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Once again, overuse of the word 'cool' and inherent contradictions built into the article.
> 
> Honestly, whats going on with this garbage?  I was fine with not creating things (except possibly field fortifications).  Embodiment of the destructive aspects of fire, but not stupid.  Interesting stuff, created for war and all that jazz.  Except, for some reason, they do create things, even though they don't.  In fact, they're really, really good at it.  Sloppy.



  At what point did 'Tend to' come to mean 'Never'.  There's no contradiction there at all.  Making metal weapons and armor are the exception to their general trend, which is why they only 'tend to' destroy instead of create.  Their history even goes into detail on how they were designed to be self reproducing, which means they have to embody some sort of creation aspect. (And since that reproduction actually involves forging new armor for it anways...)  Considering fire's ties with the forge, metal is one of the things I would associate with elemental fire creatures, especially those with warlike aspects. 

As for the creatures themselves...I rather like them.  They also seem to cleave a bit more closely to their roots in gnostic belief then the 'classic' DnD archon, and that's always a plus IMO.  I'd rather have Cherubim then a Hound Archon for a LG 'furry angel' in any case.


----------



## Intrope (Jan 3, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I like these creatures. They behave like fire in that they replicate, conquer, don't rebuild and finally they die out when there is nothing left to conquer.
> 
> The looks of them are good too and I don't care if they make masterwork swords and armor even while it's said that they don't manufacture stuff. You could say that magpies aren't creative and they don't build stuff even if they build their own nests; I don't think one exception is enough to be outraged of that issue.
> 
> I don't care two cents about how they use the name archon. IMO D&D has always mangled mythologies so the less they pretend that they are interpreting mythological phenomena the glader I am .



 THIS. Also, their forging ability makes perfect sense in this regard: Forging is the process of using Fire to turn metal in to Weapons. Fire Archons are Fire beings with an inherent passion for weaponry: it makes sense that they would have an instinct for making weapons--and basically nothing else. Note that this means that their ability to forge isn't a skill/knowledge at all, and a Fire Archon probably couldn't make a horseshoe to save it's life! (at least, not any more so than any random schlub could).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> However, I would prefer it if they just called the new Archons by the old name Elementals... Rather than leave elementals boring, only useful as the raw material for the cool creatures, I would have preferred Fire Archons to be just Fire Elementals or something. My biggest problem is that I wish more was done with Elementals, and they got rid of the nonsensical "faceless being made wholly of one element, all the same" issue. They really didn't fix anything.
> 
> I also admit to just liking the names Trumpet Archon and Tome Archon (which should have matching Sword, Staff, Orb, etc Archons). I prefer that design scheme to the Planetar/Solar scheme you see with Angels.




This.

These aren't the "new archons." These are new creatures that have been rather arbitrarily called "archons" because the designers thought it was too cool of a word not to use.

The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste. So far in the game, these have been known as "Archons." It's a good name for extraplanar divine creatures, as the term's history in the Greek language, in gnosticism, and in angelology all work well. This draws parallels without drawing equivalencies, and gives it a sense of history without tying it too tightly to anything too specific. If you do research on the term, you'll find uncanny parallels, so D&D is using the word as a continuation and modification of the myth.

Calling these things archons is like me going around calling halflings nymphs just because it's too cool of a word not to use, "halfling" is kind of a lame term, and you can't fight blindingly beautiful wilderness spirits, so we can't call nymphs nymphs. And besides, a lot of people in 3e thought Lidda was sexy, so there you go, halflings are nymphs.

"It's too cool of a word not to use" is a lame excuse, because I pulled a half-dozen acceptable words out of thin air and a quick Wikipedia search. And if too many of their playtesters or people in-house had trouble pronouncing the words, they can change it to something that works better. The point is that Archon ALREADY had a meaning in D&D that gave it a solid, necessary place for the game (evil-smiting angels vs. protecting angels; just like devils and demons are different kinds of fiends). Maybe not every specific creature was inspiring, but that role still needs to be filled, and this article doesn't tell me why the name "Archon" couldn't stay in the same role, a role that it made good sense in. Instead, it was appropriated for a completely unrelated creature.

The "new Archons" will be the creatures that fill the role of crusading angelic evil-smiters. These things are not the new Archons. They're just a new monster with a name selected for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Intrope (Jan 3, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Perhaps they're the servants of non-good, or specifically of the evil deities, analogous to but separate from angels?



 Exarchs probably aren't 'Evil Angels'--in the Monsters podcast the encounter in Dispater's fortress Angels of Vengeance were considered for inclusion in the encounter. I'm thinking that Angel is the generalized term for certain kinds of servants of Gods--Good, Evil or indifferent. 

Granted, I doubt Asmodeus employs any Angels of Peace, Love and Joy!

As to what Exarch might be--who knows? The name makes me think of the Inevitables, but that probably means I need more coffee


----------



## DJCupboard (Jan 3, 2008)

I really like the new direction the archon name is going, but for them to say there is no real-world cultural basis for animal-headed celestials is just silly


----------



## Beckett (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste. So far in the game, these have been known as "Archons." It's a good name for extraplanar divine creatures, as the term's history in the Greek language, in gnosticism, and in angelology all work well. This draws parallels without drawing equivalencies, and gives it a sense of history without tying it too tightly to anything too specific. If you do research on the term, you'll find uncanny parallels, so D&D is using the word as a continuation and modification of the myth.




How about "angel"? Or maybe "deva"? A quick flip through the dictionary shows either of those as more appropriate than "archon", which means "game played with multiple monsters on a modified chess board".


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste. So far in the game, these have been known as "Archons.".



That says 'Angel' to me, honestly.  The previous Archon is an artificial seperation created so we'd have a celestial of every individual Good alignment on the wheel.  Since they're going away from that aspect anyways, why keep it?  Any specific 'Old' style archon that's sufficiently neat enough to keep around can go under 'Angel' as a broad specification of 'Good' servitor race.  Just as Devils are no longer 'Those LE Outsiders', there's no longer a reason to keep Archons as 'Those LG Outsiders' besides 'It's always been like that'.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Just because Gnostic Christianity was a minor sect that no longer exists, does not mean it "did not have much of a mythology". It still was just as complex and real as any other religion, currently worshiped or not.




Just for the record, there are still Gnostics (and Gnostic churches) in modern times. Was just reading an article about one here in southern California not too many months ago, in fact.


----------



## Imban (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste.




Says who? What does your game actually need any caste of creature that crusades for good for?

Is the game actually served by winged green-skinned baldos made out of fluff and sunshine who always fight for what's right more than Bahamut's Angels of Law, beings forged of law and cold iron who, while delivering your group from the talons of the enemy, would gladly slay you for your sins against the universal Law in the blink of an eye were it not for Bahamut's commands that they not. And the whole time they wing you away from the burning palisades, you can see the cold hatred burning in their iron eyes as they look at you...

'Cuz, you know, those angels are exactly as helpful as Solars ever were in adventures, and then you can turn around and cut them to bits when they're Bane's Angels of Law.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> How about "angel"? Or maybe "deva"? A quick flip through the dictionary shows either of those as more appropriate than "archon", which means "game played with multiple monsters on a modified chess board".




and 



> That says 'Angel' to me, honestly. The previous Archon is an artificial seperation created so we'd have a celestial of every individual Good alignment on the wheel. Since they're going away from that aspect anyways, why keep it? Any specific 'Old' style archon that's sufficiently neat enough to keep around can go under 'Angel' as a broad specification of 'Good' servitor race. Just as Devils are no longer 'Those LE Outsiders', there's no longer a reason to keep Archons as 'Those LG Outsiders' besides 'It's always been like that'.




The reason is the same reason they're keeping the demon/devil division. We have different flavors of good that are big enough to contain several different critters in each. It could also be because, as posited, "Angels" may no longer even be just a flavor of good, they may instead be generic god-lackeys. 

I'd have no real problem with calling the crusading spirits "Angels." But, then, what do you call the other ones? Say, the protective spirits?

Think of the various fluff roles of good outsiders, and about what roles might be needed and useful for the game. Hitting the previous editions, we have creatures like Eladrin. They're becoming fey and they fit that mold better, so they'll be happy there. We have Animal Lords, and, again, they'll probably work better as fey. We have Guardinals -- ostensibly guardian spirits. We have Archons -- ostensibly warrior-celestials. And we have Angels, which are also known as Devas, which are generally described as messengers of the gods and/or protective spirits. 

For the game, we could use fey spirits (Eladin, being done). We could use servants of the various deities (possibly, as speculated above, Angels of various good and evil things). We could also use exemplars of Good that kick evil's butt (????) and and exemplars of Good that help out the innocent (????). The reason for this is the same reason we need exemplars of Evil that kick butt (Demons) and that tempt the innocent (Devils).

Now, in a sort of ideal world, we'd keep the cool name for the evil butt-kickers (Archons), and we'd use the most evocative and culturally accurate name for the spiritual wardens and announcers (Angels). You could draw some parallels, if you wanted. Angels and Devils are controllers and leaders, both fighting over the innocent, but ultimately leaving the choice up to them. Archons and Demons are defenders and strikers, both killing those on the other side, ultimately concerned with life and limb. You could still have the various god-servants, and if you wanted a category for them all, you could either make one up (Godspawn?) or even take one of the discarded names from previous editions if you love it (Devas?). 

But they're not going with that. Maybe they have something better in mind. It's said in R&C that they're doing something dramatic with celestials and the Forces of Good, too, because they were generally boring in other editions. I'd agree with this, and I'd love to see some forces of good I can really sink my teeth into. The above scheme is pretty good for that (Archons fight 'morally ambiguous' PC's, and ally with party clerics and paladins when facing evil; angels need help defending people and can always offer blessings to PCs who they must recruit). We don't know what scheme they have cooking up, maybe it'll be even better. 

All I know for sure is that the word 'Archon,' which was in a valid and interesting place as of 3e, that could, as far as I can see, still fill that place in 4e and be even MORE valid and interesting, was instead given up. The reason? Because dog heads are only for furries. It was instead placed on another random creature The reason? Because it's too cool of a word not to use.

Angels instead may be "generic divine servants." And Archons, we can see, are "manmade elemental people." You've lost the strongest associations of the names. And what have you gained? Jack, as far as I can see. And why have you gained it? Because your imagination failed to speculate on new words, and because your imagination failed to consider that Archons could mean something much stronger to current players than "those dog-headed celestials." 

My major, major issue with this is that their stated reasons for these moves are remarkably boneheaded and shortsighted, giving us nothing truly great (the monsters are cool regardless of what you call them, and calling them "Archons" doesn't make much sense given what "Archon" means) in exchange for ruining something that was pretty good to begin with (even if people had issues with Anubis-style paladin-celestials, the idea of a caste of warrior-divine-things is a strong monster family category, at least as strong as Demons being destructive-evil-things).

...there's also this:


> Says who? What does your game actually need any caste of creature that crusades for good for?
> 
> Is the game actually served by winged green-skinned baldos made out of fluff and sunshine who always fight for what's right more than Bahamut's Angels of Law, beings forged of law and cold iron who, while delivering your group from the talons of the enemy, would gladly slay you for your sins against the universal Law in the blink of an eye were it not for Bahamut's commands that they not. And the whole time they wing you away from the burning palisades, you can see the cold hatred burning in their iron eyes as they look at you...
> 
> 'Cuz, you know, those angels are exactly as helpful as Solars ever were in adventures, and then you can turn around and cut them to bits when they're Bane's Angels of Law.




Which seems to miss the point that it's not the individual celestials that I'm that concerned about. It's the potency of the word "Archon" to mean "Ass-kicking Heavenly Spirit of Goodness" in the game, and that this is a stronger association than the word "Archon" meaning "Frankenstein Elemental." 

As the post demonstrates, ass-kicking spirits of goodness can be a fun game element, especially since 4e will probably have more than a few "morally ambiguous" members, and because alignment is less important, it will probably have significantly less truly Good members, giving Celestials of all stripes more imparative to kick some PC's around. 

This is all good stuff. But the argument is a semantic one. What should we call ass-kicking spirits of goodness? Previous editions called them "archons." Why can't 4e? Apparently because of one dog-headed angel and a whole lot of imagination failure.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 3, 2008)

Beckett said:
			
		

> How about "angel"? Or maybe "deva"? A quick flip through the dictionary shows either of those as more appropriate than "archon", which means "game played with multiple monsters on a modified chess board".



 And now I got to thinking of a round chess-like board where up to four players can played in a free-for-all, choosing Angels, Eladrins, Devils or Demons.

In fact, I think this'd be a neat product to make, like 3 Dragon Ante.


----------



## Beckett (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'd have no real problem with calling the crusading spirits "Angels." But, then, what do you call the other ones? Say, the protective spirits?




Guardian Angels?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...calling them "Archons" doesn't make much sense given what "Archon" means




I'll bite.  What does Archon mean? What out of its various meanings make it a better fit for a race of good-aligned outsiders than elemental warriors?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Angels instead may be "generic divine servants." And Archons, we can see, are "manmade elemental people." You've lost the strongest associations of the names. And what have you gained? Jack, as far as I can see. And why have you gained it? Because your imagination failed to speculate on new words, and because your imagination failed to consider that Archons could mean something much stronger to current players than "those dog-headed celestials."




I think, quite possibly, the Gnostic idea was the source inspiration for the original Archons. However, unfortunately this idea was never really pushed in the game. The idea was taken, and the creatures became servants of good with no real background. So unfortunately a cool idea got turned into simply "Dog headed celestials."

This just doesn't work well, because there's no "traction" as they say. There's no real reason for the animal heads aside from making them look different then other good celestials. (The same reason they're changing the demons and devils. Make then unique and distinct instead of just different by an arbitrary alignment.)

4e, among other things, seems to be pushing the idea that everything should have a "purpose." A reason for being, outside of a new collection of numbers, or more importantly a specific idea.

So you have two options. Try to push a new myth onto the already existing archons. (In which case you still fail to really make them unique. They're still just celestials with a slightly different agenda.)

Or you create a new creature, that seems unique, and uses a creation myth much closer to their inspirational source.

Sure, you might loose the real world "look" of the creature, but is that more important then what the creature embodies?

In Gnosticism, the Archons are servants of the demiurge. The Demiurge isn't really the "good" god. He's the force of creation. The one that keeps humans trapped in a false shroud of "reality."

He's sort of in opposition to the actual gods. 

So all we're really loosing is a dog headed thing dog headed for a reason lost to gamers sometime long ago, but we're gaining a creature with a purpose and a myth closer to the inspirational source.


----------



## Imban (Jan 3, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> So all we're really loosing is a dog headed thing dog headed for a reason lost to gamers sometime long ago, but we're gaining a creature with a purpose and a myth closer to the inspirational source.




Well, actually, though I took a Devil's advocate position about it a few posts up, we're really losing every single one of the monolithic forces of Good in the cosmology. From released information, we're left with... unicorns, and angels (and exarchs, maybe) of good gods. And, well, the good gods themselves. Assumedly there are angels (and exarchs, maybe) of evil gods, and as illustrated above, these might not be so much divided by type - you can easily get many of the same castes of Angels serving both good and evil gods equally.

Evil is losing, what, yugoloths and demodands? Yugoloths always managed to duck having good and complete writeups, with plenty of undetailed mysterious figures - I guess that attracted some Planescape fans to them, but it just annoyed me. Meanwhile, I'd be honestly surprised if half of the D&D players I know in real life knew what Demodands even were. I think they maybe got mentioned in Manual of the Planes in 3e, and I know they got writeups in Fiend Folio that were never mentioned again, but really...


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 3, 2008)

Real world myths very often seem arbitrary.  I have no problems with things not falling perfectly into little slots.  In fact, a little uncertainty can be a good thing.  

Why is the division of dragons (arbitrarily) according to color and metal a bad thing when the division of demons and devils (arbitrarily) according to appearance isn't?

D&D 4e seems compartmentalized and overdesigned in this regard.  Does everything really have to have a clear-cut, unequivocal place?  Where will the mystery be?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Me said:
			
		

> I'd like someone to explain to me why, without 9 alignments, we need more than just "angels" as "servants of the gods." Anyone?
> 
> Please. I want the explanation.




Still waiting on this one. Why can't "angels" fill the roles of guardian, protector, messenger and _soldier_ of the gods?

The demon/devil dichotomy works like this. Devils are evil, and for their own reasons are interested in corrupting mortals. Demons, however, are evil in the "wantonly destructive" sense. It has nothing to do with how they behave in combat and everything to do with their motivation.

To make a similar division work, there would have to be a clear enough dichotomy between "angel" and "archon" that both terms are worth preserving. While I can certainly agree that "demon" and "devil" are iconic enough that both terms should be preserved as slightly different "flavors" of evil outsiders, I don't see archons as having enough "traction" to merit a similar distinction.

I think one can make a fairly strong case that even people who study gnosticism would agree that "angel" is more widely recognized than "archon."

So, what's the clear dichotomy between angels and archons? Why does the game _need_ both "flavors" of good outsiders?

Now, I suppose you could have a dichotomy that "angels" motivation is to serve their gods and that archons "protect the innocent." But that doesn't fit with the classic theory of "guardian angels." So instead, all angels get  "serving the gods" and the ones serving "good" deities get "protecting the innocent." And what exactly does that leave for archons? I can't figure it out. And apparently, the designers decided to preserve their "martial flavor" rather than their "good flavor" and make them "the mercenary armies." Flavor them with elements and voilá! New monster.

Why is this take less "correct" than the other?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Well, actually, though I took a Devil's advocate position about it a few posts up, we're really losing every single one of the monolithic forces of Good in the cosmology. From released information, we're left with... unicorns, and angels (and exarchs, maybe) of good gods. And, well, the good gods themselves. Assumedly there are angels (and exarchs, maybe) of evil gods, and as illustrated above, these might not be so much divided by type - you can easily get many of the same castes of Angels serving both good and evil gods equally.




Where are you getting this info? Have they specifically said this? My thoughts are that they will create the forces of good as well, and they will all have an equally good purpose for being that they are.



> Evil is losing, what, yugoloths and demodands? Yugoloths always managed to duck having good and complete writeups, with plenty of undetailed mysterious figures - I guess that attracted some Planescape fans to them, but it just annoyed me. Meanwhile, I'd be honestly surprised if half of the D&D players I know in real life knew what Demodands even were. I think they maybe got mentioned in Manual of the Planes in 3e, and I know they got writeups in Fiend Folio that were never mentioned again, but really...




Evil has always outnumbered good in the game. It helps when your game is supposedly about heroes.


----------



## Imban (Jan 3, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this info? Have they specifically said this? My thoughts are that they will create the forces of good as well, and they will all have an equally good purpose for being that they are.




Nope. We've just drawn different conclusions from the released information. Maybe I'll be wrong and there will be Celestials as a force of good, rather than the whims of individual gods.

Cosmic evil actually has rarely outnumbered (or at least outpowered - in the early days, there were a heck of a lot more demons than angels, but angels were described as supremely badass) good - while there are a lot of evil and hostile mundane monsters, it was always a bit different when you got into the cosmology. But even so, that's not the issue at hand - there being nothing beyond individuals who have made the choice for good, whether it's an individual paladin order or an individual god, whereas races literally made of or devoted to evil are widespread.


----------



## 3d6 (Jan 3, 2008)

Beckett said:
			
		

> I'll bite.  What does Archon mean? What out of its various meanings make it a better fit for a race of good-aligned outsiders than elemental warriors?



The definition you're normally going to find in dictionaries is "magistrate or government official in ancient Athens or ancient Greece".

According to Wikipedia, in gnostic Christianity, archons are "several servants of the Demiurge, the 'creator god', that stood between the human race and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they have the role of the angels and demons of the Old Testament."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> Guardian Angels?




If we're calling warriors Angels and the protectives Guardian Angels, that kind of smacks of unnecessary redundancy and causes unnecessary confusion. We could call one Warrior Angels and one Guardian Angels, but that would imply a relationship between them, and the existence of other kinds of angels. Then we're back to the proliferation of outsider creatures that 4e is trying to cut back on. 

Or, here's a good idea: Why not call one of them 'Archons'?



> I'll bite. What does Archon mean? What out of its various meanings make it a better fit for a race of good-aligned outsiders than elemental warriors?




The gnostic history is the best case. They're another word for "angels" or "demons" or "devils" or "asuras" or "devas" or "daemons" or "demodands." In other words, all things that are of the unseen world of the gods. Specifically, in the gnostic worldview, they're servants of the Creator God, but they're the same thing as any of these. These fiery humanoids aren't any kind of servants to any higher being. They might be forced into servitude by their creator, but even there the article even points out that they specifically are not compelled to do it. They aren't servants, especially not of some deific creature. 

But the gnostic history isn't the only case. The term in general echoes the Greek from which it comes as a nobility, as a high-rank, as something higher up the chain than you. This all implies creatures from a higher plane of existence. A created race (like these new monsters) are quite obviously NOT higher up on the scale of thinigs. They must be lower -- we've created them. Of course, even that might be workable, if the creatures held immense, nearly-godlike power, but the examples were all under CR 10. If their place in 4e remains about the same, we have adventurers "higher up" than them at a very early point in the game.

To add to the term's weight, the Greek origins fit firmly in the scale developed by Pseudo-Dionysus, where names like "Dominions," "Thrones," and "Principalities" are thrown around. "Archon," in the sense that it means "Ruler" matches with the meanings of these phrases as well. These cinderkin aren't associated with nobility and they aren't associated with power, and they aren't associated with beings like angels and demons and devas and asuras, but the word "Archon" IS.

"Archon" is obviously a good alternate name for "Angels." It would work in other ways, too, but using it for a caste of warrior-celestials is about as accuate as using "dragon" to mean "magical skittle-lizards of the elements," so it pretty much passes the D&D litmus test for "Does it make sense to call it this?"

Now, the cinderkin could be called "Archons" under the right circumstances. For instance, armored beings of flame that serve the gods as warriors? PERFECT. But that's not what they are. They're Frankenstein Elementals. Which is neat, but it's not an Archon. Archon isn't a very narrow term, it could accomodate a lot. This is not something it can easily accomodate without just being "neat-sounding gobbledeygook." Which, judging by what the article said, was pretty much the criteria for them being called "archons." 



> I think, quite possibly, the Gnostic idea was the source inspiration for the original Archons. However, unfortunately this idea was never really pushed in the game. The idea was taken, and the creatures became servants of good with no real background. So unfortunately a cool idea got turned into simply "Dog headed celestials."
> ...
> So all we're really loosing is a dog headed thing dog headed for a reason lost to gamers sometime long ago, but we're gaining a creature with a purpose and a myth closer to the inspirational source.




This is missing the point that it's not about the specific dog-headed celestial. I can see a place for Hound Archons, but they were one creature out of a pretty large host, most of which did not have animal features. They didn't have much background or traction as a race, but that's the kind of thing that new editions fix all the time, so the question would be "how do we make them kick more butt?" So drop the dog head if people have problems with it. I don't care. What I do care about is keeping alive D&D's grand tradition of mythological cherry-picking and reference to human legend throughout the ages. Archons as warrior-angels preserved that. Archons as Elemental Frankenstein doesn't.

The new creature is cool, but it doesn't really make sense to call it an "Archon" in any sense of the term, either as an angel-equivalent, as an agent of deception a la gnosticism, or as any kind of leader or ruler or higher-ranked individual. 

It makes about as much sense as calling halflings jedi because "jedi" sounds cool and "halfling" doesn't. Halflings don't have anything to do with anything that jedi are. These Frankenstein Elementals don't have anything to do with anything that "archons" have ever been. Angelic warriors, however, would. That's why it suits angelic warriors better than frankenstein elementals.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Nope. We've just drawn different conclusions from the released information. Maybe I'll be wrong and there will be Celestials as a force of good, rather than the whims of individual gods.




I hope there are both?



> Cosmic evil actually has rarely outnumbered (or at least outpowered - in the early days, there were a heck of a lot more demons than angels, but angels were described as supremely badass) good - while there are a lot of evil and hostile mundane monsters, it was always a bit different when you got into the cosmology. But even so, that's not the issue at hand - there being nothing beyond individuals who have made the choice for good, whether it's an individual paladin order or an individual god, whereas races literally made of or devoted to evil are widespread.




Again, it helps when your game is about players assuming the roles of heroes fighting evil.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 3, 2008)

What is wrong with diversity?  If every god is served by the same kind of creature, I find that rather boring.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If we're calling warriors Angels and the protectives Guardian Angels, that kind of smacks of unnecessary redundancy and causes unnecessary confusion. We could call one Warrior Angels and one Guardian Angels, but that would imply a relationship between them, and the existence of other kinds of angels. Then we're back to the proliferation of outsider creatures that 4e is trying to cut back on.




Not really. 4e seems to be trying to cut back on celestial beings for the sake of celestial beings. Warrior Angel, and Guardian Angel would each serve a role. Separate roles, instead of the same one with a different paint job.



The gnostic history is the best case. They're another word for "angels" or "demons" or "devils" or "asuras" or "devas" or "daemons" or "demodands." In other words, all things that are of the unseen world of the gods...

But the gnostic history isn't the only case. The term in general echoes the Greek from which it comes as a nobility, as a high-rank, as something higher up the chain than you... [/quote]

They are creatures from the outer planes. The greek use seems less of a match.



> "Archon" is obviously a good alternate name for "Angels." It would work in other ways, too, but using it for a caste of warrior-celestials is about as accuate as using "dragon" to mean "magical skittle-lizards of the elements," so it pretty much passes the D&D litmus test for "Does it make sense to call it this?"




The creator god is the antithesis of the true god. (in Gnostic beliefs.) The Para-elementals were/are the antithesis of the D&D gods. 

Archons fighting gods seems a lot more in line with the source then Archons suddenly serving gods.



> This is missing the point that it's not about the specific dog-headed celestial. I can see a place for Hound Archons, but they were one creature out of a pretty large host, most of which did not have animal features. They didn't have much background or traction as a race, but that's the kind of thing that new editions fix all the time, so the question would be "how do we make them kick more butt?" So drop the dog head if people have problems with it. I don't care. What I do care about is keeping alive D&D's grand tradition of mythological cherry-picking and reference to human legend throughout the ages. Archons as warrior-angels preserved that. Archons as Elemental Frankenstein doesn't...
> 
> The new creature is cool, but it doesn't really make sense to call it an "Archon" in any sense of the term, either as an angel-equivalent, as an agent of deception a la gnosticism, or as any kind of leader or ruler or higher-ranked individual.




Because the dog headed Archon had already lost traction. It was done, and will always be the dog headed angel thing. That was its traction really.

This new being has a new chance to create traction. 

Archons in gnostic belief are celestials that serve the antithesis of the true gods.

Archons in 3e are celestial beings that serve the gods.

Archons in 4e are celestial beings that were created by the antihesis of the D&D gods. 

So what that they continue the story and say the antithesis lost? 



> It makes about as much sense as calling halflings jedi because "jedi" sounds cool and "halfling" doesn't. Halflings don't have anything to do with anything that jedi are. These Frankenstein Elementals don't have anything to do with anything that "archons" have ever been.




They do. See above. 

If halflings had mend powers and faught with laser swords calling them Jedi would be appropriate. Just like calling a celestial being created to serve the antithesis of the D&D gods  Archons is appropriate.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Well, actually, though I took a Devil's advocate position about it a few posts up, we're really losing every single one of the monolithic forces of Good in the cosmology. From released information, we're left with... unicorns, and angels (and exarchs, maybe) of good gods. And, well, the good gods themselves. Assumedly there are angels (and exarchs, maybe) of evil gods, and as illustrated above, these might not be so much divided by type - you can easily get many of the same castes of Angels serving both good and evil gods equally.
> 
> Evil is losing, what, yugoloths and demodands? Yugoloths always managed to duck having good and complete writeups, with plenty of undetailed mysterious figures - I guess that attracted some Planescape fans to them, but it just annoyed me. Meanwhile, I'd be honestly surprised if half of the D&D players I know in real life knew what Demodands even were. I think they maybe got mentioned in Manual of the Planes in 3e, and I know they got writeups in Fiend Folio that were never mentioned again, but really...




Just for the record, demodands were very major players in the Shackled City adventure path. I am led to believe that this was a fairly popular adventure. They also make an appearance in Age of Worms.

I guess everyone has their own preferences in campaign design and playing style, so we'll never come to an agreement here. As for myself, I have never used any of the clestials in any game I've ever run. My campaigns are about the player characters, humans and human-like mortals, facing down the forces of evil. I don't run campaigns in which evil PCs storm the vaults of heaven, nor where the PCs work as side-kicks to ubercelestials who are fighting the forces of darkness. The focus of the campaign has always been on the PCs.

I'm not saying that powerful celestials don't have a place in the background of some campaigns. I'm just saying that I've never found them _useful _ as a creature type in any game I've run. I like the PCs to feel like they're the only thing standing between humanity and the forces of evil, not just another cog in the endless array of goodness and niceness.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

3d6 said:
			
		

> According to Wikipedia, in gnostic Christianity, archons are "several servants of the Demiurge, the 'creator god', that stood between the human race and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they have the role of the angels and demons of the Old Testament."




Angels AND demons? Hmm. Doesn't sound like a bad fit for creatures created by the Primordials that serve as mercenary armies.

But in the end, this really comes down to opinion. Some people clearly believe that the archons as "animal-headed angels" were a sacred cow worth preserving. The designers obviously felt they'd "make fine rump roast."

If the old archons weren't one of your sacred cows, you're probably fine with this. If they were, you're probably upset.

Clearly, what we're discovering with the 4e previews is that some people felt there were a lot more "sacred cows" in the game than they were willing to admit back in 3e. The designers seem to have stuck with the following ones:

Core concept: Medieval, Fantasy Roleplaying
Base mechanics: d20, high rolls are good, classes, levels, and fantasy races.
"Iconic" races: Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings.
"Iconic" classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger.
"Iconic" monsters: angels, goblinoids, orcs, kobolds, trolls, giants, dragons, demons, devils, and the D&D "specials," like the beholder, drow, owlbear, gelatinous cube, and the like.

Obviously, a lot of things that were part of the game like alignment, the Great Wheel, and a number of monsters didn't make the cut. And some races and classes were accorded lower priority, probably due to a perception of less "traction" than the ones they went with. And some of all of the above that did make the cut were considered in need of a makeover.

That's not a terrible approach to design (I think it's a good one personally), and it certainly doesn't mean the designers made "the wrong choices," but if one of the cows they turned into rump roast (or left out in the pasture for a while) was "sacred" to you, you're probably upset. And apparently, for some, that's what this Archon thing is.


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

You know...

Why is it necessary to name these broad categories at all? I mean, besides "we've always done it that way."

Why do we _need_ more granular terms for the general category of 'divine servant beings' than just "angels" or even "divine servants"?


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> On the other hand, how many different categories of "good outsider" do we really need?



How many different categories of "evil humanoid" do we really need? So just make orcs and good riddance to all these useless gnolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, and whatever.

And how many different categories of "fiery elemental" do we really need? So since we already have the new fire archons they should immediately stop the developement of any other fiery elemental critter, because we already have one and one is all we ever need


			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> So now angels are no longer good, but apparently also either "unaligned" or even possibly evil.



The new archons are no longer angels at all.


			
				Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> So- we don't like elementals because they're ubiquitous and of human intellect, but don't build or do anything, and only hit things.
> 
> Let's replace them, then, with elementals that don't build anything, exist only to hit things, but do so in cool new ways.



Come on, who wants to be hit with a boring slam when he could be hit with an exiting scimitar? slam +10/+5 is sooooo much less cool than scimitar +10/+5 I can literally feel the coolness of my next D&D game rising to 11


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> How many different categories of "evil humanoid" do we really need? So just make orcs and good riddance to all these useless gnolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, and whatever.
> 
> And how many different categories of "fiery elemental" do we really need? So since we already have the new fire archons they should immediately stop the developement of any other fiery elemental critter, because we already have one and one is all we ever need




That's not the same thing at all. You can have as many different humanoid, elemental, or good outsider monsters as you want; the point is there's no reason they have to be strictly organized with hierarchical terms like 'archon', 'guardinal', 'angel', 'deva', etc.

Heck, in 3.0's MM, they were all just "celestials". There's no reason that shouldn't be sufficient to cover all of them, especially with the Great Wheel being discarded.


----------



## Voss (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's not a terrible approach to design (I think it's a good one personally), and it certainly doesn't mean the designers made "the wrong choices," but if one of the cows they turned into rump roast (or left out in the pasture for a while) was "sacred" to you, you're probably upset. And apparently, for some, that's what this Archon thing is.




Apparently.  I wonder how many people have used Flicker, Good Doggie and Mr. Tootles in an actual game, however.  In any capacity.  Do they deserve to eat page count in a MM?  That strikes me as a significant question.

The new flamey archon, I can use in a game, without even stripping off the fluff.  Thats a leg up on all of the old archons.  Never even considered using them at all.

@Mirtek- the how many evil humanoids question is a good one actually.

Personally?  3

I know others won't like that number, however.  But I do think they should go through the existing MMs and cut a lot of stuff.  There are a lot of creatures that are stupid, useless, or thematic duplications of other creatures.   A lot of the goofier aberrations (especially the ones introduced in third) need to go.  Heck, I don't see much of a need for kobolds, goblins, meenlocks, and everything else around that range.  I'll just have goblins, thanks, and everything else is a culture-specific name for the same species.  (Ie, the Celtic-ish culture calls the goblins, the Germanic inspired culture calls them kobolds, etc).  Saves a lot of space on creatures that are essentially the same.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 3, 2008)

> > How do you pronounce "Chvarog?" I think it's a little absurd to constantly include unpronounceable monsters in the game. Ixitxachitl, anyone?
> >
> > Let's stick to names that are easily pronounceable in English, please.
> 
> ...



You just need the right help to pronounce Ixitxachitl


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Right, and mythology is treated so well in D&D. Like a race of scaley, half-snake medusa and minotaur instead of a single one. And Gorgons are petrifying-gas breathing metal bulls. But that's valid because it's just always been that way in D&D, right?



The  petrifying-gas breathing metal bull Gorgon is from real world myth


			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> Yes, but the point of elementals (IMHO) was that they are not-human, a fire elemental is fire "incarnate" a earth elemental is living earth, etc.they can have 10 int but thier intelligence is not human at all, and I don't even think they have a society,not one comparable to ours at least (and why should have? They are immortal, don't need to eat, or to reproduce, or any other material need, for what we know they don't even have the need, or the ability to learn new things. Why they would need a society for?



I am more in the camp that says that they do have a society and are doing constructive things however being elementals we, as humans, are completly unable to understand it.

Just as an elemental would look at the buys humans doing their daily chores in a busy city and think "wtf? why aren't these stange humans ever doing anything at all? why do they have no jobs to do and build no societies?"

They simply understand our jobs as little as we understand their jobs


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> How many different categories of "evil humanoid" do we really need? So just make orcs and good riddance to all these useless gnolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, and whatever.
> 
> And how many different categories of "fiery elemental" do we really need? So since we already have the new fire archons they should immediately stop the developement of any other fiery elemental critter, because we already have one and one is all we ever need.




Well, I honestly think that, sacred cows aside, there's a certain degree of truth to that.

What differentiates one "fiery elemental" from another? That's a good question for the designers to ask, and, quite honestly, the answer should be _something_ quantifiable, or it shouldn't be made. However, if you have one race of elementals that operates like a military regiment, and another that wantonly rampages like destructive animals, and a third that isn't really an elemental but just uses fire as a weapon, you don't really have 3 types.

The different races of evil humanoids fall into two categories. The first is sacred cow aspect. D&D has ALWAYS had kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls and ogres. Secondly, all those races have traction of a sort. Thirdly, they all have a pretty distinctive "style" of combat, even if their mechanics haven't always supported it. To whit:

kobolds are the small trap guys with the twisted warrens.
goblins are the small sneaks who ambush people and ride wolves.
orcs are the rampantly destructive race.
hobgoblins are the militaristic tyrants.
gnolls are the savage pack hunters.
ogres are the strong solo monsters.

You'll notice that the race I left out is the bugbear. Which I'm not sure has a distinctive enough niche to BE kept. It's role is basically "kinda like an orc, or a big goblin." I'm not sure if _Warhammer_ didn't get this one right by just making orcs goblinoids and dumping bugbears.

So yeah, I think the evil humanoids could probably use a look too.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Angels AND demons? Hmm. Doesn't sound like a bad fit for creatures created by the Primordials that serve as mercenary armies.
> 
> But in the end, this really comes down to opinion. Some people clearly believe that the archons as "animal-headed angels" were a sacred cow worth preserving. The designers obviously felt they'd "make fine rump roast."



Most Archons didn't have animal-heads, in fact most of them looked like, well Angels.  They're leaders the Celestial Hebdomad (Domiel, Zaphkiel, Pistis Sophia), are in fact named after Angels from bibical sources.  The Trumpet Archon looked like an angel, Sword Archons too, Tome well in 3e they were changed to being angels with scrolls for wings, Lanterns were balls of light, sure there were Hounds, Warden and Owl which did resemble animals, but 3e also introduced Word Archons, Syllibic Guardians, Hammer Archons and Justice Archons, and none of them resembled animals.  

Though a few of the new Archons were introduced as things to fill in outsider types for new systems like psionics (Syllibic Guardian) or true names (Word Archon).

Though I do see how many Archons do overlap with Angels, and I'm not adverse to a bunch of the changes they're doing to the Angels, as long as they keep Devas, Planetars and Solars, since those 3 (well 5 counting the 3 types of Deva) fit into most players ideas of what an angel resembles.  

In fact I hope they do broaden the types of angels around, I'd certainly nominate the Asuras to be classified as Angels in 4e, since as "Angels of Wrath" they fit right in with that Angel of Vengeance.  And they look like slightly monstrous angels with clawed talons and flaming wings, have interesting abilities like unleashing burning winds of fire when flapping their wings together as a group (since "gang" abilities seem to be a thing in 4e), and even had a spell-like abilty to use Discern Lies at will as one that wasn't arbitrary like so many of those creatures.  In fact they were likely to be the type of celestial the party would get into fights with, due to their nature as wrathful truth-seeing celestials.  But there's the issue of the name "Asuras" which many do associate with Demons, since a simplistic way of describing an Asuras is a Hindu Demon.  Though I know they weren't necessarily evil in early Hindu mythology, and the D&D Asuras is based more on the Persian/Zoraostrian interpretation of them.

I hope that they group ToB's Valkyries and MM5's Arcadian Avenger, and that creature composed of floating words introduced in some issue of Dragon as angels, as it would introduce some variety angels, and have them as things that could be either hostile or helpful to different parties of PCs depending on what they did.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Here's something I was wondering after reading through the article...

What exactly is different in the last two builds? (I mean aside from the second two being slightly more powerful...)

It says it's emulating 4e rules with the 3e rules.

Things I noticed: 

Per encounter for powers as opposed to 3 times per day.

Terran is a language. 

It has a "set a fool on fire" ability...


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Most Archons didn't have animal-heads, in fact most of them looked like, well Angels.  They're leaders the Celestial Hebdomad (Domiel, Zaphkiel, Pistis Sophia), are in fact named after Angels from bibical sources.  The Trumpet Archon looked like an angel, Sword Archons too, Tome well in 3e they were changed to being angels with scrolls for wings, Lanterns were balls of light, sure there were Hounds, Warden and Owl which did resemble animals, but 3e also introduced Word Archons, Syllibic Guardians, Hammer Archons and Justice Archons, and none of them resembled animals.




I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against the preservation of 3e's concept of Archons.

'Cuz my argument is that, to me, 3e had no concept of Archons that differentiated them sufficiently from angels. I'm wondering what was "unique" about the old Archon concept that was worth preserving.

And the only real argument I've heard so far is that Archons are the "armies of heaven." Which sorta means that angels _can't_ have a category of "warrior angels," because that would impinge on the Archons' niche. And that's a situation I personally find unacceptable. Are people really arguing for the duplication? And if so, I still want to know what's "cool" enough about the 3e Archons to justify the redundancy?


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 3, 2008)

Am I the only who hears "Archon" and thinks "Glowing ball of light that shoots lightning, and is formed by merging two templar together?"  

Or should I take this to the "I like video games in my D&D" thread?


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against the preservation of 3e's concept of Archons.
> 
> 'Cuz my argument is that, to me, 3e had no concept of Archons that differentiated them sufficiently from angels. I'm wondering what was "unique" about the old Archon concept that was worth preserving.
> 
> And the only real argument I've heard so far is that Archons are the "armies of heaven." Which sorta means that angels _can't_ have a category of "warrior angels," because that would impinge on the Archons' niche. And that's a situation I personally find unacceptable. Are people really arguing for the duplication? And if so, I still want to know what's "cool" enough about the 3e Archons to justify the redundancy?




Angels are any good; Archons are LG only. Angels serve specific deities; Archons serve their Archon leaders (BOED). That's really about it.


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Beat me to it.  I want to like 4e, I know it's time for a new edition and it's important to the future of the game that the next edition remains popular.
> 
> But every time the designers spew out their fluff text it makes me nauseous to see how they've mangled it.



I also feel this way.  The fluff writing is just more Warhammer and Warcraft to me.  Basing things on ancient myths is cool.  Basing things on bad fiction written by people who wouldn't be successful as authors is dull and irritating.

Elementals were boring before?  The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore.  Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting?  Isn't there room for both?


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Elementals were boring before?  The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore.  Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting?  Isn't there room for both?




Certainly elemental spirits are part of mythic folklore. However, the regular old elementals we have in 3.5 and prior editions don't have much to do with that. We have a bunch of *other* monsters that already describe the 'mythic elemental spirit' much better - nereids, genies, salamanders, etc - leaving regular elementals basically one niche in the game at all, as summoning fodder. Yawn.


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The different races of evil humanoids fall into two categories. The first is sacred cow aspect. D&D has ALWAYS had kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls and ogres.



Hey now!  Bugbears go above Gnolls, not below them! 



> You'll notice that the race I left out is the bugbear. Which I'm not sure has a distinctive enough niche to BE kept. It's role is basically "kinda like an orc, or a big goblin." I'm not sure if _Warhammer_ didn't get this one right by just making orcs goblinoids and dumping bugbears.



I actually think Bugbears are more interesting than Hobgoblins, personally.  I think to differentiate them you play up the stealthy element and the animalistic appearance.  Imagine being stalked by bear-men in the forest... they are the hunters and you are the hunted, etc.  You don't hear them coming and then they are on you like a ton of bricks.  Kinda cool and scary I think.  The Hobgoblin schtick is less interesting to me because the social structure of evil humanoids is usually less relevant to play than is the way you interact with them on a small unit/skirmish level.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Angels are any good; Archons are LG only. Angels serve specific deities; Archons serve their Archon leaders (BOED). That's really about it.




Okay. I'm familiar with that distinction.

Please explain how this difference applies in a world where there's no Lawful-Chaotic alignment axis. Any idea? 'Cuz I sure can't figure it out.

All I come up with is this. Angels serve deities. By contrast, Archons are like the knights-errant of the cosmos. Is that it?


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Basing things on ancient myths is cool.



No, not so much.

Just because you can find something tucked away in Bullfinch's doesn't necessarily mean it translates into a consistent, fun gaming experience. 

In other words, I prefer to see game elements which are designed _specifically _ with the game in mind.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It's because Eladrin invokes "Eldar," which were the super awesome elves that went to Arda when they were called by Manwe... just like the eladrin were elves that were called into the Feywild by Corellon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They didn't really live in "mounds in the earth".  The mounds were basically gateways into the Otherworld where they lived.  Similar to going through the wardrobe to enter Narnia.  Hence, they were basically outerplanar creatures.

Personally, I rather like the whole idea of these mounds that could be entered by mortals, who had to do certain things, like walk around the mound backwards three times, while rehearsing a nursery rhyme, and hopping on one foot, in order to open the gate.  That, to me, is pretty fantastical stuff.  And it creates a need to do research into the setting, which roots the players into the world, and is more ritualistic than simply casting a spell and "poof, you're there".

That's not creatively limited at all.

Banshee


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Certainly elemental spirits are part of mythic folklore. However, the regular old elementals we have in 3.5 and prior editions don't have much to do with that. We have a bunch of *other* monsters that already describe the 'mythic elemental spirit' much better - nereids, genies, salamanders, etc - leaving regular elementals basically one niche in the game at all, as summoning fodder. Yawn.



You're mixing up a few things there.  Nereids are part of the Greek scheme of nature spirits; not technically elemental.  They are associated with bodies of water, not water itself.  Genies are Arabian, of course.  Although genies were sometimes associated with something we call an element (most often fire), they were not considered "elemental".  Salamander is the classical name for a fire elemental such as we know elementals in D&D.  Salamanders in D&D are something different; essentially a double use of fire elemental concept.

See wikipedia for more on actual elementals.  The Elric books also make good and interesting use of the concept of indifferent elemental spirits.  They're worth keeping, in my opinion.  You can have other elemental things too.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Archons exist only in some gnosist texts.
> 
> Wow, rich history firmly rooted in mythology there, Bob.
> 
> ...




Go back and try reading a few original sources, like Ovid's Metamorphoses, or basic children's references books on Greek mythology etc.

They're also known as Wood Nymphs, and were featured in Chalker's "Dancing Gods" series, as well as in Terry Brooks' "Magic Kingdom for Sale" novels....though he called them Sylphs in that book....they were still basically green-skinned/haired tree nymphs, though in their case, instead of being tied to an oak tree in the middle of a forest, they would put down roots and turn into a tree at night to rest, instead of sleeping as humans do. I think the character's name was "Willow".

I can keep going if you'd like.

As to your statement about archons, disregarding your snide comment, you still haven't addressed the fact that there *are* references to these creatures.....and in books dating a lot further back than D&D 4E.

Banshee


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Please explain how this difference applies in a world where there's no Lawful-Chaotic alignment axis. Any idea? 'Cuz I sure can't figure it out.



A Lawful and Chaotic axis still exists, as I remember the statement about Paladins and why they're no longer Lawful Good only, was that they stated that they didn't want to make 9 different classes to fill that role.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Elementals were boring before?  The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore.  Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting?  Isn't there room for both?




From what they've said, there's nothing wrong with "elemental spirits." What I think they're planning to do is the following.

Make the base "elementals" more like the creatures of folklore - that is, instinctual creatures closer to animal intellect. That opens up a niche: the "intelligent elemental." Into this category, they can put things like the Fire Archon.

Under that approach, the classic elementals are more like animals, and you don't have to worry about their "society" on their home plane. But the elemental chaos can still _have_ a society, and there are intelligent beings in that society other than just the efreeti, djinni, and their earth and water analogues.

At least, that's what it looks like to me. And, to support my point, I'll quote the article, which I think says it all. 4e will have both.



> From *Ecology of the Fire Archon*
> Of course, elementals -- those beings of the four elements that exist so people can summon them and put them in dungeons -- still exist in 4th Edition. We've given them a new story and some clean but cool mechanics, but this article isn't about them. It's about how else we filled the void for interesting elementally based creatures.


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2008)

That wikipedia just confirms my point, I think. The elementals we have in D&D have very little to do with the medieval depictions of gnomes, water ladies, and fiery flying lion things.

If the elementals we were kicking to the curb with 4e were gnomes, undines, salamanders, and sylphs, then I might be a little sadder, but they're not - they're far less interesting than any of those things.

The elemental beings described in the Elric books are a better match, I'll agree - but I suspect that Grome and pals will still have their analogues in 4e, much as they have in prior editions.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Right, and mythology is treated so well in D&D. Like a race of scaley, half-snake medusa and minotaur instead of a single one. And Gorgons are petrifying-gas breathing metal bulls. But that's valid because it's just always been that way in D&D, right?
> 
> Elves are also those things that help build shoes. So why are they tall guys who like magic?
> 
> ...




I don't remember the Alfar and Dock-Alfar being cobbler elves.  Nor the Sidhe, who, if not a direct inspiration for D&D elves, *were* one of Tolkien's inspiration for elves in middle-earth....which in turn were a source of inspiration for D&D elves.

Banshee


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> No, not so much.
> 
> Just because you can find something tucked away in Bullfinch's doesn't necessarily mean it translates into a consistent, fun gaming experience.
> 
> In other words, I prefer to see game elements which are designed _specifically _ with the game in mind.



And this is where I strongly feel D&D is in danger of going the wrong way.  If there is one consistent thing you can say about D&D, it is that it's based on real myths and legends.  Whether it be indirect use of Scandinavian legend by way of Tolkien, Greek myths, Arabian folklore, Asian animism, Medieval superstition, Judeo-Christian apocrypha... almost everything in D&D comes from these real world sources.

As soon as you replace them with fan fiction, you get a different game.  There's nothing wrong with different games.  There are a lot of different RPGs out there that are fantastic.  But they aren't D&D.  Changing D&D that fundamentally but keeping the name on it because you own the copyright is a bad decision.  It's a bad decision on many levels.  It's also lazy, because you can accomplish the stated goals without doing it that way.

Unfortunately, the current designers don't have as much sense in this regard as Gygax.  They're much better game designers, but vastly inferior worldbuilders.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Why would I claim something so absurd? Don't be ridiculous. But my examples do counter your implicit claim that Dryads are not in any significant fantasy fiction.




Thank you 

Banshee


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Whether it be indirect use of Scandinavian legend by way of Tolkien, Greek myths, Arabian folklore, Asian animism, Medieval superstition, Judeo-Christian apocrypha... almost everything in D&D comes from these real world sources.



Such 'kitchen sink' thinking resulted in the Great Wheel, which was as evocative and flavorful as a shopping mall map. 

Shedu and lamassu and ki-rin and brownies? Yeah, I'm gonna pass---they belong in one of those 'urth/oerth/ooorth' pastiche worlds.


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> From what they've said, there's nothing wrong with "elemental spirits." What I think they're planning to do is the following.
> 
> Make the base "elementals" more like the creatures of folklore - that is, instinctual creatures closer to animal intellect. That opens up a niche: the "intelligent elemental." Into this category, they can put things like the Fire Archon.
> 
> Under that approach, the classic elementals are more like animals, and you don't have to worry about their "society" on their home plane. But the elemental chaos can still _have_ a society, and there are intelligent beings in that society other than just the efreeti, djinni, and their earth and water analogues.



Hm, I guess I never noticed the intelligence creep of Elementals.  They are a little smarter in 3E than in 1E... I had never looked at their Int stat in the 3E Monster Manual, assuming they were still basically animalistic.  Thanks for pointing that out.  So hopefully, they'll still exist in that more base form consistent with both 1E and medieval belief.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But in the end, this really comes down to opinion. Some people clearly believe that the archons as "animal-headed angels" were a sacred cow worth preserving. The designers obviously felt they'd "make fine rump roast."
> 
> If the old archons weren't one of your sacred cows, you're probably fine with this. If they were, you're probably upset.




That is a gross mischaracterization of at least my opposition to the fire guys being called "archons." The archons were never "animal headed angels" to begin with. This isn't about them killing off my favorite monster or whatever. This is about them using what I see as boneheaded logic to mess with one of the very reasons I play D&D. It ain't for animal-headed angels.



> Archons fighting gods seems a lot more in line with the source then Archons suddenly serving gods.




Depends on how close you want to take the gnostic association. If the "archons" were general servants of gods (which I'd have no major problem with), you could take that to mean that these gods are really false pretenders. This ties in with 4e's philosophy on gods being killable at epic level: the gods are just very powerful beings, not true personifications of forces. 

If the "archons" were general enemies of the gods, they would have to work for a pretender. But they don't do that, either. They work for themselves.



> Because the dog headed Archon had already lost traction. It was done, and will always be the dog headed angel thing. That was its traction really.




So good riddance. What about the archon with scrolls for wings, or the archon that wielded a grand trumpet or the archon who judged the guilty and the innocent, or the ones that resembled balls of light straight out of biblical reference? The old archons were mostly a race that resembled semi-biblical angels, and the parallels between them and the devils of the Nine Hells seems intentionally drawn. With the story of the devils being officially "fallen angels" now, those archons are needed now more than ever. 

This new thing is cool, but it doesn't need to take an inappropriate name to be cool. Halflings are cool and their name sucks in every edition that they weren't called Hobbits in. 



> Archons in gnostic belief are celestials that serve the antithesis of the true gods.
> 
> Archons in 3e are celestial beings that serve the gods.
> 
> ...




Created by the antithesis of the D&D gods? Really? Because I got the impression that they were created in magical forges by anyone who wanted to. 

As far as the Primordials bit goes...maybe...but they're not celestial beings, servants, or messengers of the Primordials. They are free-willed, autonomous, and associated with their own actions, not the actions of their creators. They're not from a higher plane or invested with more divine energy. They're on fire....but I'd imagine water archons would be damp and earth archons will be dusty, so it's not really sounding like they're celestial beings at all. Elemental beings. Unless the Primordials are strongly associated with the elements (which is entirely possible, and would be pretty cool), I'd say the association is pretty weak. Still, it could be made stronger....

Possibly something I can buy. Possibly they considered what the word meant. Still a little potentially weak, put possibly not as boneheaded as I assumed based on the reasons given in the article.

And there's still the niggling detail of "what do you call your good celestial armada?" then. "Angels" would be fine, but then what are your god-servants, if they have a generic name, to be called? A bit of a snowball effect.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the current designers don't have as much sense in this regard as Gygax.  They're much better game designers, but vastly inferior worldbuilders.




Gygax wasn't a worldbuilder.

When you read his playlogs, they were just vast forays into dungeons full of monsters. I don't think there was anything to "Greyhawk" except for the City of.

His monster book is a disjointed hodgepodge of mythological creatures and made-up ones with mythological (or invented) names. And he didn't CARE that it was a kitchen sink approach. Because he was writing a toolkit for people to make their own game, rather than a game people could play "out of the box" so to speak.

There's nothing wrong with that approach, but let's be clear about what he was doing. Gary was providing a "framework" for fantasy roleplaying. That's all. He was most emphatically not providing a ready-to-play game or game world.

Do you really want to go there and start picking apart the "generic-ness" of the system's conceits?

Law-Chaos dichotomy
Great Wheel Cosmology
Orcs...and three separate goblin races
Subraces - need I say more?
Fire and forget magic
The 8 philosophical "schools" of magic
Arcane/divine magic division
Oriental monks interacting with mounted knights

Shall I go on?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> There's also a half-Dryad in David Eddings' _Belgariad_ and _Mallorean_ (the chief heroine, in fact), so I agree that they're not exactly obscure.
> 
> However, I have no problem with Dryads, who are nature spirits, having a "combat form" in D&D. Make a nod to the original myth by saying they often appear to be "nymphs, elf-maids, or beautiful human women." And then mention that, when provoked, they can turn nasty.
> 
> That would certainly work.




It can work as you've described. It's definitely different, and, I think, unnecessary, but it can work.  Given they were tree sprites who had to be catered to before people could cut down trees, or enter certain woodlands etc. mystical powers would have been sufficient.  The 2nd Ed. Hamadryad had those....it had the whole tree sprite thing going on, but they were also fairly powerful spellcasters with nature based powers.  And frankly, I'd prefer that than having them turn into a wooden thug to lay a beating on your PCs.  Admittedly, that can be as much personal preference as anything.

But the whole idea of temptress/victim/spirit/guardian rather than mini-treant is a heck of a lot more like how they're traditionally seen in most fantasy that I've read.

Banshee


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Such 'kitchen sink' thinking resulted in the Great Wheel, which was as evocative and flavorful as a shopping mall map.
> 
> Shedu and lamassu and ki-rin and brownies? Yeah, I'm gonna pass---they belong in one of those 'urth/oerth/ooorth' pastiche worlds.



Well this is the part of D&D that is a toolkit imo.  You don't have to use everything in the Monster Manual.  I guess when it comes down to it, I am more interested in the writings of ancient Greeks than in those of R.A. Salvatore.  I don't think anything these guys write for 4E will be remembered in 20 years.  I prefer the creatures that kids have heard about for centuries.  They have more common appeal and magic in my experience.  Zombies and vampires, good.  Corpsegathers and gravecrawlers, bad.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Am I the only who hears "Archon" and thinks "Glowing ball of light that shoots lightning, and is formed by merging two templar together?"
> 
> Or should I take this to the "I like video games in my D&D" thread?



I was wondering when someone would mention that!  

I guess I will try to sum up some of the facts of this issue, since there seems to be confusion:

1) What seems to be universally agreed upon is that the distinction between Angels and Archons in previous editions was nearly nonexistent. This is something that needs to be fixed.

2) While it is less agreed upon, a lot of people don't like the use of the word "Archon" as it seems to be used n 4E.

3) While some don't seem to realize it, saying that Archons have to be either identical to the old Archons or like the new Fire Archons is a false dilemma.

I would prefer Archons to remain as celestials, but be further differentiated from the Angels and made into something more unique and interesting, just as how Devils and Demons were made different. Maybe leave angels as the human-like, benevolent servants of the gods, and make Archons more alien and unknowable. Making them the servants of the Primordials is a good idea, but make them powerful celestials, not grunt elementals. I want Archons to be a mix of the most bizarre and alien versions of angels from mythology (the kind with many arms, blazing wheels, wings covered with eyes that shot beams of flame and fatigue) combined with the Angels from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion and the wierd angel-demon things from the videogame Shadow Hearts. They should be the divine paragons of alien ideals, almost lovecraftian in design (but not quite), who champion the causes of primordial gods who care little for the needs and desires of mortals.

A Fire Archon should be a mass of wings sticking out at odd angles, covered in blazing eyes. Its core should be hidden in a mass of fabric covered in arcane words, bound by red-hot chains left from the days of the war between gods. It should sing a song that hopes for the death of the world in flame, and all who gaze into its thousand eyes will be burned to ash.

I think that would be much more appropriate and interesting than some mass-produced flame elemental soldier that is vaguely allied with the Efreet.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> You know...
> 
> Why is it necessary to name these broad categories at all? I mean, besides "we've always done it that way."
> 
> Why do we _need_ more granular terms for the general category of 'divine servant beings' than just "angels" or even "divine servants"?




People keep forgetting "angels" is a broad category of being which can be subdivided into Seraph, Cherub, Ophan, Throne, Dominion, Principal, Powers, Archangels and then into Malakh (the general everyday angel we think of).  Generally speaking, I think only the that Malakhim should not have any preconceived role but instead have a striker (avenging), controller (???), leader (messenger?), and defender (guardian) variants while the other chior of angels (ie archangel and charabim) would have a preset uniform role.

Wierd thing is that most of the chiors of angels seem to be controllers, although I do think you can work them so that two types of angels could fall into each combat role assuming that the Malakhim are wild cards and have no universal role.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Rechan, what do you think is common and popular fantasy?




I'm curious too.  I read Narnia when I was 8, and knew of other references to Dryads etc.  My parents used to have set of encyclopedias called "Richard's Topical Encyclopedia's", and I remember devouring the entire Green mythology section, among others, when I was about 10.

Then there was Magic Kingdom for sale, Xanth, and a myriad of other series.  They all had references, and some of this stuff was written back in the 70's and early 80's.

Everyone was reading that stuff back in the day.  Piers Anthony was hugely popular, though I don't see nearly as much of his stuff now.

Banshee


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Gygax wasn't a worldbuilder.
> 
> ...
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that approach, but let's be clear about what he was doing. Gary was providing a "framework" for fantasy roleplaying. That's all. He was most emphatically not providing a ready-to-play game.



OK, whichever word you want to pick.  The result is the same.  His system mechanics were lousy (and while we could give him a pass for the era he wrote them in, he lost that benefit of the doubt with Lejendary Adventures or whatever it was called).  But his choices for what things to include, whether they be tools for a toolkit or a world of some kind, were vastly superior.  And that's because he was taking mythic stuff rather than making things up from wholecloth (mostly).  The latter is very hard to do.  If it were easy, a lot of people would be making money as fantasy novelists, because it's certainly a more fun job than working at the Gap.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 3, 2008)

I didn't like the old archons.

I don't think I like the new archons.

Meh.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> If the elementals we were kicking to the curb with 4e were gnomes, undines, salamanders, and sylphs, then I might be a little sadder, but they're not - they're far less interesting than any of those things.




And just to again assert that it's not about sacred cows, I'm totally on board with this statement. I've never been a huge fan of "it's a tongue of flame!" "it's a wave with eyes!" "it's a vague mound of earth!" style D&D elementals. They're too simplistic. They get the job done for summoners (who need simplistic things), but as adversaries themselves, they have little deapth. If you ramp up the action by just throwing huge ones at the party, then they're little different from other thuggish-type monsters.

If 4e makes the elementals more magical constructs and/or massive forces of nature, I'll be quite a bit happier with them.



> I would prefer Archons to remain as celestials, but be further differentiated from the Angels and made into something more unique and interesting, just as how Devils and Demons were made different. Maybe leave angels as the human-like, benevolent servants of the gods, and make Archons more alien and unknowable. Making them the servants of the Primordials is a good idea, but make them powerful celestials, not grunt elementals. I want Archons to be a mix of the most bizarre and alien versions of angels from mythology (the kind with many arms, blazing wheels, wings covered with eyes that shot beams of flame and fatigue) combined with the Angels from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion and the wierd angel-demon things from the videogame Shadow Hearts. They should be the divine paragons of alien ideals, almost lovecraftian in design (but not quite), who champion the causes of primordial gods who care little for the needs and desires of mortals.
> 
> A Fire Archon should be a mass of wings sticking out at odd angles, covered in blazing eyes. Its core should be hidden in a mass of fabric covered in arcane words, bound by red-hot chains left from the days of the war between gods. It should sing a song that hopes for the death of the world in flame, and all who gaze into its thousand eyes will be burned to ash.
> 
> I think that would be much more appropriate and interesting than some mass-produced flame elemental soldier that is vaguely allied with the Efreet.




I would also love this with every part of my body, and twice on Sundays.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I would prefer Archons to remain as celestials, but be further differentiated from the Angels and made into something more unique and interesting, just as how Devils and Demons were made different. Maybe leave angels as the human-like, benevolent servants of the gods, and make Archons more alien and unknowable. Making them the servants of the Primordials is a good idea, but make them powerful celestials, not grunt elementals. I want Archons to be a mix of the most bizarre and alien versions of angels from mythology (the kind with many arms, blazing wheels, wings covered with eyes that shot beams of flame and fatigue) combined with the Angels from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion and the wierd angel-demon things from the videogame Shadow Hearts. They should be the divine paragons of alien ideals, almost lovecraftian in design (but not quite), who champion the causes of primordial gods who care little for the needs and desires of mortals.




Okay, that's a bit wordy, but I think you finally (kind of) attempted to answer the question I've been asking for four pages, which is "what is it about archons that people find distinctive?"

So, if I hear you correctly, "archon" for some reason that I (and most others) don't comprehend, is tied in with the notion of "champions of primordial gods." That sounds rather particular to gnostic beliefs, but whatever.

So essentially, if Cthulu were a god in D&D, his servants would be archons? Is that an accurate assessment? 'Cuz I fail to see how that's in any way related to any previous versions in D&D. So clearly, completely reimagining them is fine. You just don't agree with the way WotC did it. Would that be accurate?

So people who agree with this disagree with the notion that an outsider in service to a primordial god is not a "celestial?" Or is it the "creation forge" aspect? Or what?

What "alignment" are gods "who care little for the needs and desires of mortals?" Do they even live on celestial realms? And if they do, how are they different from every other god? In your conception, where do the "primordial gods" live? I think WotC designers decided to locate them in the elemental chaos...which makes archons outsiders that were in the service of primordial gods - but no longer are.

I guess I'm still not seeing the distinction.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Depends on how close you want to take the gnostic association. If the "archons" were general servants of gods (which I'd have no major problem with), you could take that to mean that these gods are really false pretenders. This ties in with 4e's philosophy on gods being killable at epic level: the gods are just very powerful beings, not true personifications of forces.




They weren't either. They were servants of the demiurge. A god, but not really the right god... Because he keeps tryin (possibly through no real ill will towards us) to keep a man down. 



> If the "archons" were general enemies of the gods, they would have to work for a pretender. But they don't do that, either. They work for themselves.




Which again is why I say they took the story a step further. The primordial (demiurge) lost. Now his forces are scattered into different uses.



> So good riddance. What about the archon with scrolls for wings, or the archon that wielded a grand trumpet or the archon who judged the guilty and the innocent, or the ones that resembled balls of light straight out of biblical reference? The old archons were mostly a race that resembled semi-biblical angels, and the parallels between them and the devils of the Nine Hells seems intentionally drawn. With the story of the devils being officially "fallen angels" now, those archons are needed now more than ever.




When I say "Dog Headed" I'm referring to all of the Archons. Dog Headed is just easier to say.  



> This new thing is cool, but it doesn't need to take an inappropriate name to be cool. Halflings are cool and their name sucks in every edition that they weren't called Hobbits in.




I don't believe it's inappropriate. I believe it's more appropriate.



> Created by the antithesis of the D&D gods? Really? Because I got the impression that they were created in magical forges by anyone who wanted to.




"In an ancient time, when the world had hardly been formed, primordial beings battled the gods for control of creation. In this cataclysmic conflict, the deific host marshaled armies of angels and cadres of exarchs, and though the primordials could call forth titanic beasts and their giant children, they could not muster a true military to face their enemies. To match their foes, the consummate creators gave being to a means by which elemental creatures could be recreated -- reshaped and hammered into soldiers. The warriors formed through this process were the first archons. 

They were formed to fight the gods. And again, now a long time later the primordial lost. Its forces are scattered, and the means by which it used to create its forces is known, and used by people in a world full of people who can actually do magic stuff.



> As far as the Primordials bit goes...maybe...but they're not celestial beings, servants, or messengers of the Primordials. They are free-willed, autonomous, and associated with their own actions, not the actions of their creators. They're not from a higher plane or invested with more divine energy. They're on fire....but I'd imagine water archons would be damp and earth archons will be dusty, so it's not really sounding like they're celestial beings at all. Elemental beings.




When I said celestial I meant in the non D&D sense. As in beings that are from another plane of existence.  Perhaps I should have been more clear. 



> Unless the Primordials are strongly associated with the elements (which is entirely possible, and would be pretty cool), I'd say the association is pretty weak. Still, it could be made stronger....Possibly something I can buy. Possibly they considered what the word meant. Still a little potentially weak, put possibly not as boneheaded as I assumed based on the reasons given in the article.




I get the feeling that's exactly what the primordials are... Associated with the prime elements that make up the universe.



> And there's still the niggling detail of "what do you call your good celestial armada?" then. "Angels" would be fine, but then what are your god-servants, if they have a generic name, to be called? A bit of a snowball effect.




I'd say depends on the god? Why have a generic catch all?


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 3, 2008)

the whole thing remind me vaguely of the islamic theology.... and I like it.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay, that's a bit wordy, but I think you finally (kind of) attempted to answer the question I've been asking for four pages, which is "what is it about archons that people find distinctive?"




Archons should have a much higher CR (or level, in 4e terms) than a generic flame soldier will.  High level = high specialness.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 3, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Snipped for space...



First, I will say that the version of Archons I mentioned above is indeed a complete reimagining, which is not exactly rooted in either previous D&D lore, or in the exact idea of Gnostic Archons. However, it is rooted in a very common archetype of "angel" that is see fairly widely in modern culture, which does have some connections to various Christian ideas of angels (including Gnostic Archons).

It is not so much that 3E archons were distinctive. After all, I did not consider devils, demons, or any kind of celestial or outsider to be interesting at all in the last edition. However, I think they can be redesigned the same way 4E has redesigned devils and demons to be more distinct and interesting.

I want to use the name Archon for something like this simply because it has traction for this kind of usage.

As for the distinction... Archons as messengers of some Cthulu-esque entity is somewhat appropriate. Another idea may be they are the servants of the gods who came before the pantheon of gods who created humans and other humanoids. The most important distinctions are that my idea of Archons do not resemble humans at all. They are alien and monstrous in both form and thought. They would use claws, gaze attacks, and magic rather than weapons. They would be the kinds of beings who would seek to eliminate all evil in the world, without being good themselves. They are something that can be either an ally or an enemy, depending solely on alien logic (unlike evil outsiders or far-realms creatures, which are almost always going to be enemies, and angels, who I think should almost always be allies).

As for the gods they serve... Well, I don't know the answer to your questions. I don't think anyone on ENWorld knows a lot about how gods and celestials work exactly in 4E... Maybe after Worlds and Monsters is released.

Edit: I guess I should explain more clearly why I don't like Fire Archons as they have been described in the article, and why they don't qualify for what I want...

The big reason is that they are not spirits of any kind. They are living weapons made of fire, not champions of any kind of ideal. They were originally created by primordials, but they continue on without the primordials, and have no necessary loyalty or connection to them. In the end, they are identical to the elementals of old, except they have weapons, and I find them just as boring as the old elementals.

Give me genies, sylphs, gnomes, salamanders, and undines, not these "Fire Archons", and then I will be happy. Faceless lumps of element will _never_ be interesting, no matter what culture or name you give it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Unless the Primordials are strongly associated with the elements (which is entirely possible, and would be pretty cool), I'd say the association is pretty weak. Still, it could be made stronger....
> 
> Possibly something I can buy. Possibly they considered what the word meant. Still a little potentially weak, put possibly not as boneheaded as I assumed based on the reasons given in the article.




Well Primordial means "first created." And, if you don't mind stepping back to look at the mythological view, consider the following.

In Greek Myth, the first ("primordial") gods were the titans. They had a pretty strong association with the elements.

In Norse Myth, the gods created the universe from the carcass of the slain frost giant - Ymir. Giants have a very strong "elemental" association, with the presence of fire giants, and the like.

According to the article, the Primordials counted giants amongst their servants. They were the "consummate creators" - something that's consistent with their name. And their Archon 

In modern concepts, "Primordial" could be thought of as "elemental." Assuming they were consistent, I think it's highly likely that the Primordials are strongly elementally-aligned. Would that make this more palatable to you?

Moreover, they've decided that any outsiders that do elemental damage should properly have the elemental type - so the djinni, efreeti, and salamanders all "elementals" in 4e. In that company, I have no problem with Archon "elementals" as the former servants of Primordial godlike beings.

And, as I pointed out previously, the "regular elementals" apparently aren't gone either.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> They weren't either. They were servants of the demiurge. A god, but not really the right god... Because he keeps tryin (possibly through no real ill will towards us) to keep a man down.




Right, but the question is, what plays the role of the "demiurge" in D&D4? Is it the Primordials? Is it the Gods? Is it both?

By calling these things Archons, they might be implicating the Primordials as their demiurge stand-in, the group that's basically not good for humanity. 



> They were formed to fight the gods. And again, now a long time later the primordial lost. Its forces are scattered, and the means by which it used to create its forces is known, and used by people in a world full of people who can actually do magic stuff.




Not bad...I'm comin' around....it still kind of remains to be seen, but this is sounding less insane than I assumed. 



> When I said celestial I meant in the non D&D sense. As in beings that are from another plane of existence. Perhaps I should have been more clear.




That's a little part of the problem. Because if godlike beings/primordials/whatever don't actually have anything to do with the Elemental Chaos (which is the way it was in previous editions, though it might change now), then we're back with these things not REALLY having anything to do with the Primordials, except through a meaningless origin story. Which might actually be fine. 



> I'd say depends on the god? Why have a generic catch all?




I'd agree, some just seem really excited about the "Angel of X" ideas. 

FWIW, this:


			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The big reason is that they are not spirits of any kind. They are living weapons made of fire, not champions of any kind of ideal. They were originally created by primordials, but they continue on without the primordials, and have no necessary loyalty or connection to them. In the end, they are identical to the elementals of old, except they have weapons, and I find them just as boring as the old elementals.




Is something I agree with. If the conception of 4e Primordials is more akin to this:



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In modern concepts, "Primordial" could be thought of as "elemental." Assuming they were consistent, I think it's highly likely that the Primordials are strongly elementally-aligned. Would that make this more palatable to you?




then yes, calling them "Archons" passes my "does it make sense to call them this" litmus test.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> I guess when it comes down to it, I am more interested in the writings of ancient Greeks than in those of R.A. Salvatore.  I don't think anything these guys write for 4E will be remembered in 20 years.  I prefer the creatures that kids have heard about for centuries.  They have more common appeal and magic in my experience.  Zombies and vampires, good.  Corpsegathers and gravecrawlers, bad.




On the other hand, I think aboleths, mindflayers, beholders, slaad, githyanki, death knights, etc... are far more interesting in the context of an rpg than dryads, nymphs, satyrs, etc...

I say this as a classicist and a gamer. Sometimes the creations of game designers are more interesting than the classics.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I want to use the name Archon for something like this simply because it has traction for this kind of usage.




AHA! At last we come to it. You feel that the name "Archon" has traction for usage as the typename for "alien" or "monstrous" angels.

Why?

Not to be dense, but that certainly bears no real relation to their prior representation in D&D. So that's not where they get this traction you speak of. If they have any traction in D&D, it's as the "non-evil militaristic outsider."

Are we back to gnostic texts? 'Cuz the degree of traction associated with an obscure part of a religion that's been extinct for a thousand years is, in my opinion, questionable. However, if that's your basis, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think "Archon" has any kind of traction as representing the "alien angel" archetype. Certainly, it could be tweaked to work there, but as long as the primordials have an elemental association, I can also buy archons as the "elemental angels," rather than the monstrous or alien kind. And that would still be consistent with their association with Primordials.

Especially given that efreeti are from the same part of the world at about the same time period.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> I don't think "Archon" has any kind of traction as representing the "alien angel" archetype.




Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).

Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.

Is kind of how that goes.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 3, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> This argument smacks of the attitude that says, I_ don't want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I don't think anyone else should have that option either._




How is that statement any different than "I want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I think everyone else should have to use it also - if they don't want it, they can take the time to create a new version that is not like that"?

In a perfect world, they'd have both, or heck, five different types, or maybe 200 different types.  But the dryad is one creature, and they're not going to focus that much attention on one creature...particularly a "minor" one (nor should they).  But as a consumer looking at it, and facing making a buying decision, it's yet one more item in the camp of "don't like it".  Get enough of those, and as a consumer, I'll have to make the decision of whether or not I'm interested in spending any more money on the game, if I'm going to have to spend time changing so much of it.

Up-thread it was mentioned that the new dryad might be a better fit within the context of the D&D game, and that could be a completely valid statement.  It doesn't mean it's *better* than the alternate.....the game doesn't *have* to be just about trading beatings with monsters.  I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative.  There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already.  I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel.  That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is.  And I ask "if they're so intent on siloing monsters and character abilities to reduce overlap, why do we now have 3 variants on an Ent-type creature?  ie. Treant, Shambling Mound, and Dryad.  How many fighting plant creatures do we need"?

Banshee


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

Nevermind!


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).
> 
> Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.
> 
> Is kind of how that goes.




Okay. So, then the appropriateness of the term "Archon" depends on the nature of the Creator God (or creator gods) in the D&D cosmology, right? From what we've been told, it looks like our creator gods are the "Primordials" who've been mentioned in this article, as well as the earlier "Cosmology" and "Demons & Devils" articles.

So if the Primordials are Cthulian, then "Archons" should be "alien" outsiders.

However, if the Primordials are elemental, then "elemental" Archons makes all kinds of sense. Personally, I think this is likely, and as evidence, I submit the following quote from the _Design & Development_ article on "Cosmology."



> The natural world was created from the infinite expanse of the Elemental Chaos (or Tempest, or Maelstrom), a place where all fundamental matter and energy seethes. Floating continents of earth, rivers of fire, ice-choked oceans, and vast cyclones of churning clouds and lightning collide in the elemental plane.




Assuming those who did the creating were in fact the primordials, their creations all derived from the Elemental Chaos. Which to me implies that was their home and their very nature was elemental. But hey, I'm just guessing.

By the way, "Ice Archons" were mentioned in the cosmology article.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).
> 
> Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.
> 
> Is kind of how that goes.




The Gnostics identified the Demiurge with the god of the Old Testament, and not of the New. They believed him to be the creator of the physical, but not the Supreme Being. The Demiurge can only create the physical in imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed. The Demiurge also has a mother, Sophia.

Now, since this all completely contradicts the beliefs of the vast majority of Christianity, one would find plenty of argument that the Demiurge is not the God of Genesis.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative.  There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already.  I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel.  That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is.




I'd like to point out that we have no confirmation that the "blackwoods dryad" is representative of all dryads in the game. It is entirely possible that what that mini represents is a "corrupted and evil" dryad. I mention this because "black woods" sounds pretty ominous to me.

What if there's a more "traditional" dryad as well as one that's become more of a crazed forest enforcer who takes on a plantlike exterior in combat? Or do you have a specific problem with the dryad being a physically capable opponent?

That's okay if you do. I'm just trying to understand.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> Assuming those who did the creating were in fact the primordials, their creations all derived from the Elemental Chaos. Which to me implies that was their home and their very nature was elemental. But hey, I'm just guessing.




It's a good guess, and is likely what they had in mind. So "elemental angels" it looks like. And I could be very fine with that. Servants of the creators, like Scribble said. In opposition to the True Gods. Full of goodness.

I am looking forward to seeing what they're doing with our ACTUAL good-aligned outsiders, though. Making good guys that are also, fluff-wise, good for the other good guys to fight (without resorting to the same "taken too far!" cliche every time) is one of the more challenging design goals that they've chosen to try and tackle for the release. And to make them interesting creatures as well (not just angelic animals or guys with swords in white). 

And I have a sneaking suspicion that "created by the Primordials" will be kind of an over-played cliche origin story for a lot of monsters. Not that it's a HUGE problem, even if it does happen.

With regards to the dryad:


> What if there's a more "traditional" dryad as well as one that's become more of a crazed forest enforcer who takes on a plantlike exterior in combat? Or do you have a specific problem with the dryad being a physically capable opponent?




I don't think that the dryad needs to look like a bush in order to be physically capable. The form of an attractive lady doesn't remove the ability to punch your face out the back of your head. I know several attractive ladies who could do that selfsame thing.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I have a sneaking suspicion that "created by the Primordials" will be kind of an over-played cliche origin story for a lot of monsters. Not that it's a HUGE problem, even if it does happen.




Oh, no doubt. But if the "Ecology of the Fire Archon" is any indication, some of those monster origins are going to be "former X elementals taken and turned by the god Y into their present form."

Substitute X with earth and Y with Zehir, and you have medusae.

Substitute X with water and Y with Sehanine, and supposedly you have dopplegangers.

Of course, both of those are just wild speculation, probably won't be in the monster manual, and will only get brought up if we get an "Ecology of the....." article.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't think that the dryad needs to look like a bush in order to be physically capable. The form of an attractive lady doesn't remove the ability to punch your face out the back of your head. I know several attractive ladies who could do that selfsame thing.




Absolutely. But I also have no problem with a tree spirit having a form that's treelike. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2008)

> Absolutely. But I also have no problem with a tree spirit having a form that's treelike. But maybe that's just me.




I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel. 

Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins. 

Archons as elemental angels persuaded me. Dryads as bush-people might have a harder time.

In other news, I do adore the sidebar on how to include the forges as a battleground in different kinds of worlds. Shows that the designers are thinking with nods to DMs who won't be just chilling in the core's implied setting.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel.
> 
> Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins.
> 
> ...




I'll have to wait until I see either info about the feywild, or an ecology of the dryad... but I'm wondering if the change is because the feywild is supposed to be just that. Wild, almost like the primordial forest land... Nothing "pretty" about it aside from it's wildness.

Didn't they mention that the dryad can still take on hot chick form, but is most likely to be encountered in the crazy angry tree form in the feywild?

Perhaps in human lands, where the forest is somewhat more tame, dryads appear as always... hot chicks...

But in the feywild, their true "form" appears... an angry treelike spirit of death to any and all who seek to do the forest harm.


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 3, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I think aboleths, mindflayers, beholders, slaad, githyanki, death knights, etc... are far more interesting in the context of an rpg than dryads, nymphs, satyrs, etc...
> 
> I say this as a classicist and a gamer. Sometimes the creations of game designers are more interesting than the classics.



I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition.  It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff.  Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia?  I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast.  You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't).  In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it.  And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird.  No, I think it's a ratio thing.  If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> How is that statement any different than "I want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I think everyone else should have to use it also - if they don't want it, they can take the time to create a new version that is not like that"?




The difference is that the one concept includes the other. You can remove one ability from the new dryad, and you have basically the old one. No one is forced to create a new creature.



> In a perfect world, they'd have both, or heck, five different types, or maybe 200 different types.  But the dryad is one creature, and they're not going to focus that much attention on one creature...particularly a "minor" one (nor should they).  But as a consumer looking at it, and facing making a buying decision, it's yet one more item in the camp of "don't like it".  Get enough of those, and as a consumer, I'll have to make the decision of whether or not I'm interested in spending any more money on the game, if I'm going to have to spend time changing so much of it.




How much time does it take to say, "I'll leave this one ability off?" It's much easier to leave something out than it is to create it out of whole cloth.



> Up-thread it was mentioned that the new dryad might be a better fit within the context of the D&D game, and that could be a completely valid statement.  It doesn't mean it's *better* than the alternate.....the game doesn't *have* to be just about trading beatings with monsters.  I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative.  There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already.  I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel.  That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is.  And I ask "if they're so intent on siloing monsters and character abilities to reduce overlap, why do we now have 3 variants on an Ent-type creature?  ie. Treant, Shambling Mound, and Dryad.  How many fighting plant creatures do we need"?
> 
> Banshee




Everything boils down to individual preference. The new look of the dryad is definitely to my preference. I'm certainly not saying that the old dryad was a bad design, but it was pretty useless in my games. I've used them as spiritual advisors for characters regarding all things woodsy and fey. I see no reason why I can't use the new version the same way - but when they get angry they can strike back.

In classical mythology, dryads are seldom mentioned as anything more than background dressing. The few we do see exist to marry kings or to dally with the gods to produce quasi-divine offspring. In mythology they neither fight nor cast spells. They epitomize the wildness of nature, which the Greeks connected with the female principals of irrationality and a lack of civilization. [Ancient Greeks were somewhat misogynistic.] The word means _unmarried girl_, which in the Greek mind evoked the image of someone uncontrolled, needing to be tamed.

The treatment of them in D&D is entirely arbitrary from a mythological perspective. As a classicist, it doesn't resonate in my mind with what a dryad is supposed to be anyway. If we are going to be arbitrary about their nature, I would prefer an interpretation that is more useful to me. This is the main reason that I prefer this more modern and (IMO) useful interpretation.

As an aside, I have to leave things out of monsters, spells and other elements of D&D as often as anyone else. That is the curse/blessing of homebrewing. As one example, I will have to leave all the intelligent design elements out of the racial descriptions in my game. I don't have gods in my setting. I reduced the duration of the mindflayer's psionic blast because I felt it was too long. There are many other examples.


----------



## IanB (Jan 4, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition.  It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff.  Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia?  I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast.  You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't).  In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it.  And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird.  No, I think it's a ratio thing.  If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.




Actually, if all you're doing is culling 20 bad monsters and replacing them with 20 new monsters, then you're likely to get a net improvement in monster quality, even if only one of the 20 new monsters is good.   

And really that happens every edition.  Notice the lack of ear seekers and lurkers above in 3.5!


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel.
> 
> Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins.




Actually, here's the thing. On dryads, I agree with you - mostly. However, I can see a couple ways this can work.

Firstly, if the "black woods dryad" is a subspecies, corrupted type, or specific to a particular part of the Feywild, I have NO problem with it.

Secondly, if the dryad has the default "pretty girl" thing most of the time, but assumes the "scary tree creature" form when threatened, I have very little trouble with it. Many of the "fey" have scary forms that only get seen by those that cross them. I'm thinking the following:

Dryad (pretty girl form): "la-la-la-la...hey, you're cutting down my tree!!"
Woodsman: "So what? What're you going to do about it little girl?"
Dryad (still pretty girl form): "Don't make me angry..."
Dryad (switching to tree form): "YOU WON'T LIKE ME ANGRY!!!"
Woodsman: *pisses self*

That's a "threatening fey" vibe I can get behind.

Thirdly, for the "always pretty girl who seduces nice men in the woods," there's the nymph. And it would work for me if I could have both dryads _and_ wood nymphs. The wood nymphs being the charming, pretty fey that can kill you with a look or charm you to do their bidding, and the dryads being the pretty fey who protect the trees that you shouldn't piss off.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Dryad (pretty girl form): "la-la-la-la...hey, you're cutting down my tree!!"
> Woodsman: "So what? What're you going to do about it little girl?"
> Dryad (still pretty girl form): "Don't make me angry..."
> Dryad (switching to tree form): "YOU WON'T LIKE ME ANGRY!!!"
> ...




Yeah.. I kind of hope it's akin to that scene in Fellowship where Gandalf get's pissed off at Bilbo and goes all freaky for a second...


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition.  It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff.  Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia?  I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast.  You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't).  In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it.  And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird.  No, I think it's a ratio thing.  If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.




I'm not necessarily in favor of ditching the old stuff either. I'm just pointing out that there are some good creatures that have been created in the modern era. I can't remember specifically what was created for 3e, but I also like kaorti, ethergaunts, neogi and several other creatures that are in the current edition.

The archons and guardinals as currently written, I can definitely live without.

Everyone has their own style and preferences however. I prefer a campaign where monsters are rare, mysterious and very powerful, where the enemies are other humanoids.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Yeah.. I kind of hope it's akin to that scene in Fellowship where Gandalf get's pissed off at Bilbo and goes all freaky for a second...




Or Galadriel being tempted by the Ring?

Or even Bilbo's grab for the ring at Rivendell - complete with "scary monster face."


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> AHA! At last we come to it. You feel that the name "Archon" has traction for usage as the typename for "alien" or "monstrous" angels.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Not to be dense, but that certainly bears no real relation to their prior representation in D&D. So that's not where they get this traction you speak of. If they have any traction in D&D, it's as the "non-evil militaristic outsider."



Not quite. I think the term "Archon" has traction as a name for celestial servants of deities/exalted beings, even outside of D&D. The "alien angel" is my own spin on it, something I imagined as a way to separate Archons from Angels without abandoning their celestial nature completley if you wanted to have both, the same way Devils and Demons are now separated in 4E.

Also, separate from the name Archon, the idea of "alien angels" _does_ have traction, in both long standing ideas of angels (such as in Paradise Lost) and in modern pop culture. Such creatures should be in D&D (though I have not seen anything like them in 3E). They should be represented in some form in 4E. However, I don't think the word "angel" fits perfectly for this usage, and I don't want them to necessarily be the primary form of angels (classic benevolent winged humans have a place), so some other label like "archon", "deva", or "asura" that is commonly used with angelic beings would fit them well. 



> Are we back to gnostic texts? 'Cuz the degree of traction associated with an obscure part of a religion that's been extinct for a thousand years is, in my opinion, questionable. However, if that's your basis, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I don't think "Archon" has any kind of traction as representing the "alien angel" archetype.



I will just leave these alone as a result of misunderstanding...



> Certainly, it could be tweaked to work there, but as long as the primordials have an elemental association, I can also buy archons as the "elemental angels," rather than the monstrous or alien kind. And that would still be consistent with their association with Primordials.
> 
> Especially given that efreeti are from the same part of the world at about the same time period.



Here is where our opinions are somewhat at odds.

If the new Fire Archons actually resembled or served as "elemental angels" in any shape or form, I would have no problem with them. "Elemental angel" is just as valid and interesting of a way to make Archons distinct as "alien angel". In fact, I liked the terms "Fire Archons" and "Ice Archons" when they were first mentioned, because I liked the idea of elemental angels.

I am disappointed by this article because "Fire Archons" are just another type of boring living flame, and have no resemblance to angels or celestials of any kind. I was hoping for elemental angels, and got just elementals instead.

The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute. However, Fire Archons don't have anything to do with being angels, and do nothing to make use of that traction.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Or Galadriel being tempted by the Ring?
> 
> Or even Bilbo's grab for the ring at Rivendell - complete with "scary monster face."




Exactly... On the prime, things are a bit more comforting... But enter the feywild...


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."

Ordained huh?

Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 4, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I also agree on the dissing of old editions being irritating. I always just considered elementals more or less entities who pretty much just zenned constantly until someone went and interrupted their drifting through the elemental planes. An educated, mature writer should have no trouble describing "new and improved" without having to snub their nose at what has come before.




I agree with you here.

Both in terms of how I envisaged elementals in their natural state, and the undesirability of snubbing what went before to attempt to make something new look better - it often has the opposite of the desired effect.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."
> 
> Ordained huh?
> 
> Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?




Sounds like a good catch. Epic Destiny anyone?


----------



## Voss (Jan 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute.




I dispute it. Outside a small portion of D&D's lifespan and a minor philosophical sect of christianity, it doesn't have much traction as a form of angelic being.

http://www.google.com/search?q=arch...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You'll get a small group of people who are big on archon=angelic being, and another small (probably overlapping) group who want the current ones to stay, but that isn't really traction.

Try to rejigger unicorns or dragons, then you'll see a reaction.  Thats traction.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."
> 
> Ordained huh?
> 
> Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?



That does seem to be the implication. Epic Destiny, perhaps? But then again, becoming a god seems to also be the end result of epic destinies, so there seems to be an imbalance there... Maybe you go through an angelic phase on your path to deityhood?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> If the new Fire Archons actually resembled or served as "elemental angels" in any shape or form, I would have no problem with them. "Elemental angel" is just as valid and interesting of a way to make Archons distinct as "alien angel". In fact, I liked the terms "Fire Archons" and "Ice Archons" when they were first mentioned, because I liked the idea of elemental angels.
> 
> I am disappointed by this article because "Fire Archons" are just another type of boring living flame, and have no resemblance to angels or celestials of any kind. I was hoping for elemental angels, and got just elementals instead.
> 
> The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute. However, Fire Archons don't have anything to do with being angels, and do nothing to make use of that traction.




Well, I'm still not sure. While I admit some of the flavor text in _Ecology of the Fire Archon_ is problematic from this standpoint, I don't think it's wholly disassociated.

We've been told that all outsiders with "elemental" abilities will have the type "elemental," so I certainly don't think you should read too much into that part. In 4e, efreeti and djinni will be listed as "elementals" as well, so the archons are sharing ground with at least a couple of traditional "celestial" races.

Moreover, there will be ordinary old fire elementals, so "Fire Archons" are clearly a bit different. I suppose with their "gods" gone, it's hard to think of them as angels, but that seems surmountable to me. For instance, who says the primordials are really gone?  

I suppose that doesn't do anything about the forge origin, but that's a relative non-issue to me.

My opinion will largely depend on how much of this makes it into the _Monster Manual_ entry on archons. On the other hand, I've always taken the "Ecology of..." articles with a grain of salt, anyway. I just haven't always like their take on things, and preferred to make up my own.

Bear in mind the _Monster Manual_ may just say something like this. "Archons are the servants of the primordials who created the universe and lived within the Elemental Chaos. They are beings created as living embodiments of the elements who were used as soldiers in the war against the gods. Archons come in many types. A few are listed here." (Proceed to entries for Ice Archons, Fire Archons, and maybe a few other types).

I don't honestly know what an "Ecology of the Angel" article would say about them, but I suspect it might talk about their role as servants of their gods (potentially as members of the celestial army). Which would make them about as fully fleshed-out culturally as the Fire Archon.

To me, the real key to whether they make sense is the nature of the Primordials.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> That does seem to be the implication. Epic Destiny, perhaps? But then again, becoming a god seems to also be the end result of epic destinies, so there seems to be an imbalance there... Maybe you go through an angelic phase on your path to deityhood?




Maybe you have multiple options available?

Maybe some will want to become the gods, others just want to become the best servant of the gods that they can be.

I can't really see a Priest saying... "Well, I spent my life in service to my lord and savior... but hey I bet I can do a better job then HE can!"


----------



## IanB (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Secondly, if the dryad has the default "pretty girl" thing most of the time, but assumes the "scary tree creature" form when threatened, I have very little trouble with it. Many of the "fey" have scary forms that only get seen by those that cross them.




This is likely to be true, based on a comment posted by one of the DDM designers when we first saw the dryad, but I can't find the original post.  :\


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I dispute it. Outside a small portion of D&D's lifespan and a minor philosophical sect of christianity, it doesn't have much traction as a form of angelic being.



There is the ErfWorld reference, the use of the word Archon in Starcraft is quite similar (transcendent exalted being), the MMORPG Shadowbane calls all angelic beings Archons, etc. It is common enough that it can be used as the basis of a joke in a webcomic. Angelic creatures may not be the first thing someone thinks of when they hear the word "archon", but no one would think such a name is unusual or poorly fitting. Certainly, it is more common than using the word Archon to represent "elemental soldier". Also, you downplay the relevance to D&D too much. I am not getting into another argument concerning the validity of Gnosticism as a mythology in this thread.



> http://www.google.com/search?q=arch...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a



What is this google search even supposed to prove?



> You'll get a small group of people who are big on archon=angelic being, and another small (probably overlapping) group who want the current ones to stay, but that isn't really traction.



I don't want to get into an argument over how big these groups happen to be. Neither of us has any real way of supporting such claims, so that kind of argument will go nowhere.



> Try to rejigger unicorns or dragons, then you'll see a reaction.  Thats traction.



My lack of comprehension of the word "rejigger" aside...

Traction applies to more than just D&D. For example, if I wanted to make it so all dragons breathed only fire, color was mostly irrelevant, and dragons did not cast spells as they do in 3E D&D, I would probably only be changing dragons to match how they have traction in other places, not going against what traction they already have.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Maybe you have multiple options available?
> 
> Maybe some will want to become the gods, others just want to become the best servant of the gods that they can be.
> 
> I can't really see a Priest saying... "Well, I spent my life in service to my lord and savior... but hey I bet I can do a better job then HE can!"




Depend - you could say many priests would LOVE to become a minor god linked to his patron, or a sort of saint/proxy....


----------



## Voss (Jan 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Traction applies to more than just D&D. For example, if I wanted to make it so all dragons breathed only fire, color was mostly irrelevant, and dragons did not cast spells as they do in 3E D&D, I would probably only be changing dragons to match how they have traction in other places, not going against what traction they already have.




Yes, it does, which is my point. Change what an archon is, and most of the audience is going to blink, shrug, or not notice.  Change what a unicorn is, and they're going to cry.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Depend - you could say many priests would LOVE to become a minor god linked to his patron, or a sort of saint/proxy....




Isn't Angel much easier to say?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I agree with you here.
> 
> Both in terms of how I envisaged elementals in their natural state, and the undesirability of snubbing what went before to attempt to make something new look better - it often has the opposite of the desired effect.




Well, I always read everything the designers write as if it was prefaced by:

"This worked pretty well in 3e, but there were a few things we felt could use some improvement. One example of something we decided to address is that:"

I would seriously _hate_ to have to read that preface to every article. I freely acknowledge that the designers don't hate earlier editions of D&D. However, it's their _job_ to look at things that could use some improvement, and try to sell us on those improvements.

To do that, they have to present the part of the older edition that they felt needed fixing.

Frankly, I can do without the disclaimers about what was good about D&D editions of the past, and just assume they're implied.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I think aboleths, mindflayers, beholders, slaad, githyanki, death knights, etc... are far more interesting in the context of an rpg than dryads, nymphs, satyrs, etc...
> 
> I say this as a classicist and a gamer. Sometimes the creations of game designers are more interesting than the classics.



Damn it, man, I think I love you.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Isn't Angel much easier to say?




Einheinar?  (spelling?)


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 4, 2008)

Did you mean einherjar or einheriar?


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> There is the ErfWorld reference, the use of the word Archon in Starcraft is quite similar (transcendent exalted being), the MMORPG Shadowbane calls all angelic beings Archons, etc. It is common enough that it can be used as the basis of a joke in a webcomic. Angelic creatures may not be the first thing someone thinks of when they hear the word "archon", but no one would think such a name is unusual or poorly fitting. Certainly, it is more common than using the word Archon to represent "elemental soldier".




The real question (considering the influence of D&D on videogames and the fantasy genre) is how many people will hear the word archon and think of elemental warriors a few years after D&D 4e?


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."
> 
> Ordained huh?
> 
> Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?




This is cool.   

Ordaining angels is something even I can use, and there are no gods in my homebrew.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Did you mean einherjar or einheriar?




Yes - Planescape version, adapted. Would be cool I think.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that we have no confirmation that the "blackwoods dryad" is representative of all dryads in the game. It is entirely possible that what that mini represents is a "corrupted and evil" dryad. I mention this because "black woods" sounds pretty ominous to me.
> 
> What if there's a more "traditional" dryad as well as one that's become more of a crazed forest enforcer who takes on a plantlike exterior in combat? Or do you have a specific problem with the dryad being a physically capable opponent?
> 
> That's okay if you do. I'm just trying to understand.




I don't mind the idea of a Blackwoods Dryad, if there's also a regular dryad.  I guess, given my own preferences, it's something I can envision as a corrupted dryad, a member of the nightmare or unseelie court, or whatever it's called.

My favourite books on the Fey have largely been non-D&D ones.....I really liked the Sidhe Book of Nightmares for the Swashbuckling Adventures setting, as well as Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey, and Castle Falkenstein.  I think back to novels like Faerie Tale by Raymond Feist, where the White Ladies existed.  They were heartachingly beautiful, but that beauty hid a terrible inhumanity, and they were pretty horrifying to mortals who actually encountered them.  It's not like they were ugly, but the book left the implicit understanding that they might look really pretty, but they had some kind of power that made them lethal to mortals.  That can be done through Supernatural Abilities and spellcasting, rather than turning into a tree creature.

Now that's a departure from the mythological roots which I've already brought up, and I'll acknowledge that.  I think I'll have a big sigh of relief if the Blackwoods dryads are the dangerous, corrupted versions of normal dryads.  I guess we're going to see if that's the case.

In many of those books I referenced, Fey weren't really physically powerful....they were magically so.  They typically had extra powers that made them dangerous to mortals, even if they weren't tough in a toe to toe fight.  In Feist's novel, they manifested an aura that basically was almost like a "confusion disease"....mortals would get confused, feverish, and wake up in a circle of mushrooms somewhere, if they survived.  It had the Wild Hunt, the White Ladies, Puck the trickster, Thomas the Rhymer.......yet there were still pixies and sprites and such.  They might be friendly to humans, but they could be dangerous simply by not realizing that a mortal can't get up if you break his legs.  They might toss him off a cliff, because hearing him scream is neat music, figuring that he'll just get up, because, well, they can, since they're energy beings.   A nereid charms a man into the water, thinking he's so handsome, and wanting to play with him, and just takes it for granted that he should be able to breath underwater, not realizing that she's drowning him.....and now that he's all blue, why won't he get back up after she lets him out of the water?  They don't realize they're causing harm, because their frame of reference is so different.

If WotC did something like this with the Fey, I think that would be very cool.  That's my personal opinion of course.  If they were going to depart more typical depictions of Fey, that's the kind of thing I'd love to see.

Banshee


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> The real question (considering the influence of D&D on videogames and the fantasy genre) is how many people will hear the word archon and think of elemental warriors a few years after D&D 4e?



Not many, I bet.

D&D was the most important influence on videogames, and other popular conceptions of fantasy, more than a _decade ago_, and that influence has greatly waned over the years. In more recent years, videogames and anime and such have become far more self-referential and self-propagating, and more original creative talent is driving their progress. Most D&D influence on fantasy is a carry-over from a time from 12-20 years ago, and is not based on anything D&D has done recently. These days, few videogames and anime are even in the same High fantasy/Swords and Sorcery fantasy genre that D&D portrays. The influence of D&D on popular fantasy will probably reduce even further because WotC is more concerned with protection of IP than TSR ever was, and would be less willing for D&D to be directly copied.

D&D just isn't the biggest name in fantasy anymore, and it isn't being copied by everyone anymore. Those days are over.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 4, 2008)

Gee, the ten dozen fire themed monsters we have already aren't enough huh?

*sigh*


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jan 4, 2008)

Tequila Sunrise said:
			
		

> Gee, the ten dozen fire themed monsters we have already aren't enough huh?



We might see a reduction, or at least streamlinging of many of the redundant critters in the new edition. They've started with celestials, as we saw.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 4, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> We might see a reduction, or at least streamlinging of many of the redundant critters in the new edition. They've started with celestials, as we saw.



Followed by the unavoidable proliferation once they need something to fill MM2, MM3, MM4, ...


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> There's also a half-Dryad in David Eddings' _Belgariad_ and _Mallorean_ (the chief heroine, in fact), so I agree that they're not exactly obscure.
> 
> However, I have no problem with Dryads, who are nature spirits, having a "combat form" in D&D. Make a nod to the original myth by saying they often appear to be "nymphs, elf-maids, or beautiful human women." And then mention that, when provoked, they can turn nasty.
> 
> That would certainly work.




You make a good point but there is a problem with it, the attitude that say that every monster is supposed to be a "combat monster" i.e that if you meet a monster the player know how it is going to end, "rolling initiative", it also show a certain laziness from the game designer part in a way, because it is like if they say "I have no clear idea how to deal with unusual monsters (dryads) so I just turn them in a standard monster that the player just fight out as usual." Why don't turn the dryad into a non-fightining monster, something that the pc can't or don't want to fight or least not into a straight fight rather than turn her into a she-treant?


----------



## Anthtriel (Jan 6, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> You make a good point but there is a problem with it, the attitude that say that every monster is supposed to be a "combat monster" i.e that if you meet a monster the player know how it is going to end, "rolling initiative", it also show a certain laziness from the game designer part in a way, because it is like if they say "I have no clear idea how to deal with unusual monsters (dryads) so I just turn them in a standard monster that the player just fight out as usual." Why don't turn the dryad into a non-fightining monster, something that the pc can't or don't want to fight or least not into a straight fight rather than turn her into a she-treant?



Because Hack&Slay is a valid and supported playstyle, and non-combat monsters are wasted space for that group. Why make a monster that only works outside of combat if you can make it work for both sides?

Plus, non-combat monsters don't really need any combat stats.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 6, 2008)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> Because Hack&Slay is a valid and supported playstyle, and non-combat monsters are wasted space for that group. Why make a monster that only works outside of combat if you can make it work for both sides?
> 
> Plus, non-combat monsters don't really need any combat stats.



This. I've said it before, I'll say it again: What I'd really like to see, ideally in the DMG (which isn't going to happen!) but optionally in another book, are notes on noncombat statistics of the world of D&D.

Things like the old gem- and herb- tables from the 1st edition DMG, but also the properties of purple worm digestive juices, the suite of abilities a Marilith can manifest that aren't applicable in combat (since they'd clutter up the stat-block) but which should still be available to them, and the suite of abilities a variety of otherwise unoffensive critters have that doesn't immediately imply they should have a full statblock treatment. We don't have stat blocks for cobblers, smiths, or barristers in the MM; why should we have them for helpful pixies or benevolent (but non-combative!) angels?


----------

