D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]
To me that looks like a massive projection of one's own experiences and assumptions onto someone else's game. Which I think is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means by "onetruewayism".

One True Wayism requires me to believe that you have to do it my way, which I don't. Having an opinion about a decision that you made isn't even remotely enough.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: I know what changes were made to Ghaele eladrins, because I can compare the 2nd ed or 3E era Ghaele to the 4e MM (eg in 4e, unlike 3E, the ghaele cannot "take the form of an incorporeal globe of eldritch colors"; and by a ghaele in 4e uses cold attacks (winter's touch, freezing ray, chilling defiance) rather than a wide mix of wizard and cleric spells.

But what change did 4e make to Hound (or Lantern, or Sword, or Tome) archons?

Answer: none.

 

[pemerton]

One True Wayism requires me to believe that you have to do it my way, which I don't. Having an opinion about a decision that you made isn't even remotely enough.

How is telling someone that their GMing was very poor not believing that they should have made different decisions? It makes no sense to say "Your GMing was very poor, but you just keep on doing it that (very poor) way!" By definition, to do something poorly is to not do it well. To have made errors. To need to improve.

Judging something very poor isn't synonymous with saying "I would have done it differently". If, in fact, you think there was nothing wrong with my decision - if all you are pointing out is that you would do it differently - then I assume you are not retracting your claim that it was very poor.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you provide a single example of a person who thought that archons in 4e - elemental beings forged in archon forges to be soldiers for the primordials - were a variant or development of the archons that Jeff Grubb invented, which are heavenly being show serve the gods of good and are (from memory) lanterns, swords, hounds and bears?

Every last person who knew what archons were in prior editions and was unaware of the change thought that they were the usual type when they saw the name archon on the contents page.

I have never encountered such a person, either in person or online. And I have no idea what piece of deceit you think you're referring to. I mean, who do you think WotC set out to trick? Where is there anything in WP:W&M or in the MM which suggests that 4e is going to publish a version of a Grubbian archon?

If you were unaware of the change and saw the name archon on the contents page before leafing through to read about the radial change, you almost definitely thought that they were the normal variety until you got to the entry.

Except perhaps the bit where they describe the archons as new creatures. Given that they are obviously new creatures - D&D has never before had elemental soldiers manufactured in magical forges - and that the designers describe them as new creatures, I think the evidence that they are new creatures is actually overwhelming.

But D&D has had archons.

 

[Maxperson]

How is telling someone that their GMing was very poor not believing that they should have made different decisions? It makes no sense to say "Your GMing was very poor, but you just keep on doing it that (very poor) way!" By definition, to do something poorly is to not do it well. To have made errors. To need to improve.

Why would I care if you keep doing it or not? Why would I want you to change it? It's my opinion and I could be wrong. I really don't care. If it works for you, keep doing it.

Judging something very poor isn't synonymous with saying "I would have done it differently".

Yes it is. It's me saying exactly that and providing my reasoning for why I would have done it differently.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro: I know what changes were made to Ghaele eladrins, because I can compare the 2nd ed or 3E era Ghaele to the 4e MM (eg in 4e, unlike 3E, the ghaele cannot "take the form of an incorporeal globe of eldritch colors"; and by a ghaele in 4e uses cold attacks (winter's touch, freezing ray, chilling defiance) rather than a wide mix of wizard and cleric spells.

But what change did 4e make to Hound (or Lantern, or Sword, or Tome) archons?

Answer: none.

It consolidated them into one race and made them elementals...with different lore and appearance. What you seem to be requiring for a change is some similarity (because one can compare the Archon of previous editions with that of 4e, there's just no real similarity anymore) from what it was changed from... but that assumes one cannot completely change something which is what happened in the case of Archons.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sometimes, when threads reach dozens of pages long (let along almost 100 like this one), I like to pull them up every dozen or so pages because I find it to be a very interesting in a "I'm doing as sociology paper for college way" of just how off topic some of the discussion becomes from the original OP. It's the evolution of conversation thing that gets my attention.

That is all. Carry on.

 

[pemerton]

It's me saying exactly that and providing my reasoning for why I would have done it differently.

A judgement that some decision was poor is a judgement that the person who made the decision should have done it differently. That's what poor means.

For instance, when I tell you that your opinion that 4e archons are the same creatures as Jeff Grubb's archons is wrong, I'm not just saying that I think something different. I'm telling you that you're making an error - in this particular case, the error of (i) ignoring the fact that, in every respect (backstory, stats, function in the game and the fiction) they are different, and (ii) disregarding the fact that WotC described them as a new creature.

Every last person who knew what archons were in prior editions and was unaware of the change thought that they were the usual type when they saw the name archon on the contents page.

So the answer to my question is, no, you cannot provide a single example of a person who thought that archons in 4e were a variant or development of the archons that Jeff Grubb invented.

You are simply conjecturing. But you don't actually have any example.

And I still find it strange that you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] think that WotC was lying to you when they said that archons in 4e were new creatures - because really they were such a radical revision of the existing archons that it's almost as if they were new creatures!

If only WotC hadn't lied, and had just told you upfront that they were using the old name for new creatures - then you wouldn't have been taken in by their attempt to trick you into thinking they were new creatures!

I'll give WotC this much, the cunning of their deception runs pretty deep!

 

[Imaro]

For instance, when I tell you that your opinion that 4e archons are the same creatures as Jeff Grubb's archons is wrong, I'm not just saying that I think something different. I'm telling you that you're making an error - in this particular case, the error of (i) ignoring the fact that, in every respect (backstory, stats, function in the game and the fiction) they are different, and (ii) disregarding the fact that WotC described them as a new creature.

We know they aren't the same creature as Jeff Grubb's Archons... if they were we wouldn't be talking about how they changed them into something else in 4e... there's no error being made here except on your part in failing to acknowledge that Archons were completely changed in 4e.

(i) &(ii) - You seem to be happy to ignore the fact that Archon is the name of a D&D extraplanar creature that has appeared in the game since at least AD&D 1e. If they are a brand new creature as opposed to a changing/re-purposing of the original creature why use the name Archon? Was that explained in Worlds and Monsters? Like I said earlier the level of pedantry and word wrangling you're using to justify this logic is absurd.

And I still find it strange that you and @Imaro think that WotC was lying to you when they said that archons in 4e were new creatures - because really they were such a radical revision of the existing archons that it's almost as if they were new creatures!

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it's an argument tactic that's beneath you. I find it strange that you believe that one cannot change something so drastically or effectively that it becomes something different... Does a caterpillar change into a Butterfly... or is the Butterfly a new creature?

If only WotC hadn't lied, and had just told you upfront that they were using the old name for new creatures - then you wouldn't have been taken in by their attempt to trick you into thinking they were new creatures!

I'll give WotC this much, the cunning of their deception runs pretty deep!

If only Paizo wasn't publishing their own version of Jeff Grub's Archons in their bestiary forcing WotC to change something so drastically that oh...I don't know... they could possibly regain IP control over it... No that couldn't be it.

The conversation must have went something like... hey let's come up with this totally new creature and...give it a name that's been in use by another race of creatures since the 70's because... Well how about you tell us why @pemerton ... I'm also curious whether they even acknowledge the old Archons and explain why they used their name for a "new" monster in W&M's?

 

[Lanefan]

The British Empire gave us at least two places called Victoria: the state of Australia in which I reside; and the west coast Canadian town in which (I believe) [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] resides.

Ayup.

Names get recycled. Occasionally this can cause confusion, although mostly it's avoidable. But in calling the then Australasian colony Victoria, no one in the Colonial Office was trying to "reconcept" the west coast of Candada; let alone trick the Canadians into thinking that it would be hot in January and cold in July. It's the same name for two different things. That happens, even when the same organisation is in charge of naming.

I'm actually not sure which came first...my town or your state. Victoria BC (or "Fort Victoria" as it was first called) was founded in the early-mid 1800's and was certainly a going concern by 1858 when Vancouver Island became its own colony (to the point of issuing its own postage stamps!) with Victoria as its capital. The colony folded into the province of BC in 1871 when it all became part of Canada. Or something like that, I'm going from hazy memory of local history studies I've not thought of since school.

But I've no idea at all when Victoria Austrailia got its name.

Lanefan