New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[Scribble]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't Angel much easier to say?

Einheinar? (spelling?)

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Did you mean einherjar or einheriar?