D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
- Status
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Ah, poor G Ming - we hardly knew him...
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Yeah, he didn't have the biggest vocabulary and so rarely expressed himself.
Ie there was no change to hound et al archons.
How is introducing a new creature with the same name changing any lore?
When the colony which became my home state was named Victoria, this didn't change the "lore" of Lanefan's home town.
Nothing about hound, sword, lantern et al archons is changed by there also being another, different creature that happens to have the same name.
In fact, given how prevalent the recycling of names is in the real world, it's unrealistic that there be no such thing in the gameworld.
From WP:W&M, pp 71, 73:
A number of monsters filled a role similar to that of angels. Archons, for instance, were the good equivalent of devils, heroic servants of good deities who destroyed evil wherever they found it. But the player characters could fight them only under the most extreme conditions, in which a servant of good turns to evil. Such storylines quickly become hackneyed . . . We needed a group to be servants of the gods, a group that made sense for all deities (not just specific deities or subsets), and one that made for good, old-fashioned monsters. . . .
[T]he heroes are supposed to be the primary butt-kickers of evil in the world. If a sword archon could show up and skewer a wicked necromancer, where does that leave the heroes? Obviously, an individual Dungeon Master can dow whatever he or she wants, but why have archons in the game if their role is limited to reminding players that good deities also have loads of minions? As it stood, these powerful creatures with their signature abilities hardly ever saw combat. Now, different angels have alignments that suit the gods they serve.
[T]he heroes are supposed to be the primary butt-kickers of evil in the world. If a sword archon could show up and skewer a wicked necromancer, where does that leave the heroes? Obviously, an individual Dungeon Master can dow whatever he or she wants, but why have archons in the game if their role is limited to reminding players that good deities also have loads of minions? As it stood, these powerful creatures with their signature abilities hardly ever saw combat. Now, different angels have alignments that suit the gods they serve.
Having decided not to replicate archons, on the basis that they play no significant oppositional role (only in extreme and hackneyed storylines do the PCs confront them as foes) and don't support the right sort of fiction (because they crowd out the PC heroes as the primary doers of good deeds in the world), the name - I guess - becomes free for repurposing.
Archons have not been in the game since the 1970s. They are introduced in Jeff Grubb's MotP, which has a 1987 publication date. (I'm a bit surprised that this is not known to someone who cares so much about the integrity of the publication of archon lore!)
And archons aren't the only time that the D&D cosmology has recycled names. In DDG (p 72), Maruts are 6' tall humanoid wind spirits whose alignment is True Neutral and who serve as troops for the gods (doing damage by weapon type); whereas MotP (pp 86, 122) has Maruts who are quite different, being size L creatures who "appear as great, red-eyed, unliving giants carved from polished black stone" and are "simmilar to storm giants in demeanour and power", who live on Nirvana and are Lawful with Good tendencies (which makes it unclear exactly how their demeanour resembles storm giants!), who 1x/hour can use earthquake, lightning bolt or control winds and who do 8d10 damage on a successful hit (ie they are precursors to 3E's inevitables).
(Note also that, DDG/L&L was still in print and extensively referenced by Jeff Grubb in his MotP. So, unlike with the name "archon", he didn't think it was even important to let the name become "freed up" before repurposing it!)
Obviously both sorts of marut are in some sense inspired by Hindu accounts of maruts; but likewise both sorts of archons are in some sense inspired by Gnostic accounts, which (wikipedia tells us) "used the term Archon to refer to 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."
Archons as servants of creator primordials, standing in opposition to the true gods, seem at least as true to this gnostic conception as Jeff Grubb's version - where they don't serve the Demiurge at all, but rather the gods of the Seven Heavens.
I post actual play examples, and find it helpful when others do likewise.
I post actual play examples all the time. I think these are helpful for talking about RPGing. Whereas I think most thought experiments and hypotheticals that people offer up are useless (eg in this thread, the "slippery slope" examples of so-called FR games set in Mad Max world or whatever).
If someone posts about a problem they had, or otherwise is looking for guidance, I will offer them GMing advice. I have never told anyone that they made a decision that was very poor. I often would explain how I might do something differently, but that's not the same thing. (Despite [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s protestations to the contrary eg in post 979, "That's not to my taste" or "That's not how I'd handle it" and "That's a poor decision" are not even close to being synonyms.)
Well, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to be from the "never back down, never apologise" school of discussion.
For my part, when I make poor calls as a GM I own up to them (see, eg, my actual play posts, where I post about things that didn't work out as well as things that I was pleased with). But incorporating the WoHS into my GH game wasn't a poor call. It added a lot to the game, in very practical terms. Many of my fondest memories of that campaign involve the politicking of high level wizard PCs in the Great Kingdom and neighbouring states, dealing with wizardly policy and the relationship between the WoHS and other political forces at work.
One of the big moments in the campaign was when a key question, about whether or not membership of the WoHS would be confined to those of Suel descent, came up for vote via the Conclave ritual, and the PC who was (in effect) a henchman of the sponsor of that motion voted "no", thereby enablilng the view of another PC (who was not of Suel descent, and had been vigorously campaigning against the proposition) to prevail. This was a moment for bonding between players, for drama at the table, and for being thankful that the "ballot" was a secret one (because purely mental).
That's just one example of the significance of the WoHS to the campaign. In my view, any inclusion of a story element that ends up leading to that sort of play experience that is still memorable over 20 years later is, ipso facto, good GMing, not bad GMing.
Last edited:
Teemu
Hero
Following that logic, WotC would've re-imagined all OGL creatures for 4e since they would've wanted to have IP rights. That didn't happen of course.
Imaro
Legend
Doubt it some things like goblin... dragon...etc. are public domain. At any rate there is no 100 percent foolproof way to know their reasoning behind using the name Archon... so I doubt if going back and forth about it is going to accomplish anything worthwhile.
Imaro
Legend
You know I'd have a little more sympathy for you around this situation... if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] hadn't fired off accusations that weren't true about what I've posted and then ignored the fact that he provided no proof whatsoever when called out to do so... but now wants to pretend he's on the high road when it comes to you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] with his convenient outrage.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I've answered that multiple times in this thread. Go look at one of those answers.
And?
- Status
Similar Threads
