D&D 5E Dragon's Eye View: Celestials

[Klaus]

I'd prefer it they just applied the basic humanoid form (eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs) to 4e's angels. I liked them having wings made of fire, ice, metal or pure energy, and that their armor and weapons were merely extensions of their bodies.

As for alignment, angels in 1e-3e were "any good" and served good deities. Archons (LG), Guardinals (NG) and Eladrin (CG) were natives of the upper planes, although not necessarily servants of a deity.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not a fan of the "subjective viewpoint" angel. I mean, you can make that argument for any metaphysical being.

Well, it's not an argument. It's just something I think was cool.

Why don't elves all look ethereally beautiful to different people because of a glamour?

I dunno. For the same reason they're not green, I suppose - they just don't. Does there need to be a reason?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, it's not an argument. It's just something I think was cool.

Totally. Just mentioning a contrary viewpoint.

I dunno. For the same reason they're not green, I suppose - they just don't. Does there need to be a reason?

It's just kind of a broad criteria, I guess. Angels are supposed to be X, so they're personally X to everyone who sees them. Demons are supposed to be scary, so they're personally scary to anyone who sees them. Elves are supposed to be enchanting, so they're personally enchanting to anyone who sees them.

It could totally work if you plucked up that gimmick and ran with it for a certain creature. Like, maybe a mirror-creature who looked exactly like you when you looked at it. I'm not quite as fond of it for angels because I'm not sure they need to be any more especially subjective in D&D than demons and devils and slaadi and modrons are, really.

But I'm just some dork on the internet, surely I don't speak for the world.

 

[jrowland]

In regards to the "subjective" viewpoint, it is fine and dandy to have that be the "in-game" presentation of angels, but in the real world, the artwork for an angel is being presented to humans so a human-centric presentation in the art is fine. Let the MM entry reflect a subjective angel, but lets not have "Far Realm Angels of Illithid" depictions in the MM artwork, for example. That would probably be pretty cool art, but its too niche for presentation in a game that needs to appeal to humans and for humans to recognize them as angels. The classic tropes are necessary for real-world human identification purposes.

If they write an adventure that features angelic thri-kreen, by all means depict them in the art.

 

[RangerWickett]

Small update, once again using Magic: the Gathering art. Now there are officially cards for gods, specifically that grandiose sort of Greek god that are first glimpsed as constellations in the night sky. Except in MTG, gods are just concepts until they have enough worshipers to manifest in physical form. This is denoted by them having celestial patterns visible in their bodies. Voila.

Their pets and minions look the same way.

 

[TwoSix]

While I have no desire to get sucked back into gaping maw of Magic fandom, gosh darn it, they make some pretty pictures.

 

[Argyle King]

I feel like I must be in the minority when it comes to liking 4E's angels. To me, angels should have an otherwordly look, but still have the vague shape of the creatures they appear to. I think 4E's take on them did that perfectly.

I also really liked the elemental servants of the primordials, but their name escapes me at the moment.

 

[Klaus]

I feel like I must be in the minority when it comes to liking 4E's angels. To me, angels should have an otherwordly look, but still have the vague shape of the creatures they appear to. I think 4E's take on them did that perfectly.

I also really liked the elemental servants of the primordials, but their name escapes me at the moment.

Archons?

 

[Argyle King]

Archons?

Yes.

Now that I think about it, I'm aware the term was used before 4th for a different creature. I preferred the 4E Archons though.

 

[Klaus]

Yes.

Now that I think about it, I'm aware the term was used before 4th for a different creature. I preferred the 4E Archons though.

According to an earlier Wandering Monsters column, 4e's archons will probably be renamed "elemental myrmidons".