Excerpt: Archons (merged)

[Steely Dan]

Some of the Old Testament angelic types would fit right in with the D&D creatures from the Far Realms...

We're talking real wrath of good type stuff!

 

[Steely Dan]

My brain cant even process what you just wrote.

Archon, archon, baby…

 

[lutecius]

Archon, archon, baby…

Alright, Stop...

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

But that's the point I think... They're SUPPOSED to be similar. They're the elite forces of two sides in an ancient war.

Perhaps that would be fun or interesting in a novel, but in a game I want monsters with different backgrounds. It helps me differentiate when using them, rather than ignore a whole swath of monsters because they're too similar.

 

[DandD]

Well then, fear not. They are different in looks, different in background, different in how you use them.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Well then, fear not. They are different in looks, different in background, different in how you use them.

What kind of response is that? Seriously.

Obviously I don't see it that way, or else I wouldn't have posted on the matter. (And I'm not alone, by the way, though that shouldn't make a difference).

You know, I'm starting to get a sense of how the people who don't like 4e feel. I'm just engaging in some discussion of some aspects I do not like, have given (or agreed with) concrete reasons why, and the response to my argument: "nuh uh!"

 

[AllisterH]

I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder (no pun intended), GoodKingJayIII

For me, archons look like humanoids composed of raw elements whereas angels look like humanoids that have been varnished/waxed with an element. Even without the wings, I don't think they look the same at all.

As for their stats, at a glance, I don't think they play the same either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What kind of response is that? Seriously.

Obviously I don't see it that way, or else I wouldn't have posted on the matter. (And I'm not alone, by the way, though that shouldn't make a difference).

You know, I'm starting to get a sense of how the people who don't like 4e feel. I'm just engaging in some discussion of some aspects I do not like, have given (or agreed with) concrete reasons why, and the response to my argument: "nuh uh!"

Well, for me they look different. This seems to be a very subjective matter, so I can't really help you more here.

The common aspects in their background are that they both work as "soldiers" for ancient masters.
The differences are that the Angels came into being on their own. They represent (for the lack of a better term) "philosophical" concepts or ideals like Vengeance or Valor. They offered their services to those Gods that fit their own ideals.

The Archons were created as a reaction to these armies. The Primordials created them as their soldiers. They might have been inspired by the Angels, but they are made from the elements that make the world (maybe the Angels can be described as made from the elements that make the mind? Hmm...).

Angels will be used whenever the Gods are involved. They will be messengers or guardians from the Gods. You will encounter many of them while traveling the Astral Sea and exploring Astral Dominions, but you might also find them in Churches or Sacred Sites.

Archons will be find among elementals and demons. They are guardians of Giants or Demons, and they might be part of Demon armies. You will meet most of them in the Elemental Chaos or in the Abyss, others in Giant cities or ancient Giantish sites.

 

[IanArgent]

Sure it does. Go back and read the alignment descriptions again. Alignments in 4E are more about what you do, not how you do it.

You can have a chaotic evil character who is randomly and wildly destructive. But you can also have a character who is a meticulous, patient planner--and if he shares the self-centered views of CE, and if destruction is still his goal, he can still be CE.

(Of course, this has been true to some extent of prior editions, but it's more explicit here.)

This might be a bit too much Godwin's Law for some; but I could make the argument here that in Nazi Germany, Hilter could be filed as Chaotic Evil, served by mainly Evil (and some Chaotic Evil) lieutenants; but that the majority of Germans were unaligned, with some of military leaders (Rommel and von Runsdedt come to mind) being Good or even Lawful Good; without necessarily violating their own codes of ethics.

 

[Primal]

This might be a bit too much Godwin's Law for some; but I could make the argument here that in Nazi Germany, Hilter could be filed as Chaotic Evil, served by mainly Evil (and some Chaotic Evil) lieutenants; but that the majority of Germans were unaligned, with some of military leaders (Rommel and von Runsdedt come to mind) being Good or even Lawful Good; without necessarily violating their own codes of ethics.

Nah, that's too 'simulationist' and complex. 4E designers know how things work better than you or me.