Kamikaze Midget said:
You can buy into the idea that Archons are Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven and Slayers of Demons without having to buy into the Great Wheel, Planescape, or any of that. Like how demons and devils are different variations on fiends (one is a rapacious destroyer, one is a subtle manipulator), perhaps Archons and, say, Devas are different variations on Angels (one is a warrior-caste of aggressive angels, the other is more of the "watcher and protector" type).
You don't need any kind of generic or alignment-based angels to keep Archons as Warriors from the Mountain of Heaven.
Actually, I need two things.
One, I need "the Mountain of Heaven" in my cosmology. Now, it might be there, but it might not.
Secondly, I need to have to draw a distinction in my campaign between "Angels" and "Archons." In 3e, "angels" are generic good outsiders who can enter all the "good" planes. Archons are specifically
lawful good outsiders from one particular plane.
Now, you may find "archons" more evocative than angels, but I see angel as pretty generic and capable of encompassing all that was implied by Archons.
Kamikaze Midget said:
Ever read the Bible? Tongues of flame, halos of light, wheels of fire, creatures with swords coming out of their mouths, four-headed chimerae? This is some of the inspiration for the Archons (the Egyptian deities also figured into it, I'm sure).
Guardinals are pretty solidly animistic avatars of good, but Archons have a much stronger tradition of mythic excellence in the various Judeo-Arabic-Christian angelologies. This could have been expanded on, honed tighter, and made more clear, just like the idea of "devils are the corruptors" are being made more clear.
Strangely enough, yes. And I don't recall ever seeing the word "archon" in it. I recall a fair number of references to things you're talking about, and they're all called "angels."
Kamikaze Midget said:
Not especially, if you follow the trail of the word. It means "ruler" in Greek, and was later adopted in certain forms of Judeo-Christian-Arabic angelology with awkward angel titles like "Heirarchies" and "Principalities."
The key word there, as far as I'm concerned, is "angelology." As in "the study of
angels."
Which is what I was saying. Mythologically, "archon" isn't truly a distinctive category from angel. Whatever distinction it possesses in D&D is a result of its use to date - mostly as a part of the
Planescape setting (more on that below). It's kinda like the distinction between "demons" and "devils."
Unpronounceable? Like the Ixitxachitl? I oughtta slap you silly for such an absurd hyperbole. If you're more interested in conversation, come on down to the level of rational discussion, and tell me, briefly, how you would pronounce that word?
Betcha there's a better than 1-in-20 chance you'll get it close enough to right to not matter.
"Archon" is almost as hard to pronounce in English as "Chvarog" is (that's ARK-on, for those asking).
That word is "ish-it-SHACH-ittle," and the reason I brought it up was intentional hyperbole. It was, however, in the AD&D (1e, that is)
Monster Manual, so it's not totally inappropriate. It's the ultimate example of nonsensical spelling in D&D. It's not even, IIRC, made up - it's just an Aztec word.
I'm guessing the word would be pronounced "Chuh-VAR-og," but maybe it's "Kuh-VAR-og." The point is that it's pretty untypical in english to type the letter combo "chv." Maybe I can suss it out, but it's far from standard.
So yes, I freely acknowledge the hyperbole inherent in the
ixitxachitl example, but my point was that simpler is better.
Kamikaze Midegt said:
Did I mention PS anywhere?
No, my argument has a lot more to do with the fact that Wizards just quite frequently blows at coming up with names, and that the old concept of Archons was not so goofy as to be un-salvagable if they applied the same logic to this as they did to the rest of the monsters.
Obviously, they didn't think it worth their time or effort.
Obviously, they need every cool name they can get.
Obviously, this leads to descisions that are kind of dunderheaded in my opinion, including "Archons are now artificially created elemental people" and "Dryads are now mini-treants."
I would not, necessarily, make the same arguments for the guardinals, or the eladrin, or the Great Wheel, or Sigil, or anything else having to do with the old editions' cosmology.
So don't mischaracterize my argument.
I was not intentionally mischaracterizing your argument. As far as I can recall, the first separation I'm aware of in D&D between "Angel" and "Archon" originated with
Planescape. That's irrespective of their original uses in Judeo-Christian mythology, where, IMO, it's pretty hard to get a solid read.
So I regard the specific differentiation of Archons as distinct from Angels as being derived from
Planescape. Personally, I'd have no problem with keeping them separate. I would also have no problem combining the concepts and making use of the "lesser" name for another concept in game.
It sounds to me like you're saying "Where WotC changes things I like, I'm not going to object, but when they change things in ways I don't like, they're being "dunderheaded."
Am I still mischaracterizing your argument?
If so, please explain why Archons, as is, are cool enough to deserve a slot alongside angels? What distinguishes them? Convince me. 'Cuz I'm not seeing it.
At which point, "archon" is just a cool name waiting for a use.
