New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[Kobold Avenger]

One thing mentioned in this article, that everyone has over-looked is the question about what are Exarchs?

I assume they're something like angels.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Can anyone explain why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental?

It doesn't require the DMG, just table referencing in the MM.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Right, and mythology is treated so well in D&D. Like a race of scaley, half-snake medusa and minotaur instead of a single one. And Gorgons are petrifying-gas breathing metal bulls. But that's valid because it's just always been that way in D&D, right?

Elves are also those things that help build shoes. So why are they tall guys who like magic?

It's in mythology, so it's valid; where are my Cobbler Elves in the PHB?

And what does this have to do with what I said? You downplayed their mythological basis, I said that kind of downplaying was somewhat unjustified. Whether or not mythology is treated well in D&D is irrelevant to that exchange.

Aside from Xenogears, where?

Well, that is one thing that proves my case. Thanks. While it was not intentional, reference to Gnostic Christianity comes up with regards to The Matrix, and there are several other places, though I would need to look them up. The fact that you knew of one immediately, when it does not even use explicit references to Gnosticism, proves my point sufficiently if you ask me.

So unless they've read those three series, they don't qualify as "Most people who read fantasy"?

Why would I claim something so absurd? Don't be ridiculous. But my examples do counter your implicit claim that Dryads are not in any significant fantasy fiction.

 

[Wolfspider]

I don't know, but I sure know the people critical of 4e have.

Had they chosen "Sidhe", there'd be griping about it being inaccurate for some other reason.

If I know people, especially fans, there is no lengths to which they are willing to go to find something to complain about.

They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.

 

[Wolfspider]

When did Gygax seem at all interested in it? He's butchered plenty of mythological concepts.

But, oh wait, that's in the past, and nostalgia makes the things he made better than anything made afterward.

Where did I say that I thought Gygax did everything right?

EDIT: Bah. Pointless bickering.

 

[The Little Raven]

Where did I say that I thought Gygax did everything right?

I never said you did. It's merely the implication that the current developers are upstarts for re-imagining things different from tradition or mythology, while Gygax is often praised for the same exact thing. The only thing that makes it acceptable is the rose-colored glasses that come with nostalgia.

 

[The Little Raven]

They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.

Could we get an explanation of this, please?

 

[Rechan]

They seem much more like sidhe to me than eladrin.

And to the next guy they're not.

So where do you go now?

 

[Rechan]

And what does this have to do with what I said? You downplayed their mythological basis, I said that kind of downplaying was somewhat unjustified. Whether or not mythology is treated well in D&D is irrelevant to that exchange.

1) I don't think they have much of a mythology in the first place.

2) Downplaying mythology is what D&D's been doing for 30 years.

Well, that is one thing that proves my case. Thanks. While it was not intentional, reference to Gnostic Christianity comes up with regards to The Matrix, and there are several other places, though I would need to look them up. The fact that you knew of one immediately, when it does not even use explicit references to Gnosticism, proves my point sufficiently if you ask me.

No, I knew one off the bat because it's the only one that someone has said to me, "That's gnosticism right there". In fact, I didn't even know about it until then. That's not "It's rather common" like you stated if I can only think of one source. Common implies it's all over the place.

If it's so common, I expect you to give me a list of 8-9 off the bat.

Why would I claim something so absurd? Don't be ridiculous. But my examples do counter your implicit claim that Dryads are not in any significant fantasy fiction.

You said "Most people who read fantasy fiction knows what a dryad is". Which implies that most have read books with dryads in them. But you can only name three series that have dryads in them, then surely most fantasy readers have read those three series/books. I've never even heard of the second two, and I've been reading fantasy for over ten years.

You're overgeneralizing what you think "Most" people in any category know or read.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Which is where D&D picked it up from. The only other uses of the word archon are for temporal authorities, which is a far cry from the use Gygax put them to (which is more in line with their Gnostic origins, despite the shoehorning into the alignment system).

Misconception here. Archons are not Gary's creation. I believe Jeff Grubb can be blamed for Archons.

Gary's view of the cosmos was that of just the Deva-Planetar-Solar (NOT ANGELS), along with the real "Cherubim-like" creatures--Lammasu, Shedu, Hollyphants, Moondogs, etc. If you read his articles and the Gord books, those creatures were pretty much incorruptable, occupied all of the Upper Planes. They were so powerful that there were fewer variations needed--A solar could take out 1000 greater demons, for instance. They also appeared to be incorruptable, with statements saying their souls could not be imprisioned or trapped, immune to level drain, etc.

I guess this is why I disliked the 1e and 2e additions to the Upper Planes. I just saw Archons, Guardians, and Eladrin as weak attempts. I really wish people would've fought to preserve the concepts Gary introduced--such as incorruptable Solars (instead of the cliche's even good designers like Mona and Monte Cook did with the "fallen Solars"), or Modrons that were not "clockwork".