New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[coyote6]

I can't name you a single fantasy book that has a Dryad in it, so I think you're "Most people who read fantasy" is really reaching, there.

FWIW, one of C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry stories has a dryad in it -- beautiful, magical, life tied to a tree. Paizo just republished the story in one of their Planet Adventure books (which is how and why I just read that particular story). For myself, though, I believe I learned about dryads through reading about Greek mythology when I was a kid; however, that was about the same time I started getting into D&D, so I have no idea where I first encountered the concept.

(Incidentally, that same Moore story also has what appears to me to be the origin of the spell dimension door: the evil sorceress that killed & tortured the dryad reaches behind her like she's turning a doorknob, then teleports away to the faint sound of a closing door. It turns out that she's using some kind of hall of doors that lead to multiple dimensions, but it seems like the clear inspiration for the spell to me.)

 

[Terramotus]

Not to pick on you specifically, but your post had all of the points I wanted to hit.

It had 800 years of it.

The new meanings have....oh.....24 hours now of history now?

If you're trying to tie it back to the Cathars... no. It would actually go back farther. I have no great knowledge of Gnostic texts (and I suspect nobody here does either - yay Wikipedia theology), but archon is a Greek word. Greek gnosticism is much older than that, and I don't believe that Languedoc had any contact with the Greek-speaking world at that time significant enough to have borrowed words. So wrong timestamp.

I have a challenge for you - go to your local game or book and ask people what an archon is. I'm willing to bet that not a single person references gnosticism. If someone does - bonus. You've met someone pretty knowledgable.

Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.....for like 2400 years. Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.

If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.

Banshee

Uh... what exactly are they going to expect, then? As long as they're female and pretty, that sounds pretty compatible with the Greek myths I know. Do a Google Image Search for dryad and see what comes up - the first page is all somewhere in that range. That seems a decent indicator of what most people think of. Besides, Greek myth was never as organized or as universal as most modern books make it out to be and usually served the author's needs.

I'm also going to call BS on any references to modern fantasy and expectations that the 4E designers need to hew closely to it. There's a massive difference between mythology and anything created after the onset of mass culture: self-awareness. The old stuff was local and generated out of the bugbears of the subconscious. Modern works are all works of synthesis and come from a thought-world so different that it's nearly impossible for most modern people to comprehend the actual old mythology.

Witness the attempts to organize it into a cohesive system. "Greek mythology" is largely an invention of certain poets, such as Hesiod and Homer, and of later generations. Everyone worshipped local gods. Why do you think there are so many competing origin stories, multiple names and differing personalities for the same gods? I'm not an ancient Greek scholar, but I have studied it, and I recall that it's probably not an accident that Homer and Hesiod wrote around the time when Greek culture was finally coming into its own and becoming conscious of itself. Their works probably served a similar purpose to help define their culture as Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac did for the United States.

Anyway, the point of that tangent is that modern fantasy is a whole different ballgame. It's put together with a consciousness of what came before from totally different areas, and for a totally different purpose. The portrayal of various mythological creatures in modern fantasy amounts to little more than a temporary fad, as they change so often. The stuff that hits you deep, where you live, is usually the old things, and modern fantasy is like a funhouse mirror held up to it. I think Gaiman's been so successful because he's able to help people tap into that old mindset, not because he's doing anything particularly original. But 20 years ago he would have been weird and out there.

No modern fantasy is on anything more than equal footing with the 4E designers with regard to "mythological truthiness" (with the possible exception of Tolkien, due to his influence), since they're all just modern self-aware syntheses anyway.

Being upset at their moving in a different direction is like calling Star Wars a crappy movie because of the 70s haircuts, or dissing Cyberpunk stuff because it's focused on issues that people thought were important in the 80s. Whatever. Fads change. You may be more attached to a particular older pop mythology, but it's all too far removed from the old real myths to give any of it a superior stamp of authenticity IMO.

 

[Rechan]

Witness the attempts to organize it into a cohesive system. "Greek mythology" is largely an invention of certain poets, such as Hesiod and Homer, and of later generations. Everyone worshipped local gods. Why do you think there are so many competing origin stories, multiple names and differing personalities for the same gods? I'm not an ancient Greek scholar, but I have studied it, and I recall that it's probably not an accident that Homer and Hesiod wrote around the time when Greek culture was finally coming into its own and becoming conscious of itself. Their works probably served a similar purpose to help define their culture as Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac did for the United States.

I'm probably going to have to agree here. I've cross-referenced the Egyptian gods and two Greek Gods (Athena and Artemis), and both times I've checked on Wiki, it always goes on about how they were once this god, with this portfolio, and it transferred into this god, and...

I mean, Look at Bast, who went from a fierce warrior goddess to a domesticated protecter of home of and mothers (according to Wiki again).

One thing I've noticed about the Egyptian Gods is that it's like "This Egyptian God is pretty close, but somewhat different, from this North African God who lived down the street and two blocks West".

 

[TwinBahamut]

But its level of prominence dictates something. As I referenced earlier, elves who make shoes are also in mythology, but they by no means are on equal footing as Hercules. Just because it's there means very little.

Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it somewhere in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.

Also, Hercules himself has no real equivalent in D&D, so even popular stuff that is widely known is on the same level as any other possible inspiration for D&D.

If you go back and read what I said, I said "Rich history firmly rooted in mythology" in a sarcastic manner. Gnosticism was brief and obscure, so it's not a rich history, and again, not deeply rooted if it didn't last a long time.

If a sect of people popped up in the middle of no where for five years and created a Theory of Creation and then died out, and their theories were barely touched upon until late 20th century, that doesn't mean that their theory of creation and all their mythological ideas are on equal, strong, historical footing that have as much literary basis in Western literature and fantasy writing as anything else. It's a snapshot of a small group's ideas that disappeared, compared to legends and lore that have been prevelent for centuries.

An idea is an idea. If it serves as an inspiration for something, it is valid and useful. Long-term relevance to western thought is hardly what I would call an important consideration.

So D&D's downplaying mythology is irrelevent, but using Archons as angels is somehow wrong because it's downplaying mythology in D&D?

I don't have any idea how this relates to things I have said. How many times do I have to say that I am not interested in this line of discussion?

But, if you insist on making me comment on this...

My opinion is that, thanks to the influence of Gnostic christianity, the word "Archon" is a great word for celestial beings, especially since "Archon" does not have the positive connotations that the word "angel" does in English, and it seems that celestials will not be necessarily good-aligned in 4E. Similarly, because of the influences of Zoroastrianism, and I think Hinduism, the words Ashura and Deva are also good terms for celestials that are not necessarily good. The value of these terms is not dependent on mythological accuracy for its own sake (though I do like mythological accuracy), but because these terms have very similar meaning in some usage, and I despise making up meaningless names for things in D&D. Common perception is more important than history.

You're the one making the argument that gnosticism is common in literature. I'm sorry that you are having to back up your claim. If I was making a claim that Janism was influential and common, I would be expected to provide proof of that, because the burden of proof lies on myself.

Ugh, this is what I get for omitting the phrase "relatively widespread in literature despite its fairly obscure origin" because I thought it was unnecessary. Also, I have no objection to backing up my claim. I think I have, myself, and others in this thread have also done so. For what I was claiming, that it has a significant enough influence in fantasy and the popular imagination that it is recognizable, even a few examples is enough.

No.

Really? Interesting.

Short answer? Knights, dragons, magic swords, witches.

Long answer: Do you really want an essay on what I think is common to most fantasy readers?

I was talking about novels and authors, actually, since we were discussing (in a somewhat implicit fashion) whether or not the Chronicles of Narnia or Xanth are widely read and popular or not.

I went back - you're right. I've confused you with Banshee.

Then why are you arguing his point that Most fantasy readers read this stuff if that's not what you think?

I never once argued any point on his behalf. This whole thing started when I was directly responding to your statement "I have never read a book that had Dryads", by citing a few examples of books that had Dryads in them. I was not backing his broad claim, but rather going against your claim (the implicit statement that Dryads are not found in fiction).

In other words, I am not claiming that everyone who reads fantasy should know what a Dryad is, rather I am claiming that knowledge of what a Dryad is classically supposed to be is not uncommon among fantasy. There is a difference between claiming "almost everyone should know it" and "it is common enough that many will". I am claiming the latter, but you are acting as if I am claiming the former.

I never even meant to make more than a single post on the subject, really. I guess it is hard for me to pull away from internet debates...

 

[Terramotus]

Responding in a different post, because the other one was long.

Xenogears, Xenosaga, The Matrix, Scrapped Princess, and probably many things I have never read. That is more than enough. Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?

The Golden Compass too, but that's irrelevant. Let's not turn this into a contest on which religion is cooler.

Point 1) Hardly anyone who's read or watched those works can point to the specific pedigree of those concepts.

Point 2) That particular religious milieu has not permeated Western culture the way Catholicism/Protestantism has. It would be impossible for me to write fiction about a character or god dying on a cross without bringing to mind Christianity. The word archon just isn't culturally loaded that way.

Point 3) It doesn't matter because they're all just syntheses of ancient works anyway. The creators of 4E have no strange obligation to stay true to the vision of the Wachowski brothers, or the writers of Xenogears, or anybody else. When we're dealing with ideas with such a long pedigree, being older by a decade or so doesn't cut it for me.

They're writing modern myth and using the old baggage for emotional oomph, just like the others. If people enjoy the modern myth and the cultural baggage they've chosen to employ works out well, then they've succeeded.

 

[Reaper Steve]

For the most part, I like!

I really appreciate the effort being put in to make a unified cosmology for D&D. I like what I can infer bout all elementals and the changes seem well thought out. However, I do think they may have went a bit too far. I don't think fire archons need a society or explanation for their armor. I think it's good enough for a wizard to summon one of these by instantly creating it from the raw essence of fire pulled from the Elemental Chaos. Where'd it get that armor and sword? Who cares? When you make one, that's what you get!

My biggest gripe: fire archons are rare minis in the DoD set (I have 2!) but this article makes it seem like I need at least 6 ( a leader and 5 followers.)

I only skimmed the last couple pages of this thread, but it seems like its becoming a debate bout mythology. I will say that I think the argument that D&D, esp. 4E is 'bad' or 'wrong' for deviating from Earth's mythology is flawed and unfounded. If it did adhere to mythology, it wouldn't be D&D, it'd be the Mythological Earth RPG.

EVERY game I can think of takes familiar names and words from the past and reuses them. Games Workshop (Warhammer) is probably the largest offender. But I don't really consider it an offense. In fact, it's part of what ensures success... look at all the familiar names and places in Howard's Conan writings.

 

[The Little Raven]

Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it somewhere in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.

This made me chuckle, as I played it out in my head.

"Diminutive, shoe-making elves are a strong enough archetype that they should be replaced with shoe-making gnomes."

 

[kennew142]

Dryads are not obscure critters. And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?). It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR. If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.

I agree that dryads are not obscure creatures. They are found in many literary and artistic references, as well as several fantasy series mentioned previously in this thread. I would disagree that the majority of people who regularly read fantasy have read the Narnia series. I usually have to explain the series to people (even gamers) I talk to. It is my experience that a distinct minority have read it.

I also have to say that the argument about the validity of changing things from their mythological origins is nonsense. Every ancient author had his own take on mythological features. Medieval authors reimagined mythological figures on a regular basis. As I told my college myth class, the mythological figures in Clash of the Titans were no less valid than those same figures in ancient tales. Each author puts his/her own spin on the creatures and characters from mythology. The CotT version is just as valid, even if more recent. I cringe to say it, but the same holds true for that Kevin Sorbo Hercules series.

Mythology was not written in stone, even in the ancient world. Okay, sometimes it may have been. But you be sure that two myths written on stone, from different periods, would differ in many details.

For me, as a classicist and as a gamer, the new dryad is better in the context of a D&D game than the ones depicted in ancient wall paintings. The new version is more useful in a D&D game than the classical version. If you don't like the new version, remove its combat form. It's that easy.

This argument smacks of the attitude that says, I don't want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I don't think anyone else should have that option either.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I hasten to add that just because some mythological names or concepts are included, that does not mean they all require representation, or that they must be rendered as faithfully as possible. Again, this would actually be counter productive.

Also, an invented world can't be completely divorced from all real-world influence. Talislanta attempted this, and it was neat, but ultimately it didn't have traction, in part because one can't really relate to it since everything about it was pure fabrication.

'Archon' is a great name, so D&D should use it. And regardless of the roots, I like Fire Archons and Earth Archons better than Hound Archons.

 

[TwinBahamut]

This made me chuckle, as I played it out in my head.

"Diminutive, shoe-making elves are a strong enough archetype that they should be replaced with shoe-making gnomes."

Err... not really what I meant...