New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[LoneWolf23]

What bugs me is that these Fire Archons are Archons in name only... They're not Lawful Good, and have absolutely no connection to any of the previous kinds of Archons from 3.x.

...Of course, as I understand it, that was the basic idea. Apparantly, Wizards seems to think that a new edition of D&D needs "Newer, Cooler" monsters. This strategy gives me mixed feelings, to be honest.

 

[JohnSnow]

What bugs me is that these Fire Archons are Archons in name only... They're not Lawful Good, and have absolutely no connection to any of the previous kinds of Archons from 3.x.

...Of course, as I understand it, that was the basic idea. Apparantly, Wizards seems to think that a new edition of D&D needs "Newer, Cooler" monsters. This strategy gives me mixed feelings, to be honest.

Is that because you liked Archons the way they were? If so, fair enough. But that's a matter of opinion. Many of us like the new ones a whole lot better than the old.

So it looks to me like what we've got is some people clinging to what an Archon was in 3e as a sacred cow.

And they weren't ever going to be Lawful Good, 'cuz in 4e nobody's lawful good.

I'd like someone to explain to me why, without 9 alignments, we need more than just "angels" as "servants of the gods." Anyone?

Please. I want the explanation.

 

[Stogoe]

I remember that Dreamblade mini - I agree with them, it rocked. Hard. The article is amazing, and I would love to have rules to play one as a PC.

 

[Voss]

That depends. I don't necessarily think we do, but I'll take a stab at it. If its just a generic term, then probably not. But if it means people shaped outsiders with wings on, yeah, we do. Some gods won't have those.

 

[Rechan]

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.

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.

Look. I'm not trying to argue with you the True Nature of Knowledge or Imagination or Mythology, or anything like that.

I'm talking about level of prominence and significance.

Hercules is a much more prominent figure in mythology and collective history. Thus, he's got more mythological traction than shoe elves.

Have Shoe Elves gotten their own TV show? Inspired countless books and movies? Been told about for ages? No? Then they're not as impressive from a historical or mythological standpoint as Hercules. They lose compared to popularity.

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.

Wait, what?

Are you saying that archon is okay?

I thought this whole time you were arguing that Archon was stolen from gnosticism and that's bad because it has its own mythology with gnosticisim and it's not okay to have that mythology corrupted?

If you think Archon is okay to be stolen and stapled to extra-planar fire guys who fight wars for Gods and stuff, then why are we arguing?

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 honestly have no clue.

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.

When you put it like that, I can't disagree. Perhaps the disconnect is that in the above, when I see "Many", I read "Most".

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...

Tell me about it.

 

[Rechan]

I think that "These guys aren't Archons, they're just fire guys who aren't angels" is an example of a larger trend for 4e.

It seems that the 4e guys are just taking good names (Archon, Eladrin), and dropping them on something else that's Kiiinda but not really like it. "Archon serves gods, on another plane? Okay, check." "Eladrin look kinda like elves? Okay, check."

On the Podcast of Monsters, when asked "What monster wasn't done very well" or something like that, Wyatt said, "The Lamia. It's a good name, but bad execution. We're going to keep the name around." Suggests they're going to put the Lamia name on some other monster, rather than just convert the 3e Lamia because it's just sitting there collecting dust.

I don't really have a problem with this. I've never cared for the Planes. I've never used them at all in an adventure, ever went to them, and never attached much significance to most things in D&D.

But it seems that, if it isn't complaining over taking a good name and stapling it to something else, it's complaints over NounNoun Monster names, or Wuxia/Anime Name names.

Nothing the 4e designers do seems right. So I'm just taking this with another grain of salt.

 

[Incenjucar]

My impressions:

I like the look. It's not terribly original, but it's common for a reason: it looks darned spiffy.

The concept is alright. It's not terribly inspired, but there's plenty of room for unique societies of the things, and they have plenty of possible associations with the azer in particular. That they're mercenaries by nature means they can even be made to work for good provided they get to do some serious ruining in the process.

The writing could really use an editor's love. This has been true for a lot of what I've been reading, from the Elf entry to the Races and Classes book. I'm sure there's a good reason behind it, what with the immense amount of work this edition is, but ...gah.

The marketing talk I absolutely abhor. I doubt the writers get a choice, but this pandering marketing language is just one step from "pro-active where-its-at to the x-treme."

I also agree on the dissing of old editions being irritating. I always just considered elementals more or less entities who pretty much just zenned constantly until someone went and interrupted their drifting through the elemental planes. An educated, mature writer should have no trouble describing "new and improved" without having to snub their nose at what has come before. Especially when a PR concern is at hand.

So, anyways. This is nice. Just hope they stop being so abusive to language and ideas.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Look. I'm not trying to argue with you the True Nature of Knowledge or Imagination or Mythology, or anything like that.

I'm talking about level of prominence and significance.

Hercules is a much more prominent figure in mythology and collective history. Thus, he's got more mythological traction than shoe elves.

Have Shoe Elves gotten their own TV show? Inspired countless books and movies? Been told about for ages? No? Then they're not as impressive from a historical or mythological standpoint as Hercules. They lose compared to popularity.

Well, to varying extents, the Smurfs, the Keebler Elves, the Minish from Legend of Zelda, and the old cartoon David the Gnome all fit into the "Shoe Elf" concept, not to mention the classic Santa's Elves.

Honestly, I wonder if Hercules has as much prominence and significance in the modern day as that concept. You can't sell cookies with Hercules... People can't even get his proper Greek name Heracles right (so you end up with Hercules, the son of Zeus, ugh...).

Wait, what?

Are you saying that archon is okay?

I thought this whole time you were arguing that Archon was stolen from gnosticism and that's bad because it has its own mythology with gnosticisim and it's not okay to have that mythology corrupted?

If you think Archon is okay to be stolen and stapled to extra-planar fire guys who fight wars for Gods and stuff, then why are we arguing?

Well, I don't know.

However, I would prefer it if they just called the new Archons by the old name Elementals... Rather than leave elementals boring, only useful as the raw material for the cool creatures, I would have preferred Fire Archons to be just Fire Elementals or something. My biggest problem is that I wish more was done with Elementals, and they got rid of the nonsensical "faceless being made wholly of one element, all the same" issue. They really didn't fix anything.

I also admit to just liking the names Trumpet Archon and Tome Archon (which should have matching Sword, Staff, Orb, etc Archons). I prefer that design scheme to the Planetar/Solar scheme you see with Angels.

I honestly have no clue.

Fine enough. I really have no idea either. Names like Vance and Leiber are common around here, but I never even heard of them outside of ENWorld, so I can't claim I know much about what is popular and commonly read among fantasy fans.

When you put it like that, I can't disagree. Perhaps the disconnect is that in the above, when I see "Many", I read "Most".

I see how that could lead to confusion. Again, sorry for starting this whole mess by butting into someone else's argument.

Tell me about it.

Even now I can't stop debating with you... Internet debates are just too addicting.

 

[med stud]

I like these creatures. They behave like fire in that they replicate, conquer, don't rebuild and finally they die out when there is nothing left to conquer.

The looks of them are good too and I don't care if they make masterwork swords and armor even while it's said that they don't manufacture stuff. You could say that magpies aren't creative and they don't build stuff even if they build their own nests; I don't think one exception is enough to be outraged of that issue.

I don't care two cents about how they use the name archon. IMO D&D has always mangled mythologies so the less they pretend that they are interpreting mythological phenomena the glader I am .

 

[helium3]

Regardless of the name, the Fire Archon (who I first thought would be a good creature) does look mighty awesome. Which brings me to:

I like that one a lot more than the ones in the articles. The background of the horde of fire creatures is a bit over done.

What's really cool is that picture looks like it belongs in my copy of Illustrated Tolkien.