New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[Lackhand]

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.

This is not an unexcellent idea. Archon is a flexible word; I'm perfectly comfortable with having two disparate groups rally under its banner. It means the "vaguely menacing beings from the Elemental Chaos" and the "eldritch-but-benevolent beings that back the flow of magic". Sort of (mostly)-Good-aligned Magic Elementals.

I think a similar take on Guardinals as has been thrown around -- spirit guides -- could be mucho nifty. Throw the lantern and hound archons over to that side of the fence, and there's a pretty nifty outsider split that totally is justified in 4e: The daevic and planetary angels, the eldritch-but-benevolent-towards-seekers-of-knowledge Mystical Archons, and the feral-but-benevolent-towards-spritually-aware Guardianals.

Want to have the groups look the way they used to? Give them a reason to cohabit. Hound archons and lantern archons, being drawn to the spirits of certain kinds of seekers of knowledge (mundane, rote thinkers like many scholars/general wild spirits of intellect?) often work with and identify themselves with Mystic Archons.

Voila.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

The fire archons are cool, but I never had a particular attachment to the old ones. I did like the old-school elementals, however, and I hope they haven't been ditched. It didn't matter that they didn't have any readily understandable society or goals - they're ELEMENTALS! They should be beyond human understanding.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to go along with the new stuff, simply because the 4e core D&D flavour rocks on toast. But if you want that as well as the original archons, here's a tweak to the origins: fire archons weren't formed just from elementals, but from a fusion of the original archons and beings of elemental fire. Not all of them got changed, so there are still the old furry archons out there in the planes somewhere, if you want them.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

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.

Perhaps they're the servants of non-good, or specifically of the evil deities, analogous to but separate from angels?

 

[Soel]

Background is cool enough. I don't like the image (there are a lot cooler Dreamblade minis that need a d&d transferral,) but I can always use the Reth Dekala's likeness (from Tome of Battle.)

 

[D.Shaffer]

Once again, overuse of the word 'cool' and inherent contradictions built into the article.

Honestly, whats going on with this garbage? I was fine with not creating things (except possibly field fortifications). Embodiment of the destructive aspects of fire, but not stupid. Interesting stuff, created for war and all that jazz. Except, for some reason, they do create things, even though they don't. In fact, they're really, really good at it. Sloppy.

At what point did 'Tend to' come to mean 'Never'. There's no contradiction there at all. Making metal weapons and armor are the exception to their general trend, which is why they only 'tend to' destroy instead of create. Their history even goes into detail on how they were designed to be self reproducing, which means they have to embody some sort of creation aspect. (And since that reproduction actually involves forging new armor for it anways...) Considering fire's ties with the forge, metal is one of the things I would associate with elemental fire creatures, especially those with warlike aspects.

As for the creatures themselves...I rather like them. They also seem to cleave a bit more closely to their roots in gnostic belief then the 'classic' DnD archon, and that's always a plus IMO. I'd rather have Cherubim then a Hound Archon for a LG 'furry angel' in any case.

 

[Intrope]

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 .

THIS. Also, their forging ability makes perfect sense in this regard: Forging is the process of using Fire to turn metal in to Weapons. Fire Archons are Fire beings with an inherent passion for weaponry: it makes sense that they would have an instinct for making weapons--and basically nothing else. Note that this means that their ability to forge isn't a skill/knowledge at all, and a Fire Archon probably couldn't make a horseshoe to save it's life! (at least, not any more so than any random schlub could).

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This.

These aren't the "new archons." These are new creatures that have been rather arbitrarily called "archons" because the designers thought it was too cool of a word not to use.

The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste. So far in the game, these have been known as "Archons." It's a good name for extraplanar divine creatures, as the term's history in the Greek language, in gnosticism, and in angelology all work well. This draws parallels without drawing equivalencies, and gives it a sense of history without tying it too tightly to anything too specific. If you do research on the term, you'll find uncanny parallels, so D&D is using the word as a continuation and modification of the myth.

Calling these things archons is like me going around calling halflings nymphs just because it's too cool of a word not to use, "halfling" is kind of a lame term, and you can't fight blindingly beautiful wilderness spirits, so we can't call nymphs nymphs. And besides, a lot of people in 3e thought Lidda was sexy, so there you go, halflings are nymphs.

"It's too cool of a word not to use" is a lame excuse, because I pulled a half-dozen acceptable words out of thin air and a quick Wikipedia search. And if too many of their playtesters or people in-house had trouble pronouncing the words, they can change it to something that works better. The point is that Archon ALREADY had a meaning in D&D that gave it a solid, necessary place for the game (evil-smiting angels vs. protecting angels; just like devils and demons are different kinds of fiends). Maybe not every specific creature was inspiring, but that role still needs to be filled, and this article doesn't tell me why the name "Archon" couldn't stay in the same role, a role that it made good sense in. Instead, it was appropriated for a completely unrelated creature.

The "new Archons" will be the creatures that fill the role of crusading angelic evil-smiters. These things are not the new Archons. They're just a new monster with a name selected for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Intrope]

Perhaps they're the servants of non-good, or specifically of the evil deities, analogous to but separate from angels?

Exarchs probably aren't 'Evil Angels'--in the Monsters podcast the encounter in Dispater's fortress Angels of Vengeance were considered for inclusion in the encounter. I'm thinking that Angel is the generalized term for certain kinds of servants of Gods--Good, Evil or indifferent.

Granted, I doubt Asmodeus employs any Angels of Peace, Love and Joy!

As to what Exarch might be--who knows? The name makes me think of the Inevitables, but that probably means I need more coffee

 

[DJCupboard]

I really like the new direction the archon name is going, but for them to say there is no real-world cultural basis for animal-headed celestials is just silly

 

[Beckett]

The thing is, the game will STILL need a "divine crusader of good from the outer planes" kind of creature-caste. So far in the game, these have been known as "Archons." It's a good name for extraplanar divine creatures, as the term's history in the Greek language, in gnosticism, and in angelology all work well. This draws parallels without drawing equivalencies, and gives it a sense of history without tying it too tightly to anything too specific. If you do research on the term, you'll find uncanny parallels, so D&D is using the word as a continuation and modification of the myth.

How about "angel"? Or maybe "deva"? A quick flip through the dictionary shows either of those as more appropriate than "archon", which means "game played with multiple monsters on a modified chess board".