New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[Dormammu]

Beat me to it. I want to like 4e, I know it's time for a new edition and it's important to the future of the game that the next edition remains popular.

But every time the designers spew out their fluff text it makes me nauseous to see how they've mangled it.

I also feel this way. The fluff writing is just more Warhammer and Warcraft to me. Basing things on ancient myths is cool. Basing things on bad fiction written by people who wouldn't be successful as authors is dull and irritating.

Elementals were boring before? The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore. Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting? Isn't there room for both?

 

[IanB]

Elementals were boring before? The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore. Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting? Isn't there room for both?

Certainly elemental spirits are part of mythic folklore. However, the regular old elementals we have in 3.5 and prior editions don't have much to do with that. We have a bunch of *other* monsters that already describe the 'mythic elemental spirit' much better - nereids, genies, salamanders, etc - leaving regular elementals basically one niche in the game at all, as summoning fodder. Yawn.

 

[Dormammu]

The different races of evil humanoids fall into two categories. The first is sacred cow aspect. D&D has ALWAYS had kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls and ogres.

Hey now! Bugbears go above Gnolls, not below them!

You'll notice that the race I left out is the bugbear. Which I'm not sure has a distinctive enough niche to BE kept. It's role is basically "kinda like an orc, or a big goblin." I'm not sure if Warhammer didn't get this one right by just making orcs goblinoids and dumping bugbears.

I actually think Bugbears are more interesting than Hobgoblins, personally. I think to differentiate them you play up the stealthy element and the animalistic appearance. Imagine being stalked by bear-men in the forest... they are the hunters and you are the hunted, etc. You don't hear them coming and then they are on you like a ton of bricks. Kinda cool and scary I think. The Hobgoblin schtick is less interesting to me because the social structure of evil humanoids is usually less relevant to play than is the way you interact with them on a small unit/skirmish level.

 

[JohnSnow]

Angels are any good; Archons are LG only. Angels serve specific deities; Archons serve their Archon leaders (BOED). That's really about it.

Okay. I'm familiar with that distinction.

Please explain how this difference applies in a world where there's no Lawful-Chaotic alignment axis. Any idea? 'Cuz I sure can't figure it out.

All I come up with is this. Angels serve deities. By contrast, Archons are like the knights-errant of the cosmos. Is that it?

 

[Wormwood]

Basing things on ancient myths is cool.

No, not so much.

Just because you can find something tucked away in Bullfinch's doesn't necessarily mean it translates into a consistent, fun gaming experience.

In other words, I prefer to see game elements which are designed specifically with the game in mind.

 

[Banshee16]

It's because Eladrin invokes "Eldar," which were the super awesome elves that went to Arda when they were called by Manwe... just like the eladrin were elves that were called into the Feywild by Corellon.



Because sidhe live in mounds in the earth, which is where the name is derived from. Not really celestial elves if you read the real mythology.



Sounds like a creative limitation to me.

They didn't really live in "mounds in the earth". The mounds were basically gateways into the Otherworld where they lived. Similar to going through the wardrobe to enter Narnia. Hence, they were basically outerplanar creatures.

Personally, I rather like the whole idea of these mounds that could be entered by mortals, who had to do certain things, like walk around the mound backwards three times, while rehearsing a nursery rhyme, and hopping on one foot, in order to open the gate. That, to me, is pretty fantastical stuff. And it creates a need to do research into the setting, which roots the players into the world, and is more ritualistic than simply casting a spell and "poof, you're there".

That's not creatively limited at all.

Banshee

 

[Dormammu]

Certainly elemental spirits are part of mythic folklore. However, the regular old elementals we have in 3.5 and prior editions don't have much to do with that. We have a bunch of *other* monsters that already describe the 'mythic elemental spirit' much better - nereids, genies, salamanders, etc - leaving regular elementals basically one niche in the game at all, as summoning fodder. Yawn.

You're mixing up a few things there. Nereids are part of the Greek scheme of nature spirits; not technically elemental. They are associated with bodies of water, not water itself. Genies are Arabian, of course. Although genies were sometimes associated with something we call an element (most often fire), they were not considered "elemental". Salamander is the classical name for a fire elemental such as we know elementals in D&D. Salamanders in D&D are something different; essentially a double use of fire elemental concept.

See wikipedia for more on actual elementals. The Elric books also make good and interesting use of the concept of indifferent elemental spirits. They're worth keeping, in my opinion. You can have other elemental things too.

 

[Banshee16]

Archons exist only in some gnosist texts.

Wow, rich history firmly rooted in mythology there, Bob.


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.

Go back and try reading a few original sources, like Ovid's Metamorphoses, or basic children's references books on Greek mythology etc.

They're also known as Wood Nymphs, and were featured in Chalker's "Dancing Gods" series, as well as in Terry Brooks' "Magic Kingdom for Sale" novels....though he called them Sylphs in that book....they were still basically green-skinned/haired tree nymphs, though in their case, instead of being tied to an oak tree in the middle of a forest, they would put down roots and turn into a tree at night to rest, instead of sleeping as humans do. I think the character's name was "Willow".

I can keep going if you'd like.

As to your statement about archons, disregarding your snide comment, you still haven't addressed the fact that there *are* references to these creatures.....and in books dating a lot further back than D&D 4E.

Banshee

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Please explain how this difference applies in a world where there's no Lawful-Chaotic alignment axis. Any idea? 'Cuz I sure can't figure it out.

A Lawful and Chaotic axis still exists, as I remember the statement about Paladins and why they're no longer Lawful Good only, was that they stated that they didn't want to make 9 different classes to fill that role.

 

[JohnSnow]

Elementals were boring before? The concept of an elemental spirit is part of mythic folklore. Why do you have to throw that out to come up with another elemental creature you personally find interesting? Isn't there room for both?

From what they've said, there's nothing wrong with "elemental spirits." What I think they're planning to do is the following.

Make the base "elementals" more like the creatures of folklore - that is, instinctual creatures closer to animal intellect. That opens up a niche: the "intelligent elemental." Into this category, they can put things like the Fire Archon.

Under that approach, the classic elementals are more like animals, and you don't have to worry about their "society" on their home plane. But the elemental chaos can still have a society, and there are intelligent beings in that society other than just the efreeti, djinni, and their earth and water analogues.

At least, that's what it looks like to me. And, to support my point, I'll quote the article, which I think says it all. 4e will have both.

From Ecology of the Fire Archon
Of course, elementals -- those beings of the four elements that exist so people can summon them and put them in dungeons -- still exist in 4th Edition. We've given them a new story and some clean but cool mechanics, but this article isn't about them. It's about how else we filled the void for interesting elementally based creatures.