New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[IanB]

That wikipedia just confirms my point, I think. The elementals we have in D&D have very little to do with the medieval depictions of gnomes, water ladies, and fiery flying lion things.

If the elementals we were kicking to the curb with 4e were gnomes, undines, salamanders, and sylphs, then I might be a little sadder, but they're not - they're far less interesting than any of those things.

The elemental beings described in the Elric books are a better match, I'll agree - but I suspect that Grome and pals will still have their analogues in 4e, much as they have in prior editions.

 

[Banshee16]

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?


Aside from Xenogears, where?


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

I don't remember the Alfar and Dock-Alfar being cobbler elves. Nor the Sidhe, who, if not a direct inspiration for D&D elves, *were* one of Tolkien's inspiration for elves in middle-earth....which in turn were a source of inspiration for D&D elves.

Banshee

 

[Dormammu]

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.

And this is where I strongly feel D&D is in danger of going the wrong way. If there is one consistent thing you can say about D&D, it is that it's based on real myths and legends. Whether it be indirect use of Scandinavian legend by way of Tolkien, Greek myths, Arabian folklore, Asian animism, Medieval superstition, Judeo-Christian apocrypha... almost everything in D&D comes from these real world sources.

As soon as you replace them with fan fiction, you get a different game. There's nothing wrong with different games. There are a lot of different RPGs out there that are fantastic. But they aren't D&D. Changing D&D that fundamentally but keeping the name on it because you own the copyright is a bad decision. It's a bad decision on many levels. It's also lazy, because you can accomplish the stated goals without doing it that way.

Unfortunately, the current designers don't have as much sense in this regard as Gygax. They're much better game designers, but vastly inferior worldbuilders.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Thank you

Banshee

 

[Wormwood]

Whether it be indirect use of Scandinavian legend by way of Tolkien, Greek myths, Arabian folklore, Asian animism, Medieval superstition, Judeo-Christian apocrypha... almost everything in D&D comes from these real world sources.

Such 'kitchen sink' thinking resulted in the Great Wheel, which was as evocative and flavorful as a shopping mall map.

Shedu and lamassu and ki-rin and brownies? Yeah, I'm gonna pass---they belong in one of those 'urth/oerth/ooorth' pastiche worlds.

 

[Dormammu]

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.

Hm, I guess I never noticed the intelligence creep of Elementals. They are a little smarter in 3E than in 1E... I had never looked at their Int stat in the 3E Monster Manual, assuming they were still basically animalistic. Thanks for pointing that out. So hopefully, they'll still exist in that more base form consistent with both 1E and medieval belief.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But in the end, this really comes down to opinion. Some people clearly believe that the archons as "animal-headed angels" were a sacred cow worth preserving. The designers obviously felt they'd "make fine rump roast."

If the old archons weren't one of your sacred cows, you're probably fine with this. If they were, you're probably upset.

That is a gross mischaracterization of at least my opposition to the fire guys being called "archons." The archons were never "animal headed angels" to begin with. This isn't about them killing off my favorite monster or whatever. This is about them using what I see as boneheaded logic to mess with one of the very reasons I play D&D. It ain't for animal-headed angels.

Archons fighting gods seems a lot more in line with the source then Archons suddenly serving gods.

Depends on how close you want to take the gnostic association. If the "archons" were general servants of gods (which I'd have no major problem with), you could take that to mean that these gods are really false pretenders. This ties in with 4e's philosophy on gods being killable at epic level: the gods are just very powerful beings, not true personifications of forces.

If the "archons" were general enemies of the gods, they would have to work for a pretender. But they don't do that, either. They work for themselves.

Because the dog headed Archon had already lost traction. It was done, and will always be the dog headed angel thing. That was its traction really.

So good riddance. What about the archon with scrolls for wings, or the archon that wielded a grand trumpet or the archon who judged the guilty and the innocent, or the ones that resembled balls of light straight out of biblical reference? The old archons were mostly a race that resembled semi-biblical angels, and the parallels between them and the devils of the Nine Hells seems intentionally drawn. With the story of the devils being officially "fallen angels" now, those archons are needed now more than ever.

This new thing is cool, but it doesn't need to take an inappropriate name to be cool. Halflings are cool and their name sucks in every edition that they weren't called Hobbits in.

Archons in gnostic belief are celestials that serve the antithesis of the true gods.

Archons in 3e are celestial beings that serve the gods.

Archons in 4e are celestial beings that were created by the antihesis of the D&D gods.

So what that they continue the story and say the antithesis lost?

Created by the antithesis of the D&D gods? Really? Because I got the impression that they were created in magical forges by anyone who wanted to.

As far as the Primordials bit goes...maybe...but they're not celestial beings, servants, or messengers of the Primordials. They are free-willed, autonomous, and associated with their own actions, not the actions of their creators. They're not from a higher plane or invested with more divine energy. They're on fire....but I'd imagine water archons would be damp and earth archons will be dusty, so it's not really sounding like they're celestial beings at all. Elemental beings. Unless the Primordials are strongly associated with the elements (which is entirely possible, and would be pretty cool), I'd say the association is pretty weak. Still, it could be made stronger....

Possibly something I can buy. Possibly they considered what the word meant. Still a little potentially weak, put possibly not as boneheaded as I assumed based on the reasons given in the article.

And there's still the niggling detail of "what do you call your good celestial armada?" then. "Angels" would be fine, but then what are your god-servants, if they have a generic name, to be called? A bit of a snowball effect.

 

[JohnSnow]

Unfortunately, the current designers don't have as much sense in this regard as Gygax. They're much better game designers, but vastly inferior worldbuilders.

Gygax wasn't a worldbuilder.

When you read his playlogs, they were just vast forays into dungeons full of monsters. I don't think there was anything to "Greyhawk" except for the City of.

His monster book is a disjointed hodgepodge of mythological creatures and made-up ones with mythological (or invented) names. And he didn't CARE that it was a kitchen sink approach. Because he was writing a toolkit for people to make their own game, rather than a game people could play "out of the box" so to speak.

There's nothing wrong with that approach, but let's be clear about what he was doing. Gary was providing a "framework" for fantasy roleplaying. That's all. He was most emphatically not providing a ready-to-play game or game world.

Do you really want to go there and start picking apart the "generic-ness" of the system's conceits?

Law-Chaos dichotomy
Great Wheel Cosmology
Orcs...and three separate goblin races
Subraces - need I say more?
Fire and forget magic
The 8 philosophical "schools" of magic
Arcane/divine magic division
Oriental monks interacting with mounted knights

Shall I go on?

 

[Banshee16]

There's also a half-Dryad in David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean (the chief heroine, in fact), so I agree that they're not exactly obscure.

However, I have no problem with Dryads, who are nature spirits, having a "combat form" in D&D. Make a nod to the original myth by saying they often appear to be "nymphs, elf-maids, or beautiful human women." And then mention that, when provoked, they can turn nasty.

That would certainly work.

It can work as you've described. It's definitely different, and, I think, unnecessary, but it can work. Given they were tree sprites who had to be catered to before people could cut down trees, or enter certain woodlands etc. mystical powers would have been sufficient. The 2nd Ed. Hamadryad had those....it had the whole tree sprite thing going on, but they were also fairly powerful spellcasters with nature based powers. And frankly, I'd prefer that than having them turn into a wooden thug to lay a beating on your PCs. Admittedly, that can be as much personal preference as anything.

But the whole idea of temptress/victim/spirit/guardian rather than mini-treant is a heck of a lot more like how they're traditionally seen in most fantasy that I've read.

Banshee

 

[Dormammu]

Such 'kitchen sink' thinking resulted in the Great Wheel, which was as evocative and flavorful as a shopping mall map.

Shedu and lamassu and ki-rin and brownies? Yeah, I'm gonna pass---they belong in one of those 'urth/oerth/ooorth' pastiche worlds.

Well this is the part of D&D that is a toolkit imo. You don't have to use everything in the Monster Manual. I guess when it comes down to it, I am more interested in the writings of ancient Greeks than in those of R.A. Salvatore. I don't think anything these guys write for 4E will be remembered in 20 years. I prefer the creatures that kids have heard about for centuries. They have more common appeal and magic in my experience. Zombies and vampires, good. Corpsegathers and gravecrawlers, bad.