New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[TwinBahamut]

Snipped for space...

First, I will say that the version of Archons I mentioned above is indeed a complete reimagining, which is not exactly rooted in either previous D&D lore, or in the exact idea of Gnostic Archons. However, it is rooted in a very common archetype of "angel" that is see fairly widely in modern culture, which does have some connections to various Christian ideas of angels (including Gnostic Archons).

It is not so much that 3E archons were distinctive. After all, I did not consider devils, demons, or any kind of celestial or outsider to be interesting at all in the last edition. However, I think they can be redesigned the same way 4E has redesigned devils and demons to be more distinct and interesting.

I want to use the name Archon for something like this simply because it has traction for this kind of usage.

As for the distinction... Archons as messengers of some Cthulu-esque entity is somewhat appropriate. Another idea may be they are the servants of the gods who came before the pantheon of gods who created humans and other humanoids. The most important distinctions are that my idea of Archons do not resemble humans at all. They are alien and monstrous in both form and thought. They would use claws, gaze attacks, and magic rather than weapons. They would be the kinds of beings who would seek to eliminate all evil in the world, without being good themselves. They are something that can be either an ally or an enemy, depending solely on alien logic (unlike evil outsiders or far-realms creatures, which are almost always going to be enemies, and angels, who I think should almost always be allies).

As for the gods they serve... Well, I don't know the answer to your questions. I don't think anyone on ENWorld knows a lot about how gods and celestials work exactly in 4E... Maybe after Worlds and Monsters is released.

Edit: I guess I should explain more clearly why I don't like Fire Archons as they have been described in the article, and why they don't qualify for what I want...

The big reason is that they are not spirits of any kind. They are living weapons made of fire, not champions of any kind of ideal. They were originally created by primordials, but they continue on without the primordials, and have no necessary loyalty or connection to them. In the end, they are identical to the elementals of old, except they have weapons, and I find them just as boring as the old elementals.

Give me genies, sylphs, gnomes, salamanders, and undines, not these "Fire Archons", and then I will be happy. Faceless lumps of element will never be interesting, no matter what culture or name you give it.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Well Primordial means "first created." And, if you don't mind stepping back to look at the mythological view, consider the following.

In Greek Myth, the first ("primordial") gods were the titans. They had a pretty strong association with the elements.

In Norse Myth, the gods created the universe from the carcass of the slain frost giant - Ymir. Giants have a very strong "elemental" association, with the presence of fire giants, and the like.

According to the article, the Primordials counted giants amongst their servants. They were the "consummate creators" - something that's consistent with their name. And their Archon

In modern concepts, "Primordial" could be thought of as "elemental." Assuming they were consistent, I think it's highly likely that the Primordials are strongly elementally-aligned. Would that make this more palatable to you?

Moreover, they've decided that any outsiders that do elemental damage should properly have the elemental type - so the djinni, efreeti, and salamanders all "elementals" in 4e. In that company, I have no problem with Archon "elementals" as the former servants of Primordial godlike beings.

And, as I pointed out previously, the "regular elementals" apparently aren't gone either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They weren't either. They were servants of the demiurge. A god, but not really the right god... Because he keeps tryin (possibly through no real ill will towards us) to keep a man down.

Right, but the question is, what plays the role of the "demiurge" in D&D4? Is it the Primordials? Is it the Gods? Is it both?

By calling these things Archons, they might be implicating the Primordials as their demiurge stand-in, the group that's basically not good for humanity.

They were formed to fight the gods. And again, now a long time later the primordial lost. Its forces are scattered, and the means by which it used to create its forces is known, and used by people in a world full of people who can actually do magic stuff.

Not bad...I'm comin' around....it still kind of remains to be seen, but this is sounding less insane than I assumed.

When I said celestial I meant in the non D&D sense. As in beings that are from another plane of existence. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

That's a little part of the problem. Because if godlike beings/primordials/whatever don't actually have anything to do with the Elemental Chaos (which is the way it was in previous editions, though it might change now), then we're back with these things not REALLY having anything to do with the Primordials, except through a meaningless origin story. Which might actually be fine.

I'd say depends on the god? Why have a generic catch all?

I'd agree, some just seem really excited about the "Angel of X" ideas.

FWIW, this:

The big reason is that they are not spirits of any kind. They are living weapons made of fire, not champions of any kind of ideal. They were originally created by primordials, but they continue on without the primordials, and have no necessary loyalty or connection to them. In the end, they are identical to the elementals of old, except they have weapons, and I find them just as boring as the old elementals.

Is something I agree with. If the conception of 4e Primordials is more akin to this:

In modern concepts, "Primordial" could be thought of as "elemental." Assuming they were consistent, I think it's highly likely that the Primordials are strongly elementally-aligned. Would that make this more palatable to you?

then yes, calling them "Archons" passes my "does it make sense to call them this" litmus test.

 

[kennew142]

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.

On the other hand, I think aboleths, mindflayers, beholders, slaad, githyanki, death knights, etc... are far more interesting in the context of an rpg than dryads, nymphs, satyrs, etc...

I say this as a classicist and a gamer. Sometimes the creations of game designers are more interesting than the classics.

 

[JohnSnow]

I want to use the name Archon for something like this simply because it has traction for this kind of usage.

AHA! At last we come to it. You feel that the name "Archon" has traction for usage as the typename for "alien" or "monstrous" angels.

Why?

Not to be dense, but that certainly bears no real relation to their prior representation in D&D. So that's not where they get this traction you speak of. If they have any traction in D&D, it's as the "non-evil militaristic outsider."

Are we back to gnostic texts? 'Cuz the degree of traction associated with an obscure part of a religion that's been extinct for a thousand years is, in my opinion, questionable. However, if that's your basis, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think "Archon" has any kind of traction as representing the "alien angel" archetype. Certainly, it could be tweaked to work there, but as long as the primordials have an elemental association, I can also buy archons as the "elemental angels," rather than the monstrous or alien kind. And that would still be consistent with their association with Primordials.

Especially given that efreeti are from the same part of the world at about the same time period.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think "Archon" has any kind of traction as representing the "alien angel" archetype.

Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).

Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.

Is kind of how that goes.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

How is that statement any different than "I want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I think everyone else should have to use it also - if they don't want it, they can take the time to create a new version that is not like that"?

In a perfect world, they'd have both, or heck, five different types, or maybe 200 different types. But the dryad is one creature, and they're not going to focus that much attention on one creature...particularly a "minor" one (nor should they). But as a consumer looking at it, and facing making a buying decision, it's yet one more item in the camp of "don't like it". Get enough of those, and as a consumer, I'll have to make the decision of whether or not I'm interested in spending any more money on the game, if I'm going to have to spend time changing so much of it.

Up-thread it was mentioned that the new dryad might be a better fit within the context of the D&D game, and that could be a completely valid statement. It doesn't mean it's *better* than the alternate.....the game doesn't *have* to be just about trading beatings with monsters. I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative. There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already. I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel. That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is. And I ask "if they're so intent on siloing monsters and character abilities to reduce overlap, why do we now have 3 variants on an Ent-type creature? ie. Treant, Shambling Mound, and Dryad. How many fighting plant creatures do we need"?

Banshee

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nevermind!

 

[JohnSnow]

Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).

Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.

Is kind of how that goes.

Okay. So, then the appropriateness of the term "Archon" depends on the nature of the Creator God (or creator gods) in the D&D cosmology, right? From what we've been told, it looks like our creator gods are the "Primordials" who've been mentioned in this article, as well as the earlier "Cosmology" and "Demons & Devils" articles.

So if the Primordials are Cthulian, then "Archons" should be "alien" outsiders.

However, if the Primordials are elemental, then "elemental" Archons makes all kinds of sense. Personally, I think this is likely, and as evidence, I submit the following quote from the Design & Development article on "Cosmology."

The natural world was created from the infinite expanse of the Elemental Chaos (or Tempest, or Maelstrom), a place where all fundamental matter and energy seethes. Floating continents of earth, rivers of fire, ice-choked oceans, and vast cyclones of churning clouds and lightning collide in the elemental plane.

Assuming those who did the creating were in fact the primordials, their creations all derived from the Elemental Chaos. Which to me implies that was their home and their very nature was elemental. But hey, I'm just guessing.

By the way, "Ice Archons" were mentioned in the cosmology article.

 

[The Little Raven]

Demiurge = Creator God = God of the Book of Genisis/OT, where Ezekiel Saw The Wheel, and where a lot of the alien angel basis comes from (apocalyptic lit for the win!).

Servents of Demiurge = Servents of Creator God = Servants of the God of Gensis/OT = Those alien angels.

Is kind of how that goes.

The Gnostics identified the Demiurge with the god of the Old Testament, and not of the New. They believed him to be the creator of the physical, but not the Supreme Being. The Demiurge can only create the physical in imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed. The Demiurge also has a mother, Sophia.

Now, since this all completely contradicts the beliefs of the vast majority of Christianity, one would find plenty of argument that the Demiurge is not the God of Genesis.