New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[kennew142]

I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition. It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff. Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia? I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast. You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't). In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it. And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird. No, I think it's a ratio thing. If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.

I'm not necessarily in favor of ditching the old stuff either. I'm just pointing out that there are some good creatures that have been created in the modern era. I can't remember specifically what was created for 3e, but I also like kaorti, ethergaunts, neogi and several other creatures that are in the current edition.

The archons and guardinals as currently written, I can definitely live without.

Everyone has their own style and preferences however. I prefer a campaign where monsters are rare, mysterious and very powerful, where the enemies are other humanoids.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yeah.. I kind of hope it's akin to that scene in Fellowship where Gandalf get's pissed off at Bilbo and goes all freaky for a second...

Or Galadriel being tempted by the Ring?

Or even Bilbo's grab for the ring at Rivendell - complete with "scary monster face."

 

[TwinBahamut]

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."

Not quite. I think the term "Archon" has traction as a name for celestial servants of deities/exalted beings, even outside of D&D. The "alien angel" is my own spin on it, something I imagined as a way to separate Archons from Angels without abandoning their celestial nature completley if you wanted to have both, the same way Devils and Demons are now separated in 4E.

Also, separate from the name Archon, the idea of "alien angels" does have traction, in both long standing ideas of angels (such as in Paradise Lost) and in modern pop culture. Such creatures should be in D&D (though I have not seen anything like them in 3E). They should be represented in some form in 4E. However, I don't think the word "angel" fits perfectly for this usage, and I don't want them to necessarily be the primary form of angels (classic benevolent winged humans have a place), so some other label like "archon", "deva", or "asura" that is commonly used with angelic beings would fit them well.

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.

I will just leave these alone as a result of misunderstanding...

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.

Here is where our opinions are somewhat at odds.

If the new Fire Archons actually resembled or served as "elemental angels" in any shape or form, I would have no problem with them. "Elemental angel" is just as valid and interesting of a way to make Archons distinct as "alien angel". In fact, I liked the terms "Fire Archons" and "Ice Archons" when they were first mentioned, because I liked the idea of elemental angels.

I am disappointed by this article because "Fire Archons" are just another type of boring living flame, and have no resemblance to angels or celestials of any kind. I was hoping for elemental angels, and got just elementals instead.

The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute. However, Fire Archons don't have anything to do with being angels, and do nothing to make use of that traction.

 

[Scribble]

Or Galadriel being tempted by the Ring?

Or even Bilbo's grab for the ring at Rivendell - complete with "scary monster face."

Exactly... On the prime, things are a bit more comforting... But enter the feywild...

 

[Scribble]

anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."

Ordained huh?

Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I agree with you here.

Both in terms of how I envisaged elementals in their natural state, and the undesirability of snubbing what went before to attempt to make something new look better - it often has the opposite of the desired effect.

 

[Plane Sailing]

anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."

Ordained huh?

Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?

Sounds like a good catch. Epic Destiny anyone?

 

[Voss]

The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute.

I dispute it. Outside a small portion of D&D's lifespan and a minor philosophical sect of christianity, it doesn't have much traction as a form of angelic being.

http://www.google.com/search?q=arch...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You'll get a small group of people who are big on archon=angelic being, and another small (probably overlapping) group who want the current ones to stay, but that isn't really traction.

Try to rejigger unicorns or dragons, then you'll see a reaction. Thats traction.

 

[TwinBahamut]

anyone catch this bit: "Given life, the archons could reproduce themselves, building armies faster than giants could be born or angels ordained."

Ordained huh?

Wonder if we'll see something related to that... Like maybe your PC can become an Angel?

That does seem to be the implication. Epic Destiny, perhaps? But then again, becoming a god seems to also be the end result of epic destinies, so there seems to be an imbalance there... Maybe you go through an angelic phase on your path to deityhood?

 

[JohnSnow]

If the new Fire Archons actually resembled or served as "elemental angels" in any shape or form, I would have no problem with them. "Elemental angel" is just as valid and interesting of a way to make Archons distinct as "alien angel". In fact, I liked the terms "Fire Archons" and "Ice Archons" when they were first mentioned, because I liked the idea of elemental angels.

I am disappointed by this article because "Fire Archons" are just another type of boring living flame, and have no resemblance to angels or celestials of any kind. I was hoping for elemental angels, and got just elementals instead.

The term Archon does have traction as a form of angelic being, I don't think that is in dispute. However, Fire Archons don't have anything to do with being angels, and do nothing to make use of that traction.

Well, I'm still not sure. While I admit some of the flavor text in Ecology of the Fire Archon is problematic from this standpoint, I don't think it's wholly disassociated.

We've been told that all outsiders with "elemental" abilities will have the type "elemental," so I certainly don't think you should read too much into that part. In 4e, efreeti and djinni will be listed as "elementals" as well, so the archons are sharing ground with at least a couple of traditional "celestial" races.

Moreover, there will be ordinary old fire elementals, so "Fire Archons" are clearly a bit different. I suppose with their "gods" gone, it's hard to think of them as angels, but that seems surmountable to me. For instance, who says the primordials are really gone?

I suppose that doesn't do anything about the forge origin, but that's a relative non-issue to me.

My opinion will largely depend on how much of this makes it into the Monster Manual entry on archons. On the other hand, I've always taken the "Ecology of..." articles with a grain of salt, anyway. I just haven't always like their take on things, and preferred to make up my own.

Bear in mind the Monster Manual may just say something like this. "Archons are the servants of the primordials who created the universe and lived within the Elemental Chaos. They are beings created as living embodiments of the elements who were used as soldiers in the war against the gods. Archons come in many types. A few are listed here." (Proceed to entries for Ice Archons, Fire Archons, and maybe a few other types).

I don't honestly know what an "Ecology of the Angel" article would say about them, but I suspect it might talk about their role as servants of their gods (potentially as members of the celestial army). Which would make them about as fully fleshed-out culturally as the Fire Archon.

To me, the real key to whether they make sense is the nature of the Primordials.