New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[takasi]

Similarly, the designers are correct when they say their mechanics are "either boring or complex. Most of them simply walk up to a PC and hit the character with a fist...The flip side of this includes mechanics such as the air elemental's whirlwind. Any mechanic that makes a person look up weather conditions in the Dungeon Master's Guide is just begging to be "forgotten" by the DM."

Can someone please tell me why you have to look up the weather rules to run an air elemental???

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't care for this article.

I don't like the portrayal of the gods, including the good deities, as being a bunch of ruthless genocidal warmongers who nearly wiped out a whole plane. I also don't like the vagueness in which the primordials are described.

My biggest problem, however, is the portrayal of Fire Archons as being little more than Warforged made from fire. Their basic background and nature is not very different at all, other than being made by inhuman, rather than human, hands. It doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think the result is very interesting.

I also don't agree with the term "Archon" being used for such creatures. It is a great term for angelic/divine beings, especially if angelic beings are going to serve non-good deities just as much as they serve good deities. "Angel" is a term that doesn't work well when combined with "evil", but "archon" is fine in that context. Just because they don't want archons to have animal heads doesn't mean they should change them to be something so completely different.

I really like the changes to demons and devils, but I don't like this change to the meaning of archon at all. If they wanted to make Elementals more interesting, they should start with much more fundamental changes, rather than just slapping armor on them, making them soldiers, giving them a new name, and calling it a day. This change disappoints me, and I thought I could expect better from WotC.

 

[Just Another User]

Sigh. I like the idea of 4e. D&D is in crying need of a new edition, as the accumulated problems of a metric ton of useless splatbooks, and there is a lot of fundamentally broken stuff just in the core books. I even like most of the 4e mechanics I've seen so far. But every time the developers open their mouths, they irritate me. They come across as bipolar children on a sugar high- everything is either awesomely cool or utterly emo, and they seem completely incapable of communicating what they're doing and why.

If they'd stop with the marketing blather and just publish mechanics, I'd be a lot happier.

Hear, Hear!!

And I agree and the abuse of the C-word.

 

[Banshee16]

That's the "scar" they're referring to: elementals that don't really feel "elemental" and have mechanics that are either boring or too complex to use in play. Personally, I'd like to see the default elementals be basically "elemental beasts" of roughly animal intelligence (like the "furies" in Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series). More intelligent elementals should have a culture and function in their home plane.

To me, that would definitely be an improvement.

Those are some good points. I don't mind more complex elementals, and ones that have a purpose. I'm just not sure why they have to be called Archons.

Yes, elementals as previously devised, were pretty boring. I've never liked them much.

Banshee

 

[Rechan]

Did I mention PS anywhere?

Did Devyn say you did?

He didn't quote you, he didn't say "Kamikaze Midget".

 

[kennew142]

It *sounds* cool, sure, but it doesn't really mesh entirely with "low-level armored fire people." You could make it, but when it already has a strong association with an existing, much-beloved group, why would you want to bother? Either don't use it at all, or make that group worthy of the name (like they made Devils more worthy of the title).

I'm not trying to be snide. I'm just asking. Archons in 3e are a much beloved group? They were the butt of many a joke in games I've played, but I've never heard anyone call them beloved before.

"Archon" is almost as hard to pronounce in English as "Chvarog" is (that's ARK-on, for those asking).

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Many words in English derive from Greek and have the hard, aspirated ch sound, including mythological names such as Achilles, theological terms such as christian and scientific terms such as chrysalis. The pronunciation of archon is pretty obvious. I'm not saying that I don't like the word chvarog, so don't slap me or anything, but its pronunciation is not readily apparent to English speakers.

Obviously, this leads to descisions that are kind of dunderheaded in my opinion, including "Archons are now artificially created elemental people" and "Dryads are now mini-treants."

I'm sure you can tell that I approve of the change in archons, but I have to add that I am also fond of the changes in dryads. As a euhemerist, I tend to use supernatural creatures in my games as races, with most of the really fantastic stuff scraped off. To me, the new dryads evoke a very real world feel. Just as sailors in the real world could see seals and think meremaid, woodsmen in my campaign could see the 4e dryad and think sexy wood nymph.

What works for one gamer, doesn't for another. The flavor of the new edition seems to be much more in accord (or at least easier for me to alter) than that of previous editions.

 

[The Little Raven]

And if that's the case, why do we have to call them Eladrin? It's a made-up name that was tied to a Celestial outer planar race....when really, the new Eladrin, as mentioned, are Faerie-Folk......but not the little sprites and brownies of typical D&D but the beatiful, inhuman, and sometimes terrifying creatures of Otherness.

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.

Why not just call a spade a spade? I'd be happy if they just called them "Sidhe". Done. Easy.

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.

With 4E, you basically have to throw out everything that came before because they're changing everything.

Sounds like a creative limitation to me.

 

[Rechan]

It had 800 years of it.

Archons exist only in some gnosist texts.

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

If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.

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.

 

[kennew142]

Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.....for like 2400 years. Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.

In the old Scooby-Doo cartoon, they looked like trees and couldn't turn into women - until you pulled their masks off.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Archons exist only in some gnosist texts.

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

It is a use in real mythology, though, so it is a valid use. Also, Gnostic Christianity is rather commonly referenced in other fiction.

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.

Well, The Chronicles of Narnia has traditional Dryads, and the novel Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD has a Dryad or two. Not to mention the fact that one or two Dryads must have show up somewhere in the Xanth novels. These books are not exactly obscure, so I would say that "most people who read fantasy" is rather appropriate.

Of course, anyone who reads Greek myth will also be well aware of traditional Dryads, and that is a fairly wide group itself.