Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3970281" data-attributes="member: 32164">Actually, I need two things.One, I need "the Mountain of Heaven" in my cosmology. Now, it might be there, but it might not.Secondly, I need to have to draw a distinction in my campaign between "Angels" and "Archons." In 3e, "angels" are generic good outsiders who can enter all the "good" planes. Archons are specifically lawful good outsiders from one particular plane.Now, you may find "archons" more evocative than angels, but I see angel as pretty generic and capable of encompassing all that was implied by Archons. Strangely enough, yes. And I don't recall ever seeing the word "archon" in it. I recall a fair number of references to things you're talking about, and they're all called "angels." The key word there, as far as I'm concerned, is "angelology." As in "the study of angels."Which is what I was saying. Mythologically, "archon" isn't truly a distinctive category from angel. Whatever distinction it possesses in D&D is a result of its use to date - mostly as a part of the Planescape setting (more on that below). It's kinda like the distinction between "demons" and "devils." That word is "ish-it-SHACH-ittle," and the reason I brought it up was intentional hyperbole. It was, however, in the AD&D (1e, that is) Monster Manual, so it's not totally inappropriate. It's the ultimate example of nonsensical spelling in D&D. It's not even, IIRC, made up - it's just an Aztec word.I'm guessing the word would be pronounced "Chuh-VAR-og," but maybe it's "Kuh-VAR-og." The point is that it's pretty untypical in english to type the letter combo "chv." Maybe I can suss it out, but it's far from standard.So yes, I freely acknowledge the hyperbole inherent in the ixitxachitl example, but my point was that simpler is better. I was not intentionally mischaracterizing your argument. As far as I can recall, the first separation I'm aware of in D&D between "Angel" and "Archon" originated with Planescape. That's irrespective of their original uses in Judeo-Christian mythology, where, IMO, it's pretty hard to get a solid read.So I regard the specific differentiation of Archons as distinct from Angels as being derived from Planescape. Personally, I'd have no problem with keeping them separate. I would also have no problem combining the concepts and making use of the "lesser" name for another concept in game.It sounds to me like you're saying "Where WotC changes things I like, I'm not going to object, but when they change things in ways I don't like, they're being "dunderheaded."Am I still mischaracterizing your argument?If so, please explain why Archons, as is, are cool enough to deserve a slot alongside angels? What distinguishes them? Convince me. 'Cuz I'm not seeing it.At which point, "archon" is just a cool name waiting for a use.</blockquote>

Verification