Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3972264" data-attributes="member: 32164">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.</blockquote>