D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[pemerton]

Here is the D&D Astrology proficiency from the 2e PHB.

I don't see how that is very relevant to working out what is consistent with canon for GH books, especially ones published in the 1st ed AD&D era.

Do I take it that you really are claiming that it contradicts the folio/boxed set lore on heavenly bodies, presented in the voice of the sage, to have an order of wizards whose magical power waxes and wanes with the moons?

Maybe you could spell out the details of the contradiction?

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's straight mechanics:

The goblin has 5 h.p., the fireball does 16. End of goblin.
The next goblin has 5 h.p., the longsword does 2. Goblin fights on.
Lore has nothing to do with it. The goblin lives or dies in these examples by sheer numerical mechanics, nothing else.

Where lore comes in is the narration of the in-game effects of these mechanical events: "The goblin screams briefly then falls silent as its charred corpse crumples to the floor." "The sword hits the goblin hard, staggers it a bit, and puts a small cut in its shoulder; but the creature looks determined to fight on.". And there's nothing whatsoever that says these narrations have to be the same every time, or even ever the same twice...the narration is not bound by any rule saying what they must be or say. The only expectation is that the narration will at least vaguely hew to what the underlying mechanical results suggest.

It's sort of a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type situation. It could just as easily be that the mechanics were designed to fit the lore. A fireball is more reliable at killing goblins than a sword, so it has the deadlier mechanics. The point I think, is that the mechanics and lore are inextricably intertwined. Fireball lore is that fireballs are hot and burn things, exploding at a point determined by the caster. The mechanics match that lore.

Different definition of 'mechanic' than I (and I suspect others) would use.

A mechanic is something that is hard-coded, usually with numbers attached somehow; and is either a rule unto itself or is part of one. "A Dwarf character gains +1 Str +1 Con and -1 Cha" is a hard-coded game mechanical rule.

Lore is something else, much less definable or code-able, and falls under guidelines rather than rules. "Dwarf characters tend to be tougher than most, but also tend to be harder to get along with" is a set of guidelines only, but not a rule unless there's something somewhere else that mechanically reflects that lore by changing the numeric stats for Dwarves.

That lore is what determines that dwarves get +1 str, +1 con, and -1 cha. Change that lore and you set up a disconnect if you don't also change the mechanic. The lore is no more a guideline than the hard-coded mechanic is.

 

[pemerton]

the previous edition archons weren't going to appear in 4e at all. They were replaced by the elemental whatevers that came up in 4e. Moreover, I don't think you can completely separate the two even in 4e because they make it pretty clear that the old version of the archons weren't coming back and they wanted to have something else that PCs could fight (according to Wizards presents Worlds and Monsters).

Not something else the PCs might oppose - given that one of the stated reasons is that too many celestial/heavenly entities fills the campaign world with beings to do replace the PCs rather than oppose them.

Printing X instead of Y is replacing, perhaps, in the sense of putting something else in the book. New editions of dictionaries replace words that have gone out of use with words that have come into use. A new MM replaces, in the same sense, creatures that are seen as non-central or redundant with creatures that are seen as more useful for the game.

This doesn't mean that the new words are supposed to be synonyms for the old ones. And it doesn't mean that the new monster is, from the perspective of the fiction, a version of the old one. Not even if they recycle a name for it.

Elemental archons aren't the same creatures as hound archons or lantern archons. Whereas a 4e Ghaele is intended to be a version of the 2nd ed PS creature.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure why I get to be dragged into the Archon debate

Well, you did Laugh at my earlier post on the topic - I took that as some sort of indication of interest in the topic.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, you did Laugh at my earlier post on the topic - I took that as some sort of indication of interest in the topic.

Ah, ok. Carry on then.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]:

Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62:

[T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies.​

The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious.

As you and others were quick to point out, a rose by any other name...

They radically changed Archons and had to develop a cover story for it. This is also an extremely good example of what I was telling you earlier, and I'm not surprised that you are surprised that this is contentious. They used the name Archon, like you did with Wizards of High Sorcery, which set certain expectations based on what Archons meant in D&D prior to 4e. They then pulled a fast one on everyone who knew what Archons were, by having them be radically different.

It was a boneheaded move on their part. What should have happened is that these elemental creatures should have been given a new name. They then could have put out proper Archons or not, but either way they wouldn't have failed the players of the game in the manner that they did.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see how that is very relevant to working out what is consistent with canon for GH books, especially ones published in the 1st ed AD&D era.

It shows what D&D considers astrology to be, which comports to the modern and common usage of astrology.

Do I take it that you really are claiming that it contradicts the folio/boxed set lore on heavenly bodies, presented in the voice of the sage, to have an order of wizards whose magical power waxes and wanes with the moons?

Maybe you could spell out the details of the contradiction?

It contradicts that wizards on Greyhawk get their power from the positive plane. Those moons are not the positive plane. It worked with Krynn, because wizards got their magic from the moons.

 

[cbwjm]

The way I see it. Only the wohs are drawing power from the moons. The other wizards of Greyhawk are not. I'd have it as a separate power source.

 

[Nagol]

It shows what D&D considers astrology to be, which comports to the modern and common usage of astrology.

It contradicts that wizards on Greyhawk get their power from the positive plane. Those moons are not the positive plane. It worked with Krynn, because wizards got their magic from the moons.

Where is that discussed? It's not in the folios. I recall a generic discussion in 1e DMG, but that's not Greyhawk.

 

[Maxperson]

Where is that discussed? It's not in the folios. I recall a generic discussion in 1e DMG, but that's not Greyhawk.

Settings always use the generic rules from the PHB and DMG, except for what is explicitly stated to be otherwise by the setting material.