Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sciborg3 01-04-08, 07:42 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071221a&authentic=true Interesting stuff at the beginning - what the exarchs are I'm not sure nor does one know what the primordial ones are exactly. However, their conflict is interesting fluff. Then we get to the bottom of the article and the usual garbage begins. Apparently elementals never had a society, organization or anything, a problem "over thirty years old". So apparently no one ever bothered to "fix" elementals? I guess not given this: "We tried to rectify this in the late stages of 3rd Edition. You can see various attempts in Monster Manuals III, IV, and V, the most successful probably being the avatars of elemental evil of Monster Manual IV." There's more about how stupid the archons of LG were. Anyway, apparently in 4e the word archon will be used for a much more useful purpose.
Soel Griffin 01-06-08, 02:59 AM	Yah, I always felt that elementals were so alien to mortals that the concept of a society as we know it, is quite different to them. The idea that this was/is a problem is sort of like looking through funny glasses. That said, I kinda like the new fire archons, even though they look goofy as hell. I'll still have my "alien" elementals around as well.
Kain_Darkwind 01-06-08, 04:10 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071221a&authentic=true Interesting stuff at the beginning - what the exarchs are I'm not sure nor does one know that the primordial ones are exactly. However, their conflict is interesting fluff. Then we get to the bottom of the article and the usual garbage begins. Apparently elementals never had a society, organization or anything, a problem "over thirty years old". So apparently no one ever bothered to "fix" elementals? I guess not given this: "We tried to rectify this in the late stages of 3rd Edition. You can see various attempts in Monster Manuals III, IV, and V, the most successful probably being the avatars of elemental evil of Monster Manual IV." There's more about how stupid the archons of LG were. Anyway, apparently in 4e the word archon will be used for a much more useful purpose. Wow, summed up my thoughts exactly, Sciborg. "Using a cool word like archon gives them a bigger profile." Fuggin' ridiculous. Why can't they sell 4e without gobs and mounds of hate for the older editions? I can see it now.. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting - a foreword by Ed Greenwood You know, the main reason I decided to write up my campaign world into a published setting was because Gary Gygax and Greyhawk sucked. They did things stupid, and I do them much better. Please buy my products because they are better thought out than that crap from before. Dragonlance Campaign Setting - a foreword by Margaret Weiss Boy, Greenwood and Gygax are both hacks, aren't they? Couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag. And such obviously vicarious characters...Gary rearranged the letters of his name for half of them. And how old are we, Ed? Can we put away the horny old wizard that scores women half my age now? Gawd. So anyways, Dragonlance is way better than their trash. Buy from us, the real campaign setting for Dungeons and Dragons.
sciborg3 01-06-08, 12:07 PM	:D Not to mention the fact that a fire elemental with a helmet doesn't seem leaps and bounds ahead of a bear-celestial in terms of coolness. What's going to be sad is when they start needing to republish stuff and suddenly we start seeing all the old crap again. I can't recall if it was Dragon or the 1e MotP but I recall the reading about elemental societies, for example how the air elementals make art of mixing perfumes like humans use paint. Even throw away lines like that are have more depth than fire-in-armor. If I use the history of fire archons, I'll give them more humanoid characteristics.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-06-08, 01:10 PM	Fiery being with armor? Sounds like a celestial to me. They're switching the names, but we'll still have the same old flavor-lacking stuff that no one ever bothered fixing. (In this case, fixing the TV costs less than a new one). I like the ecology, though.
Dead_Weasel 01-07-08, 06:27 AM	Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting - a foreword by Ed Greenwood Dragonlance Campaign Setting - a foreword by Margaret Weiss:rofl: Nicely done.
ArcTan 01-08-08, 09:04 PM	They're complaining about *their own edition*, okay? The elementals of 3rd Edition have no needs, no clear desires or motivations, and no culture, yet they attain human Intelligence, speak, and can manipulate objects. They exist in limitless numbers on the elemental planes, but they build nothing and make no lasting impression upon the game. Mechanically, they exist as neat creatures to summon or put in a dungeon and nothing more. What do they do on the elemental planes besides attack interlopers? What do they care about? In 3rd Edition, we have only vague ideas that they fight each other. If they were dumb beasts, they would make more sense. If they had a culture and did interesting things like invade the Material Plane, they would be better. But the elementals of 3rd Edition don't do either. Most creatures of the elemental type follow suit, and you have to look at outsiders such as salamanders and genies for interesting creatures with elemental themes. And, so sue them, they decided when fixing the problem they'd rather make up cool stuff on their own that they could get excited over rather than put on their archeologist pith helmets and spend hours Poring Through the Archives, which is apparently what some people here think is the pinnacle of creative game design. As far as Archons go, as someone who knows a bit about Gnosticism, seeing that word used to slap onto a bunch of generic and generally-not-that-powerful good guys did seem like kind of a waste, yes, animal heads or not.
Deacon Liadon 01-08-08, 09:19 PM	I actually like these new elementals. In many ways they seem to fit more with what we know of the elemental hierarchy than the bog standard elementals of previous editions. Can't say I like the name though. Archon to me has too many links to LG outsiders to be ignored.
Kain_Darkwind 01-08-08, 10:34 PM	They're complaining about *their own edition*, okay? And, so sue them, they decided when fixing the problem they'd rather make up cool stuff on their own that they could get excited over rather than put on their archeologist pith helmets and spend hours Poring Through the Archives, which is apparently what some people here think is the pinnacle of creative game design. As far as Archons go, as someone who knows a bit about Gnosticism, seeing that word used to slap onto a bunch of generic and generally-not-that-powerful good guys did seem like kind of a waste, yes, animal heads or not. I don't care which edition they are complaining about, I hate the use of a negative campaign to sell anything. I enjoy reading the new flavor (now that I realize they are not so much changing the old flavor as replacing it wholesale) and I enjoy reading the new mechanics. Very exciting stuff. What I absolutely despise is their inability to pump 4e without making some nasty comments about 3rd or older editions. I don't like people who constantly badmouth other people to make themselves look good, why would I like a sales campaign full of that negative B.S.?
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-08-08, 10:37 PM	And, so sue them, they decided when fixing the problem they'd rather make up cool stuff on their own that they could get excited over rather than put on their archeologist pith helmets and spend hours Poring Through the Archives, which is apparently what some people here think is the pinnacle of creative game design. Thing is, they don't have to pour. Just a few well-known 2E supplements contains plenty of information to keep to please older fans and have no effect on newcomers. Or they could have made up new stuff that fit in the gaping holes of flavor the old edition (Make cultures for the elementals, motivations, desires, and all that stuff they complained was missing). As far as Archons go, as someone who knows a bit about Gnosticism, seeing that word used to slap onto a bunch of generic and generally-not-that-powerful good guys did seem like kind of a waste, yes, animal heads or not. Actually, several of the Gnostic archons had animal heads (Ialdaboath for one, and Abraxas I think), so the name isn't totally misplaced. As servants of LG, though, they aren't all that great. Should it be the name for godly servants the way angels were in 3E, or do you have another idea?
sciborg3 01-08-08, 11:18 PM	Note that I like the fire archon - I think its depiction as elemental+helmet is silly, but the concept is cool. As Kain said, the complaint is the bashing of something, a year ago, the designers would have been promoting. Like say FC I & II. Poring Through the Archives, which is apparently what some people here think is the pinnacle of creative game design. Not really. If they had simply called it the fire archon and left it at that, it wouldn't have been a problem. It's more insulting when they make dubious claims about D&D's 30 year history that now 4e will be the messiah for. I hardly see how you can have less of a problem now with the word archon being used for a less than powerful elemental. ps. ArcTan, what exactly is the archon in Gnoticism - I am always impressed with your knowledge of RL theology/history.
Soel Griffin 01-09-08, 03:17 AM	As far as Archons go, as someone who knows a bit about Gnosticism, seeing that word used to slap onto a bunch of generic and generally-not-that-powerful good guys did seem like kind of a waste, yes, animal heads or not. So you don't like the new fire archons? They're generally-not-that-powerful and although they lack the animal heads, they make up for the goofy with their fire-shaped armor over fire humanoid body culled entirely from a Dreamblade mini. Nothing Gnostic about 'em.
HernetheHunter 01-10-08, 01:16 AM	They remind me of an old monster from the PS game Azure Dreams. You cold change the critters energy and everything.
Yanagita Kunio 01-10-08, 02:02 AM	what exactly is the archon in Gnoticism In Gnosticism an archon is a term for servants of the Demiurge (the god of creation); the label applies to a small number of named beings--seven in most counts--not a massive host. Different sources cite different names, though: Abraxes is the demiurge/archon figure mentioned by Basileades (and Tertullian, refuting the former). Specifics on individual archons I haven't seen a lot of--anyone got something to add?--but I get the impression they're "big"...both in the sense of numinous power and in the sense of embodying archetypal aspects of the world. Arguably the D&D usage of the term flips between the Gnostic usage and the the original Greek meaning--ruler; one with power--depending on circumstances.
ArcTan 01-11-08, 12:59 AM	I'm not a huge enormous fan of the new Archon. It is somewhat more interesting than the old Archons, though, which does seem to be what they were going for. Making the word "Archon" mean what it literally meant in Gnosticism would make the word "Archon" much less useful as a monster name. (Best way to explain it without going into deep detail is -- if you see The Matrix is a Gnostic parable, which it basically is, the Agents are the Archons.)
ArcTan 01-11-08, 01:02 AM	FWIW, though, in the many and varied physical descriptions of Ialdabaoth and his Archons I've had a chance to glance at, the ones about them being entities of "flashing fire" stuck in my head more than the fact that some people imagine Ialdabaoth having a lion's head. (When it comes to folklore, it's a sad fact that many people back then thought images were cool that, today, seem kind of dumb. People with animals' heads is one of them.)
sciborg3 01-11-08, 01:25 AM	Next week we'll have the pay-for-our-advertising Worlds and Monsters come out, and we'll likely be given more detail as to the primordials and such. I think someone who has a copy is talking about it at Enworld. Of course, one has to wonder if by charging for it they enticed me to read Races and Classes at the bookstore to see what was inside of it worth $19.95. As to the Fire Archon, it's appearance notwithstanding it is an interesting monster. The concept art I saw of the monster for Dreamblade was better as it was a suit of armor seemingly barely encasing the flames within. Of course, walking suit of armor has been done. I figured the archons of Mount Celestia were relating to animals people found sacred in different cultures. Hounds, bears, eagles all strike me as animals of mythology and symbols of loyalty, courage/valor, and glory respectively. What will be funny is when they run out of ideas and publish all this stuff for 4e....
Kain_Darkwind 01-11-08, 02:42 AM	I figured the archons of Mount Celestia were relating to animals people found sacred in different cultures. Hounds, bears, eagles all strike me as animals of mythology and symbols of loyalty, courage/valor, and glory respectively. What will be funny is when they run out of ideas and publish all this stuff for 4e.... I'm one of the guys that doesn't like animal-archons, but that's only because we have an entire race of animal-angels in the guardinals. I'm not turned off to the idea at all, animal and anthropomorphic worship is quite old, but it seems like too much when you've got two sets of angels doing it. Which is why my warden and hound archons don't have animal heads. And owl archons got renamed sentinel archons, again loosing the animal head. As for gnostic accuracy, none of the incarnations throughout DnD come close. Helmed fire elementals or bear headed angels alike.
Tarascon 01-11-08, 10:39 PM	Hmm, it's as if in earlier editions some information was deliberately left out. Gasp...could I be suggesting that the creators allowed DMs freedom to make the campaigns and monsters as they see fit in case they don't agree with the company in every minute detail? Heresy.
ArcTan 01-12-08, 12:12 AM	...I'm really annoyed about how sometimes the problem with 4e is that it's "stripping flavor away" from monsters and turning D&D into "nothing but a miniatures game", and sometimes the problem is that it's "shoving flavor down our throats" and "forcing everyone to accept the same background for monsters". Which one the hell is it? Are you going to complain about WotC leaving Ecology sections *out* of the MM or complain that they put too much in as it is? Seriously? (FWIW, 1e/2e had a *lot* more "flavor shoved down your throat" than 3e did, at least from my POV. I don't regard this as a fundamental flaw with 1e/2e at all, except that I happen to think most of that flavor happened to be stupid.)
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-12-08, 12:52 AM	...I'm really annoyed about how sometimes the problem with 4e is that it's "stripping flavor away" from monsters and turning D&D into "nothing but a miniatures game", and sometimes the problem is that it's "shoving flavor down our throats" and "forcing everyone to accept the same background for monsters". Which one the hell is it? Are you going to complain about WotC leaving Ecology sections *out* of the MM or complain that they put too much in as it is? Seriously? (FWIW, 1e/2e had a *lot* more "flavor shoved down your throat" than 3e did, at least from my POV. I don't regard this as a fundamental flaw with 1e/2e at all, except that I happen to think most of that flavor happened to be stupid.) I think it's actually both. In some cases, you do have the reduction of flavor, such as what many people see as the oversimplification (To put it nicely) of the devils and demons. In other cases, they are inserting a lot more flavor, such as the PHB races. As far as I know, in older editions flavor was never more forced or implied that 'elves live in the forest' or 'tieflings are the descendants of fiends and humans and live on the edges of society'. Now we have write-ups on named empires of these races, and races may have direct statistical ties to certain environments. I'm aware that these things can be changed. However, a lot of people don't have the time or effort to do such things, and so take the book material out and awkwardly stick it in their games. (The Ecology sections of monsters suffer and are hated because they go beyond simple information, and give us information such as Knowledge check results or plot hooks that isn't worthy of the space it takes up.)
ArcTan 01-12-08, 11:46 PM	Older editions would go on for several pages about the "personality" of the various player races to great lengths, which is where D&Ders get stuff like "Dwarves like working really hard at menial physical labor and therefore distrust magic" that has continued to survive into the game. And older editions very much had setting places and names intrude roughly on the rules text (spells named after people, default gods, Asmodeus rules the Hells, bla bla bla). 3e *still had* races have statistical ties to certain environments -- Dwarven Stonecunning, to name one -- so that's not new either. I'm very much convinced the problem isn't "too much flavor", it's too much *new* flavor. The people denouncing "too much flavor" now always pick *new* flavor to criticize -- I'm sure they would be leaping for joy if the 4e PHB contained a long compilation of material from earlier publications about the Archomentals and crap.
Kain_Darkwind 01-13-08, 12:06 AM	I'm sure they would be leaping for joy if the 4e PHB contained a long compilation of material from earlier publications about the Archomentals and crap. I wouldn't. That belongs in the Monster Manual. :P
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-13-08, 11:10 AM	Older editions would go on for several pages about the "personality" of the various player races to great lengths... Hm. Okay, didn't know that. Only familiar with 3e and vaguely with 1e. I'm very much convinced the problem isn't "too much flavor", it's too much *new* flavor. The people denouncing "too much flavor" now always pick *new* flavor to criticize -- I'm sure they would be leaping for joy if the 4e PHB contained a long compilation of material from earlier publications about the Archomentals and crap. Probably. Hopefully, it would be building off of and enriching familiar flavor, which could also be picked up by a newcomer with relative ease.
Tarascon 01-14-08, 07:04 PM	By the way Kain, what do you do about the animal archons? I've always learned to trust your wisdom on such matters.
Kain_Darkwind 01-14-08, 08:24 PM	By the way Kain, what do you do about the animal archons? I've always learned to trust your wisdom on such matters. I generally just change the mental picture. Warden archons are big buff guys with hairy beards. Slam attacks instead of claw attacks. Hound archons are smaller, but generally the same, hairy bearded people. If I absolutely need the additional bite attack, it works out in game as sort of a kick, or head butt or such. I'm pretty sure I reworked owl archons into sentinel archons, they were the only one that really needed some actual mechanical changes, but even then it mainly amounted to switching out natural weapons. Personally, I feel that if I have to totally re-work a statblock to make a new monster fit in my campaign, I should probably use the effort to create an original monster. Although, I've felt that all humanoids see archons as somewhat similar to their own species if they are allied, or as a species that is their enemy otherwise. Good orcs would see them slightly orcish, humans see them slightly human, evil orcs might ascribe human or elven features to them, etc.
jareddm 01-17-08, 01:06 AM	I personally like the look of the Fire Archons. But when I saw the Fire Archon, I was immediately reminded of the archons and dark archons from Star Craft. I know it's quite possibly the farthest possible thing from the historical meaning of archon, of which I'm sad to say know nothing of except for what I have seen on this board. From what people are saying about it seeming generic and over-used, I think of it more as a race that was formed with a very specific purpose in mind, and I think that gives them even more flavor as a race than anything else.
ArcTan 01-17-08, 05:31 PM	In Starcraft, that usage made sense, given that the Protoss were a psychic race that saw themselves as getting to higher and higher levels of evolution, and the Archon being the pinnacle of their evolution into a pure energy being. The Gnostic connotation of Archon just means the beings who sit at the top of the cosmic totem pole, at least within our physical universe ("Archon" is just Greek for "ruler" or "lord"). The problem with the Celestia Archons is that they were just one planar race among many, and were actually one of the weaker races -- Archons on average were certainly weaker than Angels on average, for instance. For use of the term "Archon" to really make sense, the term has to imply "best of the best within my particular category" or "I rule and control something important". Neither the 3.5 Archon nor the "Fire Archon" really fit this category, but the Fire Archon at least fits the part of the connotation where an Archon is a being of light freed from the constraints of matter.
Kain_Darkwind 01-18-08, 01:49 PM	Neither the 3.5 Archon nor the "Fire Archon" really fit this category, but the Fire Archon at least fits the part of the connotation where an Archon is a being of light freed from the constraints of matter. And the Water, Earth and Air archons? Seems to me they just switched the term from Outer to Inner planes. I'm hoping that archons represent something beyond mere elementals and they didn't just change the name.
sciborg3 01-18-08, 03:22 PM	Dammit Kain, didn't you read the article? They're elementals with HELMETS!
ArcTan 01-18-08, 07:05 PM	And the Water, Earth and Air archons? Seems to me they just switched the term from Outer to Inner planes. I'm hoping that archons represent something beyond mere elementals and they didn't just change the name. I'm hoping they drop the annoying trope that anything that exists in one elemental plane has to have its corresponding opposite number in all the others (and same thing for the alignments on the Outer Planes). That conceit by itself was responsible for generating hundreds of useless and unused monsters.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 07:28 PM	That "conceit" made sense in the Great Wheel cosmology, especially as how diametric opposites were in play. It made sense for alignments to be in opposition, especially LN to CN, LE to CG and LG to CE, and it made sense for elements to have an opposite number or "nemesis." It makes no sense for fire not to be vulnerable to water etc or earth not to try to entomb air. It also made sense for composites to exist, ie Ash or Dust, and thus have corresponding 'negatives.' There's nothing wrong, and there continues to be nothing wrong, with it. Now, what should've been done is thought before development or thought at the same time as conception before commencement on new monsters or 'useless' monsters.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 07:36 PM	That "conceit" made sense in the Great Wheel cosmology, especially as how diametric opposites were in play. It made sense for alignments to be in opposition, especially LN to CN, LE to CG and LG to CE, and it made sense for elements to have an opposite number or "nemesis." It makes no sense for fire not to be vulnerable to water etc or earth not to try to entomb air. No, it doesn't necessarily "make sense" that everything has to have a special relationship to its opposite. Nor, if that's really what you want to argue, does that mean that *in order* to have a special relationship to its opposite, every creature on the plane of Fire (Efreet, Fire Elementals) needs an exactly equal and opposite number on Water (Marid, Water Elementals). Indeed, that feature was what made people claim that sometimes the Great Wheel just felt like a "color wheel" (Red vs. Blue, Black vs. White). At its best the Great Wheel had opposites who were opposites in *more* ways than one being able to overcome the DR of the other. (It was cool that Demons and Devils had a completely different social organization and set of goals. It was annoying that, at the outset, they were still basically the same kind of creature with most Demons having a Devil equivalent.)
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 07:56 PM	No, it doesn't necessarily "make sense" that everything has to have a special relationship to its opposite. Nor, if that's really what you want to argue, does that mean that *in order* to have a special relationship to its opposite, every creature on the plane of Fire (Efreet, Fire Elementals) needs an exactly equal and opposite number on Water (Marid, Water Elementals). Why doesn't it make sense? I've given my reasons. I'll like to hear yours, especially in light of the reasons I've given. It makes perfect sense for opposites to exist in the Planes, especially in the Planes. Also, you seem to be confused where opposite number is concerned. In your example, only the elementals are opposites, being composed of diametrically opposing elements. Marids and ifrit (efreeti) are genies, they have basis in mythology, as are jinn (djinn). Undines, gnomes, sylphs and salamanders, all these have basis in mythology. Also, see Paracelsus. Indeed, that feature was what made people claim that sometimes the Great Wheel just felt like a "color wheel" (Red vs. Blue, Black vs. White). At its best the Great Wheel had opposites who were opposites in *more* ways than one being able to overcome the DR of the other. (It was cool that Demons and Devils had a completely different social organization and set of goals. It was annoying that, at the outset, they were still basically the same kind of creature with most Demons having a Devil equivalent.) That's not what the Great Wheel is at all. It's different to MtG. And though alignments are usually objective in D&D, given the broad alignments, not everything can pigeonholed so readily. How are demons and devils the same creature? Demons and devils have different agendas, pursue different goals, have different ways of accomplishing their objectives, etc. There is no exact demon to devil equivalent, they do however fall within the same CR, but that's different to equivalence or any notion thereof. Demons and devils represent different facets of Evil.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 08:16 PM	Why doesn't it make sense? I've given my reasons. I'll like to hear yours, especially in light of the reasons I've given. It makes perfect sense for opposites to exist in the Planes, especially in the Planes. It doesn't *necessarily* make sense. It is not *necessary*. That's what I said. How are demons and devils the same creature? Demons and devils have different agendas, pursue different goals, have different ways of accomplishing their objectives, etc. There is no exact demon to devil equivalent, they do however fall within the same CR, but that's different to equivalence or any notion thereof. Demons and devils represent different facets of Evil. But they look about the same, have similar abilities, and in most "biological" senses are the same. This is why I view the 4e treatment as superior. It's actually treating them as two fundamental species or genera of creatures, not Red Team vs. Blue Team.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 08:23 PM	It doesn't *necessarily* make sense. It is not *necessary*. That's what I said. With no thought to rhyme or reason. Just because? It doesn't cut. But they look about the same, have similar abilities, and in most "biological" senses are the same. I can't believe you said that. Devils and demons don't look about the same. Never have, never will. They may have or share similar humanoid forms (sometimes), but that isn't because they look about the same. Tell me how a glabrezu looks about the same as a hamatula or how a hezrou looks about the same as a osyluth. That's like claiming emus and cassowaries are extraneous because they look the same as ostriches. Both demons and devils have demon or devil traits respectively, and most have spell-like abilities. However, the spell-likes are different, and the traits could not be more different as well. Take a look at ways of combating them. Demons need cold iron to defeat while devils need silver. Is this about the same creature? This is why I view the 4e treatment as superior. It's actually treating them as two fundamental species or genera of creatures, not Red Team vs. Blue Team. 4e treatment is essentially 'bankrolling' and pigeonholing them into one monster or two (however you want to look at it), with no variety. That's not what I would call superior. If more than anything, it's more of a cop out, catering to those who don't understand nor appreciate the differences, however subtle, between the three fiends.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 08:27 PM	With no thought to rhyme or reason. Just because? It doesn't cut. There is no natural "rhyme or reason" that forces there to necessarily be opposites. Our idea that fire and water were fundamental opposites in the Greek thoughts about elements is something we're projecting backwards from medieval alchemy, which was way more concerned with classifying things into neat categories than the Greeks really were. It doesn't need to be there. Occam's Razor -- don't put something there unless it adds something. *Specifically*, don't give us a new monster unless the monster is *itself cool and interesting*, not just because we have a Fire-based version of it so we need an opposite Water-based version of it. I can't believe you said that. Devils and demons don't look about the same. Never have, never will. They may have or share similar humanoid forms (sometimes), but that isn't because they look about the same. Er... yes it is. Tell me how a glabrezu looks about the same as a hamatula or how a hezrou looks about the same as a osyluth. That's like claiming emus and cassowaries are extraneous because they look the same as ostriches. If I had to make up a fictional giant bird for a D&D game, I wouldn't make up three different ones just for the hell of it and then put them on three separate Giant Bird Planes. Both demons and devils have demon or devil traits respectively, and most have spell-like abilities. However, the spell-likes are different, and the traits could not be more different as well. They certainly could be more different, since right now they're just being immune to one element and resisting others, and being able to summon members of your own "species". 4e treatment is essentially 'bankrolling' and pigeonholing them into one monster or two (however you want to look at it), with no variety. That's not what I would call superior. If more than anything, it's a cop out, catering to those who don't understand nor appreciate the differences, however subtle, between the three fiends. Do you really think all 4e Demons look like the *same* monster? No. It's just that now you can say what it is about a Demon, physically, that classifies it as a Demon (it's got a bestial shape not clearly inspired by the human form) vs. what physically makes a Devil a Devil.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 08:51 PM	There is no natural "rhyme or reason" that forces there to necessarily be opposites. Our idea that fire and water were fundamental opposites in the Greek thoughts about elements is something we're projecting backwards from medieval alchemy, which was way more concerned with classifying things into neat categories than the Greeks really were. I was referring to no rhyme or reason given to explain your argument(s) why they shouldn't or wouldn't be opposites. No natural rhyme or reason given enforces for me and others that your argument is flawed and that you can't back it up. Our idea that water and fire are opposites continues to this day, especially in light or how water is used to quench bushfires, etc. Water is used to douse fires. Fire boils water. Earth traps air, Air frees earth. What we are doing by prescribing physics into the mix is promoting logical fallacies, as D&D is a fantasy game and thus should be marching to that rhythm. Greek alchemy or any other basis, especially Chinese elements, becomes all the more pertinent. It doesn't need to be there. Occam's Razor -- don't put something there unless it adds something. Strawman. Devils and demons are essential to the concept of the Planes. And the Planes are essential to the concept of cosmology, it's all related. *Specifically*, don't give us a new monster unless the monster is *itself cool and interesting*, not just because we have a Fire-based version of it so we need an opposite Water-based version of it. Which boils down to the designers of the new monsters, but this argument doesn't cut it for monsters already in place. The three fiends have histories stretching back to 1e. Er... yes it is. No, they're not. And you are wrong and/or mistaken to continually suggest they are. If I had to make up a fictional giant bird for a D&D game, I wouldn't make up three different ones just for the hell of it and then put them on three separate Giant Bird Planes. The ostrich family essentially are/is the same, but devils and demons are not. Especially when you take their roles into consideration. It isn't just about the physical appearance, there's more to it than just that. You need to keep the complete package in mind. They certainly could be more different, since right now they're just being immune to one element and resisting others, and being able to summon members of your own "species". Which is difference, however subtle it might be. What further differentiates each of them is how they go about corrupting or 'influencing' mortals or others. Do you really think all 4e Demons look like the *same* monster? Could be. No. It's just that now you can say what it is about a Demon, physically, that classifies it as a Demon (it's got a bestial shape not clearly inspired by the human form) vs. what physically makes a Devil a Devil. Physical shape does not the same or similar make. What you need to account is their alignment and their agendas and their influences and their ways of doing things.
sciborg3 01-19-08, 11:49 AM	I'm hoping they drop the annoying trope that anything that exists in one elemental plane has to have its corresponding opposite number in all the others (and same thing for the alignments on the Outer Planes). This was done in Planescape Inner Planes and the Planescape MC III.
sciborg3 01-25-08, 11:40 AM	so what looks dumber than fire with a helmet? Earth with a helmet, aka the Earth Archon in W&M.
Kain_Darkwind 01-25-08, 11:49 AM	so what looks dumber than fire with a helmet? Earth with a helmet, aka the Earth Archon in W&M. In your face, ArcTan! :rofl: They are still doing exactly what you feared....making a fire monster, and then making 3 elemental copies of that monster.
sciborg3 01-25-08, 01:25 PM	It's funny that they explicitly mention their desire to get away from the elemental quadruplet "problem" but present the four archons. ArcTan may also dislike the apparent desire to have exceptions to the demons being raving animals - a la Grazz't in the Abyss.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-27-08, 12:17 AM	Gotta love that internal consistency... Given the appearance of the fire archon and it's...extreme similarity to the archon of StarCraft fame...I think they're trying to secretly or not so secretly capitalise on that front...especially considering how popular SC II is at the moment...
ArcTan 01-28-08, 05:54 PM	In your face, ArcTan! :rofl: They are still doing exactly what you feared....making a fire monster, and then making 3 elemental copies of that monster. Yeah. It sucks.
Kain_Darkwind 01-28-08, 07:25 PM	Yeah. It sucks. Well, if you can handle it in small amounts, it might not be too bad for you. They said that they are expanding the entire term 'elemental' away from the traditional definition, so efreet, salamanders, and fire archons are all 'fire elementals' now. And some of the genies have been chopped (dao and marids), so each elemental side won't be the same. 20 bucks they focus more heavily on the fire side than any other though.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-28-08, 11:01 PM	20 bucks they focus more heavily on the fire side than any other though. I wish I could bet against that, but it's probably going to happen. It's always the 'Helm of Fiery Power' or the 'Flames of Bane'. It's never the 'Rod of Tempests' or 'Freezing Stare of Tiamat'.