|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 1:26AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Wandering Monsters
Fairest of Them All
By James Wyatt Angels. Celestials. Deva. Archons. What do you think of these creatures and their roles in D&D throughout the editions? Take a look at what James has written up for celestials and answer a few questions about the material he presents, plus give us your thoughts on how to handle them in the future.Talk about this column here. 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 4:05AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
* CG outsider eladrins could be far ancestors of 4th eladrins (high elves) (becaus both come from feywild) and these ones would use the tittle (the short form of "eladrin blood"). * I would rather the name "aasimar" for PC race with celestial ancestors. * The 4th Ed angels was a interesting idea, I miss others but the 4th Ed could come back with other name, like heralds, emissaries or kerykes. * I think a link betwen guardinals (furry celestials) and faywild could be possible. Some "fallen" guardinals could be interesting...(not necesarially evils but defender of nature too hostile to civilitation, the the red talons tribe from "Werewolf: the apocalypse"). Guardinals could be linked to werebeasts and shifters by primal power. * One of the most interesting (for me) supervillains were the archangel Zadkiel, enemy of Ghost Rider (marvel comic).   Suriel (DC)  Asmodel (DC)  Tiffany (Spawn´s enemy from Todd McFarlane´s comics, she isn´t a fallen angel but of course she had got very much bad temperate) * I like the crazy idea some "fallen angels" really are CG eladrins who act like infiltrators...(or betrayers to hell because now they wish redemption). Some erinyes could be one othe best examples..(what if some "redeemed" infernals are infiltrators?). * I would like the return of "favored soul" PC class like divine equivalent to socerer. It is a archetype with a great potential if it has got the right background (divine ancestors or chosen to carry out a sacred fate).
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 4:25AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
4E PC eladrin are younger members of the eladrin race. Traditional celestial eladrin are just the thousand year old ones.
The plane they it on is less of an issue. If you have a Feywild plane and beings stay there for a few centuries, you become fey.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 5:26AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
I continue to really love the Wandering Monsters columns! I think it's great that they are building monsters from first principles, using physical descriptions, behavior, and story...then building the mechanics on top of that.
These celestials are pretty awesome. I see no problem with keeping eladrin and deva as playable races, but I'm not sure if I want them as ultimate core (in the PHB1, that is). As an expansion, though, i'm happy with it.
As for "Evil Angles"....I initially voted to definitely include Evil Angels, and then I changed my mind. I think the term "Evil Angels" is the problem. Maybe "Dark Angels" is better. I know it's subtle, but the two names conjure different images in my head. I guess it's the classic Paladin vs Anti-Paladin debate. That is, if there is a good version of this monster, why can't there be an evil version? I'm okay with all flavors of Angels using the same basic template, but their implementations should be different, not just swapping keywords (good to evil, cure to inflict, etc).
All in all though, reading these story briefs really breathes life into them. I get more and more inspiration for my future campaigns with every article.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 6:01AM
#5
|
|
|
In regards to celestials I much more prefer the 4e approach then the older versions. Note that in regards of eladrin the difference is actually semetics anyway, since in 4e they live in another plane, vary greatly in power with the mightiest being exactly like the eladrin in 3e. It is more that I prefer the "angels as servants of the gods (good or evil)" to the dozens of variants in earlier editions, especially since in the end the differences were moot. Archons, angels, guardinals, eladrin: dozens of variants of servants of good deities that all fullfill the same role. Might as well stick to one name, and make variants just as with demons and devils.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 6:33AM
#6
|
|
|
The one thing that I'm not such a big fan of is the connection between angels and Kirin/Metallics/Unicorns/Etc. I understand that they're all typically good creatures and would probably (absent complicating circumstances) help each other out, but it seems weird that if an angel's in trouble it calls a dragon, unless the angel is a servant of Bahamutt.
Dividing angels up by where they operate feels random to me and not a good use of conceptual space. I'd rather they just chuck the concept of angels divided by whether they chill on the material plane or the astral plane or whatever and divide them up by function/potency. I think that's significantly more resonant.
Rather than trying to tie 4e Devas or 4e Eladrin to earlier-edition things that happen to share their names, I'd just rename them rather than trying to shoehorn in a connection. Speaking on behalf of every 4e fan, which is totally something it's my place to do, I'd rather see the concepts just called other things rather than some wonky hybrid solution. Same with elemental archons. I think they're awesome, but if the name is needed elsewhere, just rename them something entirely different. If celestial archons are a thing, elemental archons aren't really a type of archon and don't need a name that suggests a relationship; they can just have a different name. As a 4e fan, I'm much more concerned about as many cool things being in the game as possible is as cool a form as possible than having as many random pointless shoutouts as possible. Chuck the names, keep the ideas. I, at least, would rather have it that way.
I'd also background archons, eladrin and guardinals. They're far less resonant than angels and in many cases not nearly as cool. If I were completely in charge, I'd dumpster guardinals, roll the better archon designs into angel designs, and recycle eladrin as fey things (which most of them basically already are), but that's probably not happening.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:07AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I like the Astral domains from 4E much more than the Alignment based planes presented here, but I'm not really bothered because I can just use what I want no matter what is presented in the book. I think part of the reason is that I don't like the whole "Evil constantly fights Evil, but Good is friends with all Good". I just find it a little boring.
I have always liked the names Deva, Planetar, and Solar, and so I am happy to see them brought back for Angels. I also like the idea of using 4E Angel "titles" to describe specific Deva's based on their particular mission. I very much prefer the artistic angle that 4E took for Angels, in which they are much more Astral beings than humans with wings. I think it emphasizes their majestic mystery very nicely; when you meet one it is instantly clear that this thing isn't just a person.
I think the grocery list of immunities, resistances, and powers is too much. It should be included in a sidebar (because I am sure other people do like it), but I think it just raises the complexity too much for too little payoff. And when the weapons they use are just copies of weapons the PCs can get it really lowers the mystery factor. If you encounter an angel, there should be a sense of awe, which you don't really have if you just say, "Oh, don't worry, they just use Defending Greatswords."
I like the idea of Angels serving all the gods (and Devils being cursed Angels, but that is another story). Not only does it make sense to me that all gods would have their emissaries, but it also increases the usefulness of the Angel in most D&D campaigns. Lastly, the evil gods often have very cool flavor, and I can picture their Angels looking very cool too. Then again, the idea of Fallen Angels is also really cool, but there is no reason the two ideas can't both exist. I can easily picture a world in which each god has their own Angels, and at the same time those Angels are not perfect. They have their own thoughts and motivations, and it is possible for them to betray their masters and defect. Both good Angels turned to evil and evil Angels turned to good make for very interesting NPCs.
I really like elemental Archons, and so I am glad to hear that they will most likely be a part of D&D Next. I don't even care if they need to share the name "archon".
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:16AM
#8
|
|
|
1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight. Second, I don't think world-building belongs in an at all.
That said, I like the 4E approach to all of it. Things in the feywild were Good, but Dangerous. They'd attack you.
All Gods had their own servants "Angels" even the evil ones. It kept Gods on a different area than demons or devils.
I don't like Great-wheeling the design, where we need to have some CR 20 creature of every alignment.
Last, the 4E monsters were fun to play with. In previous games, if an angel showed up, it was narrative - we didn't fight it. There was no point to having a stat-block. In my 4E campaign, Angels had a combat function coupled with a good narrative.
An angel of justice might try to smite the PCs for their lack of it. You might all be "good" but there was a potential for conflict.
For whatever reason, previous incarnations of angels were wasted ink to me. And I never bothered at all with Celestial Archons.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:21AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The name Archon for me has been firmly cemented to the concept presented in Starcraft. It's hard to accept much of anything else as being nearly as cool.
POWER OVERWHELMING
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:35AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight. Second, I don't think world-building belongs in an at all.
That said, I like the 4E approach to all of it. Things in the feywild were Good, but Dangerous. They'd attack you.
All Gods had their own servants "Angels" even the evil ones. It kept Gods on a different area than demons or devils.
I don't like Great-wheeling the design, where we need to have some CR 20 creature of every alignment.
Last, the 4E monsters were fun to play with. In previous games, if an angel showed up, it was narrative - we didn't fight it. There was no point to having a stat-block. In my 4E campaign, Angels had a combat function coupled with a good narrative.
An angel of justice might try to smite the PCs for their lack of it. You might all be "good" but there was a potential for conflict.
For whatever reason, previous incarnations of angels were wasted ink to me. And I never bothered at all with Celestial Archons.
Maybe your group wouldn't fight them, but it doesn't mean someone else's wouldn't. Or better yet, the Angel comes to help your party...ok, how? what are his stats?
The monsters make up the world. It's in the name of the game (hint, it's the second D). Without all the different flavors of monsters in the game, it really wouldn't be classic D&D. We need to know more about monsters than just their stats. What are their motivations? What do they look like? How do they perceive different races? Without these things, you might as well be fighting a bunch of faceless combat things. It's not called "Dungeons and Level 20 Flying Monsters"
|
|
|
