Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ImmortalBlueMage 07-28-04, 04:44 PM	If you're a DM, you've no doubt had to sift through enough pages of "Outcast Drow Ranger with two scimitars" character concepts to bury RA Salvatore alive under. If there's one character in the history of Dungeons & Dragons who holds the all-time "Most rip-offs" award, it's Drizzt. Even so, ever since Fellowship of the Ring came out three years ago, I've noticed an exponential increase in the number of archer concepts that come to my table, Elf archers in particular. Not that there weren't a fair number of Elf archers to begin with mind you, but for the last few years it seems like not a combat goes by without some long-haired arrow shooting Elf boy trying to "Bounce an arrow off of that guy's shield and into that other guy" or "Slide down this banister shooting arrows the whole way" or the ever popular "Stab this guy in front of me with an arrow, then shoot the arrow at the guy behind him", etc. Is Legolas just a passing fad, or might Drizzt finally have some competition in the homage department?
Salla 07-28-04, 04:47 PM	More people watch bad movies than read bad books. However, both of them suck.:D
Computation 07-28-04, 05:34 PM	Ah, you people are so young. Drizzt is just the latest in the long list of characters people want to be. Before Drizzt was Raistlin. Before Raistlin was Strider. Every few years, some new character appears who everyone wants to be. Ten years frmo now, no one will know who Drizzt is, and everyone will want to be Karg the Dwarven Dervish or something.
LukiLoki 07-28-04, 05:39 PM	Well they're both overdone. But there's a difference I believe. Drizzzt was a character created with explicit reference to the D&D rules. When someone plays a drow ranger with two scimitars and "belonging" issues, they are essentially playing someone else's character. Not literary charcter inspired, SOMEONE ELSES D&D CHARACTER. Legolas, on the other hand, is an original character based on nothing other than Tolkien's sources (Anglo-Saxon mythology primarily), and his own imagination. He represents the origin of the very archetype "elven archer". And since Tolkien is probably influence numero uno on the entire game of D&D, Tolkien-esque characters seem almost inevitable, and thus, less offensively cliche. BTW, Salla, if you think you could have done better than Peter Jackson, you are, IMO, wrong.
Salla 07-28-04, 05:43 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki BTW, Salla, if you think you could have done better than Peter Jackson, you are, IMO, wrong. Actually, I think a learning-impaired three-legged box turtle with a camera strapped to its back could have done better, but that's off-topic. I just found the movie, much like the books, frightfully boring. I fell asleep reading the books, fell asleep watching the movie. And if one more person tells me to speak in a scottish accent when I'm playing a dwarf, I'm going to scream.
Dragonspirit 07-28-04, 05:51 PM	I agree with Luki and Computation. And who told you about Karg?? Karg is MINE!!! A war hammer in each orifice, combined with whirlwind attack makes me INVINSIBLE!!!! :eek:
Tehril 07-28-04, 06:41 PM	I just found the movie, much like the books, frightfully boring I think we just found out why you dislike the movie so much... since it's a darn good reproduction of the book. Yes, he took artistic liscence to make it more appealing to the masses... but it isn't so drastically raped as say...Troy...was.
B Rob 07-28-04, 06:45 PM	Gandalf owns them all, and probably always will.
TheAntar 07-28-04, 07:08 PM	I think part of the thing with Legolas is that a lot of people never thought of archery as "cool" until they saw it dominate the battles in LOTR. Swords have always been cool. Bows? Not so much, until we all watched Legolas kick so much ass in the movies. I don't think they are Legolas ripoffs, as you say, but simply looking at an old concept and seeing new ways to have fun with it. Not every swordswinger is a Drizzt ripoff. Not every archer is impersonating Legolas.
shadowflamedancer 07-28-04, 07:44 PM	Answer to origonal post: Drizzt is a cliche. Legolas is the origonal figure of elven archery. Reason: Legolas was the first elven archer, seeing as pre-tolkien was a completly barren era for modern fantasy. Drizzt Do'Urden is just another charecter cocept, and in its basics no different from Raist, Tas, Elminister, or Haplo. Resopnse to all others: :rant::rant::rant: Hollywood has managed to remake old films, transfer books, comics and video games into movies, come up with very few origonall ideas, and slaughter them all at record speed within the past few years. I can only hope and pray that this overflow of c*** will not last much longer. Of the few movies I think they did a decent job on are The Last Samurai, and 28 Days Later. As for the LOTRs movies, I thought hollywood did a good job for making them as movies, but in my opinion it seemed 'dumbed down'(how could they leave out the scouring of the shire?!?). I personally think that no one should be allowed to see the movies, unless they have already read the books. I can't stand how after the movies came out there are tons of 'fake' fans, who never heard of Tolkien, much less Aragorn before 2002. O.K. Rant over.
BlaineTog 07-28-04, 08:02 PM	I've always thought that the Drizzit outcry was overblown. My gaming group, for instance, has never even heard of Drizzit before. Then again, they don't read DnD-based books, either. Anyway, the Elven Archer is another one that I havn't seen much of. Archery has always been popular in my group (even before the movies). The best archer builds are, IMO, rogues, bards, or rangers, which means that you need all the HP you can get (and the elf's -2 to con has been a fairly powerful thing to contend with. I almost never see elven characters because of it).
Thorak 07-28-04, 08:06 PM	Originally posted by shadowflamedancer Answer to origonal post: Drizzt is a cliche. Legolas is the origonal figure of elven archery. Reason: Legolas was the first elven archer, seeing as pre-tolkien was compltly barren for fantasy. Drizzt Do'Urden is just another charecter cocept, and in its basics no different from Raist, Tas, Elminister, or Haplo. Yes, the barren pre-Tolkien era of fantasy. Well, as long as you ignore all mythology. And fairy tales, which in their modern forms go back at least 50 years prior to Tolkien, let alone the earlier tales they're based on. Or Carroll's various books about Alice in Wonderland, 70 years before Tolkien. Tolkien didn't invent fantasy. He was the first big writer of what I would call modern fantasy, and specifically modern epic fantasy, but he was hardly the first fantasy author, by even a really loose definition.
Aimless Wanderer 07-28-04, 08:08 PM	about the dual scimitar cliche, i actually prefer dual chinese broadswords (close enough to scimitar) over other weapon combos, such as two smaller swords, or rapier & dagger combo and the like. For some reason that weapon just somehow seems to fit two weapon fighting, even outside the game..... *shrug* I don't think it'd be too bad if they did "The Lone Drow" series in the same manner they did LoTR...... but hey, thats just me.
shadowflamedancer 07-28-04, 08:22 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Yes, the barren pre-Tolkien era of fantasy. Well, as long as you ignore all mythology. And fairy tales, which in their modern forms go back at least 50 years prior to Tolkien, let alone the earlier tales they're based on. Or Carroll's various books about Alice in Wonderland, 70 years before Tolkien. Tolkien didn't invent fantasy. He was the first big writer of what I would call modern fantasy, and specifically modern epic fantasy, but he was hardly the first fantasy author, by even a really loose definition. Sorry. I was reffering to modern fantasy. I don't usually consider Lewis Carrol and Brothers Grimm to be in the same 'style' of writing as Tolkien was. Although Alice wonderland is technichly fantasy, I usually don't consider it so. And while norse and greeks myths had wonderfull fantastic stories, none of them had heroic-Legolas-style elven archers. I'm a modern fantasy kind of guy.
Elgonn 07-28-04, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by shadowflamedancer And while norse and greeks myths had wonderfull fantastic stories, none of them had elven archers. Your wrong. The Alfheim used bows... I can't think of any stories with the Alfheim actually in a war but they used bows for hunting (which is almost a guarantee they used them in battle). There were elves that shot bows long before Legolas.
The_other 07-28-04, 10:25 PM	people always say there are too many elven archer legolas wannabe or drizzt posers..... what about all those dwarf waraxe fighter gimli impersonaters
Drizzt Clone 07-28-04, 11:17 PM	Definately Drizzt. I mean, Drizzt himself was ok, but then I came around.
Sensei Gith 07-28-04, 11:24 PM	I think that Legolas is more of an icon than a cliche. Every elven archer is going to end up resembling him to a degree. Drizzt is different. I guess all chaotic good surface drow dual-wielding scimitars will resemble him, but, needless to say, it's not the same.
Frostbite_Ravenheart 07-28-04, 11:34 PM	The one thing about "Cliches" is that there is always that one-favorite character for every book/movie/TV Ect. never wanted to be: Legolas - I wanted to be Gandalf or Gimli or Feanor Or Fingolfin Drizzt - I wanted to be Jaralaxle or a gutbuster Raistlim - I wanted to be the Ignorance is Bliss Kender Zeus - I would have must prefered to be the god Promethus Michal Corelone - I would much prefered to have been his father Harry Potter - Siruis and Lupin were so much cooler Oh well...you can have your cliches...I will take all the powerfull people Looks back to his list of people he rather be and relizes 7 of the 11 "More powerfull" people die way earlier than they should. :embarrass :smirk: -Frosty
Bandolar Goldcrest 07-29-04, 02:04 AM	Originally posted by Computation Ah, you people are so young. Drizzt is just the latest in the long list of characters people want to be. Before Drizzt was Raistlin. Before Raistlin was Strider. Every few years, some new character appears who everyone wants to be. Ten years from now, no one will know who Drizzt is, and everyone will want to be Karg the Dwarven Dervish or something. Not disputing that Drizzt is just the latest cliche to rip off, but do many people really not know who Raistlin is? Or Strider prior to the Movies coming out? If there are they must be some of the "New School" players who haven't read a book.
a_psh 07-29-04, 03:52 AM	Well, Legolas is sort of a racial archetype. All elves have some familiarity with archery, and many are expert marksmen. They're no more Legolas than all dwarf axe-fighters are Gimli. Rather, elf archers and dwarf axe wielders are part of the warrior tradition of that race, akin to human knights fighting with sword and plate. Drizzt was designed to stand out, to be a very atypical Drow. He's sort of meant to be the one-in-a-million (or -billion, or -trillion, or -infinity) character. Not only is he a reformed Drow, which is rare, he's also a ranger and dual-wields scimitars. And he has a band of allies and a magic cat and... I'd give you more examples but my only familiarity with his equipment comes from his 3e statblock and killing him in Baldur's Gate 2 (and yes, it is satisfying). That's why someone trying to be Drizzt is immediately noticeable, while someone trying to be Legolas and someone who just wants to be an elven archer are different things. I think it really depends on whether the player wants to also use arrows and those little white stabbin' knives in melee or not, really. On the obvious-rip spectrum, someone wanting to be Raistlin is kind of halfway between the two, because a sickly wizard isn't exactly an uncommon archetype. Nor is a dark, brooding one. Nor is a wizard with a staff uncommon. Nor is it uncommon for the angsty or broody characters to wear black. If the player wants to get those eyes, though, you know something's off. The trouble with Drizzt is that his popularity has made the good Drow into a cliche. Players everywhere want to be reformed Drow trying to make it up on the surface, and a bunch of them want to be total clones. The Drizzt concept is so atypical that it became a cliche the first time someone made a Drizzt clone. The whole elven archer thing was supposed to be a major archetype, essentially a cliche designed right into the game. Thus, playing such a character becomes as non-cliche as just playing a certain class. Sure, you might get a lot of them, but the difference is that scimitar-wielding good Drow rangers clone a character that already has a direct D&D equivalent (i.e. stats) and parrot the personality, whereas an elven archer is a character that could be specialized or roleplayed in many different ways. Now, if someone writes"Orlando Bloom" under their character description, that's a different story. You should hit them over the head for trying to rip off Legolas, and then again for thinking that Orlando Bloom has a personality.
BlackSmith 07-29-04, 06:07 AM	drizz could also be a troll wizard that constantly adveture in the plane of fire and he would be as popular and cool. drizz is cool because he thrives in conditions where other drows suck and he has chosen compleatly different path than most of his race. legolas is just a puny archtype elf. every elf archer can do his tricks when excperience enough. and dwarfs should speak english in italian accent. half-elf bard could speak in scothis accent.
Null Boundry 07-29-04, 06:32 AM	Originally posted by B Rob Gandalf owns them all, and probably always will. Thankyou very much. I was trying to suppress those horribe memories. All those 1 HP mages with beards and floppy hats.... Time for a lie down and some medication.
autolycus 07-29-04, 08:47 AM	It looks like the lesson here is that there are no original ideas. No book is original. No movie is original. No character is original. How about we move beyond that and just enjoy our fun, unoriginal lives? -autolycus
Lawless 07-29-04, 09:06 AM	Legolas is the the archetype elf. In a way elves are practically a class by themselves. Any elf that picks up a bow can be Legolas, it almost can't be avoided at this point. Drizzt is cliche, only because of the fervor that his fans idolize him, your archetype drow is an evil self absorbed spider worshipping psychopath. Drizzt is an archtype only in the fighting with two weapons as drow are prone to do. But thanks to all the wannabes the almost original concept of good person among a throng of evil has been beaten into dust. Drizzt has done for drow what the goth types have done for all the people who dressed in all black 20 years ago and wanted to be different. Shake stir for a decade and you end up with whole nation of good drow wielding scimitars and the Endless to the nth degree. No I am not knocking goths, just making an observation.
SgtHulka 07-29-04, 09:39 AM	Tom Bombadil. If I had a nickel for every player that just sung and danced his way through a campaign...sheesh.
The Half-Orc Wizard 07-29-04, 10:37 AM	Everyone takes sucha negative attitude towards characters based on others. I certainly wouldn't support a player wantign to play a drow ranger with two scimitars and a black panther who comes at his every call, and has problems with morality. But a drow ranger is a fine concept. Just as a an elven archer is a fine concept, as long as he doesn't have long blonde hair and has a best friend who is a dwarf, and competes with him. THere's a difference between copying something and using it as a model, and creating something new. You know, that's how D&D came about. They took the work of Tolkien, and modified it. Elves are mortal, halflings are more that just a lazy hairy-footed race that doesn't care about anything outside of their home, uruk-hai became orcs, orcs became goblins, trolls become ogres. I think characters like Drizzt, Legolas, Strider and Elminster just encourage players to make more interesting creations, beyind those that have been made.
Thorak 07-29-04, 10:56 AM	Originally posted by shadowflamedancer Sorry. I was reffering to modern fantasy. I don't usually consider Lewis Carrol and Brothers Grimm to be in the same 'style' of writing as Tolkien was. Although Alice wonderland is technichly fantasy, I usually don't consider it so. And while norse and greeks myths had wonderfull fantastic stories, none of them had elven archers. I'm a modern fantasy kind of guy. Like Elgonn said; there's precedents in Teutonic myth for elven archers. Incidentally, almost everything from the LotR was taken directly and purposefully from Teutonic and Celtic mythologies. The Elvish language is even grammatically based on Gaelic. Tolkien was a linguist and mythologist specializing in these areas before he ever became an author, and it was his specific intent with the books to create a 'new paradigm' of myth for the British Isles; restoring the old myths and the lessons and stories they contained in a new, modernized form for the modern reader. So it's no surprise that practically every idea he had was based on Celtic and Teutonic mythology, as coloured by his Christianity and utter disgust with industrialism. Heck, there's even a significant dwarf in Teutonic mythology called Gimli; he didn't even bother changing the name.
Arbitrary Aardvark 07-29-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by Bandolar Goldcrest Not disputing that Drizzt is just the latest cliche to rip off, but do many people really not know who Raistlin is? Or Strider prior to the Movies coming out? If there are they must be some of the "New School" players who haven't read a book. Raistlin is a self-conflicted, angst-ridden evil but trying to be good (or is it the other way round) uber-mage from one of the intermnible series of novels TSR spewed out. Sort of like Elric, but not nearly as cool. That's about all I know, because in 29 years of playing D&D I've never played in a canonical TSR/Wizards campaign world for long enough to meet the pretentious NPCs. And I've probably read over a thousand fantasy books, but none published by TSR.
FitzNighteyes 07-29-04, 01:23 PM	Originally posted by a_psh Players everywhere want to be reformed Drow trying to make it up on the surface, and a bunch of them want to be total clones. Every player I've had who wanted to be a Drow wanted to be a weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil Drow. I once played a reformed Drow (my DM came up with the concept). It was a Half-Dragon/Half-Drow Assassin who had a magically imposed good alignment. The only thing I stole from Drizzt was the zz (name was Zz'tan). My problem with Drizzt is that the books he came from suck. I recently had a player who wanted to play Legolas. Brand new players to D&D, so I actually let him make a Ranger/Fighter multiclass elven ranger. It actually went over suprisingly well, since he didn't try to "be" Legolas, he just wanted to be an extrememly competent elven archer in the Legolas tradition.
Computation 07-29-04, 02:59 PM	Originally posted by Arbitrary Aardvark Raistlin is a self-conflicted, angst-ridden evil but trying to be good (or is it the other way round) uber-mage from one of the intermnible series of novels TSR spewed out. Sort of like Elric, but not nearly as cool. That's about all I know, because in 29 years of playing D&D I've never played in a canonical TSR/Wizards campaign world for long enough to meet the pretentious NPCs. And I've probably read over a thousand fantasy books, but none published by TSR. This pretty well illustrates my previous point. Raistlin and the original Dragonlance series were not TSR prodcuts. They were just your regular, stand-alone novels with no D&D connections. Then they became extremely popular and TSR approached the authors about creating a D&D "Dragonlance" setting and giving the authors truckloads of cash. The authors decided truckloads of cash sounded good. It interesting you say that the books are a bunch of TSR-spewed trash, when they weren't published or even affiliated with TSR, nor have you read them. You should check out the original series, it's pretty good.
MrkGrismer 07-29-04, 03:36 PM	Originally posted by Computation This pretty well illustrates my previous point. Raistlin and the original Dragonlance series were not TSR prodcuts. They were just your regular, stand-alone novels with no D&D connections. Then they became extremely popular and TSR approached the authors about creating a D&D "Dragonlance" setting and giving the authors truckloads of cash. The authors decided truckloads of cash sounded good. It interesting you say that the books are a bunch of TSR-spewed trash, when they weren't published or even affiliated with TSR, nor have you read them. You should check out the original series, it's pretty good. Nothing like revisionist history: http://www.iblist.com/author.php?id=16 Margaret Weis began her collaboration with Tracy Hickman on the Dragonlance series when she was an editor for TSR, Inc. http://www.iblist.com/author.php?id=17 When he was driving across the country to start a new job at TSR, Inc. as a game designer, he conceived of a world in which dragons would play a big part. That world became the Dragonlance campaign setting. [Note, I enjoyed the books, but I only read the original three. I also didn't find them better then average good. A worthwhile read if you like fantasy books, but there were certainly better books at the time.]
FitzNighteyes 07-29-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Computation This pretty well illustrates my previous point. Raistlin and the original Dragonlance series were not TSR prodcuts. They were just your regular, stand-alone novels with no D&D connections. Then they became extremely popular and TSR approached the authors about creating a D&D "Dragonlance" setting and giving the authors truckloads of cash. The authors decided truckloads of cash sounded good. No, the original Dragonlance series by Hickman and Weis were specifically written for the TSR Campaign setting. The were TSR published too I think. Dragonlance was concieved before the novels were written, and the adventures (which match what the characters do in the books) written before the series. Raistlin (the character in the book) is even based off of a "scrawny Red Mage with a hacking cough" that one of the play testers had during the Module play-testing.
shadowflamedancer 07-29-04, 04:29 PM	I alpologize for my ignorance. Although I haven't reasearches these topics thoughroly, I used to be very into norse and greek mythology. I'm afraid I don't recall any 'elf' creatures that where like the 'modern elf', more things like the 'modern kobold'. I remember that giants were a big thing though(pun:)). In short, I admit defeat. At any rate, about half of this thread so far seems to be people telling other people how wrong and bad their viewpoints are, but then again, at the core itsn't that the spirit of these boards?;) It seems as though any elven archer is similar to legolas, but the majority of drow dual-weapon fighters are nothing like Drizzt. My reasoning on this is alignment and personality. Legolas=Good, Standard Elf=Good. Whereas Drizzt=Good, Standard Drow=evil.
Warduke 07-29-04, 07:44 PM	I know I read somewhere that Weis/Hickman actually played many of the note worthy scenes in the book, before they wrote it. The campaign definitley came before the novels. I too have read many fantasy books, the original Dragonlance books IMHO are GREAT.
MrkGrismer 07-29-04, 08:49 PM	I believe it was mentioned in the forward to the first book, but that was a long time ago and my memory may be a little fuzzy.
jus10 07-29-04, 08:52 PM	Originally posted by ImmortalBlueMage Even so, ever since Fellowship of the Ring came out three years ago The books have been out for a while... what i get sick of is when a player decides to play a drow outcast...nomatter what he does he's labled as a Drizzt ripp. Why dosnt anybody lable the human wizard as Gandalf? or the human ranger as...the LotR ranger guy (i'm not nerd enuff to remember his name) but i am nerdy enuff to see that cliche's are a matter of opinion...not all drow that duel wield are drizzt clones...not all elf archers are legolas ripps. Its hard to make a ranger who dosnt fit one of those concepts.
shadowflamedancer 07-30-04, 12:09 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer I believe it was mentioned in the forward to the first book, but that was a long time ago and my memory may be a little fuzzy. I remember in one of the books about raistlen(the one when he is a kid) in the beggining it talked about how cool it was when they(TSR game testers, inculding Wies and Hickman) were sitting around a table and the guy playing the human wizard started talking in a quiet, scratchy voice. Every one was 'wow-ed'. I also recall in the "Hero Builder's Guidebook"(lame, but very nice for new people) in the 1st chapter it talked about how raistlin started out as a DnD playtesting chrecter.
Auburn 07-30-04, 01:02 AM	Originally posted by The_other people always say there are too many elven archer legolas wannabe or drizzt posers..... what about all those dwarf waraxe fighter gimli impersonaters Never read the books, but Gimli had such little characterization in the movies its hard to be cliche of him. Basically he seemed to just be a gruff warrior. There's not really enough there for it to be cliche. One could say Thorin (I think it was Thorin) from The Hobbit shares some similarities with Bruenor. Dwarven kings trying to reclaim their lost homelands, but even then there aren't really any similarities beyond that. Two questions though: 1. Has anyone ever had a tattoo covered, harpoon wielding barbarian who was a Queeqeg (sp?) rip off? 2. Who are Raistlin, Strider, and Elric?
Cole Deschain 07-30-04, 02:01 AM	Almost everything's a cliche at this point. That being said, I think Drizzt has become the most obnoxious cliche, because "Drizzt ripoffs" are almost invariably an overreaction to fanboyism. The sickly human wizard, the elven archer, the dual-wielding dark elf, the the gruff, axe-wielding Dwarven warrior, the cheerful halfling thief, the purposeful ranger- they're all cliches. A'course, my 2E kobold fighter with delusions of grandeur isn't a major cliche, but he was awfully weird and hard to fit into an existing framework. Chose your poison.
riceisnice 07-30-04, 02:58 AM	Originally posted by jus10 what i get sick of is when a player decides to play a drow outcast...nomatter what he does he's labled as a Drizzt ripp. Why dosnt anybody lable the human wizard as Gandalf? or the human ranger as...the LotR ranger guy The difference there is with drow outcast it's a character concept, whereas human wizards and human fighters are simply race/class combinations. Now a human fighter/ranger who is the heir to a line of kings but right now is a simple ranger in the wilderness and friends with a lot of elves, that would be called out as cliche.
WizO_BigSister 07-30-04, 06:21 AM	This thread has drifted way off the original topic in places; it breaks the rules about novels in places; large chunks of it have nothing whatsoever to do with the Realms; once again people have descended into Drizzt bashing .... *click*