But now a vast majority of the drow have come to the surface and began shunning the ways of lolth and typical Menzoberranzzan way of life and are not looked upon with as much hatred.
How will Drizzt react?
Because the events of the Spellplague took place 100 years before the 4th ed, will Drizzt have any new companions/family he can take solace in, or will he wander Faerun as the hunter, living in the outskirts of public knowledge and looked upon as a legendary shadow?
Any thoughts folks?
My 13 year-old is Drizzt-crazy. He's been dying to know what happened to him during the Spellplague and the 100-year time-jump. He was bummed that he wasn't mentioned in the FR books, but I told him to keep his head up...I'm sure Salvatore has another dozen books already lined up for Drizzt.
I'm just relieved that he is NOT in the FR Campaign Guide or FR Player's Guide. At least we were spared another write up for the World's Most Generic Ranger.
My 13 year-old is Drizzt-crazy. He's been dying to know what happened to him during the Spellplague and the 100-year time-jump. He was bummed that he wasn't mentioned in the FR books, but I told him to keep his head up...I'm sure Salvatore has another dozen books already lined up for Drizzt.
Nah, he's moved onto other generic characters who are just like Drizzt.
Nah, he's moved onto other generic characters who are just like Drizzt.
That figures...it'll break my son's heart, though.
Since the release of the 4th edition rule set, a rather odd (pointless at some times) question has been stirring in my head: What will Drizzt Do'Urden be like in the 4th edition setting. In my mind i find it mostly baffling and curious, mainly due to a reason that in the novel series, Drizzt's companions are the anchor for keeping him sane in a world that once looked upon the renegade as evil.
But now a vast majority of the drow have come to the surface and began shunning the ways of lolth and typical Menzoberranzzan way of life and are not looked upon with as much hatred.
How will Drizzt react?
Because the events of the Spellplague took place 100 years before the 4th ed, will Drizzt have any new companions/family he can take solace in, or will he wander Faerun as the hunter, living in the outskirts of public knowledge and looked upon as a legendary shadow?
Any thoughts folks?
Maybe, if we're lucky, Drizzt perished in the spellplague! Ao knows, Elminster should have died. Of Old age if nothing else. Plus he ws a chosen of Mystra, who died, and magic failed including the magics that was keeping him alive at 160 or so. Now he's over 300 and somehow STILL AROUND in the dalelands? WHY? Jeez, man.
Maybe, if we're lucky, Drizzt perished in the spellplague! Ao knows, Elminster should have died. Of Old age if nothing else. Plus he ws a chosen of Mystra, who died, and magic failed including the magics that was keeping him alive at 160 or so. Now he's over 300 and somehow STILL AROUND in the dalelands? WHY? Jeez, man.
Some Cows are harder to kill than others. Especially the ones that can teleport.
Some Cows are harder to kill than others. Especially the ones that can teleport.
Teleport has nothing to do with saving the cows. Its the breeding, they are a special type of cow, known as a Cash Cow. Thus they don't die.
Teleport has nothing to do with saving the cows. Its the breeding, they are a special type of cow, known as a Cash Cow. Thus they don't die.
See I thought that it was because Elminster used up all of the 3e magic in the multiverses to avoid having the kibosh put on him and thus allowed for the creation of 4e.
As stale as Drizzt and Elmister got, I still miss how the Realms were before this nonsense. But I'm one o' them weirdos that enjoyed the depth of the setting and had no trouble with canon or NPCs. The 4e Realms are certainly a good enough campaign setting, though. But they just don't feel like the Realms.
The 4e Realms are certainly a good enough campaign setting, though. But they just don't feel like the Realms.
I don't have too much of a problem with the new Realms, and in a few cases I HAVE to run them (RPGA LFR). However, I'm currently in the process of converting the original 1E FR to 4E rules. That was the FR I loved, and I miss it badly.
I don't have too much of a problem with the new Realms, and in a few cases I HAVE to run them (RPGA LFR). However, I'm currently in the process of converting the original 1E FR to 4E rules. That was the FR I loved, and I miss it badly.
I was always partial to 2e FR (love me some box sets!). Never played 1e. 3e was good enough, IMO. We did port in a bunch of info from 2e (Deities and Demigods, etc - awesome flavor stuff). The new Realms are fine as a campaign setting. They just don't give me the same level of immersion as the older versions. I thought I was going to hate playing in them, but that's not the case. I just look at the 4e Realms as an entirely new setting (which it is) and everything works out ok. I wouldn't be upset if they went back to how things used to be, of course, but I can live with things the way they are, too.
I wouldn't be surprised if Guen died from the spellweave and Drizzt fell into a spiraling depression after all of his friends passed away. He's now an unaligned ranger with dreadlocks and a goatee.
-Drizzt is featured in the new era in the prologue and epilogue of The Orc King. He is generally the same as he ever was.
My kid will be thrilled. Me, on the other hand...
The longer any hero stays around in a setting the more they become a gary stu. You don't see these kinds of threads about Tanis or Rasitlin.
Since the release of the 4th edition rule set, a rather odd (pointless at some times) question has been stirring in my head: What will Drizzt Do'Urden be like in the 4th edition setting.
Well, I was hoping for dead, honestly. But no, he's just older and jaded. But he's not in any of the campaign setting books, which is a step in the right direction.
Drizit has become a punchline. I guess minimizing him in the setting while still cranking out novels was WOTC way to split the diffrence.
-Drizzt never had a major role in the setting to begin with. He was always contained to a fairly minor role in a specific area of the continent. He has a large 'following', but in the setting, most don't know of him.
And on a side note, who is Elimister? I don't delve all that much into the entire mythos of Faerun.
And on a side note, who is Elimister? I don't delve all that much into the entire mythos of Faerun.
I have to say that I'm quite surprised that you would be so familiar with Drizzt (including his companions and acquaintances), but have never heard of Elminster. I have to ask...have you played FR before 4E?
Check out the following info for a good history of Elminster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elminster
That's like knowing about DC Comics but never having heard of Superman or Batman.
That's something along the lines of what I was thinking. Elminster's been around since 1E FR.
Teleport has nothing to do with saving the cows. Its the breeding, they are a special type of cow, known as a Cash Cow. Thus they don't die.
Elminster is nothing more than a really bad piece of "internet fanfiction."
Elminster never had the popularity of Drizzt. He's a popular character among long time fans, but Drizzt is like the teen pop idol of FR. People who don't even play DnD know about him. I'm actually surprised he hasn't gotten his own game.
I swear it exists... I saw a character for the system the other day. He was an Emo crybaby multiclass scimitar self-cutter with the whine me into oblivion power. I'm pretty sure the race was drow... Pretty cool character. Had an aura of death by vomit active 24/7. Damn hard to kill the thing.
...even though it wasn't in the Forgotten Realms...
...!...
...Spelljammer for the win?
The other problem is that though Drizzt is a cool character, Salvatore is a hack.
So is all the Drizzt hate just becasue of his popularity or the overabundance of books or his genreicness?
-Drizzt, in and of himself is a problematic character in that he knows and can do far more than he should, given his D&D stats. This, however, is the minor point. Drizzt is problematic in that he has a wide variety of fans, many of whom do not really understand Drizzt himself, or the Forgotten Realms setting.
So is all the Drizzt hate just becasue of his popularity or the overabundance of books or his genreicness?
Alot of it is mindless. Its "kewl" to hate somehting popular. He is far from generic and he was a unique being who has maybe been over done. I think alot of the hate also comes from emo games who turn up to a session with a Drow ranger who is CG and uses twin scimitars.
I haven't really had anyone who has really desired that much to play a Drow in the 14 odd years I have been DMing. They know they won't have an easy time of it on the surface.
...you take an extremely rare and uncommon occurence, then make it ridiculously abundant and popular.
Imagine a book that detailed a disfigured human with three arms.
Now imagine a compelling story about how this disfigured human overcame his limitations and evolved into a masterful swordsman.
Finally, imagine the popularity of this character exploding to the extant that "Three Armed Human" became a standard, expected character option...and spawned a legion of Three Armed Human poseurs with a Three Armed swordsman deity.
---
Can you imagine how that would get a tad bit annoying to those who value a "Classic" fantasy campaign?
Alot of it is mindless. Its "kewl" to hate somehting popular. He is far from generic and he was a unique being who has maybe been over done. I think alot of the hate also comes from emo games who turn up to a session with a Drow ranger who is CG and uses twin scimitars.
I haven't really had anyone who has really desired that much to play a Drow in the 14 odd years I have been DMing. They know they won't have an easy time of it on the surface.
I don't hate Drizzt. But he's far from being my favorite D&D character. I started out liking him a lot. Hell, the Icewind Dale trilogy re-lit my interest in D&D back in the late 90s.
The problem with him is that as his popularity grew, so did the arrogance surrounding him. Whether that was from Drizzt himself or R.A. Salvatore inadvertantly putting it in, I'm not sure (though it's likely the latter). For instance, in the Dark Elf trilogy Drizzt would preface each section of the book with his own thoughts. This worked, as they were prequels and it was Drizzt's history. However, ever since then, Drizzt prefaces every section of his book with his own thoughts and words. That's arrogance.
The fact that players wanted to copy him definitely added to it. When a player wants to copy someone like Wulfgar, it's not too bad. A large barbarian from the north, that's normal. But when they want to become a chaotic good drow ranger, a race pre-disposed to being evil and not rangers at all (pre 4th edition), people can't help but roll their eyes a little. It didn't make sense that so many drow decided to go against the grain of their society and suddenly become good. The fact that Drizzt is a drow is probably the biggest root of the problem. Had he been a regular wood elf, even with the same popularity, people would likely not have as much problems with him as they do now.
Personally, I found Salvatore's Entreri far more interesting than Drizzt. His arc, to me, shows that Salvatore is not a hack (a literary genius? hardly. but far from being a "hack"). Why? Because Salvatore really wrote with the D&D definition of "human" in mind.
What makes humans different than the other races? The fact that they are short-lived and adapt to change much quicker than the longer lived races. Here was a human that could go toe-to-toe with a drow, arguably the best swordsman in Faerun, and live to tell the tale (which is pretty amazing in and of itself). Here was a guy who was obsessed with getting a rematch, and when he was beaten a third time decided that that it was time to move on and accept it. Hell, even Drizzt couldn't accept that Entreri had moved on.
Entreri is flawed, and flaws are what make for interesting characters. Drizzt's only problem is that sometimes strangers don't like him when they first meet him (but he's got a magical mask even for that problem).
Now all drow are good drow seeking to not be like their evil kin...wait...
But yeah, an above poster pretty much summed up my feelings, in that my annoyance with Drizzt stems from his fanboys. I played with one of them back in the AD&D days. I was interested in checking out the books, but the way the guy droned on and on about how awesome Drizzt was, how he could kick anybody's ass, etc, got really tiring. That got a whole lot worse when they put out stats for Drizzt. Bad enough that he was a Drow Ranger, which was a race/class combo that a regular player couldn't do. But then his stats came out and he was unbelievably ridiculous. He had a Backstab attack (only Thieves had that), ridiculously high Move Silently and Hide in Shadows (higher then he should've had, otherwise), and to top it off, if he rolled high enough to hit, he instantly killed his target. Say wha-?!?
The worst was yet to come, though. I didn't REALLY start hating Drizzt til this player showed up to a game with his brand new character. His brand new ILLEGAL character. Can you guess what he came as? I bet you can. He showed up as a Drow Ranger with two scimitars. Oh, and somehow he had a pet panther, too.
I don't remember, but I'm not entirely certain he didn't call himself Drizzt Do'Urden. It may be he called himself something really similar. So yeah, that really killed any interest I ever had in Drizzt right there. If that didn't, then the OTHER Drizzt fan in the group certainly would've. He even rolled up a Drizzt clone, too. Fortunately, though, he was to much of a munchkin to ever play such an unoptimized character (there was certainly no way for him to get all the insane special rules ingame that Drizzt had accrued). So he eventually switched Drow to Wood Elf in order to get rid of the XP penalty and gain a Strength bonus, switched Ranger to Fighter/Thief for the Backstab and better Move Silently and Hide in Shadows, and traded in his scimitars for katanas for the better damage. At least that character was tolerable in comparison, even if the motivations for creating said character left a lot to be desired.
The next character Im considering for 4e is a drow beastmaster good aligned ranger with a lizard, and a fullblade. Even have a backstory for her and everything. Drow can be fun to play as long as the player has a legitimate backstory that does not merley mirror or mimic drittzs.
Personally, my problems with him is his whiney, emo douchebaggery.
He started out as a bad-ass "I kill these cretures because they are evil, and will not cease hunting them for anything" kind of guy, to a "I don't know what to do with my life" sort of guy.
Plus, the constant stupidity with Cattie-Brie. If I remember correctly, he only managed to get with her by either the end of the last (3E) trilogy, or the Pirate King.
Seriously?
It took twelve or so books for him to finally acknowledge an attraction that could be seen miles away. At least Harry Potter only started liking Ginny in book six or so. Drizzt's got no excuse.
And his main argument against being with her is "I'll outlive her." If I remember right, in 3E, drow lived for less time than normal elves. Even if they didn't, THERE ARE HALF-ELVES FOR A REASON! Get over it already, dude.
So, yeah, there's my rant. I'm still a fan of Drizzt, but I can see why others dislike him, although I agree with Zardnaar in that alot o the hate is just because it's "kewl" to hate stuff others like, in an attempt to seem "edgy" and/or "unique". I'm not saying everyone who dislikes Drizzt does so for those reasons, but I've suffered through enough rants against him spouting off mindless rhetoric to know those guys do exist.
The dritz books are medicore at best. Salvitores other work pretty freaking good.
I was a very late comer to reading the Drizzt books. I was SHOCKED at how crappily written they were. I mean, it's not that they were THAT horrible, but I just couldn't see how they got such a following with that kind of writing quality.
The epitome of mediocrity.
...but it reads like Eragon...
:shudder:
Story itself is good...
...but it reads like Eragon...
:shudder:
I actually enjoyed reading Eragon. Though Eldest and Brisingir are far far better. I really like that series. If you want a good drow series I know I said it before but seriously Elaine Cunningham's Wind Walker series.
I actually enjoyed reading Eragon. Though Eldest and Brisingir are far far better. I really like that series. If you want a good drow series I know I said it before but seriously Elaine Cunningham's Wind Walker series.
I thought Eragon was poorly written enough that I never bothered with the rest.
Now there's no character reason behind the Ranger class for him to not be a ranger from the beginning. He could be a tempest fighter from the beginning, but there's still no reason he couldn't be a Ranger in Menzoberanzan.
Drizzt's problem is that he was/is so original, he instantly became the cliche. I haven't read any of the newer Drizzt books in several years, not anything against them, but once the original story of Drow escapes evil, finds path, there really wasn't any more interest for me to personally continue reading.
I think the players who wanted good Drow (or at least heavily selfish, lighter on the evil side) wouldn't have the stigma they get at many tables now if people would have just tried to mix the formula up a bit and have all the different pieces be new and interesting, yet getting the final product (Good/Less-Evil Drow on the Surface) close to what inspired them in the first place. Instead, you had the dual wielding ranger with the great cat companion. Oh, and lavender eyes. Sigh.
I understand the draw to them though. Drow are mean little beasties. Assassin Ninja Debauchees, Magical Elves that can make most races spines go to jelly just at the rumor of a sighting. Not to mention, everyone loves a underdog, a anti-hero, and a story of redemption. A player can get that all with a well thought out, well played Drow in any campaign.
Instead, we get twin longswords, lavender eyes, and a tiger companion.
Alot of it is mindless. Its "kewl" to hate somehting popular.
Not with me. Didn't like him when I first read the books, liked him even less when he became a fad. I think it's Salvatore's writing, mostly.
he changes to the non-evil drow at the end of the Lady Penitent trilogy could directly impact him.
Morbid curiosity, what happened to the non-evil drow? Spoiler block it if it will mess things up for others reading the series - I'm unlikely to, not having read any of the books since the original Menzoberranzan-escape trilogy.
I thought Eragon was poorly written enough that I never bothered with the rest.
Yeah, I read that story and saw that movie (hello LotR meets Star Wars)...and no, I'm not referring to the abortion of a movie called Eragon...
R.A. Salvatore's novels (whether good or bad) were what got me into DnD about 5 years ago in the first place. I was never interested in creating any sort of game plot utilizing the drow ranger, just to play a game as exiting as the novels were, and all i really wanted to see is what you fellow players and DMs think will be Drizzt's destiny in the Novels. Should they just all together drop the series, create 1 final trilogy as a farewell to a fairly popular character, or simply continue on, gradually introducing new characters who would brach away from drizzt and perhaps get a whole new series out of it?
Morbid curiosity, what happened to the non-evil drow? Spoiler block it if it will mess things up for others reading the series - I'm unlikely to, not having read any of the books since the original Menzoberranzan-escape trilogy.
Show
Essentially Eilistraee sacrificed herself to remove the tanarri taint from non evil drow, the lost their dark vision for low light, hair turned black and skin tone turned dusky instead of ptich black. That's the only apparent stuff that happened I couldn't tell you if anything else happened as a result.
I hate to be so blunt but i couldn't give 2 rips about what you think of Drizzt in a campaign or as a character in general. R.A. Salvatore's novels (whether good or bad) were what got me into DnD about 5 years ago in the first place. I was never interested in creating any sort of game plot utilizing the drow ranger, just to play a game as exiting as the novels were, and all i really wanted to see is what you fellow players and DMs think will be Drizzt's destiny in the Novels. Should they just all together drop the series, create 1 final trilogy as a farewell to a fairly popular character, or simply continue on, gradually introducing new characters who would brach away from drizzt and perhaps get a whole new series out of it?
I was with you right up to the "1 final trilogy" part. My 13 year-old kid and his friends like Drizzt. The only reason he doesn't have his own Cartoon Network series is because of the constant stigma D&D carries with it (It would be funny to see The Wacky Adventures of Drizzt and Friends). He's been done to death. He was left out of the RPG stuff for a reason, and I feel that reason is that DMs were tired of their PCs all wanting to play the "brooding ex-bad guy that gave up the evil life for the good life" quasi-emo crap. I read the first trilogy with Drizzt in it, and it was OK. Nothing spectacular, but OK. It just got too carried away. The Realms were around long before Drizzt, and are still around, with or without him. If they make another 100 novels with him in them, that's fine...as long as they don't drop him right back into the RPG (I still shudder when I think about 2E's Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark). He's not neccessary. I've never put him into the RPG, even back when he first popped out, nor will I (same with Elminster) with 4E. Yeah, if he suddenly vanished and never came back, my kid and his friends would mourn him, but hey...everyone dies.
I couldn't tell you if anything else happened as a result.
Well, statwise, they're treated as Elves, now, and not Drow.
Elminster never had the popularity of Drizzt. He's a popular character among long time fans, but Drizzt is like the teen pop idol of FR. People who don't even play DnD know about him. I'm actually surprised he hasn't gotten his own game.
I'm surprised he never got his own game too.
He did have a cameo as an unlockable character in one of those dull Baldur's Gate hack n' slashers for the NGC/PS2/XBOX though.
As much as I see people whine about Drizzt, I haven't really read any book where any of the MCs didn't seem generic to me. Either you like 'em, or you don't. *shrug* Griping about it doesn't do anything. I mean, even the new characters of the 4e based books are kind of dull, and full of the stereotypical deus ex machina. At least Swordmage, haven't read anything else yet, but just from reading the back of Spellplague, it sounds like yet another "mysterious past, come to save the day in my lil' part of the world" type.
As to what Drizzt would be like in the 4e world, I doubt he'd become some hermit, he'd either continue on as a wanderer, policing around Luraur (like it hints at in the beginning of The Orc King) or have gone off to live with his elvish buddies he made during the war with the orcs. I'm sure he'd be all distraught about his companions having died over the years, but he'd have grieved it and move on. He knew it was coming back during the Icewind Dale books, and after he got to know that one elvish woman he met (can't remember her name) during the war with the orcs, he came to terms with it, which is why he married Catti-brie.
Eragon... *shudder* talk about poor structure, I can't even bring myself to start reading the third book, though I heard Brisngr is a lot better than the first two were.
As far as his Npc stats go well they tried there best to match what he does in the books and compared to some of the other npcs I've seen he's pretty mild.
ShowEssentially Eilistraee sacrificed herself to remove the tanarri taint from non evil drow, the lost their dark vision for low light, hair turned black and skin tone turned dusky instead of ptich black. That's the only apparent stuff that happened I couldn't tell you if anything else happened as a result.
ShowOh well that's just fantastic, isn't it? Dark skin is a sign of evil, but now they're redeemed, they get blessed with skin nearer White. I'm pretty thick skinned about the Caucasian basis of most D&D - the default setting is usually some variation on Medieval Europe - but that's just so wrong it's funny! "Hey guys, you're not evil anymore! Your skin turns lighter!"Who thought that one up? :rolleye2:
Oi! Look up elven history and it makes sense all of a sudden. No use in denying staple fantasy themes because of some percieved real world problem.
Easy there, Suin. Are you telling me that black skin representing evil is a staple fantasy theme?
As to the elven history in Forgotten Realms, I'm unaware of whatever you might be alluding to. Are you saying that Drow acquired black skin when they pledged themselves to evil or something of the kind? If that is the case, then that is equally representative of what I'm talking about. It's more hilarious than offensive. Who thought this up?
Early dark elves were already "black" by todays (modern real life) standard and were warlike but not the demon worshippers they are now. They got cursed by Correllon for "crimes" against fellow elves and their appearance was altered to show the darkness of their harts. The ritual failed though, and made ALL dark elves, both the good, the undecided and the evil ones into drow.
ShowEssentially Eilistraee sacrificed herself to remove the tanarri taint from non evil drow, the lost their dark vision for low light, hair turned black and skin tone turned dusky instead of ptich black. That's the only apparent stuff that happened I couldn't tell you if anything else happened as a result.
Maybe, if we're lucky, Drizzt perished in the spellplague! Ao knows, Elminster should have died. Of Old age if nothing else. Plus he ws a chosen of Mystra, who died, and magic failed including the magics that was keeping him alive at 160 or so. Now he's over 300 and somehow STILL AROUND in the dalelands? WHY? Jeez, man.
What? Where do you get his age from? He's 1100ish... 12 now with the timeskip.
ShowCorrection--Eilistraee only "saved" those drow who followed her and/or those drow who did not have a "tainted" (Illithyri) bloodline. She did not "save" ALL non-good drow, and we know what she did had no effect on Drizzt as per the prologue of The Orc King.
What? Where do you get his age from? He's 1100ish... 12 now with the timeskip.
Vas?! Dude was between 50 and 60 when he left the Underdark, iirc. He's stupid young for an elf.
Vas?! Dude was between 50 and 60 when he left the Underdark, iirc. He's stupid young for an elf.
Wait, was ScrewSqrl talking about El or Drizzt? lol.. to me it seemed he led into El in his post..
Wait, was ScrewSqrl talking about El or Drizzt? lol.. to me it seemed he led into El in his post..
Taking another look, you're probably right. In which case the 1100 number is probably pretty damn good. :embarrass
-Are we done with the "Since Drow are dark skinned, it must mean that the D&D designers are racist!" trope, also?
You know better than that. Someone who feels slighted and is looking for conspiracies ansd whatnot will always be around to bring it up. It may be finished in this thread but it will pop up again when someone feels like causing a scene or feels slighted about something.
Keep wondering as you will. Which is what Drizzt would do.:0
Thus, creating a subrace of the subrace drow. Kidding of course... sort of..
Hey, I'm not saying I think the whole thing makes sense and isn't stupid.
-Drizzt =/= 1,110+ years old.?
Well, that's what I was confused with his post lol. Drizzt was born in 1297 DR. Which in current time line, would make him almost... 200 years? But El was born in 212 DR.
Hey, I'm not saying I think the whole thing makes sense and isn't stupid.
IMO lol not really stupid... Stupid because it's not followed upon... Stupid because it gives confusion to... an already clouded atmosphere. On a storyline, its kinda exciting or well, interesting to say the least. WotC and Authors simply have a lack of, 'following up' or explaining things, that... even attempting to explain can do lots lol.
Lord Karsus.
You know better than that. Someone who feels slighted and is looking for conspiracies ansd whatnot will always be around to bring it up. It may be finished in this thread but it will pop up again when someone feels like causing a scene or feels slighted about something.
Did I sound slighted? I was more laughing at how dumb it was, but now after a couple of the comments here, yes, I do find it offensive. The change was realising that other people didn't equally find it as absurd as I did that skin colour was being used to indicate whether someone was good or evil. I didn't realise until it was mentioned above that the skin colour of the drow was the result of a curse. Yeah - some curse: tanned skin. And it's equally offensive that when they are redeemed from evil they are allowed to be lighter again. That's not just a chance alignment of a skin colour with an evil-aligned culture, that's explicit this skin colour = this morality. Which is an offensive notion.
If it doesn't ring any bells with you, fine, but don't take the **** out of me for having an issue with it.
Thus, creating a subrace of the subrace drow. Kidding of course... sort of..
It seems to me all it did was make the "brown skinned" elves match the other
elves in 4E. I would have them have the same stats as elves but different skin tone is all. Drow are still drow. I am sure there are evil redeemed drow just like there are good drow out there in FR.
Maybe he will be happier and more carefree after a hundred years. If so I will start reading again. I stopped after his last Trilogy though.
A mark of good literature is that characters usually change and develop over time. A mark of poor literature is often that they don't. With Drizzt, many people will identify with an outcast struggling with his origins and trying to forge his own destiny. But when you get older, you get a little less tolerant of people who keep blaming everything about themselves and their lives to their childhoods. I guess because we know such people or because, at some point in our lives, we have had to say goodbye to our past and accept responsibility for who we are now. In short, our perception goes from identifying with people struggling with their past to being rather bored with the idea. Been there, done that.
My thoughts,
L.
elves in 4E. I would have them have the same stats as elves but different skin tone is all. Drow are still drow. I am sure there are evil redeemed drow just like there are good drow out there in FR.
Right, that makes more sense. It wasn't the impression I got from earlier.
Thanks,
L.
Did I sound slighted? I was more laughing at how dumb it was, but now after a couple of the comments here, yes, I do find it offensive. The change was realising that other people didn't equally find it as absurd as I did that skin colour was being used to indicate whether someone was good or evil. I didn't realise until it was mentioned above that the skin colour of the drow was the result of a curse. Yeah - some curse: tanned skin. And it's equally offensive that when they are redeemed from evil they are allowed to be lighter again. That's not just a chance alignment of a skin colour with an evil-aligned culture, that's explicit this skin colour = this morality. Which is an offensive notion.
If it doesn't ring any bells with you, fine, but don't take the **** out of me for having an issue with it.
-And, in plenty of literature, individuals with pure white skin (Albinos) are also evil. There, it's balanced. Those with Dark Skin are often evil in fantasy, and those with Light skin are often evil in fantasy.
not only that, look what happened to the most advanced black cultures in FR, Mezro and Turmish
-Oh, stop trying to add fuel to the fire! :P
It was never my intention for you to take my remarks personally. I apologize . Yes it is absurd that certain races that are dark skin are all classified as evil. But surely all evil people are not dark skinned are they?
My remarks was an answer to Lord Karsus's question. As some people actually do see conspiricies everywhere.
However feel free to believe what you will and again take no offense @ my remarks.
Now with that said I might be willing to entertain the idea if a company released a setting where every dark skinned human was evil by default. (I have better things to do with my time and energy then to get worked up over something that doesn't actually cause overt harm to someone though.)
I'm just relieved that he is NOT in the FR Campaign Guide or FR Player's Guide. At least we were spared another write up for the World's Most Generic Ranger.
My 13 year-old is Drizzt-crazy. He's been dying to know what happened to him during the Spellplague and the 100-year time-jump. He was bummed that he wasn't mentioned in the FR books, but I told him to keep his head up...I'm sure Salvatore has another dozen books already lined up for Drizzt.
Could you please explain to me how Drizzt is "World's Most Generic Ranger"? I mean before 1988 I don't seem to remember reading about any Rangers beyond Strider, much less Dark Elven Rangers. I will admit that this character has gotten a little stale with time. But when he was introduced he was a VERY unique figure.
Personally I think the very idea of trying to link real world racism to a make believe race of elves is stupid for one simple reason Drow are not humans!
And yet in Salvatore's early writing we saw this a great deal. GO tell the man he was being stupid. I dare you. Who knows? He might even smile and agree. (Or he'd just ignore you, one of the two is pretty likely.)
Maybe, if we're lucky, Drizzt perished in the spellplague! Ao knows, Elminster should have died. Of Old age if nothing else. Plus he ws a chosen of Mystra, who died, and magic failed including the magics that was keeping him alive at 160 or so. Now he's over 300 and somehow STILL AROUND in the dalelands? WHY? Jeez, man.
160, 300 years old, are you kidding me?!?!?! The Guy was born 212 DR. Which means he is 1267 years old.
Do you know the pc-game "Baldur's Gate"? Edwin the Red Wizard therein used to say:" Elminster here, Elminster there. Give me two thousand years and a pointed hat and I will show him." :D
I just hope Drizzt isn't turned into some pale shadow of his former self. I cringed when I read Jarlaxle's alignment as "Evil" (even though his write-up doesn't describe him as being tyrannical or oppressive and every previous edition has always made him chaotic neutral).
I wouldn't be surprised if Guen died from the spellweave and Drizzt fell into a spiraling depression after all of his friends passed away. He's now an unaligned ranger with dreadlocks and a goatee.
On p. 37 of the "Villains Lorebook" he is "neutral evil". In the 3rd FRCS he is mentioned as well as "NE".
Alot of it is mindless. Its "kewl" to hate somehting popular. He is far from generic and he was a unique being who has maybe been over done. I think alot of the hate also comes from emo games who turn up to a session with a Drow ranger who is CG and uses twin scimitars.
I haven't really had anyone who has really desired that much to play a Drow in the 14 odd years I have been DMing. They know they won't have an easy time of it on the surface.
Well he isn't really hated, its just that he isn't loved by the gamers since he doesn't contribute much to the setting. His onyl real contribution is that makes it harder to shine next to him. He and his friends really do stuff all the time most player-characters wouldn't survive, let alone succeed with it. He is lv 16 and has the highest level among the characters of his fellowship, which is in FR terms pretty much "down to earth", but he is able to summon a Balor and beats him on his own. How could he summon one in the first place? He has not even the skill Knowledge(Arcana). They kill dragons en mass. Buenor enchants "Aegis Fang" which is a +4 weapon and he has not even a casterlevel. I could go on for hours. I stopped reading the books after "Legacy" and read the first few pages of "Starless Night". Its extremely repetitive, even though Wulfgar threw only once a camel at an enemy. After a while I just felt sorry for the next opponent and wondered what creature had to lose its life next. Not very heroic to me anyway. But there is a thing that really disappointed me about the whole storyline of all the Drizzt novels. He and his friends often express how unfair the entire world is to Drizzt, but he does not act any different than those whom he accusses of being biased. So many Duergar, Trolls, Giants and what have you get killed by him and his friends and not even one was ever given a chance to learn of the truth Drizzt seems to embody. The basic statement Drizzt makes as a character is that your descent doesn't define you. That your destiny lies in your hands only and that "character is destiny". How can they just attack and deal a lethal blow to an obviously inferior opponent with the justification:" It was just a Goblin, its just their nature to be heartless and dump killing machines." Its just such a sad thing to me. If Drizzt had been my character I would have made him the liberator of the outcast, the forsaken, the despised and hated. He just wouldn't have slaughtered everything in his path, and even if he had to accept that a particular creature was a predator by nature, he would have spared the creature's life whenever possible, because he understood that life is sacred no matter which shape it takes. I mean why slaughtering legions of trolls when you dont have to engage them anyway? It felt like a justification for genocide when they rationalized the killing with the sentence:" These creatures could have harmed others, if we hadnt killed them now." WHAT?! In the middle of nowhere, in the center of an enormous swap? To whom do they pose a lethal threat there?!?! Does that mean that all trolls should be hunted down? All too often the impression stroke me that a particular development in the plot was only incorporated to justify another butchering scene and I just grew extremely tired of this unimaginative story telling.
The buddies I would have given my renegade Drow wouldn't have been a Dwarf, a halfling and a bunch of humans. No his best friends would have been a (half-)Oger, a Gnoll, a Goblin and so forth. Just the typical punching bags for "heros". Hey man they would have had a great time. I would have given them some crazy dialog. For instance, where the Oger and the Gnoll were debating about cooking, philosophing about a nations politics, culture, psychology, art and anything else, giving them tremendous amount of "character". The reader would just have no chance to not like them, since even though the universe has not given them very much, they would give extremely much back. Thats heroism in essence.
I have this picture in my head of a scene in a cormyran tavern. A guy would come in and walk straight to the barkeeper and ask him:" Hey man, what happend to the wounded Purple Dragons I saw on the street, some limping, some being carried....?" And the bartender would answer:" Well they were tasked with dealing with some trouble in the Stonelands and were caught in an ambush. The "rescue team" our village's major sent out to look out for them brought them back." Then the guy would say:" Who rescues Purple Dragons?" And the bartender would point to a table in the far corner of the tavern and say:" Do you see the Oger, the drow, the gnoll and the goblin there eating dinner?" "Yes, actually I see them and Im not even drunk,... yet." "They pulled that of." "Really?!" The bartender would nod and add:" The Purple Dragon detachment can be gratefull, they dont even have to go back and deal with the issue again, since these guys took care of it along the way as well."
I would trample all the cliches and make fun of the stereotypes. The gnoll would have the best table manners and the drow the worst. And the goblin would be the group's speaker, simply because he is the least likely to be it. Just to give it a funny twist.
They would make statements like this:
The Goblin: "He can not be trusted, he is a human. They are devious."
Oger:" I always told ya, dwarfs are a cruel bunch."
Just to show how things are perceived from the other side of the table.
And yet in Salvatore's early writing we saw this a great deal. GO tell the man he was being stupid. I dare you. Who knows? He might even smile and agree. (Or he'd just ignore you, one of the two is pretty likely.)
-Racism, in terms of people see a Drow, know that Drow are evil, and assume that Drizzt is evil, not racism in terms of, Drow are dark skinned, therefore, all things with dark skin (including, but not limited to Humans with dark skin, on Earth) must be evil.
-Racism, in terms of people see a Drow, know that Drow are evil, and assume that Drizzt is evil, not racism in terms of, Drow are dark skinned, therefore, all things with dark skin (including, but not limited to Humans with dark skin, on Earth) must be evil.
Blah, Blah, Blah... ;)
You do make some really good points. But I do have to mention that Drizzt doesn't just walk up and slaughter supposedly evil creatures on sight but does give each and every enemy a chance to show him their nature. There are many examples all throughout his novels to prove that point. As for him being able to summon Errtu, well Errtu was on the mortal plane already and Drizzt did see the summoning performed once and like their light skinned cousin Drizzt has inherent magical abilities. And I don't think that the only way to make a magical weapon has to be through someone who studies magic. Bruenor did have a scroll with Dwarven magic runes upon it. And finally it was the stubborness of Bruenor that made them chose to go through the Trollmoors(A territory in which they have never heard of) because he was angry at Nesme. And the trolls weren't going to leave them to go on through. The trolls attacked first because they are inherently evil creatures(because they are monsters who like to attack anyone period not because they have dark skin;)) and the party defended themselves.
Blah, Blah, Blah... ;)
-Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Nolwelen
You do make some really good points. But I do have to mention that Drizzt doesn't just walk up and slaughter supposedly evil creatures on sight but does give each and every enemy a chance to show him their nature. There are many examples all throughout his novels to prove that point. As for him being able to summon Errtu, well Errtu was on the mortal plane already and Drizzt did see the summoning performed once and like their light skinned cousin Drizzt has inherent magical abilities. And I don't think that the only way to make a magical weapon has to be through someone who studies magic. Bruenor did have a scroll with Dwarven magic runes upon it. And finally it was the stubborness of Bruenor that made them chose to go through the Trollmoors(A territory in which they have never heard of) because he was angry at Nesme. And the trolls weren't going to leave them to go on through. The trolls attacked first because they are inherently evil creatures(because they are monsters who like to attack anyone period not because they have dark skin;)) and the party defended themselves.
-In 3rd Ed. you needed to have a casterlevel to make magical weapons.
- To summon a demon you need to have magical abilties indeed, which need to be presented for Drizzt, what never happend. He even knew the demons true name and if it were all that easy to simply watch it happen and then imitate it there would be no point of becoming a caster. Actually this string of events implies "learning on Drizzt's behalf" which has never been presented in his stats either.
- Pointing out the nature of Trolls is the best argument on my behalf. They knew what kind of creatures they are and where they dwell and they knew they would have to kill them and decided to go there anyway. They could have avoided them period. Its if you say:" Im out in the wood/jungle here and these predators are dangerous, we need to kill them all." You didn't have to go there in the first place! Even ants will attack you when you trample into their hive.
- Just the concept of "inherently evil" is ridiculous to me. Even demons and devils chose to be "evil". They conducted their life in this way and were sent to hell or the abyss in their after-life for it. Even Asmodeus and his fellows of fallen angels chose to walk this path. Inherently evil things do not exist from my point of view, not even in fantasy.
You know I took Drizzt as the evidence Mr. Salvatore was trying to provide to the reader that in fact "inherently evil" does not exist in the realms. I guess the realization that I failed to see the fact that there never has been such an intent was my disappointment.
- Just the concept of "inherently evil" is ridiculous to me. Even demons and devils chose to be "evil". They conducted their life in this way and were sent to hell or the abyss in their after-life for it. Even Asmodeus and his fellows of fallen angels chose to walk this path. Inherently evil things do not exist for me, not even in fantasy.
-Creatures that are inherently evil- as pointed out, Demons, for example- are quite real in D&D. Just as 'Evil', 'Good', 'Law', 'Chaos', all of these things are tangible things in D&D, not just esoteric concepts.
-Creatures that are inherently evil- as pointed out, Demons, for example- are quite real in D&D. Just as 'Evil', 'Good', 'Law', 'Chaos', all of these things are tangible things in D&D, not just esoteric concepts.
But it happens by choice. No matter how real it is. And its real in RL as well. You always have to take a side. The angels who followed Asmodeus and participated by choice in his rebellion chose to do it. This act made them become devils. Thats it. Thats why natural beasts are always "neutral". Doing an evil act implies awareness on the conductors behalf, otherwise the act couldn't be deemed "evil", because it requires the ability to reason to even grasp the moral concepts of "good" and "evil", "law" and "chaos". And its a willing choice to do either. If a tiger kills you its not an evil act no matter if he kills 100 other people as well. He cant reflect on his deeds, neither before or after he conducted them. He didn't contemplate on the possible consequences before doing it. He does not have a picture of what the deed "did" anyway. To the animal its just an act without further context. Thats why "inherently evil" acts do not exist, since it would demand to exclude the choice to do it and simply this denys it to be an "evil" act.
But it happens by choice. No matter how real it is. And its real in RL as well. You always have to take a side. The angels who followed Asmodeus and participated by choice in his rebellion chose to do it. This act made them become devils. Thats it. Thats why natural beasts are always "neutral".
-Good and Evil (the two most basic) are not objective concepts in real life (though I tend to support Objectivism). What I consider despicable and evil, someone else might consider brave and honorable. That's because, in real life, such concepts are subjective. In D&D, they are objective. Demons are Chaos and Evil personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Chaos and Evil. Devils and Evil and Law personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Law and Evil. Eladrin are Chaos and Good personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Chaos and Good . Modron are Law personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Law.
1. Since the balor was already on the mortal plane was Drizzt actually summoning it or was he calling to it?
2. Drizzt does have magical knowledge as he did study at Sorcere(magic school for drow) for 6 months. And during that study I'm sure he was taught about Errtu and other Demons/devils of planes as most drow are inclined to be evil and would have knowledge of potential allies who share similar views and goals.
3. Can only magic users read scrolls? Bruenor read from a scroll that was passed down from his father written in the dwarvish language and had dwarven runes on it. Bruenor dd not magically create the weapon. He simply read from the scroll to enhance the weapon he create by hand.
4. I use the words "Inherently Evil" because its been stated in literature approved by Wotc.. Granted there's a possibilty that at the dawn of their race the "inherently evil" creatures weren't all evil a maybe a few started down that path and bred that evil into their children and they in turn bred that evil into their children and so on and so on. But not all of those races are composed entirely of evil beings.
5. The Companions did NOT enter the trollmoors with the intent of slaughtering trolls. They were simply avoiding going near Nesme as they were threatened because of Drizzt's kins reputation. And because of Bruenors anger at this treatment and with the intention of" saving us a day or more" of travelling. Had the trolls not initiated their attacks the the companions would have simply passed through on their way to Silverymoon.
-Good and Evil (the two most basic) are not objective concepts in real life (though I tend to support Objectivism). What I consider despicable and evil, someone else might consider brave and honorable. That's because, in real life, such concepts are subjective. In D&D, they are objective. Demons are Chaos and Evil personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Chaos and Evil. Devils and Evil and Law personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Law and Evil. Eladrin are Chaos and Good personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Chaos and Good . Modron are Law personified; That is, they are made from the essence of Law.
I caught that the first time. I was just trying to show you how its simply a failure in local thinking to combine the two terms Inherntly and evil. How subjective good and evil are doesn't matter to my argumentation.
Ok
1. Since the balor was already on the mortal plane was Drizzt actually summoning it or was he calling to it?
2. Drizzt does have magical knowledge as he did study at Sorcere(magic school for drow) for 6 months. And during that study I'm sure he was taught about Errtu and other Demons/devils of planes as most drow are inclined to be evil and would have knowledge of potential allies who share similar views and goals.
I know, I read the dark Elf trilogy, but this fact has never been represented in his stats. Besides, even Drizzt doesn't learn the necessary amount of knowledge to summon a balor within six month, while everyone else needs years to master these studies.
3. Can only magic users read scrolls? Bruenor read from a scroll that was passed down from his father written in the dwarvish language and had dwarven runes on it. Bruenor dd not magically create the weapon. He simply read from the scroll to enhance the weapon he create by hand.
Yes, you needed to either have the appropriate casterlevel or the skill "use magical device" which was an exclusive class skill to rogues and bards. Oh and Bruenor didnt have the skill as well.
4. I use the words "Inherently Evil" because its been stated in literature approved by Wotc.. Granted there's a possibilty that at the dawn of their race the "inherently evil" creatures weren't all evil a maybe a few started down that path and bred that evil into their children and they in turn bred that evil into their children and so on and so on. But not all of those races are composed entirely of evil beings.
Well I pointed out my opinion to Lord Karsus about this point.
5. The Companions did NOT enter the trollmoors with the intent of slaughtering trolls. They were simply avoiding going near Nesme as they were threatened because of Drizzt's kins reputation. And because of Bruenors anger at this treatment and with the intention of" saving us a day or more" of travelling. Had the trolls not initiated their attacks the the companions would have simply passed through on their way to Silverymoon.
Its just amusing how incredible their abilities of stealth are in some situations and how much they lack it in others thats all. As I said just another staged butchering scene.
To say the same in another way, you pointed out before that the Trollmoores have never been mentioned anyway in an offical FR source. Why is that? The location was invented by Salvatore only to create another combat encounter, that's all. The whole contributes nothing to the plot or the character development. It was just there to serve itself. Its like the "Tom Bombadil and Goldberry"-part in Lord of the Rings. I always had to ask myself why Tolkien created this side track, since it simply had no purpose in the context of the story. As you see in the films, its just not needed.
I caught that the first time. I was just trying to show you how its simply a failure in local thinking to combine the two terms Inherntly and evil. How subjective good and evil are doesn't matter to my argumentation.
-In D&D, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not relative terms. They are objective terms. Good is defined in the PHB, Evil is defined in the PHB, and that's that. By the book, using, say, poison to subdue an opponent who is threatening to kill a little girl is evil, because using poison is evil. Sneak attacking and killing Hitler before he has a chance to rise to power is considered an evil action. Using our logic- which is subjective, rather than objective- both would probably be considered good*. Demons are incarnations of evil. That is what they are. They are not misguided souls who picked the wrong path, and are lashing out at a world that did them a grave injustice. They are manifestations of Chaos and Evil. They can not be anything else asides for manifestations of Chaos and Evil. Were they, they are no longer Demons (Things like "redeemed creatures" are still the same underlying thing that they began as. Drizzt Do'Urden is still a Drow, albeit a Good Drow.). As such, Demons are inherently Evil creatures. They can not be anything else. As manifestations of Evil and Chaos incarnate, the race is Chaotic Evil. Unlike other creatures, like, say, Drow, they are not Evil because society creates them. A Drow who is raised, Tabula Rasa, in, say, Dwarven society, will not turn out Evil. Drow society is what makes Drow evil. Demons, on the other hand, are inherently evil. They are not products of their society. Their evil nature stems from their own physical make up. Nature makes Demons evil, not their environment.
*The first one is a little iffy. I, personally, think that would not be an evil action, but...
-In D&D, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not relative terms. They are objective terms. Good is defined in the PHB, Evil is defined in the PHB, and that's that. By the book, using, say, poison to subdue an opponent who is threatening to kill a little girl is evil, because using poison is evil. Sneak attacking and killing Hitler before he has a chance to rise to power is considered an evil action. Using our logic- which is subjective, rather than objective- both would probably be considered good*. Demons are incarnations of evil. That is what they are. They are not misguided souls who picked the wrong path, and are lashing out at a world that did them a grave injustice. They are manifestations of Chaos and Evil. They can not be anything else asides for manifestations of Chaos and Evil. Were they, they are no longer Demons (Things like "redeemed creatures" are still the same underlying thing that they began as. Drizzt Do'Urden is still a Drow, albeit a Good Drow.). As such, Demons are inherently Evil creatures. They can not be anything else. As manifestations of Evil and Chaos incarnate, the race is Chaotic Evil. Unlike other creatures, like, say, Drow, they are not Evil because society creates them. A Drow who is raised, Tabula Rasa, in, say, Dwarven society, will not turn out Evil. Drow society is what makes Drow evil. Demons, on the other hand, are inherently evil. They are not products of their society. Their evil nature stems from their own physical make up. Nature makes Demons evil, not their environment.
*The first one is a little iffy. I, personally, think that would not be an evil action, but...
I guess this simply is an issue of differing points of view. Thats ok to me.
I guess this simply is an issue of differing points of view. Thats ok to me.
Yes, it is. It is your point of view not being relevant to the way the D&D universe(s) and cosmology work. If you run your game under your philosophy, fine, more power to you. But you should be aware of the default and know that the default is what most people assume you are working with unless stated otherwise. And since the the Realms follows the default of demons and devils being intrinsically evil because they are made of it renders your personal philosophies irrelevant.
You are entitled to your point of view. Neither I, nor anyone else, is trying to take it from you. We are just saying that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I admit that you have far more "technical" knowledge on how things work in the realms and I bow to your wisdom. Everything you have said is prob 100% correct as most of my knowledge have come from the hundreds of books I've read in this genre while you actually play and Dm in this world.
I believe when I was mentionning the Trollmoors that it wasn't that it didn't exist but that the companions had little knowledge of it. If they had then they would have found another way. I don't think Ras had made them go through there for just a battle per se but rather experience a different aspect of the world in which they were travelling in
-In D&D, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not relative terms. They are objective terms. Good is defined in the PHB, Evil is defined in the PHB, and that's that. By the book, using, say, poison to subdue an opponent who is threatening to kill a little girl is evil, because using poison is evil. Sneak attacking and killing Hitler before he has a chance to rise to power is considered an evil action. Using our logic- which is subjective, rather than objective- both would probably be considered good*. Demons are incarnations of evil. That is what they are. They are not misguided souls who picked the wrong path, and are lashing out at a world that did them a grave injustice. They are manifestations of Chaos and Evil. They can not be anything else asides for manifestations of Chaos and Evil. Were they, they are no longer Demons (Things like "redeemed creatures" are still the same underlying thing that they began as. Drizzt Do'Urden is still a Drow, albeit a Good Drow.). As such, Demons are inherently Evil creatures. They can not be anything else. As manifestations of Evil and Chaos incarnate, the race is Chaotic Evil. Unlike other creatures, like, say, Drow, they are not Evil because society creates them. A Drow who is raised, Tabula Rasa, in, say, Dwarven society, will not turn out Evil. Drow society is what makes Drow evil. Demons, on the other hand, are inherently evil. They are not products of their society. Their evil nature stems from their own physical make up. Nature makes Demons evil, not their environment.
*The first one is a little iffy. I, personally, think that would not be an evil action, but...
Just a quick question. Chaos is considered evil? Isn't there classifications of CG and CN?I'm just curious
Chaos is considered evil? Isn't there classifications of CG and CN?I'm just curious
-No. Chaos is Chaos. That's all it is.
-Demons are evil because they are creatures of Chaos and Evil (CE alignment). Eladrin are creatures of Chaos and Good, and they are good (CG alignment). Law and Chaos are on the metaphorical Y Axis, and Good and Evil are on the metaphorical X Axis.
Yes, it is. It is your point of view not being relevant to the way the D&D universe(s) and cosmology work. If you run your game under your philosophy, fine, more power to you. But you should be aware of the default and know that the default is what most people assume you are working with unless stated otherwise. And since the the Realms follows the default of demons and devils being intrinsically evil because they are made of it renders your personal philosophies irrelevant.
You are entitled to your point of view. Neither I, nor anyone else, is trying to take it from you. We are just saying that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Everyone here is just contributing an opinion, you included. And the "default" is a pretty vague concept in and of itself. Especially when multiple people start to refer to it during a debate.
Oh. And there's no sarcasm or any thing negative meant in any of my remarks
I know, thank you for giving your opinion.
-Demons are evil because they are creatures of Chaos and Evil (CE alignment).
Yes I support that! I did from the start, I just have a different answer for the "Why". I never "contested" this point. I was just trying to say it has been their choice to become that, that's all.
Well Escef as Lord Karsus pointed out the racism that Drizzt faces is the racism that says that the fictional race of Drow is evil by default and not the racism that says dark skined humans are evil by default. And at best it is just silly to attempt to confuse the two.
Who tried?
Devils though are a subject we might have to create a new thread for...
Oh well that's just fantastic, isn't it? Dark skin is a sign of evil, but now they're redeemed, they get blessed with skin nearer White. I'm pretty thick skinned about the Caucasian basis of most D&D - the default setting is usually some variation on Medieval Europe - but that's just so wrong it's funny! "Hey guys, you're not evil anymore! Your skin turns lighter!" Who thought that one up?
Did I sound slighted? I was more laughing at how dumb it was, but now after a couple of the comments here, yes, I do find it offensive. The change was realising that other people didn't equally find it as absurd as I did that skin colour was being used to indicate whether someone was good or evil. I didn't realise until it was mentioned above that the skin colour of the drow was the result of a curse. Yeah - some curse: tanned skin. And it's equally offensive that when they are redeemed from evil they are allowed to be lighter again. That's not just a chance alignment of a skin colour with an evil-aligned culture, that's explicit this skin colour = this morality. Which is an offensive notion.
If it doesn't ring any bells with you, fine, but don't take the **** out of me for having an issue with it.
Personally I think the very idea of trying to link real world racism to a make believe race of elves is stupid for one simple reason Drow are not humans!
Now with that said I might be willing to entertain the idea if a company released a setting where every dark skinned human was evil by default. (I have better things to do with my time and energy then to get worked up over something that doesn't actually cause overt harm to someone though.)
And yet in Salvatore's early writing we saw this a great deal. GO tell the man he was being stupid. I dare you. Who knows? He might even smile and agree. (Or he'd just ignore you, one of the two is pretty likely.)
Well Escef as Lord Karsus pointed out the racism that Drizzt faces is the racism that says that the fictional race of Drow is evil by default and not the racism that says dark skined humans are evil by default. And at best it is just silly to attempt to confuse the two.
-Yes, we know. I know Escef. He knows me. It's friendly banter stuff.
I was just trying to say it has been their choice to become that, that's all.
-That's what I don't agree with. Demons are evil not because they have a choice, but because they are made of the 'essence' of Evil (and Chaos). Drizzt is good because he is a product of his environment (in the sense that Zaknafein sired him, trained him to be a "good guy", and so on). Demons are evil because nature mandates that they be evil. With Drizzt, it's nurture winning, with the Nature vs. Nurture debate, because Drow are inherently neutral. With Demons, it's nature winning, with the Nature vs. Nurture debate, because Demons are inherently evil. Demons are evil, as nature intended them to be, just like fish swim, just like nature intended them to.
). If a creature is made up of the essence of pure evil the said creature doesn't have any other choice than to be evil. However should said creature somehow bond with a creature not created with the essence of evil then choice can come into play because the offspring will be composed of two essences.Nolwelen I disagree, in order to see real world racism in the Drow's curse you have to be hypersensative to the point of silliness. (Sorry Knasser this is another point where we disagree, I still love your agruments though.)
Nolwelen I disagree, in order to see real world racism in the Drow's curse you have to be hypersensative to the point of silliness.
-Like philosophy, a lot of people don't take personal offense to things, but they take offense of them just in general principle, because they violate/offend whatever philosophies and beliefs that the person has in general.
Yes I support that! I did from the start, I just have a different answer for the "Why". I never "contested" this point. I was just trying to say it has been their choice to become that, that's all.
3.5 fiends start off created of the very stuff of evil, they're born evil. Granting them the concept of free will which I tend to do but I'm on shaky* grounds trying to support it from RAW standpoint doesn't negate that they start off evil. At best, the argument isn't that fiends chose to become evil but rather that they chose to stay that way after confronted with the reality of other forces in existence. I'm all for fiends having free will just as I'm all for Cameron in TSCC having free will but in both cases, they start with a default program and that program defines them until they break it.
* by shaky, understand that the only example I have immediately at hand is a succubus who fell in love, altered her behaviour and eventually became a paladin. Further note that said example, only shows up as the end result of a net based creature contest NOT as part of the normal published lore.
And yet in Salvatore's early writing we saw this a great deal. GO tell the man he was being stupid. I dare you. Who knows? He might even smile and agree. (Or he'd just ignore you, one of the two is pretty likely.)
RAS has also linked real-world racism with another made-up race--orcs--in the prologue of The Orc King (anyone recall the CCC?).
LOL! With all those Drow trying to be good, one wonders if there're any evil Drow left.
Actually, I'm playing one now, Zakivarin, a Neutral Evil Drow Cerebremancer (Kineticist Psion/Sorcerer), in our "End of Third Edition" campaign. (The rest of the party includes a Half-Orc fighter-Cleric, a True Necromancer, and the Necromancer's fiancee, a homicidal Rogue wench who features heavily in some apocalyptic prophesy...)
Since the release of the 4th edition rule set, a rather odd (pointless at some times) question has been stirring in my head: What will Drizzt Do'Urden be like in the 4th edition setting.
Well, I agree with another poster in this thread, I hope that Cattie-Brie and he had a few kids before "the Spellplague hit the fandom", as it were.
However, since I have only purchased the 4E Players Guide to the Forgotten Realms and not the setting book itself (I plan on using those rules to adapt the NORMAL Realms to 4E rules, incorporating only a certain few of the setting changes), I've also been avoiding the new trilogy like the plague itself.
I've been thinking. An angel or other heavenly being is created from some deity(god) divine essence right? And since they can fall from grace and become a devil/demon by "chosing" to defy their creator why can't a devil/demon created from the essence of evil "chose" to defy their creator and be cast from hell and become good? It only makes sense since their essientially opposites.
I think part of this is because these stories are made up by people. Evil is generally associated with base desires and instincts, things that we are genetically prone to doing (gluttony and lust, for example). So a story of good succumbing to temptation is believable, we can empathize with it. But pure evil being redeemed is harder to believe, because people tend not to change (they might change how they express negative personality traits, but the trait is still there).
Also, at least in 4e, Angels are made from some sort of proto-stuff from the Astral Sea, so they aren't innately good anymore. Whereas Demons and Devils are still built of pure evil (with maybe a little Chaos for extra seasoning). But the idea is that they've gotten away from the old saw of Good and Evil being different sides of a well balanced coin. And I, for one, think it's a good thing to shake the paradigm up a bit.
Now onto another topic that seems to be popping up more and more.
Racism in the realms.
1. Wotc didn't create their worlds with the belief that they all should be based on racsim among the creatures as the main focus. Nor did they specifically assigned one "color" of skin to be considered evil. Racism exist in their worlds because no world can be a perfect utopia where everyone thinks the same way. That would impinge on free will and would make everyone dronelike and be no fun to play @ all. So Wotc decided to bring real evils from our world to mix with fantasy evil in theirs.
2. As to why some people from both ours and their world tend to feel "dark-skinned"races tend to be the ones who have the most predjudice against them, Well I believe it goes much deeper than what's on the surface. Quick answer this question with the first answer that springs into your." What do you fear more, The light or the Darrkness?". Most people will say the darkness because the darkness is unknown and people feared the unknown since the dawn of time. And its that inherent fear of the dark that people whether knowingly or subconsciously tend to think that everything dark should be considered dangerous/evil while everything light makes them feel safer/good. This applies to both worlds.
Just my thoughts
And I, for one, think it's a good thing to shake the paradigm up a bit.
I think not, it seems the designers never understood how to create campaigns in places like Elysium
Well, I agree with another poster in this thread, I hope that Cattie-Brie and he had a few kids before "the Spellplague hit the fandom", as it were. However, since I have only purchased the 4E Players Guide to the Forgotten Realms and not the setting book itself (I plan on using those rules to adapt the NORMAL Realms to 4E rules, incorporating only a certain few of the setting changes), I've also been avoiding the new trilogy like the plague itself.
-Given that, in the prologue of The Orc King- which takes place in 1,479 DR- Drizzt is still a loner and all, it is, I think, unlikely that he had any children with Cattie-Brie.
I think not, it seems the designers never understood how to create campaigns in places like Elysium
Yes, because there is so much more adventure to be had in a place where everyone is good. The vast majority of players were never interested in adventures in the upper-outer. You don't set adventures where folk aren't going.
But this is neither here nor there. If you don't like the new cosmology it isn't like they can stop you from using the Great Wheel in your home campaign.
I've been thinking. An angel or other heavenly being is created from some deity(god) divine essence right? And since they can fall from grace and become a devil/demon by "chosing" to defy their creator why can't a devil/demon created from the essence of evil "chose" to defy their creator and be cast from hell and become good?
Personally, I hold that such can happen, but is rare.
For that matter, I'd assume that angels falling from grace probably doesn't happen every day, either.
Escef, is right, though--4E Angels are not only servants of the deities, but any deity can have "angels" and those angels are always the same alignment as their deity.
Quick answer this question with the first answer that springs into your." What do you fear more, The light or the Darrkness?".
Neither, but darkness is inconvenient only because as a diurnal creature my eyes cannot see without a lot of light.
We need darkness as much as we need light." What do you fear more, The light or the Darrkness?". Most people will say the darkness because the darkness is unknown and people feared the unknown since the dawn of time.
"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do." - Selenia, Dark Angel
"You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them! You were to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness..." -Obi-Wan Kenobi
Actually in my opinion Vader did bring balance to the force as there was to much good and it was stymieing the force
But i digress...
Actually in my opinion Vader did bring balance to the force as there was to much good and it was stymieing the force
But i digress...
He destroyed the old Jedi order, and in dieing while killing Palpatine he removed the old Sith order. Thus leaving the force users left behind to find a path guided solely by the force instead of centuries of opinionated dogma.
Unless you go Expanded Universe.
What was this about digression?
He destroyed the old Jedi order, and in dieing while killing Palpatine he removed the old Sith order. Thus leaving the force users left behind to find a path guided solely by the force instead of centuries of opinionated dogma.
Unless you go Expanded Universe.
What was this about digression?
Well put. I couldn't have put it better.
Digression: An instance of digressing, especially a written or spoken passage that has no bearing on the main topic or subject.
I digress alot
I've been thinking. An angel or other heavenly being is created from some deity(god) divine essence right? And since they can fall from grace and become a devil/demon by "chosing" to defy their creator why can't a devil/demon created from the essence of evil "chose" to defy their creator and be cast from hell and become good? It only makes sense since their essientially opposites.
This is something I and many other people I have talked with crudely call "the fallen angel syndrome." A lot of people prefer to see the heroes fall instead of the villains redeem themselves. A number of players and dungeonmasters are guilty of this syndrome, and simply prefer not to see anything redeemed. Some of these people will be completely okay with a setting where 90% of the people are evil, and will not want to see a fallen paladin restore his grace again. Whether this is a dramatic retaliation to things like Drizzt Do'Urden and his popularity is up to debate. In some cases, it is to prevent guilt should someone want to play an aggressive paladin who wants to smite a goblin child.
Is it a wrong thing? Not always. I am all for some fallen angels in a setting where there is a lot of good, but on the other hand, I also like a dark setting with a sense of hope. The beauty of roleplay is that you can have many situations, settings, and so forth that can create a beautiful story in the end. A friend of mine once said that roleplay is "like making a bad novel." I tend to agree with that more often than not, even if I do not think everyone who participates in it writes badly.
I will be fair, even from a real life perspective, it is hard for villains to reform. It is not impossible, but it is darn difficult. When you become a gang leader, do you always want to change? The legal system is working against you, so even if you start reflecting back on your life and wanting to change, there is not many options short of maybe appealing to a parole board. Likewise, should any of your buddies catch word that you have regrets, they might just kill you in jail. This kind of dilemma can actually apply to most quasi-realistic fantasy settings. Villains can become heroes, but the circumstances do need to work in their favor.
On the other hand, I will concur with the one who referenced Planescape. In that setting, fiends can reform, but even that is meant to be rare. You also though must consider the setting itself. You have more planars in that setting compared to a Material Plane-based setting. So, the likelihood to see such exceptions exist. In addition, I think an angel dealing with a pit fiend has a better chance of reforming him than a lowly Prime who is not similar in power and influence. But then, this is my opinion on the matter.
I digressed...big time...
Like Karsus eloquently put it, Drizzt Do'Urden was heavily influenced by Zaknafein Do'Urden, who was Neutral Good (or Chaotic Neutral, not sure). Unfortunately, Zaknafein got sacrificed because Drizzt failed to kill a surface elven child during the Blooding. So...there is a price for being an exception in an evil society. For matriarchial drow, if you are doing anything with a surface elf short of subjugating it or sacrificing it, you are a heretic. So, Drizzt and To'sun Armgo are exceptions - and traitors.
I have been a fan of Drizzt for a long time. I have not read any of the more recent books, but I never really saw anything wrong with his character concept. However, I can strongly sympathize with those who have some reservations about everyone wanting to make a character like him. I never made a good drow in my time and the only Eilistraean I made was not a drow. My current drow character is an anti-hero of Vhaeraun, and a classical elven supremacist in his own right (just his own brethren come first).
Friendly regards,
AryaNightingale
This is something I and many other people I have talked with crudely call "the fallen angel syndrome." A lot of people prefer to see the heroes fall instead of the villains redeem themselves. A number of players and dungeonmasters are guilty of this syndrome, and simply prefer not to see anything redeemed. Some of these people will be completely okay with a setting where 90% of the people are evil, and will not want to see a fallen paladin restore his grace again. Whether this is a dramatic retaliation to things like Drizzt Do'Urden and his popularity is up to debate.
Which would be odd, as Drizzt isn't actually a redeemed villain, just a good person who came from a bad race (and I know you know this).
Like Karsus eloquently put it, Drizzt Do'Urden was heavily influenced by Zaknafein Do'Urden, who was Neutral Good (or Chaotic Neutral, not sure).
Zaknafein was Chaotic Neutral.
Zaknafein was Chaotic Neutral.
I don't know if an alignment for Zak was ever officially disclosed. Overall, I'd say he wanted to be good, but his circumstances made that suicide.
Which would be odd, as Drizzt isn't actually a redeemed villain, just a good person who came from a bad race (and I know you know this).
Foiled! And I stand corrected.
I should have probably noted that in the end, people prefer seeing evil exceptions compared to good exceptions. That was the main point I tried to make. In either case, that is the over all explanation that I have on the good and evil debate, and the Drizzt Do'Urden perceived controversy.
I think it would be cool if he took to wandering the Planes on a long sojourn (forgive me if he has already done so in the novels or source material"
If players want to meet him it could make a cool epic or not so epic quest to track him down across the multiverse. Include with it dirzzt in trouble or drizzt knowing the adventurers are after him and he tries to foil their attempts for some reason or somehting like that.
i think that might be a nice direction
I don't know if an alignment for Zak was ever officially disclosed. Overall, I'd say he wanted to be good, but his circumstances made that suicide.
Zak's alignment was set in Heroes' Lorebook, though I've seen both version said to stem from there, eh
Get Drizzt into the Abyss and he'll have a nice trip around the planes
I don't know if an alignment for Zak was ever officially disclosed.
It was.
It was.
When was it released? And was Bob consulted for it? I know Bob gets touchy about his characters, though he's probably less attached to Zak. Lovely note, when writing Passage to Dawn he wasn't sure if he was going to return Zak or Wulfgar until almost near the end. He brought Wulfgar back because his relationship with TSR had soured and he figured if he didn't do it they'd hire someone else to.
Zak's alignment was set in Heroes' Lorebook, though I've seen both version said to stem from there, eh
Get Drizzt into the Abyss and he'll have a nice trip around the planes
He did make a brief couple of trips there already(The halflings gem and The Pirate King(at least I think that's where the Lich sent him)). He just came out more prone to endless pondering than actually hurt or anything.
)When was it released?
Back in the 2E era.
And was Bob consulted for it?
I don't know, but to me it makes little difference, because I think CN fits Zak perfectly. Even when I read the novel, Zaknafein never struck me as a particularly "good" person, at least not to the extent that Drizzt was.
I don't know, but to me it makes little difference, because I think CN fits Zak perfectly. Even when I read the novel, Zaknafein never struck me as a particularly "good" person, at least not to the extent that Drizzt was.
Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies sounds right for Zaknafein, after some thought. You know, he was the person who preferred good over evil, but did not bother to do anything to contribute to the side of good. Well, short of being a positive influence on his son.
Regards,
AryaNightingale