Has anyone noticed that the PDF has decided that all of Drow society is evil?
On page 15 of the PDF there is a section titled The Darkness of the Drow which paints all of Drow society as evil, Lolth worshippers. I've generally seen the Drow presented this way over the years, and I generally dislike the portrayal of the game's predominant black-skinned matriarchy as being wholly evil, but I've read some posts which indicate that only some Drow settlements were this way.
Setting aside any unfortunate implications this may have, or that I may be reading into it, what do you think of WotC's failure to present the Drow as less of a stereotype? Do you think it hurts the chances of a Drow subrace in the PHB? Do you think this means the continued portrayal of the Drow in the stripperific dominatrix attire we've become all too familiar with?
They've been categorized that way throughout all the editions as far as I'm aware. Supplements usually end up downplaying the absoluteness of the main books. "Um, did we say all evil? Well, there's some Drow that see the error of their way, you just didn't see it from topside in the PHB..."
MechaPilot wrote:
It's ridiculous to assume that even in a predominantly evil society, there wouldn't be quite a few neutral-aligned people, and yet when it comes to the Drow they do just that. It's also ridiculous to assume that Drow everywhere, in every setting are all evil, subterranean, matriarchal followers of Lolth. The Drow of Eberron would surely take issue with that!
The only good potrayal of the Drow that I found is Drowtales (http://drowtales.com/); it's the only good representation that I've found since it actually portrays them as people, not constant backstabbing villains....
Okay, so A whole bunch of their cultural stuff can be considered evil, but do we have a better version that doesn't involve downtrodden rebels?
MechaPilot wrote:
"The Darkness of the Drow" section almost certainly aims to recapture their original portrayal and context - probably as a nod to tradition as well as a bone to grognards like me. That said, I see no reason to throw out later developments, which should allow plenty of room for non-evil Drow, including most of those who are generated as PCs - never mind literary or non-TTRPG portrayals like Drizzt.
The real problem, then, is one of dissonance - a blanket statement in the PHB about their evilness vs. the expectations of players and DMs who want their particular Drow to be "heroes" (however defined).
Either way, I seriously doubt we'll see them portrayed as they were in the D-series modules, etc. The preview art from 5e makes it clear, if nothing else, that WotC is aiming for a much broader and more inclusive audience. In fact, I'd bet good money their "stripperific" (not quite the word I would use) days are over for good.
If you were to walk into an Aztec society with your modern perspective, you'd think they were horrific monsters. They sacrificed around 40 human beings a day to satisfy their bloodthirsty gods. The Drow are just sort of jerks who raid and enslave a lot. History is packed to the gills with monstrous societies the world over.
I think the idea is that Forgotten Realms is now the "default" setting for 5e, in which case, yes they are all evil with some exceptions (Drizzt, and to an extent Jarlaxle). That's not to say ALL settings MUST have them as evil spider worshipers.
I think it's a bigger cliche to remove the so called sterotypes from D&D than it is to keep them. .
If you want orcs and elves living in peace in your game that's up to you.
Just a minor point about the portrayal of Drow in early editions:
I am not a fan of FR, and I exclusively make my own adventures; that's my bona fides of my personal ignorance of how Drow were portrayed before the 2e Monster Manual and in the FR novels. With that out of the way, I recall one poster on the forums here (the poster in question has claimed to prefer the older editions) specifically mentioning that the stereotypical characterization of Drow (along with the lesbian stripper ninja attire, to use the commonly applied term) was a result of the culture of Menzoberranzan being mistakenly applied as the culture of the Drow in general. Is that not accurate?
dmgorgon wrote:
Actually in the earliest editions, Drow were evil elves that lived either in the deepest and darkest forests or underground and hated humanity. We were also told that they tended to be somewhat less physically apt than normal elves but far more magically potent.
Later on with Dragon and Fiend Folio (this is all still 1e), we were told they looked like photographic negatives of normal High Elves (this is where the dark skin and white hair originally came from), and that they lived in darkness, and they had +4 and +5 gear that was superkeen awesome except it crumbled to dust the moment sunlight hit it, and quickly decomposed when you took it out of the special radiation areas of the underdark. In any event the Drow were still considered irredeemably evil. Oh...and these evil elves had were almost completely immune from PC magic.
It was Unearthed Arcana (1e) that first allowed even the possibility of PC Drow, along with their superior move, 12" infravision (that could see in total non-magical darkness unlike normal darkness), 50% magic resistance scaled to level 12 [in 1e MR went up 5% per level the spell was cast below 12th and was reduced by 5% per level above] along with a handful ofsome very useful low level spells. Oh and all Drow could fight (and get an extra attack) with a normal one handed weapon in each hand ignoring the special off-hand list for two-weapon attacks and IIRC they got a +2 Dex [and may have gotten a +1 Int as well that may have come later]. They also had a very vicious set of disadvantages in sunlight the least of which was -2 to dex (for starts).
The flavor text specified that almost all were evil but allowed the shred of a possibility that you (the PC) could be a renegade.
Thus Drizz't was born.....and the rest is history.
-Polaris
dmgorgon wrote:
I don't like to weigh in here. But I want to float a 5 degree turn on the understanding.
Cenobites.
Sadomasochistic stripperiffic dominatrixiomatic. Not strictly evil, just well beyond notions of good and evil and pain and pleasure. To an outside observer, terrifying. To themselves, bored and in search of the next experience.
i don't know that this HAS to be about race/gender. (Yet I see where it's a fraught issue).
I actually liked that Eberron dared to make changes to the elves.
bawylie wrote:
There's a lot of Hellraiser stuff, and it varies between demons and "neutral" experience seekers.
Theyre not "live and let live" but they monkey with people who open the box.
Just for context's sake . . . The Drow were introduced in the 1e Monster Manual (1977) and described as follows under the main entry for Elf:
The “Black Elves,” or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users. (p. 39)
MechaPilot wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I don't see what the fuzz is about.
"The Darkness of the Drow
Were it not for one renowned exception, the race of drow would be universally reviled. Their depraved society is preoccupied with the favor of Lolth, their spider-goddess, who sanctions murder and the extermination of entire families as noble houses vie for position. Drow grow up believing that surface-dwelling races are worthless except as slaves. Yet one drow, at least, broke the mold. In the world of the Forgotten Realms, Drizzt Do’Urden, ranger of the North, has proven his quality as a good-hearted defender of the weak and innocent."
I think this describes the drow exactly as they were always portrayed in the game. At least in Forgotten Realms which is the setting drows are more famously associated with.
The text is very clear in stating that this is how drow society works, how drows who are born into it are raised to think and act. And it is also clear that there are exceptions. Note that it says "one renowned exception", it doesn't say there aren't other exceptions.
All races in the book (except humans who are purposedly depicted in a vague manner) are a generalization based on stereotype. It is up to the player to flesh out his character and make him unique.
Polaris wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Drow were oringally depicted as evil and there were no well known exceptions. Lolth doesn't Drifderfy someone for having a non evil alignment. But in the original Greyhawk lnot all Drow worshipped Lolth as default and there were things like human vampires in Erelhei-Cinlu the 1st Drow city AKA The Vault of the Drow. The Drow also worshipped the demon lords (Demogorgon, Grazzt, etc). In D&D I tend to go with the 1st introduction of something as being the iconinc representation so Gygax's Drow are the iconic Drow IMHO (2nd ed Darksun is iconic, 3rd ed Eberron etc).
My Drow are mor or less 1st ed Drow reardless of edition, MR, spell like abilities, ability to dual wield, weapons disintegrate in sunlight etc. They keep watering the race down for fanbois who wanna play Drow but a fulol powered Drow is kind of unbalanced unless everyone is Drow or a simialr powerful race.
The dominatrix lesbian thing came from the War of the Spider Queen novels. Salvatore tened to have things like sex only be hinted out, the WoTSQ novels were a bit more adult themed although sex was still off camera so to speak but it had some priestesses of Lolth have a fling.
Zardnaar wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
You think you got problems with the Drow?
Did you see the alignment page?
"most dwarfs are lawful good"
"most gnomes are neutral good"
"many elves are chaotic good"
"lizard folk are neutral"
"many humans are neutral"
"hobgoblins are lawful evil"
"many drow are neutral evil"
"orc are chaotic evil"
You notice those terms?
So drow are LESS likely to be neutral evil than dwarfs are to be lawful good.
But notice that there are no modifiers on lizard folk, hobgoblins and orcs? That the section says that purely, completely, 100% without any exception ALL Lizard folk are neutral, ALL hobgoblins are lawful evil and ALL orcs are chaotic evil with no diversity in opinion between them? What else can be taken from the lack of the modifiers given to all the other races?
Zardnaar wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
"Drow? Treacherous and evil murders beyond compare. Never trust a drow in the slightest, and never turn your back on one. I ought to know since I am a drow."
"How does drow society survive when we drow hate each other so much? You have to remember how superior we drow are. The question is, rather, how do you lesser races manage to survive, which indeed is due to competition between drow. We kill enough of our fellows to allow you weaklings a chance."
"Yes, there are good drow, and I am an example of that, but that does not change my advice. You innocents are just not able to detect which is a good drow being honest with you, and which is the common drow lying to you. Much wiser to trust neither.
"Unfair to me? Well, I suppose, but you are risking your life, at long odds, I might add. The main reason for a drow not killing you right away is that he wants to kill someone else first. And I am a big boy, well able to defend myself, far better than you rabble."
Or to put it in game terms, if you are going to have PC rebelling against evil, you need to have evil. Trying to have decent drow as a race turns our hero into a spoiled teenager. The game need evil. lots of evil, for us to fight.
MechaPilot wrote:
Weep not for the stripperific black skinned matriarchy of the drow, weep instead for the stripperific black skinned matriarchy of the black dragons. Oh wait, they don't have bewbies, nevermind, no one cares about that.
FFSAA wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Polaris wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I think you guys expect way too much from Salvatore. I no more have "doodads" named after brine soaked cucumbers running around than I use his poorly written drow.
Anyway, even from source material they're evil. They happen to be matriarchal, a tiny minority among the evil races, but I guess it's okay to be patriarchal. Ugly, fine, green, fine, male, fine, sexy female, stop the bus.
There was a hint of real affection between Drizzt and his sister (non sexual). Drizzt kills her later after trying to redeem her and gently lowers her to the ground in his arms IIRC.
Zardnaar wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Luciender wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Luciender wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
pukunui wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
I get what you're saying, I really do. But honestly I think Drow are pretty bad*** and are one of my favorite PC races; I've always been a fan of conflicted, trouble characters, and Drow can definitely be that. Plus their dark skin just looks cool.
I almost never let PCs be Drow so our group is not suffering from Drow fanboyitis syndrome. I ran an all Drow mini campaign for 3.5 around 8-10 years ago using the Book of Vile Darkness.
MechaPilot wrote:
I like Drow, but I've always struggled with the entire race being evil and having a working society (as mentioned above). Has anyone read the Conan books? I plan on running Drow like Stygia. A caste of priests who are wholly dedicated to Lolth, actively participating in the political intrigue, murder, sacrifice, and so on, while the slave class forms the real stable bedrock of the civilisation.
This seems to work for me. There was a scene in Stygia where Conan killed a giant snake (which, being a holy animal, was loosed by the priests to feed on a random "chosen" citizen). The commoners around him, so entrenched in their place and downtrodden by their religion, actually attacked Conan for his blasphemy in defending himself.
OrwellianHaggis wrote:
Drizzt actually vowed to not kill Drow but he was forced to when they came after him and his friends. Drizzt as a general rule doesn't hunt Drow.
In the realms Drow, as a race in general, are evil. If you have to describe the average drow, then yes they would be described as evil.
Edit: Not ALL drow are very traditional and lawful, but that's how the general dwarf is. Thus that is what is in the general entry for dwarves says. You can't account for every special snowflake or else each race would have 10+ pages :P
My first thought - "Since when are all games going to be in the Realms? Dumb thing to put in a book that's supposed to be generic for all games."
My second thought - "Hey! If this is supposed to be FR, what the frick about Ellistrae? You know, an entire goddess for non-evil drow? There's a ton more notable than just Drizzt!"
My third thought - "Effin Dritzzt pandering. There's no reason for the name drop other than to have the name drop. May as well name the side bar Drizz't is Awesome and not pretend the sidebar's really not about him."
Personally, I also find the stats strange. The 'favored' drow class is rogue (assassins) - all that poison. Makes good use of the whole stealth killer thing as well. Shouldn't they be getting the +Int bonus to go along with their favorite class? Instead, we have them favoring bards, fey pact warlocks, and dextrous paladins?
MechaPilot wrote:
I think the drow have always been evil but they might on occasion worship someone other than Lolth.
I don't have a bit of a problem believing that an evil race could have a civilization and prosper. Evil societies have existed throughout history often for a long time. Admittedly, not every single person was evil like perhaps a D&D evil race.
Emerikol. wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Sometimes it feels like I am the only one that has read the little realmslore bit about Corellon full-on cursing the entire race way back in the day and them being practically exiled to the underdark to stew in their juices with their absolutely bat-crap crazy spider goddess to make sure they stayed extra "stewed in their own evil juices."
...but hey, it's also cannon that like 20% of the drow race have had the curse lifted because some divine being decided they had earned a little redemption.
But yeah, totally, all drow, all evil, all the time... except Drizzt "Snowflake" Do'Urden. 
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Dunno if it's been mentioned, but it's worth noting that the alignment section of the basic rules specifically calls out that racial alignment tendencies don't apply to players.
Also, drow have always been pictured in such a light. This is nothing new.
MechaPilot wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
Drizzt is merely the poster child for the politically correct drow.
Mecheon wrote:
BoneManPress wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Say what you will about the realism or racial implications of an all-evil society, that is clearly what drow originally were; however, as the Drizz't stuff became more popular, the "good-aligned rebel drow" became a stereotype of its own. (See here.) They eventually added enough "rebellious good drow" that the whole point of the race got diluted. So yeah, it makes sense to me that Lolth reasserted herself a bit, and now any dorw who doesn't tow the line and worship her evilly doesn't last long. (Drizz't is dead now anyway, isn't he?)
Zardnaar wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
thewok wrote:
Sorry, probably already been stated, but:
Not all drow worship Llolth (or care about spiders).
Not all drow are matriarchal.
Not all drow are evil societies.
Not all drow are ink black.
Drow started the two-weapon-fighting deal, not rangers.
Drizz't has created great opportunities for PC evil drow characters. Previously, it was hard to explain how an evil drow would walk around freely in human lands, party with the normally "good" races, etc.
Evil Drow guy "oh yeah, I'm one of the rare 'good' drow elves, just like drizz't, you can trust me!"
MechaPilot wrote:
Then, the Drow as subrace do appear in the PHB? Is it confirmed?
Thanks 
Mephi1234 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
Polaris wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DLfan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I, personally, would rebuild the drow, keeping matriarchy and the black skin.
The first step is to throw out the entire idea of building a race as an antagonist.
The second step is to throw racial alignment tendencies.
We can keep them recognizably Drow, but without all the unfortunate implications.
"WOrship... Correlan? *5 minutes of laughter* Why would I worship a deity that thought the worst disfigurement possible was to make our skin black? And look at how he demanded that Lolth be punished for how she stopped his plans to break the original Matrons!"
Although in my world Elves are more... evilish than most people would think. After all, I took that old question to heart: "If they're so great, why aren't they ruling the world? Who says they aren't?", and now the elves are trying to maintain their power.
Nicodaudel wrote:
Drow have taken the plundge into a fantasy archetype that parallels the vampire obsession. The more popular they become the more people want to redefine them.
That's why I'm very happy that the Drow in 5e has remained true to its roots. I'm not interested in a Drow race that has been redefined. I have a lot of great Drow books full of traditional lore that I still want to use and I'm not going to throw them in the garbage because a few folks want to redefine them in their own image.
dmgorgon wrote:
It's almost like we aren't playing with a system that can survive having all the fluff ripped out and rewritten... How did people ever homebrew a world...
MechaPilot wrote:
To address an earlier point.
Drow (at least FR Drow) do not have the typical birth rate of Elves. A Drow female can have something like 10 children IIRC (Drow of the Underdark 2nd or 3rd ed?).
Zardnaar wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
G: "GRUMUSH DEMANDS ANCHOVIES!"
L: "Well, I, Lolth, will refuse to eat the cat food they serve to commoners!"
C: "I'll take your blood on my pizza!"
G+L: "SHUT UP CORELLON! Nobody cares!"
RustedKitsune wrote:
The drow were meant to be monsters and not a player character race. It started with the G series of modules. I as a DM hate the race for PCs. I like using them for what they are the evil arch-enemy of the surface world. Do not take Salvatore as canon. Drizzt is an exception and not the rule.
Ishorn wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
There are Drow on Krynn too (The Valley of Perfect Silence), and spider-dragons.
There have always been good drows. Drizzt was never the only exception. Hell, they even had a "goddess of good drows" (Eilistraee) and she had nothing to do with Drizzt, who venerated Mielikki.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
[quote="RustedKitsune"]
DLfan wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DLfan wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Polaris wrote:
When did the drow no longer have a weakness to sunlight. In 1st edition they had the same weakness as vampires to sunlight. Now it is like hey we can leave our underground city and be totally fine in the sunlight. I think we need to get back to a weakness to sunlight. Then there wouldn't be so many people wanting to play the race.
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
EDIT: GOt ninjaed. This is a Rely to Post #147, by DLfan
Yes, this is a fantasy game. Thanks for telling me that my fantasy world must follow the logic of the real world, including the cultural expectations that lead to women not excercising as much as men. Because women can be as strong as men, it's just that men have a slight advantage when it comes to upper body strength. Meanwhile, women have the advantage in leg strength and a lower center of gravity (which means better balance).
And yes, I'm willing to ignore the ideas of the real world when making a fantasy world. Because then I don't have to deal with biological misogyny that keeps getting spouted as excuses to reinforce men's positition over women.
Because this is fiction, and I can do whatever I want. Look at me, I'm doing things in a way that doesn't fit your biological misogyny! I'm so Evil, so very Evil. So Evil that all the legions of The Nine Hells, The Abyss, and The World itself will fight to rid the world of my Evil, because even they are not that Evil.
I'm like, D&D's worst enemy, because if D&D doesn't match the real world (except when it leads to white male heroes and the token chick winning at everything) then it is ruined forever. Go have your own fantasy, I'm having mine and I don't want you pushing your ideas onto mine.
DLfan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DLfan wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Not gonna read through every post but, Drow are the evil version of elves, Duergar are the evil dwaves, its the way it is, always been and I feel always will and thats ok. You can ofcorse play a good Drow, or Duergar, nothing saying you cannot, but its part of the adventrue and fantasy world, ya need enemies, and some times you need very obvious enemies. Trying to think to far into it and how the socity would or wouldnt collapse is just silly. Its all ment to give the game flavor and bring ideas to the table. Have fun with it.
RustedKitsune wrote:
DLfan wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Not sure this has been said here, but the DROW we speak of in D&D came from a Scottish (Orkney) myth of a trollish creature called a TROW. They were nasty little buggers who would hide and drag you off into the night. The fact that D&D has strayed so far from the terrestrial mythology that inspired it, leaves people in debate about the modern presentation of their "favorite" being and it's level of political correctness (of an EVIL species no less)... Even though this modern representation has drifted further and further from the myth. The TROW were always evil... The original Fiend Folio was compiled from ideas from our Euro gamer friends if I remember correctly and thus we have D&D's version, the "DROW". The dark skin and nasty temperment goes all the way back to the roots of the myth. The DROW were not simply based on "dark elves" originally but inspired in part by these TROW... Just as most of D&D's early creatures were based on bits of human mythology.
TildenThorne wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
TildenThorne wrote:
DLfan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
TildenThorne wrote:
Sorry, I've been dealing with some anger and trust issues regarding men. Because there's been too many men that have tried verbal beatdowns over sex and gender in gaming.
I'm trying to get better. Or at least more diplomatic and less likely to break out the levels in barbarian.
So let's move on, and break this discussion.
If you were going to include the Drow in your world, would you change them? And how?
DLfan wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Luciender wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Luciender wrote:
I solve my problems with the drow additively.
Menzoberranzan is the same ****ed up place it is described as, but other drow settlements exist that are less ridiculous. They're still mostly evil, vicious, deadly, and subterrenean, but it lets me introduce differences that keep them from being a ridiculous monolithic culture.
Not that I have a problem with monolithic cultures in general, I just hate it when the monolithic one is ridiculous, making them all ridiculous everywhere. (They don't bother me in general because really, PCs don't go into the level of detail of investigation of their enemies for it to make any difference. If the enemy society is democratic, and 51% of them voted to kill the PCs, all the PCs know or generally care about is that the society is trying to kill them. Some campaigns will occasionally go into more detail than that, but in general, the PCs don't care.)
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Luciender wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Not all drow are female dominated spider-freaks, Salvatore ran with that.
I have an on-again off-again campaign with my buddy's Lawful Evil Drow Assassin (fighter/rogue/wizard) that was raised on the surface and is an agent of Mephistopheles.
In my Planescape campaign you have Albino Drow Chaos Monk Clones, and Norse Drow in Svartalheim (sp?).
Drow society is evil.
There are supposedly-rare (though from looking at people's games you wouldn't know it) renegades and rebels against that culture, but the core Drow culture worships an evil deity that demands sentient sacrifices and insists that failures be fed to spiders.
Luciender wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
My current campaign world has, as one of it's philosophical tenents, that mortal races are not inherently good or evil. Morality is fluid on the racial/organizational level and realpolitick rather than good vs evil is what makes the campaign world run.
That being said, the drow society in my game is an evil one in a pretty classical tone, complete with an underground city full of backstabbing matriarchal clans. Not necessarily because they need to be, but simply because there's so much useful source material for them that way that I felt no need to do conversion work on something that's not the focus of the campaign.
In play, since no one is actively at war with them, they do sometimes visit the surface and are not attacked on sight. Even had a Drow NPC meet the group, share a map with them, and adventure with them for a few days WITHOUT betraying them. *gasp*
Theres a big difference bwteen "tolerate" and "trust", mind you.
DLfan wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
There are more than a few hints that the original Israeli culture was a matriachial one. Even to this day, the racial identity is considered to be passed down through the mother.
But there are some hints in the Torah that they used to be heavily matriachial and polytheistic at that. But... you know... maybe that's opening a whole can of worms.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Here's a useful snippet (from the editor of the upcoming edition of Exalted) that sheds a little light on the importance of setting up fictional worlds well:
Stephen Lea Sheppard wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Just for the record, in my world all elves are matriarchal. The "good" elves are just not as evil about it. The nobility though is passed down entirely through the female line. The females are viewed as the sexual aggressors when it comes to courtship. The males though are still warriors and still fight so there is that.
I believe the ruler of Celene in Greyhawk was a female. That doesn't prove anything other than it is not a strict patriarchy I realize.
Of course in my world, the typical human female has fewer rights than the typical human male. That though would also depend on the nation and culture and not be universally true.
I don't mind in a fantasy game having evil races. I would though tend to view it in a center of mass sort of way. Most creatures of a particular race have tendencies. Human tendencies are true neutral meaning they are the baromoter everyone else goes by. Elves tend towards good. Orcs towards evil. It doesn't bother me. It does make a lot of these things a lot easier for new players to grasp and accept. If you want complex moral quandaries, I believe you can have a great game but it's probably something the DM can inject into his campaign and will take some skill to do right.
I really don't understand sexism in high-magic fantasy worlds. In a world where attempting to hold power over half of a population when they can literally make deals with the devil (or the local elven lords) for power. Or become a powerful war leader entirely based on your force of personality and devotion to a god (paladin). Magic doesn't hold prejudice against woman, nor men. Nor do goodly dieties, who will likely smack down or stop granting powers to any leader who tries to use their name to dominate others. Or the fact that female dieties and spirits exist and are often have scary powerful followers. You'd think they wouldn't want to piss them off.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
Matriarchial societies do exist they are just rare. There are some in Africa IIRC as well.
Zardnaar wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
I suggest a reminder to everybody:
This is a fantasy game - we can have the Drow raid surface societies for misogynistic human males who believe that a matriarchy could not have historically existed if we want.
And they are sacrificed by being fed alive to giant spiders.
I mean... I'm not bitter over the fact that there are people in existence who are firmly wedded to the idea that matriarchies cannot exist in human history and are willing to back it up with attacks on sources.
Or have people forogt about historical revisionism, where history was literally rewritten to hide inconvient facts? (this was especially popular in the Victorian era, where they deliberatly defanced ancient churches to give them the "proper look")
I think people often confuse things like matrilineality and matrilocality with true, strictly-defined matriarchy.
Last I'd heard, anthropology holds that insufficient evidence exists to supporrt the claim that any true matriarchies have ever existed in human history--at least according to a strict definition of matriarchy in which all the leadership roles traditionally assigned to males everywhere else in human social history were given to females and males were excluded from them. Certainly, no such society ever existed on a sufficiently large scale to leave much of a mark on history.
We must conclude, then, that true, strictly-defined matriarchy exists only in fantasy fiction, and why can't the drow be such a society if fans want them to be?
Well that is one way to argue. Make the definition of Matriarchy so strict and then proclaim they don't exist. If we applied the same strictures to Patriarchy we might realize we have no evidence of those either.
Perhaps there is not overwhelming proof of a matriarchy. There is plenty of smoke. So I prefer to think one existed. YMMV.
I also though agree that in a fantasy world everything is different. Elves perhaps are different so that matriarchies make perfect sense. All of my elven societies are matriarchies. My human and dwarven tend to be male dominated though the human one has female rulers of course on occasion.
So if asked why elves are matriarchies in my world what would I say? I admit I am responding off the cuff..
1. With magic, physical prowess is not the only measure of fitness for rulership.
2. With life so precious and birth rates so low, the males stay on the front lines.
3. My female elves are more empathic than their male counterparts. Genetics? Maybe. Elven rulers are often asked to mediate opposing factions in my world. They are thought to be wise and fair.
4. The elves are very generational so generation 2 respects generation 1. Over time, the number of males in each generation declines faster than the females due to war. Thus over time the females acquired the power and eventually kept it.
5. All of my elves are athiests when it comes to the Gods (they believe in super beings but not their divinity or worthiness for worship). They do venerate their ancesters in a quasi religious sort of way. Perhaps their rites and customs over time have led to matriarchy.
I'm not real worried about it. It's not implausible. I agree in our world it is far less likely because most of the time in an ancient society where sword arm strength mattered most, men tended to prevail.
RustedKitsune wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Drow are fine, leave the silly PC crap alone, my Kenyan wife thinks they are just nifty, and has never tried to reach for some correlation between Drow, Women, and people of African descent, it's almost offensive people would suggest thus.
Chaosmancer wrote:
DLfan wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
What annoys me is that the drow have never been depicted right in colour, they should be ink black (the curse, nothing to do with melanin...), not brown, grey, or purple; lame.
They are originally described as a photonegative of surface elves.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Portraits of my game group's three drow PCs:
The one on the left is my drow rogue. Er, I think. I'm not really sure actually.
unky wrote:
Ancient Rome could have been considered 'Lawful Evil' even though there were some good people there, I have usually made the distinction between the society and individual as far as alignment goes.
R_Dragoner wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
My favorite Hobgoblin drawing.
Cennedi wrote:
D&D is fantasy. It is not making some sort of politically incorrect statement if that fantasy does not sit well with today's modernity in the real world. D&D is also more black and white in its design rather than shades of grey. D&D is a game, a form of entertainment, to be enjoyed as such rather than analyzed and measured by real world standards. D&D is played outside of this world, in other worlds where they have their own mythology, laws, standards, etc., which is why you won't see American political correctness gone rampant trampling all over the world of Faerun in campaigns I run. No, in that place, my Faerun trumps Earth. There is no Jesus Christ there. There is no Allah there. There is no homosexual/transexual agenda there. There is no feminism there.
Most importantly, there is no shame for having none of that present there. As the publishing company yields to any of those areas and weaves it within Faerun published sources, I, as DM, the ultimate authority of my Faerun, will unweave them and show no pity or remorse for their demise. One more thing, the proper use of English toward a general audience, the masculine pronoun is used. No reason to apologize for linguistics either. It isn't some sort of political statement, it is proper grammar usage.
I for one am very tired of people freaking out, reading so much into things that aren't there and whipping the rest of the population into submission over it. Racial bias! Gender bias! ... Take your paranoid projection elsewhere please. Do not make me your target. I shall not be bullied. Get off your political agenda soapbox and leave my fantasy alone. This is not the place for it. Thank you!
If I have written anything to offend anyone, well then, I guess you realize my point in fullness. I shall say no more on the subject. It wasn't meant to harm, but rather only to point out that D&D is not the arena to explore such matters.
The point is not "you must change the Drow," or that "using the Drow as is makes you a bad person." The point is that the Drow are the most notable black-skinned race in D&D, and the most notable matriarchy in D&D, and that the game could certainly benefit from black-skinned or matriarchal races that are not considered evil as a whole, or from it being noted that non-evil drow aren't one-in-million cases like Drizzt, that there may well be some Drow nations or city-states that are non-evil.
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I love the Rashemi. When I play in the Realms, I almost always play someone from there.
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I hate that every freaking thing in our society has to be political, as evidenced by you time and time again making it clear your ONLY reason you have an issue is it's the most prominent black skinned, matriarchal race in D&D so how DARE they not go out if the way to give a random progressive politically correct nod for the sake of getting a few gold claps from bleeding hearts. I'm sure you'd feel the same if they were the predominant white skinned, curly black hair, theocratic race in D&D
Drow since their inception in D&D have Been portrayed as overwhelmingly evil to a near universal degree, continuing to indicate them as such as the "core" notion is absolutely fine IMHO. If you want to house rule it to ahead, but I see no issue game wise to be upset with the presentation.
Zyph wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
This thread is being locked for violation of the Code of Conduct.
Once this thread has been reviewed, it will be either re-opened or removed forever.