Quote from: jhkim;1063410Obviously, you're welcome to do what you like in your own campaign - but if they've toned down the language in the official books, then that officially changes what orcs are like.

Except that's simply not true. WotC is using less explicit language than has been used in the past, but everything is still there. Orcs still rampage and pillage. Their society is still controlled by males--moreover, males with extreme violence and control issues. They still have an overwhelming desire to reproduce and spread, and they can reproduce with other races. Now, these facts are spread around a few different paragraphs but they're still present. There is nothing in the entry that goes against what we've seen before.

Even if orc society at large was more lenient to females (which there is no direct evidence for that I've seen), it's still patriarchal and dominated by males. That's in the text. So there you go. A male-dominated, evil society to offset the drow. Male drow can be warleaders or wizards and achieve great power, but they can never be priests and truly lead. Similarly, female orcs can be shamans or advisors, but male orcs are always in charge. Isn't that what you were asking for?

Quote from: Brand55;1063416Except that's simply not true. WotC is using less explicit language than has been used in the past, but everything is still there. Orcs still rampage and pillage. Their society is still controlled by males--moreover, males with extreme violence and control issues. They still have an overwhelming desire to reproduce and spread, and they can reproduce with other races. Now, these facts are spread around a few different paragraphs but they're still present. There is nothing in the entry that goes against what we've seen before.

You're saying that anything from past editions is true unless explicitly contradicted. That may be how you run things, but other people don't necessarily take the same approach. The only things that the text actually says is that they are "mostly patriarchal" - and that means they are not entirely patriarchal. You cite orc reproduction, but the orc's reproduction is characterized as orders from their *goddess*.  The orc crossbreeds section starts with "Luthic, the orc goddess of fertility and wife of Gruumsh, demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation."  

Quote from: Brand55;1063416Even if orc society at large was more lenient to females (which there is no direct evidence for that I've seen), it's still patriarchal and dominated by males. That's in the text. So there you go. A male-dominated, evil society to offset the drow. Male drow can be warleaders or wizards and achieve great power, but they can never be priests and truly lead. Similarly, female orcs can be shamans or advisors, but male orcs are always in charge. Isn't that what you were asking for?

In the bigger picture - sure, the fact that orcs have "mostly patriarchal" descriptor in their text is better than if they didn't. What I said I would prefer is either largely editing out drow matriarchy - or having some each of good matriarchy, good patriarchy, evil matriarchy, and evil patriarchy.

Quote from: jhkim;1063427You're saying that anything from past editions is true unless explicitly contradicted. That may be how you run things, but other people don't necessarily take the same approach. The only things that the text actually says is that they are "mostly patriarchal" - and that means they are not entirely patriarchal. You cite orc reproduction, but the orc's reproduction is characterized as orders from their *goddess*.  The orc crossbreeds section starts with "Luthic, the orc goddess of fertility and wife of Gruumsh, demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation."  


In the bigger picture - sure, the fact that orcs have "mostly patriarchal" descriptor in their text is better than if they didn't. What I said I would prefer is either largely editing out drow matriarchy - or having some each of good matriarchy, good patriarchy, evil matriarchy, and evil patriarchy.

So here's a hypothesis: Part of the Drow "mystique" is that they're a matriarchy, in a game where patriarchy is understated. This makes them stand out. Removing or downplaying that makes the race less appealing.
This would also mean that watering the idea down by having an -archy of every type, makes it commonplace and therefore less distinctive and thus less appealing.

Not saying it's true, just hucking out an idea.

Quote from: jhkim;1063427You're saying that anything from past editions is true unless explicitly contradicted. That may be how you run things, but other people don't necessarily take the same approach.

Um, yes. That's how lore works. Until some new information comes along, then all we have to work with is the information we've been given. Obviously everyone is free to do whatever they want at their own tables, but that really isn't the point. It is *possible* that orcs in Faerun aren't sexist assholes anymore, sure, but we don't have any evidence for that. There could also be a huge movement in drow society by a lot of the females to overthrow Lolth worship and make things more egalitarian. You don't have any source that proves there isn't, after all, and maybe Liriel Baenre decided she wanted to try to save her people from Lolth's clutches so she went and started such a thing.

Quote from: jhkim;1063427The only things that the text actually says is that they are "mostly patriarchal" - and that means they are not entirely patriarchal. You cite orc reproduction, but the orc's reproduction is characterized as orders from their *goddess*.  The orc crossbreeds section starts with "Luthic, the orc goddess of fertility and wife of Gruumsh, demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation."  

"Mostly patriarchal" isn't clear at all. What does that even mean? Are they referring to the fact female orcs can fill some quasi-leadership roles, like that of shaman? Is there a female-led tribe out there (just like there have been non-sexist drow)? I don't know, and a GM could do a lot without contradicting that. But moreover, that doesn't contradict the previous information we've been given, either.

I noticed you cut off the section on breeding right before the important part. Yes, there's a goddess who commands them to procreate. More importantly, "The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races." So it's not just a religious thing with them; they have an actual urge to mate and reproduce, one even stronger than us frisky humans. But that stuff isn't really important. I was just pointing out that, yes, there is at least one evil, patriarchal group that's even bigger than the drow in Faerun since I didn't see it mentioned earlier.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062691[video=youtube_share;8UuwfeUh1VE]https://youtu.be/8UuwfeUh1VE[/youtube]

I think a true matriarchy would be so alien to most people, that it would be bewildering.

There are a very very few actual matriarchies in human history.  These all share the following traits:

-they are mainly tribal

-they tend to be highly socially conservative, in the sense of being resistant to change or innovation. Creativity is not encouraged

-generally speaking they are impoverished but relatively stable, in part because matriarchies seem to only develop in areas where basic subsistence is relatively easy

-Men don't do all the work. On the contrary, if anything, women have much more work. Generally, in these cultures, women are expected to do most of the housework, most of the farming, and handle all the economics and the majority of the decision-making.
Men are expected to lay around, doing mostly nothing, possibly  hunting and fishing, and being the ones who go to war in the situations where going to war is necessary, and that's basically it.

-Women don't seem to really have a better lot than in primitive patriarchies, for the most part. Which could explain why matriarchies weren't really more popular.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064009There are a very very few actual matriarchies in human history.  These all share the following traits:

-they are mainly tribal

-they tend to be highly socially conservative, in the sense of being resistant to change or innovation. Creativity is not encouraged

-generally speaking they are impoverished but relatively stable, in part because matriarchies seem to only develop in areas where basic subsistence is relatively easy

-Men don't do all the work. On the contrary, if anything, women have much more work. Generally, in these cultures, women are expected to do most of the housework, most of the farming, and handle all the economics and the majority of the decision-making.
Men are expected to lay around, doing mostly nothing, possibly  hunting and fishing, and being the ones who go to war in the situations where going to war is necessary, and that's basically it.

-Women don't seem to really have a better lot than in primitive patriarchies, for the most part. Which could explain why matriarchies weren't really more popular.

Yup! Unlike the video, you have described a 'realistic matriarchy' to the extent such things actually exist. I disagree with the video claim that in a realistic matriarchy women are more expendable than men, for the obvious reason that women are the ones bearing children - as well as the ones doing the work & running the society. They also are the ones rearing the children, while men tend to go from partner to partner with Mayfly-like lack of responsibility (or are ignored if not sexually desired). If anything, men in a Matriarchal society are even more expendable than in most forms of Patriarchal society. Men are least expendable in monogamous societies with strong pair bonding, where every lost man means a woman without a husband. (Women are also least expendable in monogamous societies - it's not a zero sum game.)

Quote from: S'mon;1064021Yup! Unlike the video, you have described a 'realistic matriarchy' to the extent such things actually exist. I disagree with the video claim that in a realistic matriarchy women are more expendable than men, for the obvious reason that women are the ones bearing children - as well as the ones doing the work & running the society. They also are the ones rearing the children, while men tend to go from partner to partner with Mayfly-like lack of responsibility (or are ignored if not sexually desired). If anything, men in a Matriarchal society are even more expendable than in most forms of Patriarchal society. Men are least expendable in monogamous societies with strong pair bonding, where every lost man means a woman without a husband. (Women are also least expendable in monogamous societies - it's not a zero sum game.)

I haven't watched the video, but I generally agree with this. Though expendability can be seen as relative. In monogamous societies with no remarriage, it is more difficult to recover from mass death in general - but relatively speaking, men are less expandable compared to women compared to a polygamous society.

Still, I don't think that this is too relevant to the drow. As a fantasy race, the drow don't have to conform to real-world laws. They can have black skin despite real-world science about cave-dwelling creatures. And their matriarchy can be different than historical human matriarchies.

It still bugs me that their matriarchy should be the most prominent example of sexism in the game.

Quote from: jhkim;1064048I haven't watched the video, but I generally agree with this. Though expendability can be seen as relative. In monogamous societies with no remarriage, it is more difficult to recover from mass death in general - but relatively speaking, men are less expandable compared to women compared to a polygamous society.

The video described a pure role-reversal matriarchy, which is not feasible as long as women bear the children. Even with the drow where females are physically superior, the men make up the grunt warriors.

In a strong polygamous society a few men hoard all the women and most men are entirely expendable. They have to fight for the chance to be one of the few men with the opportunity to reproduce. IRL though many nominally polygamous societies tend to have a lot of men with one wife, a smaller upper middle class with a few wives, and possibly a small elite (or monarch) with a vast harem, along with a bottom chunk of say 40% of men with no wife.

Quote from: S'mon;1064021Yup! Unlike the video, you have described a 'realistic matriarchy' to the extent such things actually exist. I disagree with the video claim that in a realistic matriarchy women are more expendable than men, for the obvious reason that women are the ones bearing children - as well as the ones doing the work & running the society. They also are the ones rearing the children, while men tend to go from partner to partner with Mayfly-like lack of responsibility (or are ignored if not sexually desired). If anything, men in a Matriarchal society are even more expendable than in most forms of Patriarchal society. Men are least expendable in monogamous societies with strong pair bonding, where every lost man means a woman without a husband. (Women are also least expendable in monogamous societies - it's not a zero sum game.)

True, but she's postulating a true role flip, which simply may not be possible when women bear the young. But if we were going to say women take the men's roles, then they would also inherit the expectations on men from society.
A matriarchy in that sense may be biologically impossible.

A society where the men stay home and the women go to war is likely going to be an extinct one sooner or later. Same problem if you had a society for whatever stupid reason send all, or at least way too many of its men off to war and they dont come back. Or not enough come back to sustain a population. They may get absorbed into the winning nation, or wiped out.

Normally that just doesnt happen. But in a fantasy, SF or post-apoc one it potentially could for whatever weird reasons.

Drow though go about their business in a relatively intelligent way and just keep on truckin because they have a fair balance of who does what and tend to not throw everything at a problem. And have a goddess and other weird stuff supporting that. Drow map to nothing real.

I guess drow somewhat resemble hyenas which are pack animals with larger females. They don't much resemble spiders which are solitary ambush predators.

BTW the upthread suggestion that Lolth = Lilith has me see drow in a new light; if they are a deliberate reaction against a patriarchal godhead they seem to make more sense to me at least in mythic terms.

Quote from: S'mon;1064139I guess drow somewhat resemble hyenas which are pack animals with larger females. They don't much resemble spiders which are solitary ambush predators.

BTW the upthread suggestion that Lolth = Lilith has me see drow in a new light; if they are a deliberate reaction against a patriarchal godhead they seem to make more sense to me at least in mythic terms.

Actually some spiders can be communal. Or at least willing to set up shop in close proximity to others. I've seen "spider cities" regularly where I used to live and theres been reports of communal behavior before in other ways. and alot of spiders are trap predators rather than ambush ones. Though one actually makes nets it drops over prey.

Quote from: Omega;1064140Actually some spiders can be communal. Or at least willing to set up shop in close proximity to others. I've seen "spider cities" regularly where I used to live and theres been reports of communal behavior before in other ways. and alot of spiders are trap predators rather than ambush ones. Though one actually makes nets it drops over prey.

I KNEW someone would say that.

Quote from: S'mon;1064139BTW the upthread suggestion that Lolth = Lilith has me see drow in a new light; if they are a deliberate reaction against a patriarchal godhead they seem to make more sense to me at least in mythic terms.

That's an interesting take.  I like it.  It actually makes a lot of sense.

I missed the upthread comment.  Does anyone know if that was actual original intent for the drow or was this just an insightful observation from outside?

My drow knowledge comes from 1st/2nd edition...Drizzt was an interesting concept when he originally appeared, but I think he had a very negative influence on Drow information that was written later.

I generally ignored everything after that and ran them like the earlier drow.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1064142That's an interesting take.  I like it.  It actually makes a lot of sense.

I missed the upthread comment.  Does anyone know if that was actual original intent for the drow or was this just an insightful observation from outside?

My drow knowledge comes from 1st/2nd edition...Drizzt was an interesting concept when he originally appeared, but I think he had a very negative influence on Drow information that was written later.

I generally ignored everything after that and ran them like the earlier drow.

Some googling indicated that others had made the connection previously but I have not seen any indication Gygax intended it. He was generally happy to use real world mythical Demons though.