Drow...are ruled by a DEMON. They don't have a matriarchy. They are a demon worshiping theocracy.

BTW, where is the outrage that all Warhammer Dark Elves are white?

Oh wait, that would be fucking retarded.

Quote from: tenbones;1063303Yeah - I dunno, I kinda think this is a white-leftist thing. Not really about minorities in the real-world. That's just my hunch.

Your hunch is right. Just look at the videos of their "protests" or who's writing the screechiest blogs.

And its no wonder that minority leftists are screeching at honky leftists. The white knighting is grotesque.

Quote from: tenbones;1063303if you can't imagine yourself not being a victim. You probably need professional help and need to put the dice down.

But NPC.net would be out of moderators!

Quote from: jhkim;1063334Fair enough. My comments here about the drow don't apply to the drow in the Gygax era. If we want to discuss specifically the drow in the Gygax era, I'd have to dig a little more to discuss.

Well I think it's worth bearing in mind that the Drow are a very 1970s trope; if they look out of place now it may be because they've not changed (except to become more fixated on Lolth, but that was so by the late '80s) while the surrounding tropes have changed.

In the 1e MM most of the humanoid races are extremely patriarchal, even the hyena-headed gnolls. The Elves are notable for not being patriarchal, hence their male/female deity Corellon Larethian and (I guess) the one female PC image in the PHB being a (fully dressed) Elf.

Quote from: S'mon;1063280I don't think the Feminist complaint that women in Matriarchies wouldn't dress sexy is right. I think the two - patriarchy/matriarchy and sexy dress - are pretty much entirely orthogonal. Amongst north-west Europeans, men dressed 'sexy' in the Elizabethan era, all those massive codpieces, lots of lace, frills, bright colours and jewelry. They went unsexy dour-Puritan in the early 19th century (having trended that way through the 18th) and have stayed in that mode ever since, by and large, with a bit of variation eg in the 1970s.  There's definitely no law of nature that Matriarchs wouldn't dress sexy; powerful queens often did IRL (by the standards of their day).

Edit: Also, Sweden.

This is an excellent response. You neglected to mention why they dressed that way: to show off their wealth and taste, and ultimately attract a mate. Visual displays like that are common in the animal kingdom.

However, I am not sure that drow women were ever intended to dress in leather BDSM for those reasons. I think it was only ever a visual shorthand for evil and sexy in the constantly inconsistent art design, since their lack of body armor is not reflected in their game statistics.

You know how the ferengi do not allow women to wear clothes (or at least sown clothing, curtains seem to be okay for some reason)? The idea was originally introduced as a shorthand for them being morally inferior to the Federation, but I did see one fan devise the explanation that it originally descended from the fashions of the wealthy. For example, a wealthy husband could afford such luxuries that (by the end of the fashion cycle) his wife would never need to wear clothes.

So I would realistically expect the drow to have multiple different kinds of fashion that indicate their social status and cultural background. Elaborate dresses, baroque armor, skimpy leather gear, etc.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1063282I'm not asking for arguments. I'm reading what you post. I disagree with it. Misrepresenting my posts, claiming that I didn't want to read the material, is disingenuous.



So far, the articles you have linked to, and the posts you made earlier, focused heavily on the "problematic" aspects. You seem to have changed tactics from claims of problematic-ness, to trying to make the Drow "fresh", when the problematic angle didn't seem to get traction.



This is called a Gish Gallop, where you flood a debate with points making it difficult for the other person to respond.

I've already responed to most of these points in previous replies.

Quote from: Spike;1063305The issue with the Curse of Ham argument is that it is essentially an inverted argument from exception. If all you have to do is find a single instance of 'black skin=evil, therefore racist' in the entire world and authors can't use it... that standard can be (and IS) applied to just about anything. Its impossible to meet.  Lets say that we make the Drow Albino. Now someone can point out that in some parts of the world Albinos are believed to be evil, demon possessed or otherwise 'bad', and are often killed. Since Albinos didn't chose to be born that way, it is some species of -ism, and therefore bad.

As for 'Good Matriarchies': Here is a thought for you. The REASON there are no counter-examples of Good Matriarchies, is that by modern standards Matriarchies AND Patriarchies are inherently unjust because they are not egalitarian.   Since you've previously pointed out being ruled by a queen is not sufficient enough to be a Matriarchy, that means you are demanding 'Good' examples of a fundamentally unjust, unequal society.






Meh. That doesn't have anything to do with Problematic anything, its simply a change for the sake of change. Personal Preferences and all that.



So?  The author isn't in this thread debating the Drow, you are.   Seriously: Did you run out of Problematic arguments after the 'curse of Ham' and 'Muh Matriarchies' in the first article? Just trying to look like you got more than you do by tacking on links?



Lets say that were true: How exactly would that quiet the people that think 'Black=Evil, therefore racist we much'?   The CAUSE of the black skin is a side show to the complaint.



Do we need an exhaustive list of ALL the governments in D&D that don't accurately depict how real world governments function?  We could be here a while.  Me? I've always thought the Yaun-ti society seemed upside down....  I think it would be easier to list the ones that aren't cockeyed and goofy.




So?   More filler links?




That would be because only the first one actually seems to address the actual case you are making. The rest are simply 'hey, we can do X with the drow!'.

Which... fine. Do that in your games all you want.   I mean, the Canon Cops won't be coming around yer house to arrest you for making the drow an abino, nice, true Matriarchy.

I am not myself offended by the drow, so I cannot really muster up the support for the "it is problematic" argument. I understand how it may be unintentionally prejudiced and that some people find it deeply unsettling, but since I am not offended then I am more concerned with how stagnant the concept is and with the absurd "race=morality" issue that plagues the fantasy genre. The suggestions I found for refreshing the drow address the so-called "problematic" elements, but I am not going out of my way to ruin the drow for anyone.

Kim puts forth a better argument than I can for what is "problematic" with the drow.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1063359I am not myself offended by the drow, so I cannot really muster up the support for the "it is problematic" argument. I understand how it may be unintentionally prejudiced and that some people find it deeply unsettling, but since I am not offended then I am more concerned with how stagnant the concept is and with the absurd "race=morality" issue that plagues the fantasy genre. The suggestions I found for refreshing the drow address the so-called "problematic" elements, but I am not going out of my way to ruin the drow for anyone.
.

Ooooh... I see, you don't find it problematic... you're just a concern troll.  Got it.


Also are you faulting D&D for ripping off.... D&D? I mean... you're complaining how stale the Drow are, and to be perfectly frank, D&D is pretty much the only place where any of this applies.  Is there anything else about D&D you find stale? Maybe the fact that wizards wear robes and carry staves?  I mean... fuck dude, thats seriously played out. Probably has a good fucking decade on Drow if we really break it down.

I'm getting really tired of the trope that hill giants think about nothing except food all the time, eat pretty much any disgusting thing their body can physically digest, and have no culture to speak of. This kind of veiled stereotyping of Chicagoans needs to go.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1063359You know how the ferengi do not allow women to wear clothes (or at least sown clothing, curtains seem to be okay for some reason)? The idea was originally introduced as a shorthand for them being morally inferior to the Federation, but I did see one fan devise the explanation that it originally descended from the fashions of the wealthy. For example, a wealthy husband could afford such luxuries that (by the end of the fashion cycle) his wife would never need to wear clothes.

For a real world example, one of the reasons for foot binding was that the wealthy could afford such extreme body modification fashion.

The Ferengi might have been an interesting foil for the Federation if they hadn't been cartoon caricatures. (They did get better as the series progressed, and especially in DS9)

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063383i'm getting really tired of the trope that hill giants think about nothing except food all the time, eat pretty much any disgusting thing their body can physically digest, and have no culture to speak of. This kind of veiled stereotyping of chicagoans needs to go.

hahahahaha

Quote from: S'mon;1063343Well I think it's worth bearing in mind that the Drow are a very 1970s trope; if they look out of place now it may be because they've not changed (except to become more fixated on Lolth, but that was so by the late '80s) while the surrounding tropes have changed.

In the 1e MM most of the humanoid races are extremely patriarchal, even the hyena-headed gnolls. The Elves are notable for not being patriarchal, hence their male/female deity Corellon Larethian and (I guess) the one female PC image in the PHB being a (fully dressed) Elf.

I would agree that the drow have a lot of 1970s vibe - but it was a deliberate choice to not update them while updating other races. Editing patriarchy out of the orcs was a choice, and it was equally a choice leaving in matriarchy of the drow. Just as Gygax made choices in what he took from Tolkien and what he changed - equally so later authors made choices about what they took from Gygax and what they changed. The results are what they are, and can be judged for the choices taken.

In the 1E MM from what I can see, none of the humanoids are explicitly patriarchal, but they are implied so by saying that females and young will be found only in their lair. This goes for elves and dwarves just as much as orcs. For example, the elf entry specifies "If encountered in their lair there will also be these extra figures: (...) and females and young equal to 100% and 5% respectively."  I do see that elves were defined as less patriarchal in later books, though.

If this were the 1970s and criticizing prejudices reflected in D&D, I wouldn't single out the drow - though I would have plenty of other material to point to. At present, though, I think they do stick out, as you say.

Well they can update them as much as they want. In my home games they stay the same. Or a player can find another table.

Quote from: jhkim;1063316(I'm ignoring your point about African-Americans, which is completely unrelated to anything I said.)


Not a big real-world issue, but yeah, I think fiction has importance to the real world. Mass media fiction like Jaws or Silkwood or Fight Club can have a strong effect on culture that in turn has an influence on real politics. RPGs like D&D are much lower in importance, but they still have some influence.

I'm a moderate on this point, for the most part. There are people like Pundit who argue that it is important, say, that Blue Rose represents collectivist philosophy - enough to rant about, at least. I mostly want to point out the biases and prejudices in games, but it's not something I get worked up over.

So, yeah, if a game has completely ahistorical egalitarianism between the sexes for nearly everyone - and further says that in their world, the only serious sexism is sexism against *men* in a prominent evil society, then I think that's (a) stupid, and (b) deserves pointing out.  It's not something that I would march against or boycott or anything, but if I'm already discussing shit on my favorite forum, sure, I'm going to bring it up.

Well we agree that RPG's are not novels. But they both have narratives. RPG narratives, in the games I run, tend to be emergent within context that becomes the story in play. Novel narratives are implicit to the story as written.

The core of both of these are conflict, and the settings offer these conflicts in RPG's as a means of interaction. I would even argue that the level of potential conflict is commensurate to the potential quality of the game as a means of that interaction. In other words the more potential conflict the more the players have to deal with that produce optimal gaming.

Those conflicts ideally *should* be something motivating players via their PC's to deal with, but that's for internal game consumption (and hopefully resolution). To sit outside the game and fret over something *intentionally* designed to be troublesome for internal consumption is by a corollary of my perspective a vote to have "less optimal gaming". To the degree that you "problemitize" every obvious conflict reduces that optimal point to the eventual goal of making the whole endeavor substandard, if not pointless.


I'm not saying an SJW-crafted RPG world doesn't have it's place. I'm saying that it's less optimal for scale in what you can do. UNLESS you introduce the very conflicts into that setting that have already been labeled "problematic".

If you want to have a setting where everyone adheres to an Oppression Hierarchical Order... where gender and sex-preference is never an issue and where it does show up it is crushed ruthlessly - what better way to introduce conflict than to put those things into the game? At which point what then is the difference?

Otherwise what is the game? Other than people standing around RPing and never engaging in anything other than petty verbal conflicts and petty repercussions for fear of in-game social shaming? Or worse... out-of-game social shaming?

Which is precisely why Evil Matriarchal Drow Society isn't *bad* for any setting. It's a construct designed to be challenged and/or explored within your game. OR change it. But let's not pretend it actually affects reality.

Just checked a friend's copy of the 5e MM. Orcs are still, according to the "Leadership and Might" section on page 244, mostly patriarchal. They've toned down the language, focusing less on women being used as breeding cattle and more on orcs as a whole being vicious warmongers. While not outright stated, the patriarchal aspects combined with the fact orcs have a stronger desire to breed than any other humanoid race (mentioned a few paragraphs later) leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions.

So, make of it what you will. I haven't read any Forgotten Realms books since they blew up the setting to make room for 4e's changes, but it seems like the majority of orcs are the same evil, sexist bastards they've always been.

The funny thing is that flattening out social hierarchies and structures with each successive edition in large part contributes to why the Realms feels like a Hollywood facade. We're supposed to buy into these pseudo-medieval, aristocratic agrarian settings where it's not a big deal if a woman has no kids and you've got clerics saying, "Meh, religion, it's not for me." The civilized parts of the world are as colorless and anodyne as the Star Trek Federation, so as with that show, things are only really interesting at the hostile reaches of the far boundaries of tamed land, or from mysterious forces breaking in from unknown realms, or totally alien societies (like Thay).

Yeah that's why I love Greybox Realms.

It's far less "improbable freakshow" than the modern editions.

Quote from: tenbones;1063396I'm not saying an SJW-crafted RPG world doesn't have it's place. I'm saying that it's less optimal for scale in what you can do. UNLESS you introduce the very conflicts into that setting that have already been labeled "problematic".

If you want to have a setting where everyone adheres to an Oppression Hierarchical Order... where gender and sex-preference is never an issue and where it does show up it is crushed ruthlessly - what better way to introduce conflict than to put those things into the game? At which point what then is the difference?

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, but I don't think we're in significant disagreement. I already said that I would be in favor of having a mix of evil patriarchy, good patriarchy, evil matriarchy, and good matriarchy among the different races. (That was #2 among my options earlier.) That said, there are tons of possible options for conflict even if gender and sex-preference is never an issue. I've had plenty of good gaming within historical and pseudo-historical settings like Harn or medieval times, but I've also had lots of interesting games within non-historical settings that have little to no sexism like Blue Rose, Paranoia, or Star Trek.

Quote from: Brand55;1063399Just checked a friend's copy of the 5e MM. Orcs are still, according to the "Leadership and Might" section on page 244, mostly patriarchal. They've toned down the language, focusing less on women being used as breeding cattle and more on orcs as a whole being vicious warmongers. While not outright stated, the patriarchal aspects combined with the fact orcs have a stronger desire to breed than any other humanoid race (mentioned a few paragraphs later) leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions.

So, make of it what you will. I haven't read any Forgotten Realms books since they blew up the setting to make room for 4e's changes, but it seems like the majority of orcs are the same evil, sexist bastards they've always been.

Obviously, 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.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063400The funny thing is that flattening out social hierarchies and structures with each successive edition in large part contributes to why the Realms feels like a Hollywood facade. We're supposed to buy into these pseudo-medieval, aristocratic agrarian settings where it's not a big deal if a woman has no kids and you've got clerics saying, "Meh, religion, it's not for me." The civilized parts of the world are as colorless and anodyne as the Star Trek Federation, so as with that show, things are only really interesting at the hostile reaches of the far boundaries of tamed land, or from mysterious forces breaking in from unknown realms, or totally alien societies (like Thay).

I've never really gotten into any of the D&D settings - they've always felt bland to me. Someone earlier commented how earlier versions of D&D settings glamorized feudalism but vilified slavery - which rang true to me. To me it's sort of a toss-up.

Quote from: jhkim;1063410I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, but I don't think we're in significant disagreement. I already said that I would be in favor of having a mix of evil patriarchy, good patriarchy, evil matriarchy, and good matriarchy among the different races. (That was #2 among my options earlier.) That said, there are tons of possible options for conflict even if gender and sex-preference is never an issue. I've had plenty of good gaming within historical and pseudo-historical settings like Harn or medieval times, but I've also had lots of interesting games within non-historical settings that have little to no sexism like Blue Rose, Paranoia, or Star Trek.

Because it's purely arbitrary to find *any* of these things "problematic" at all. That you feel they should have "balanced" representation in settings is easily solved. To stand outside a published setting (and I'm not talking specifically about you but more to the point of this thread) and say that there is a problem with these things in any settings presumes it has some value (in this case negative) outside of the game itself.

Yes we agree on the possibilities of various solutions to the portrayal and existence of matriarchies, patriarchies in any form. Where I'm placing my flag down is on the following idea:  That this isn't a problem at all.

If it is a problem - it's a problem in the mind of the individual that *feels* the material - whether it's a game, a novel, movie, etc. doesn't meet some arbitrary standard that in my opinion only exists in the mind of that individual that often get in the way of the entire point of the game/novel/movie.

This isn't unique to just gaming. This is the attempt to "solve" a problem in the minds of other people that only exists in the minds of people that feel others should think as they do. Or Else.<---would you deny this is not the real thing hanging in the air?