The Drow aren't under the night sky, they're in the Underdark where things can be truly dark.

Anyhow, if the Drow were a race of slaves who were treated as subhuman because of their skin colour and appearance and it was presented as a good and right thing that should be expected.

Badass evil guys who keep humans as slaves doesn't quite have the same tone.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060513Black skin or fabric doesn't actually make you blend into darkness any better. It actually makes you stand out against the night sky. That is why real ninjas never actually wore black. They dressed like inconspicuous everymen.

Note also that nocturnal animals aren't usually black. But of course, the drow aren't real, so their dark skin helping them blend into the dark doesn't have to be consistent with reality. (IDK if the Fiend Folio says this or not.)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060513Black skin or fabric doesn't actually make you blend into darkness any better. It actually makes you stand out against the night sky. That is why real ninjas never actually wore black. They dressed like inconspicuous everymen.

It would still be better than being classical elf pasty white.

But yes - from what I understand the ninja in black tradition comes form kabuki theater. To represent someone being unexpectedly assassinated by ninjas they would have one of the stagehands (who was dressed all in black while on stage moving props around etc.) suddenly pull out a knife and stab the character. Hence the tradition.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1060457I think fundamentally, the issue with Drow is that they're a perfect storm of problematic tropes:

•"Always Evil" race
•Black skin = Evil
•Matriarchy = Evil
•Matriarchy = BDSM Fanservice
•Kink = Evil
•Black skin = result of curse

The only thing that I think could be objectionable is dark skin as a curse, since it kind of hearkens back to the old curse of Ham thing. Otherwise, I don't think it's anything to worry about.

The Drow aren't an "always evil" species, they are usually evil but there are exceptions. Is a sapient creature being always evil even objectionable? It seems like demons and such may be far more of a case of this than humanoid races like Drow or orcs.

Matriarchy isn't being shown as evil. The Drow are matriarchal and evil, but we have plenty of examples of good Amazons across various fantasy settings and generally extremely patriarchal cultures are villainized unless it is a historically accurate setting. Usually more barbaric villainous races - like orcs - are portrayed are patriarchal and they're savage and evil. At least the Drow are intelligent and magical.

Drow have dark skin and are evil, but we have countless evil pale creatures in just about every fantasy setting. We have pale vampires and other undead, evil albinos, and even other evil elves who are pale instead of dark skinned. It isn't as though all evil creatures are shown as being dark skinned and all goods ones have light skin. Also, Drow aren't remotely appealing to any kind of stereotype of black people or other real world dark skinned people. It's not as though somebody reads about the Drow with their dark skin, matriarchal, spider demon worshiping, magical, underground living ways and thinks "Ah, just like Africans."

The kinks of the Drow are going to be associated with being evil. BDSM isn't evil, but sex slavery is. The kinky elements of the Drow are there in part of provide fan service to kinky gamers - which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. Why is throwing in a bit of titillation wrong? Maybe it's not suited to every game or group, but it shouldn't be something that outrages anybody.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060553Matriarchy isn't being shown as evil. The Drow are matriarchal and evil, but we have plenty of examples of good Amazons across various fantasy settings and generally extremely patriarchal cultures are villainized unless it is a historically accurate setting. Usually more barbaric villainous races - like orcs - are portrayed are patriarchal and they're savage and evil. At least the Drow are intelligent and magical.

Are there any good matriarchies within official D&D settings, though? There are good amazons in some variants of legend and some fantasy fiction, but they aren't in D&D except as third-party works. For that matter, patriarchy doesn't seem to be featured much in D&D. There is I'm sure writing somewhere that describes orcs as being extremely patriarchal - but there's no mention of it in the current Monster Manual or in Volo's Guide to Monsters. (Nor in the original Monster Manual, for that matter.) Whereas the drow are described as matriarchal everywhere.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060553Drow have dark skin and are evil, but we have countless evil pale creatures in just about every fantasy setting. We have pale vampires and other undead, evil albinos, and even other evil elves who are pale instead of dark skinned. It isn't as though all evil creatures are shown as being dark skinned and all goods ones have light skin.

Similarly, are there examples of good creatures or races that are inherently black-skinned like the drow? I know that in art, they have shown halflings or other races sometimes have figures that have African-like black skin - but those races are usually portrayed with white skin.

Quote from: jhkim;1060565Similarly, are there examples of good creatures or races that are inherently black-skinned like the drow?

That's a Deep Gnome or Svirfneblin. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_gnome

Quote from: jhkim;1060565Are there any good matriarchies within official D&D settings, though?

Similarly, are there examples of good creatures or races that are inherently black-skinned like the drow? I know that in art, they have shown halflings or other races sometimes have figures that have African-like black skin - but those races are usually portrayed with white skin.

There are few good creatures or races in D&D, full-stop. Anyone looking for the same range of colours or behaviours that is found in evil creatures and races is going to be disappointed.

However, in early editions gnomes are described as being "wood brown to gray-brown." Gygax was calling back to folklore and myth, as he often did. And as he did with fire giants and dark elves having black skin.

The typical association of darkness with evil comes from humans being...whatever the opposite of nocturnal is. We're much more vulnerable in the dark. Scary things like wolves, bears, criminals, and monsters hide in the night. It has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. So no, I wouldn't expect evil mythical creatures to be equally apportioned between Dark and Light aesthetics.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060605The typical association of darkness with evil comes from humans being...whatever the opposite of nocturnal is.

Diurnal.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060605We're much more vulnerable in the dark. Scary things like wolves, bears, criminals, and monsters hide in the night. It has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. So no, I wouldn't expect evil mythical creatures to be equally apportioned between Dark and Light aesthetics.

And this is exactly right. White~light~day, black~dark~night, and night is when you are more vulnerable to everything that is trying to kill you. And for most of human history, and all of human prehistory, everything is trying to kill you.

I love the Drow, except for Drizzt.

My first character I ever played in an RPG was a Drow.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1060517Stop ruining awesome things with your historical truths! Now apologize!

I apologize.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060553The only thing that I think could be objectionable is dark skin as a curse, since it kind of hearkens back to the old curse of Ham thing. Otherwise, I don't think it's anything to worry about.

The Drow aren't an "always evil" species, they are usually evil but there are exceptions. Is a sapient creature being always evil even objectionable? It seems like demons and such may be far more of a case of this than humanoid races like Drow or orcs.

Matriarchy isn't being shown as evil. The Drow are matriarchal and evil, but we have plenty of examples of good Amazons across various fantasy settings and generally extremely patriarchal cultures are villainized unless it is a historically accurate setting. Usually more barbaric villainous races - like orcs - are portrayed are patriarchal and they're savage and evil. At least the Drow are intelligent and magical.

Drow have dark skin and are evil, but we have countless evil pale creatures in just about every fantasy setting. We have pale vampires and other undead, evil albinos, and even other evil elves who are pale instead of dark skinned. It isn't as though all evil creatures are shown as being dark skinned and all goods ones have light skin. Also, Drow aren't remotely appealing to any kind of stereotype of black people or other real world dark skinned people. It's not as though somebody reads about the Drow with their dark skin, matriarchal, spider demon worshiping, magical, underground living ways and thinks "Ah, just like Africans."

The kinks of the Drow are going to be associated with being evil. BDSM isn't evil, but sex slavery is. The kinky elements of the Drow are there in part of provide fan service to kinky gamers - which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. Why is throwing in a bit of titillation wrong? Maybe it's not suited to every game or group, but it shouldn't be something that outrages anybody.

I previously linked to an article explaining why this was the case in the grander context.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060605The typical association of darkness with evil comes from humans being...whatever the opposite of nocturnal is. We're much more vulnerable in the dark. Scary things like wolves, bears, criminals, and monsters hide in the night. It has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. So no, I wouldn't expect evil mythical creatures to be equally apportioned between Dark and Light aesthetics.

This is not always the case. In Christian tradition, the Devil supposedly appears in a beautiful shining form to seduce victims. In The Lord of the Rings, a character at one point states that a (paraphrasing) "a servant of the enemy would look fair but feel foul." (Obviously popular media forgets this and assumes beauty equals goodness.) The Central American folklore of the cadejo (which is very similar to the kresnik in some Slavic cultures) states that there are opposing pairs of cadejo, one good and one evil, one white and one black, but there is not a consistent correlation between color and morality. In the folklore of the British Isles, the color and morality likewise varies depending on the story and region. For example, the Church Grim is a good black dog that guards churchyards whereas the Cwn Annwn ("hounds of the Otherworld") are white dogs with red ears and mirror-like eyes that hunt people and drag them to the Otherworld.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060615This is not always the case. In Christian tradition, the Devil supposedly appears in a beautiful shining form to seduce victims. In The Lord of the Rings, a character at one point states that a (paraphrasing) "a servant of the enemy would look fair but feel foul." (Obviously popular media forgets this and assumes beauty equals goodness.)

Much like your LOTR quote, there's a verse in the Bible stating that the devil will come to you as an angel of light, which I presume to be the origin of the Christian tradition you mentioned.  And the name "Lucifer" derives from "lux", meaning "light".  (It's commonly held that "Lucifer" literally means "light-bringer", but the etymologies I've found say that, as a noun, it actually means "morning star"/Venus, although it also means "light-bringing" as an adjective.  Clearly light-related, in any case.)

Quote from: RandyB;1060609Diurnal.

IDK if that would sell. Guys don't like to stand too close to each other when we pee.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060511My kink is being problematic.

You must be living in the Golden Age right now. LOLOL

Quote from: nDervish;1060622Much like your LOTR quote, there's a verse in the Bible stating that the devil will come to you as an angel of light, which I presume to be the origin of the Christian tradition you mentioned.  And the name "Lucifer" derives from "lux", meaning "light".  (It's commonly held that "Lucifer" literally means "light-bringer", but the etymologies I've found say that, as a noun, it actually means "morning star"/Venus, although it also means "light-bringing" as an adjective.  Clearly light-related, in any case.)

If you don't associate light with Good, then Evil can't very well use it as a disguise, can it?