TheRPGSite

Greetings!

I heard snippets about some awful thread on The Big Purple where the SJW crybabies are demanding that the Drow in D&D be removed from the game or whatever, because the Drow are "problematic" and cause the snowflakes to clutch their stuffed animals and cry for their "safe spaces." Now, I'm an old fan of Gygax's old school Drow of the "Descent" and "Demonweb" days personally--long before Drizzt ever showed up. Drizzt can be crucified. LOL. In my own campaigns, well--I make the Drow a totally ruthless and evil culture, with few redeeming qualities whatsoever. They are entirely "politically incorrect" and I am perfectly ok with that. My Drow are totally evil, racist, imperialist, and wicked villains that love to rape, torture and enslave just about everyone they get their hands on. LOL.

Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?" If so, in what ways?

If you like the Drow, why do you like them?

Do you use the Drow in your campaigns?

Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Drow are awesome.
Apart from dual-wielding ranger drow. They're just annoying.

I have honestly only used them twice in game.  One was a single drow on a random encounter table, the other was a drow bounty hunter who was working on the surface with a drider companion.  

I see why some people like them, and I bear them no ill will.
They are just not to my taste.

The few times I used Drow I had them operate as cells of fanatics. They had goals from their priests that didn't make sense to the players, but weren't the backstabbing twerps they're portrayed as.

Drow are not problematic, drow are boring and their society makes no sense.
For an interesting elf underground race, see Mystara's shadow elves.

No - they're not Problematic.
They're a made up race for made up worlds.

No they are not problematic imo. They betrayed the Elven race and were marked on their skin for it. If the color was yellow they would be accused of being racist against those of Asian descent. There is no pleasing the regressive rpg element.

Quote from: Frey;1060270Drow are not problematic, drow are boring and their society makes no sense.
For an interesting elf underground race, see Mystara's shadow elves.

I came in here to say pretty much this (minus the Mystara part - I'll have to check that out).

Frankly, orc and/or goblin cities would almost be more refreshing to face in the Underdark at this point because it's been so long since the Drow replaced them in that Tolkien-based niche in EVERY SINGLE D&D (AND D&D ADJACENT) CAMPAIGN WORLD that it would actually feel like something different for once.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that they turned Orcs and Goblins into marauding surface barbarians/raiders (who therefore have zero need for actual darkvision) largely because they gave control of the Underdark (Orc/Goblins original habitat) completely over to the Drow (and to a lesser extent, Mind Flayers and Aboleths, but they're generally found only in the deeper layers).

At least Eberron did something interesting with them, taking away the innate evil and just making them the native once-enslaved elves from the continent of the former giant kingdoms... but at that point they're drow in name only.

Quote from: Chris24601;1060275I came in here to say pretty much this (minus the Mystara part - I'll have to check that out).

Frankly, orc and/or goblin cities would almost be more refreshing to face in the Underdark at this point because it's been so long since the Drow replaced them in that Tolkien-based niche in EVERY SINGLE D&D (AND D&D ADJACENT) CAMPAIGN WORLD that it would actually feel like something different for once.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that they turned Orcs and Goblins into marauding surface barbarians/raiders (who therefore have zero need for actual darkvision) largely because they gave control of the Underdark (Orc/Goblins original habitat) completely over to the Drow (and to a lesser extent, Mind Flayers and Aboleths, but they're generally found only in the deeper layers).

At least Eberron did something interesting with them, taking away the innate evil and just making them the native once-enslaved elves from the continent of the former giant kingdoms... but at that point they're drow in name only.

Yeah, Eberron Drow are just Wild Elves at their core. Until you get to one of the splats not overseen by Baker, where they're a shitty retcon back into FR Drow.

Eberron did a good thing in changing Drow around a bit. Given that surface elves are typically Chaotic Good. Drow should be Lawful Evil and have room for evil tyrants and the ones that while still very unhappy with their surface cousins, fit the role elf,lawful,

I love the Drow. I love the Underdark. I laugh at *anyone* running D&D, a makebelieve elf-game, that someone would call anything "problematic". Because, you know... it isn't real.

That said, Drow are generally a big part of my ongoing campaign I've run for years in the Realms. Lolth is dead, the drow culture has imploded, civil-war, genocide, all the good stuff has occurred. The problem with the Drow in D&D has largely been due to the weight of multiple writers (most bad) with different visions centered largely on Lolth-worship and the vague mythology of her relationship to the Seldarine, without much context for how civilization works.

Through my own campaign I've largely rectified all of that. They're still largely evil - not chaotically so, but arrogant, narcissistic, dangerous, and vendetta driven, but a cohereant culture seperate from the surface elves. Definitely not monolithic in traditional sense. They live in the Underdark, it's a bad place filled with largely bad things (including the Drow themselves). Any attempt at justifying large city-states of civilization down there requires a lot more thought than simply a bunch of decadent theocratic Dark-elves "living the life". Once you work out those details, it's pretty straight-forward.

Existential needs will drive people to do a lot of heinous stuff to survive. Drow in my games have no compunctions about it. It's part of their culture, but I don't pretend they do it out of pleasure (though some individuals might draw some perverse amusement from it, I don't make it a cultural norm). Likely the Big Purple fans would shit their pants in my games.

Of course, if you don't care about the Underdark or Drow in general, they're not really necessary at all.

Eh, I dislike that the race was white and turned black because of their sins. I seem to remember that being stated explicitly in the 2e elf book or a Dragon article.

That said, I loved and played to death D3 when it came out, and my players loved exploring and trying to survive and exploit their culture. They were one of the few monsters that not only gave players pause because they were powerful, had good loot, and were really smart however dysfunctional.

Following the Death of Elves in my campaign, there are a lot of ruins that have become inhabited by an albino humanoid race as well as the chagmat.

Maybe elves' skin is just photo-reactive? More photons, lighter skin. Less photons darker skin.

:)

Quote from: tenbones;1060287I love the Drow. I love the Underdark. I laugh at *anyone* running D&D, a makebelieve elf-game, that someone would call anything "problematic". Because, you know... it isn't real.

That's the issue they refuse to see any context and refuse to even remotely accept their behavior is insane. If I was running a game back when I was younger and someone tried to convince me that Drow skin color=racist they would be told to stop. Failing that kicked out of the game while being told to seek the services of a mental health care provider. Another issue is the whole attitude of "let them be". It's okay to see evil everywhere and with anything. When people should be telling such individuals stop and act like adults.

A good example of a DM who allowed a Drow to be used as a race. The player was given repeated warning by myself and the DM that at most the player character would be the victim of racism at least until third or fifth level. Being set in the Forgotten Realms it may even take longer. Player nodded like he understood and then proceeded to ignore both of us by trying to bypass the racism with " Trust me I'm a good Drow like Drizzt". Which did not work and the player who himself was black dared to accuse the DM of being racist because of his skin color. When the DM was both gay and whose boyfriend at the time was black. A perfect example of being a jerk and imo not all there in the head.

Quote from: tenbones;1060294Maybe elves' skin is just photo-reactive? More photons, lighter skin. Less photons darker skin.

:)

Which would have been a better explanation imo. Rather than Paizo who have changed their skin color to blue and they now look like evil elvish smurfs imo. I'm just waiting for a SJW out their to accuse Paizo of being against the color blue and/or against blues and Jazz.

Quote from: tenbones;1060294Maybe elves' skin is just photo-reactive? More photons, lighter skin. Less photons darker skin.

:)

Ha! I actually had that for my elves for a while. :D "Yeah, they don't tan, they bleach."

Then I nuked the bastards from orbit. It was the only way to be sure.

Maybe they're problematic, but who cares? In a universe in which alignment actually exists, there could be races which are inherently evil. It isn't like the real world in many ways, and this is just one of them.

Problematic? No. Stupid? Yes. If you want evil elves, use Melniboneans the way that Moorcock intended.

In my campaigns, Drow are the cruel beings that Gygax portrayed in the original D and G series. They're dangerous, depraved, and utterly untrustworthy. They're D&D's Melnibonians.

The notion of Drow being racist is one of the most idiotic memes to emerge out of geek culture. Creatures of the earth were black in Nordic mythology. Fire giants, dwarves, etc. Those evil creatures were associated with the earth and with fire, and so were depicted as black because soil is black, as are ash and soot.  Dark elves have their origins in that folklore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar

The fact some American gamers see black elves and can't help but think of African Americans is a damning testimony to their impenetrable ignorance.

Everybody is the hero of their own story. Including the Drow.

The alignments they have are what outsiders perceive them to be.

But from the Drow point of view? Their Alignment is entirely different.

On the one hand, those people are insane...but a stopped clock can be sort-of correct a couple times a day.

In this case, yes, the whole "if it's evil, it must be black" (not just the elves, but also dwarves, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are evil black halflings somewhere) absolutely can be interpreted in racist overtones. When I have a negro (to use CNN's word) at my table, and this comes up, I do apologize sincerely for it (as much as I hate PC), mention that this game has roots in the 70s, a very different world than today, and point out the fundamental stupidity of it (creatures living exclusively underground have a strong tendency towards albinism). I offer to make the "evil and black" creatures all albinos, but I ask that it all be kept as is, as whitewashing (hey look, a "white" word with evil connotations) history might cause us as a people to forget things we really should know.

So far, I've never had to use albino evil monsters to address this issue...that said, I take 30 seconds to address the above, then move on to having fun.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1060272No - they're not Problematic.
They're a made up race for made up worlds.

Bingo!!!

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1060312Everybody is the hero of their own story. Including the Drow.

The alignments they have are what outsiders perceive them to be.

But from the Drow point of view? Their Alignment is entirely different.

Not in my games.  Drow know they are evil.  They revel and exult in it.  To them Evil is the best alignment to be, but they don't think they are Good.


Unless they are Everyone drow, then they are just people.  Most drow are messed up underdark mutants though.

I know we were crapping all over Dragonlance in the other thread, but I will give them credit for making "Drow" just the elvish word for "Outcast" and the lone drow we encounter in the stories looked just like every other elf, but a key point of their story is that they did something so unspeakably evil they were cast out of elven society for it.

I've done something similar in my own world where the elves are a caste based society (which they refer to as the Celestial Hierarchy); high elves rule and commune with the gods, common elves are the soldiers and tradesmen and low elves are the common farmers/laborers. Dark elves (or Drow in the elven tongue) are those who have rejected their place in the Celestial Hierarchy and so live as outcasts (often hunted by Inquisitors because the elven religion teaches that elven souls reincarnate and they believe that by killing a dark elf it will be reborn back into its proper place in the Celestial Hierarchy in its next life).

Ironically, this makes the majority of PC adventuring elves dark elves since the role of adventurer generally falls outside the acceptable positions in elven society (nobles/soldiers on a crusade and religious missionaries might be involved in a specific series of adventures, but that's not the same as the typical wandering adventurer) while the forces of the Celestial Hierarchy often end up as opponents due to their 'elves are better and therefore should be in charge of everything' attitudes... its only been in the last twenty years that the elves of El-Phara have been forced to acknowledge the sovereignty of their non-elven neighbors within their own lands (prior to this they were prone to regular interventions for those other cultures' 'own good'), though this is more to due with the fact that elven numbers have proven static (as if their were a fixed number of elven souls available) while the non-elven realms surrounding them finally reached population levels sufficient to make elven intervention near-impossible rather than any sort of enlightenment on the part of the elven leaders).

GURPS Fantasy/Banestorm had a similar situation where dark elves were just the name of a secret society of elf racial supremacists, dark in the meaning of secret.  They tried to summon something that would kill all the orcs in the world.  They got humans.

I'm enjoying GMing the chaotic techno-magical Underdark-dwelling Vrilya in Michael Curtis' Stonehell - they clearly have the same Melnibonean roots as Drow, and their name presumably references Bulwer-Lytton Vrilya  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril), but even then they don't have the accumulated baggage of D&D Drow.

Honestly, I don't do "alignment". It's totally unnecessary to me unless you're dealing with cosmic forces - like Gods. I can easily see how Drow living in the Underdark would have a cut-throat evil society as a means for existential survival.

Assuming the qualities of the under-dark are what we'd expect with typical fantasy-flair, it would be a hard place to sustain large communities without resorting to slavery. I accept that - their trading partners and neighbors in the Underdark all tacitly accept this. Or they're all blood-curdling enemies sometimes both. You could supplement your community with some agrarian activities, but it would be difficult at best.

Certainly it would be fun (and I'm currently doing this in a campaign project I'm working on) to create a Drow society that doesn't live like bog-standard Drow, but has to deal with all the shitty stuff living in the Underdark.

I think it's funny that people would call the Drow problematic when outside their clearly fantastical traits and assumptions - they have the same problems as most cultures living in an extreme environment at scale. (Menzo has tens of thousands of people and is considered "mid-sized"). Scale that up to a million like their larger cities and imagine how cruel that place would be?

But you know... "those people" that are triggered are looking for reasons to be triggered. As we all know.

40k Dark Eldar > D&D Drow

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?" If so, in what ways?

The only "problematic" thing is we haven't asskicked every fucknut who uses "problematic" in serious manner out of our hobby.

Quote from: SHARK;1060262If you like the Drow, why do you like them?

They're badass villains. Evil goddess / Spider Troops / Arrogant Elves is a great mix.

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Do you use the Drow in your campaigns?

Very rarely. I tend to prefer Man vs. Monster campaigns where Monsters aren't humans in costume. However, in Planescape, I will use all sorts of sentient inhumans wandering about Sigil and the planar towns. For me, that's where I've preferred the Drow.

Actually, the last time I used the Drow was in Gamma World. The last GW was directly compatible with D&D 4e so it was fun to port over monsters from the MM to GW, and the Drow stats with Dark Eldar figs and some spiders worked out great. I'd absolutely run that combo again.

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?

All females are clerics and all males are driders. I don't have any Drizz't, but I have those who rebel against Lloth and ally with other Evil gods, mostly demons. Also, as Lloth can get killed by PCs (as we did in the Q series), there are whole prime material planes where Lloth is dead so her Drow find other vile gods to follow.

Quote from: tenbones;1060340Honestly, I don't do "alignment".

Burn the heretic!!!!

:)

Quote from: SHARK;1060262If you like the Drow, why do you like them?

Do you use the Drow in your campaigns?

Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?

I haven't done much with the drow in previous campaigns. For my upcoming campaign, I have made them distinctly different, as I touched on in another thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39614-Politically-Correct-Stuff-in-Your-Gaming-Worlds). The pre-made drow character that I made for a one-shot in this world had this description:

QuoteThe drow are sometimes accused of too much pride, but you have much to be proud of. Your people have woven swaths of the Underdark into elegant wonderlands, and your society is a model of equality and interdependence. Within the drow's web of social relations, everyone has a part to play. On the other hand, drow can be insular from outsiders, and are often misunderstood. Short-lived races can have trouble seeing time as the drow do.

You are a delver into the mysteries of magic, and are active in breaking out of the drow's insular culture to bring their magic and learning to the rest of civilization. You are free to do this, but have not been supported the way you like. It is your hope that if the Temple of the Elements can be restored, that it will be a place where drow learning is shared with the learning of other races.

So I wanted to keep the darkness and the spider themes for drow, along with general elvishness - while also making them genuinely good aligned.

I'm not satisfied with my take thus far, though. I thought that most of the other races in my world worked great, but adapting the drow was tough. I picture them as sort of the magical perfectionists who want everything done *right*, and a little frustrated at everyone else's haphazard way of doing things. "Just take fricking twenty years and do it *right* instead of just making a half-assed one in a few months."  On the other hand, I also would like them to be cool rather than annoying in play.

Quote from: tenbones;1060294Maybe elves' skin is just photo-reactive? More photons, lighter skin. Less photons darker skin.

:)

I did that in a game.  The Drow were the race of elves from the land on the other side of the mirror.  In their land they have black hair and really pale skin.  When they cross into our world they appear in photo-negative.

I'm fine with drow as is, but I think they can get stale, fast.  I've used them as a major antagonist group about once per decade.  Usually, they are something nasty out in the campaign world that the players are unlikely to run into much.  Similar to mind flayers in that respect.  

I very seldom use a "monster" as a player character option, but my current campaign has completely dropped the drow history and themes, while keeping the stats and name as a "mountain elf" race.  I wanted something like that, and wasn't planning on using the traditional drow in the campaign at all.  Basically, laziness on my part.  I had some minor reservations about it, but the players have run with it in the spirit it was intended.  Of course, it helps that I've got gnomes replacing, even surpassing, the role that drow usually hold.  The players are completely spooked about the gnomes, even the one with a dark elf rogue.

Quote from: SHARK;1060262In my own campaigns, well--I make the Drow a totally ruthless and evil culture, with few redeeming qualities whatsoever. They are entirely "politically incorrect" and I am perfectly ok with that. My Drow are totally evil, racist, imperialist, and wicked villains that love to rape, torture and enslave just about everyone they get their hands on. LOL.

If you like the Drow, why do you like them?

Pretty much for the same reasons you do, SHARK:  they're almost-irredeemably evil, and make great "wheels within wheels" string-pulling bad guys/gals.  

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?" If so, in what ways?

No, not in the least.  I don't recreate their quotidian atrocities in-game, at-the-table every time they appear, but they are undoubtedly evil, and definitely cross the bounds of "cultural decency" even as written in 1978 (check out the private quarters of Eclavdra, Charinida, and other high-ranking drow priestesses and nobles in D3 and Q1).  And I'm perfectly OK with that---evil is, after all, evil, and if we collectively can't confront evil in its various forms in an imaginary game, how can we possibly expect to succeed in the real world when real evil asserts itself and needs to be fought?

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Do you use the Drow in your campaigns?

I play in Greyhawk, so of course I use drow.  They're not terribly common, but they're there, slowly working to snuff out the sun (among other projects of note!).  

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?

I've tried to differentiate and broaden the drow from their spiders-Lolth-matriarchy baseline, to allow different drowic vaults to follow different social hierarchies, patron gods/demons/whatevers, slaves, fetishes, etc.  In my Greyhawk campaigns, drow variously worship:

- Lolth and other demon princes including Graz'zt, Alrunes, Abraxus, Zuggtmoy, Soneillon, Rhyxali, and Tiamat  
- the Elder Elemental God (generally a front for the Lovecraftian Mythos)
- the Greyhawk gods Iuz, Incabulos, Erythnul, Beltar, and perhaps Ralishaz (generally not Tharizdun--even drow have standards! ;) )
- the Great Old Ones/Outer Gods:  Hastur, Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, et al.
- themselves via ancestor worship

Thus many of the drow who worship Graz'zt, Soneillon, and Rhyxali are oriented toward shadows vs. spiders as their "theme" if you will.  Those that worship Tiamat, Demogorgon, and Azazel are dragon-/lizard-themed, etc.

Allan.

Quote from: sureshot;1060273No they are not problematic imo. They betrayed the Elven race and were marked on their skin for it. If the color was yellow they would be accused of being racist against those of Asian descent. There is no pleasing the regressive rpg element.

Some people bitched about the black skin. So for some years TSR made drow a sort of dark blue or purple.

Some people still bitched.

Some people are insane...

Drow have always been weird and somewhat awkward.

Explaining Drow to new players, even back in high school, always provoked the idea that there was something a bit dodgy there.  The usual response has always been - if they live deep underground and never see the sun shouldn't they have pale skin!  To which the obvious answer is 'yes'.

My first experience with Dark Elves was with the Titan setting for Fighting Fantasy - and because the art was all in black and white, it never occurred to me they were supposed to have dark skin - why would they?

As for the drow. For fucks sake not this again?

This moron screed has been going on since the 80s or 90s. And it was stupid then and it has not gotten any less mentally stunted since.

And if you changed drow to green, blue, plaid they'd still bitch "because plaid is a stand in for black and that is racist!"

Quote from: Omega;1060356Some people bitched about the black skin. So for some years TSR made drow a sort of dark blue or purple.

Some people still bitched.

Some people are insane...

Pretty much agreed and seconded. Though thankfully in my gaming groups they are sane and more interested in playing rpgs. Instead of worrying whether the Giants in the Against the Giants module are not to be treated as evil and more the noble savage and misunderstood and victims of the evil colonial adventurers.

As a society yes?  It's a society of psychopaths that uses Assassination as a method of promotion.  That does not allow a society to last longer than 2 generations.  So it's clear that Lolth uses her people as Lego toys and prevents them from wiping themselves out on a whim.

The original D3 cover was monochrome, so the drow on it is actually white (and with black hair). But the later printing had one that was black-purplish and on the back cover, blue-black. That had always been my mental image of them.

The image where they look more like black humans with white hair seems to be in the later 80s, with the more realistic artwork of Parkinson on the cover of the GDQ supermodule.

No.  However, some people who opine on RPGS, but probably don't play any RPGs because they can't find anyone in the Real World to tolerate their sanctimony, are problematic.  

That said, some of the mid to late '80's TSR art for the Drow was hilarious. The Drow as Solid Gold dancers.  :eek:   As exemplified by the aforementioned GDQ super-module.

Quote from: JeremyR;1060377The original D3 cover was monochrome, so the drow on it is actually white (and with black hair). But the later printing had one that was black-purplish and on the back cover, blue-black. That had always been my mental image of them.

The image where they look more like black humans with white hair seems to be in the later 80s, with the more realistic artwork of Parkinson on the cover of the GDQ supermodule.

Is that a drow on the back though? Thought it was a demon or something?

My Drow have been irredeemably evil and masters (mistresses?) of manipulation. Since they hold all other races in contempt, they use them as catspaws to do harm to the inhabitants of the surface world. Orcs, goblinoids, and other humanoids are clever but easily led expendable troops to further the Spider Queen's goals. Drow should be evil, but a sinister and insidious evil.

Quote from: jeff37923;1060389My Drow have been irredeemably evil and masters (mistresses?) of manipulation. Since they hold all other races in contempt, they use them as catspaws to do harm to the inhabitants of the surface world. Orcs, goblinoids, and other humanoids are clever but easily led expendable troops to further the Spider Queen's goals. Drow should be evil, but a sinister and insidious evil.

Sounds like they should worship the great Xanatos (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit). I like this take.

A number of their key traits are politically incorrect at best. I just dispense with those traits rather than remove the whole concept.

Black skin? No, they come in many attractive hues. In fact, they are racist against darker skin so black elves are more likely to be adventurers.

Matriarchal? Nothing wrong with that.

Evil? I don't use nine alignments, so they are on the side of overbearing order.

Now they are not offensive. Boy, that was easy!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060424Black skin? No, they come in many attractive hues. In fact, they are racist against darker skin so black elves are more likely to be adventurers.

If they were the official Drow the Regressive rpgers would still accuse the Drow and by proxy you for being racist. How dare a imaginary race be racist against another imaginary race. Your Drow are on the side of overbearing order..how dare they try to make the Undark great again. Don't assume the Regressive rpgers are reasonable let alone remotely sane they are not.

Quote from: sureshot;1060425If they were the official Drow the Regressive rpgers would still accuse the Drow and by proxy you for being racist. How dare a imaginary race be racist against another imaginary race. Your Drow are on the side of overbearing order..how dare they try to make the Undark great again. Don't assume the Regressive rpgers are reasonable let alone remotely sane they are not.

My point was to make the drow villainous in a less cartoonish and racist manner. The changes I made were specifically a critique of the culture of Brazil. Although most Brazilians are mixed race, there is still loads of colorism. So I made my Drow physically diverse and unfairly prejudiced towards those of darker skin. This is also meant to be a satire of the canonical depiction of Drow as cursed with black skin because they are evil (which is literally anti-black Mormon propaganda).

I was also inspired by Tim's blog post on the subject (http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html).

I was just looking at D3 this morning and there is nothing there about the crow acquiring black skin through evilness. Their original description bears no resemblance to real world human  races.

Yesterday I read up on Fighting Fantasy dark elves and they appeared to have acquired dark skin from living underground. They were a lot more drow like than I recalled from the old game books.

Quote from: S'mon;1060430I was just looking at D3 this morning and there is nothing there about the crow acquiring black skin through evilness.

Correct, that was a later addition.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060429My point was to make the drow villainous in a less cartoonish and racist manner.

The Drow are actually good at screening out fools from your table. Anyone ignorant enough to assume that fantasy underground elves with black skin are analagous to racism in our world is not a good fit for my group, which I prefer to be made up of adults who posses a base level of intellect and perspective.

Quote from: Haffrung;1060435The Drow are actually good at screening out fools from your table. Anyone ignorant enough to assume that fantasy underground elves with black skin are analagous to racism in our world is not a good fit for my group, which I prefer to be made up of adults who posses a base level of intellect and perspective.

Never thought of it like that so a good indicator of not a good fit with a group. I am also starting to see polite yet very firm and carefully worded ads for players that have "if your a SJW and easily offended snowflake we don't want you in our group" style posts. I don't blame Dms and player groups not wanting them in a existing group.

Why should SJW's think that Drow are problematic? Nobody in Drow society has pale skin (so 100% diversity), women run everything, and they realize that morality is a social construct. It's like SJW heaven.

Anyway, no, I don't find them problematic. Though I think I prefer Warhammer Druchii.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060444Why should SJW's think that Drow are problematic? Nobody in Drow society has pale skin (so 100% diversity), women run everything, and they realize that morality is a social construct. It's like SJW heaven.

You would think they would not. Yet these same SJW think the classic Against the Giants module is highly racist. Giants=native americans, the npcs that hire you to exterminate them=white colonials. Giants at least those you fight are evil yet the SJWs would tunr a blind eye to that simply because they are trying to survive. By killing and sometimes eating the smaller races but dammit they should never have settled on Giant land!.

Quote from: sureshot;1060446You would think they would not. Yet these same SJW think the classic Against the Giants module is highly racist. Giants=native americans, the npcs that hire you to exterminate them=white colonials.

This sounds like a mental illness.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060449This sounds like a mental illness.

I have mentioned it before I think a decent amount of the population suffers from some un-diagnosed form of mental illness. That or poor parenting with them just letting their children act out and do nothing because it might stunt their emotional growth. Or both imo. I was going home with my co-worker in the subway and neither of us gave the guy begging for cash money. He called my black worker in French "dirty immigrant". My co-worker has begun working out again and picture a fairly muscular 7 foot tall guy. Why would you insult the guy who by the way understands French. It's like they don't give a fuck or are mentally ill. Or both.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060444Why should SJW's think that Drow are problematic? Nobody in Drow society has pale skin (so 100% diversity), women run everything, and they realize that morality is a social construct. It's like SJW heaven.

Anyway, no, I don't find them problematic. Though I think I prefer Warhammer Druchii.

/BIG BREATH

Because they're socially disassociated, and possessed of at best an ignorant view of history and passive-aggressive internal racism that pathologically distorts the few good things about Post-Modernism into a corrupt version, that forces them to look at the surface views of everything and justify those things via the notion that they are all equal and to do otherwise would place them in a hierarchy, but since hierarchies are all evil, and because they wish to believe hierarchies structurally promote "evil" by creating power-inequalities, it polarizes all things into a surface-view lacking all nuance and the inability to make simple distinctions because to do so creates the very hierarchies they have deemed EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL...

/GASP....

This is what leads them to perpetrating the actual racist/biggoted/hypocritical/unethical actions they claim of those not in their camp WHILE rendering those actions just because the ends justifies the means. A nice big snake eating its own tail as it poops.


/passes out from oxygen deprivation

Quote from: tenbones;1060453/BIG BREATH

Because they're socially disassociated, and possessed of at best an ignorant view of history and passive-aggressive internal racism that pathologically distorts the few good things about Post-Modernism into a corrupt version, that forces them to look at the surface views of everything and justify those things via the notion that they are all equal and to do otherwise would place them in a hierarchy, but since hierarchies are all evil, and because they wish to believe hierarchies structurally promote "evil" by creating power-inequalities, it polarizes all things into a surface-views lacking all nuance and the inability to make simple distinctions because to do so creates the very hierarchies they have deemed EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL....

/GASP....

This is what leads them to perpetrating the actual racist/biggoted/hypocritical/unethical actions they claim of those not in their camp WHILE rending those actions just because the ends justifies the means. A nice big snake eating its own tail as it poops.


/passes out from oxygen deprivation

https://coub.com/view/ozdizr

Quote from: ShieldWife;1060444Why should SJW's think that Drow are problematic?

Well, since you asked:

QuoteI 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

QuoteI 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

These are genuinely unpleasant tropes that even non-SJWs should find disturbing when taken together. Racism, sexism, objectification, kink-shaming, the list goes on.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060465These are genuinely unpleasant tropes that even non-SJWs should find disturbing when taken together. Racism, sexism, objectification, kink-shaming, the list goes on.

But what if those things are my kink (https://youtu.be/zW1uN0SjKPY)?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060465These are genuinely unpleasant tropes that even non-SJWs should find disturbing when taken together. Racism, sexism, objectification, kink-shaming, the list goes on.

There are all sorts of "always evil" races in fantasy fiction and gaming - Mind Flayers, Ogres, Gnolls, etc. - and few people have any problem with them.

Some evil creatures have white skin. Some have red. Some have blue, or green, yellow, or grey. Some have black. And some black skinned monsters and humanoids are not evil. So black skin = evil in D&D is not true.

If 1 out of 20 evil fantasy races is matriarchal, and another 19 are patriarchal, this is somehow unfair or misogynist? Do all the evil races have to patriarchal?

The vague allusions to sexual kink with the drow are related to slavery and torture, which most people regard as evil.

The black skin = curse thing is dumb. It also shows when you have a game whose lore has been handled by dozens of people over 40+ years, you're going to get dumb stuff on occasion.

Quote from: tenbones;1060468But what if those things are my kink (https://youtu.be/zW1uN0SjKPY)?

You hit the nail on the head regarding why this has persisted so long. It's a nerd turn-on.

This deserves a much more nuanced discussion. The primary problem is the "Evil! Evil! Evil!" part (which ties in a larger discussion on the absurdity of metaphysical evil), the objectification of women (but not men in the same context), and the whole Curse of Ham debacle. (I strongly doubt those things specifically are part of your kink.)

The popular image of the drow as dark-skinned elves in BDSM fetish wear with a matriarchal culture and different moral norms is not itself a prejudiced construct. It easily supports all kinds of stories, including romance novels of which there are many. You are not alone in that regard.

As a matter of fact, I read a rather fascinating series of erotic short stories about a tribe of Amazonian orcs who are really sexist against males of their own species (not surprising!) and exclusively reproduce with human men they capture and enslave (human women are just enslaved). Although it is ultimately female domination orc/human porn, the author takes the time to lay out the logic behind their beliefs and the day-to-day functioning of their culture. One of their customs is the long-term stockholm syndrome brainwashing of their human husband-slaves by forcing them to practice their customs and engage in their cultural norms including hunting (which echoes the real historical practice of first nations tribes sometimes adopting white prisoners during the wars of colonization). The Amazon orcs do not comically oppress men in some outlandish manner or serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of female sexuality, and even manage to avoid falling into the noble savage cliche that afflicts most attempts to write orcs with depth. They just exist in the fantasy world as one of many cultures.

By contrast, D&D depicts the drow in a very anti-feminist manner (https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/) rather than thinking through the logic behind how their culture would function realistically. Rather than a simple reversal of the patriarchy or a unique take that accounts for the known differences in female psychology, the drow matriarchy is depicted as a cautionary tale about the dangers of female sexuality. The overarching narrative expects the adventurer (typically male) to overcome this terrible villain.

Honestly I think the problems lie on the other side of the fence.

The Drow are way cooler than elves.
The Drow are way sexier than elves and into some kinky shit.
The Drow are into spiders and spiders are yucky.  Heck tbp requires spoiler blocks on pictures of spiders.
The Drow are generally more powerful than elves, have better magic, and adamantium weapons.
The Drow are almost invisible in darkness because of their black skin.

Yeah, anyhow, my point, I suppose is that most of the so called negatives are why they're popular.  I don't buy into the theory that being liked and admired is a form of racism and bigotry.  It's like being called racist for thinking Michael Jordan is a great basketball player.

Quote from: sureshot;1060450I have mentioned it before I think a decent amount of the population suffers from some un-diagnosed form of mental illness. That or poor parenting with them just letting their children act out and do nothing because it might stunt their emotional growth. Or both imo. I was going home with my co-worker in the subway and neither of us gave the guy begging for cash money. He called my black worker in French "dirty immigrant". My co-worker has begun working out again and picture a fairly muscular 7 foot tall guy. Why would you insult the guy who by the way understands French. It's like they don't give a fuck or are mentally ill. Or both.

Don't forget "self medication" with substances controlled or otherwise.  Happily for gaming purposes it doesn't matter which of the three is involved.  I can just avoid all of them.

I will say that people who overcome the trifecta and drag themselves bodily into a better state are some of the most amazing people I have ever met.  Those can game with me anytime they want.

Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?" If so, in what ways?  No.

If you like the Drow, why do you like them? Truthfully, I do not like them. Partially the Drizzt effect (tm) and also the overplayed/overexposed effect.  I love the early stuff with Lloth and the fact they were largely unknown and mysterious and an evil twist on the good elves.  But that ship has sailed and now they are too common to be used as a mysterious enemy for me.

Do you use the Drow in your campaigns?Not really, maybe a one off necromancer or something like that, but definitely not as a recurring foe or focus.

Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?  Sorry, no help.  See above, but the feel tired and overexposed to me.  The only interesting use I have put them to is to take them down a peg by serving as mindless drones for a power mad mindflayer (as if there is any other kind).  Seeing this ubercool dark elves as mere playthings for the big bad illithid worked pretty well to give him some instant street cred.

What it comes down to is an extreme lack of self-reflection and *non-understanding* on what ethics and morality are in regards to history and cultural development. You don't *need* to know these things to enjoy D&D, obviously. But the short-hand D&D uses for designation purposes, like "alignment" which it then broadstrokes over an entire culture or species, has settled in nicely with the moronic views of today's pathological Post-Modernist Left.

They love those big paint-brushes but lack the nuance to truly understand the concepts behind them. This is why I don't really need alignment, or use it much beyond the OSR conventions of it. It scours nuance out of the setting.

WHY are Goblins evil? Well for me it's because they're low-intelligence little savages that have a hard time understanding what it takes to create functional rules that can cause more robust and intricate civilizations that require more order to flourish. It's *that* simple. Doing chaotic and evil shit really just works for them because they don't fundamentally understand why land-rights, and civil-discourse, and rule of law, and commerce matter. It's not that hard. That their Deities reflect that is immaterial as no one is going on the cosmic adventure to interview Maglubiyet as to why he doesn't want his Goblin/Hobgoblin worshippers to have a great civilization. In fact he probably DOESN'T - much in the same way Vlaakith kills off Githyanki that get too powerful. Smart Goblins would be a potential threat at some point...

WHY are Drow evil? Because they live in the Underdark and they're deep into identity-politics and racial supremacy. They hate the surface elves for what they believe was done to them in the past, and frankly if truth be told, living in the Underdark in unsustainable numbers requires a *MASSIVE* amount of cruelty to sustain their lifestyle. Slaves, cannibalism, demon-sacrifices, cats-living-with-dogs, and playing the games of Lolth pretty much means you're going to have to be a *LITTLE* paranoid in order to maintain your position or move ahead without getting your throat cut. Does it *mean* you *have* to play those reindeer games? Nope. Doesn't mean you have to be a little bitch-ass like Drizzt either. Of course you still get to pay the price of the social cost of your peoples too. Welcome to reality.

WHY are Orcs evil? Because they're too stupid to know they could things more efficiently. They sufficiently hate Elves for their presumed slights to their deity ages ago. So they too are racists - but who cares, they hate everyone. You want nuance? Use the Scro from Spelljammer. Still racist, but smart. Organized. They possess a *little* decorum. Militant, but not entirely savage. Klingons. They respect power and to a lesser extent guile. Are they evil? Culturally they still promote might-makes-right, so you're BOUND to do heinous shit to get ahead. But it's sufficiently possible, at least in Spelljammer - to get tired of that shit and move on. Doesn't mean people will trust you...

So yeah - I keep it all in context. SJWs don't understand context, because the truth is if they did, they'd realize their views *in practice* make them villains.

The drow cannot simultaneously be bad because they make fetishists feel bad and be bad because they're a canvas those very same fetishists project themselves onto.

Pick one of those two things to complain about and stick with that, you can't have both.

Quote from: David Johansen;1060476Honestly I think the problems lie on the other side of the fence.

The Drow are way cooler than elves.
The Drow are way sexier than elves and into some kinky shit.
The Drow are into spiders and spiders are yucky.  Heck tbp requires spoiler blocks on pictures of spiders.
The Drow are generally more powerful than elves, have better magic, and adamantium weapons.
The Drow are almost invisible in darkness because of their black skin.

Yeah, anyhow, my point, I suppose is that most of the so called negatives are why they're popular.  I don't buy into the theory that being liked and admired is a form of racism and bigotry.  It's like being called racist for thinking Michael Jordan is a great basketball player.

Replace Drow with "Ninja" and Spiders with "Octopus"... and you'll see some similarities that I'm sure fit much of the same vein.

And it's not the fact that you're admired and liked as being racist. The nuanced view is "FOR WHAT"? SJW's knee-jerk admire other races on principle (edit: specifically in relation to "white-America") and pretend to be supportive of them assuming they've all suffered some great injustice and colonial oppression free of context. To the point where they will excuse anything that culture might do in lieu of some historical incident practice - even if it's an extreme outlier.

Even positive assumptions are have racist outcomes for SJW's: see Asian Ivy League admission issues (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html). It's not racist to point out Michael Jordan is a great basketball player. Yet for some reason it's racist to apply SJW desires for "equal racial representation" to basketball... This is because they don't *really* understand what their supposed beliefs actually mean in reality.

Quote from: David Johansen;1060476Honestly I think the problems lie on the other side of the fence.

The Drow are way cooler than elves.
The Drow are way sexier than elves and into some kinky shit.
The Drow are into spiders and spiders are yucky.  Heck tbp requires spoiler blocks on pictures of spiders.
The Drow are generally more powerful than elves, have better magic, and adamantium weapons.
The Drow are almost invisible in darkness because of their black skin.

Yeah, anyhow, my point, I suppose is that most of the so called negatives are why they're popular.  I don't buy into the theory that being liked and admired is a form of racism and bigotry.  It's like being called racist for thinking Michael Jordan is a great basketball player.

I am not a big drow fan, but this fits my experience. I had a player in a 4e FR game who loved playing her Lolth serving aspirant drow matriarch warlock. On stage there was nothing kinkier than the Elminster expy's hot tub. Was this OK because female player? Or problematic? I don't really care.

I think the highlight for her was when she betrayed the Matriarch of Ched Nasad her home city after they had fought together to defeat the Jaezred Chaussin  (egalitarian followers of Shar) and restored Matriarchy together, so that she could become Matriarch herself.

Quote from: tenbones;1060468But what if those things are my kink (https://youtu.be/zW1uN0SjKPY)?

You owe me a new keyboard.

Quote from: Haffrung;1060470The vague allusions to sexual kink with the drow are related to slavery and torture, which most people regard as evil.

And some regard it as recreational, for others it's Tuesday.

Quote from: SHARK;1060262Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?"

[video=youtube;1jqfwvIACj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jqfwvIACj8[/youtube]

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060449This sounds like a mental illness.

That is because some of these loons are mentally ill. Or more aptly a-lot are instead just mentally stunted. Listening to them talk for even a short time makes that readily apparent. Then toss in social engineering newspeak and it gets worse and worse.

My kink is being problematic.

Quote from: David Johansen;1060476Honestly I think the problems lie on the other side of the fence.

The Drow are way cooler than elves.
The Drow are way sexier than elves and into some kinky shit.
The Drow are into spiders and spiders are yucky.  Heck tbp requires spoiler blocks on pictures of spiders.
The Drow are generally more powerful than elves, have better magic, and adamantium weapons.
The Drow are almost invisible in darkness because of their black skin.

Yeah, anyhow, my point, I suppose is that most of the so called negatives are why they're popular.  I don't buy into the theory that being liked and admired is a form of racism and bigotry.  It's like being called racist for thinking Michael Jordan is a great basketball player.

Black 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.

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

But what if someone found your being problematic kinky? :cool:

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.

Stop ruining awesome things with your historical truths! Now apologize!

Quote from: Omega;1060514But what if someone found your being problematic kinky? :cool:

That potentially ends with bodily fluids and bruises, no matter the direction it's taken.

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?

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/3/3c/Deep_gnome_5e.png/revision/latest?cb=20151010091508)

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 (https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/).

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?

Quote from: jhkim;1060565Are 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.

Well in the Realms, Dambrath is a matriarchal society - but they're Drow LARPers, and evil. I'm not sure of any specific matriarchies. As far as I know most of the Realms "kingdoms" aren't explicit patriarchies either. A lot of them have females in direct line of succession (I believe Cormyr which is one of their "flagship" nations.) Orcs - I suspect aren't explicitly patriarchal - as much as it's might-makes-right and males are usually the ones that win that exchange. I wouldn't bat an eye at a Orc female that could beat that ass, running a tribe. But I would imagine that's the exception to the rule. (but a fun premise).

Quote from: jhkim;1060565Similarly, 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.

Gold Dwarves of the Great Rift. Dark skinned. The majority race. Xenophobic and territorial. Make of that what you wish.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060615I apologize.

Accepted. I love you again.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060641IDK if that would sell. Guys don't like to stand too close to each other when we pee.

Good for pee-sword fights, though.

Kooii

Quote from: S'mon;1060568That's a Deep Gnome or Svirfneblin. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_gnome

Quote from: tenbones;1060645Well in the Realms, Dambrath is a matriarchal society - but they're Drow LARPers, and evil. I'm not sure of any specific matriarchies. As far as I know most of the Realms "kingdoms" aren't explicit patriarchies either. A lot of them have females in direct line of succession (I believe Cormyr which is one of their "flagship" nations.) Orcs - I suspect aren't explicitly patriarchal - as much as it's might-makes-right and males are usually the ones that win that exchange. I wouldn't bat an eye at a Orc female that could beat that ass, running a tribe. But I would imagine that's the exception to the rule. (but a fun premise).

Quote from: tenbones;1060645Gold Dwarves of the Great Rift. Dark skinned. The majority race. Xenophobic and territorial. Make of that what you wish.

OK, so no good matriarchies or explicit evil patriarchies - and no good races with black skin per se, but the svirfneblin have grey skin and the gold dwarves have light brown or tanned skin. (I knew about the svirfneblin, they just didn't spring to mind for some reason - thanks for the note about gold dwarves.)

That does seem notable to me, but as tenbones says - one can make of that whatever, depending.

The Rashemen are a Matriarchal society in the Forgotten Realms, the alignment spread is Neutral, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.  The Red Wizards of Thay are mostly male, they could be a Patriarchy and are evil.

Quote from: jhkim;1060743OK, so no good matriarchies or explicit evil patriarchies - and no good races with black skin per se, but the svirfneblin have grey skin and the gold dwarves have light brown or tanned skin. (I knew about the svirfneblin, they just didn't spring to mind for some reason - thanks for the note about gold dwarves.)

That does seem notable to me, but as tenbones says - one can make of that whatever, depending.

The only non-evil matriarchy I recall are the formians, although that depends on the specifics of their biology which can vary in different editions and books. They technically qualify as a matriarchy because they are always ruled by queens to which all others are loyal. Unfortunately, that is about as far as the matriarchy goes. Only the queen is gendered as female. The only caste gendered as male are the gymarches who exist solely to inseminate the queen. The other formian castes are not gendered at all.

Quote from: jhkim;1060743OK, so no good matriarchies or explicit evil patriarchies - and no good races with black skin per se, but the svirfneblin have grey skin and the gold dwarves have light brown or tanned skin. (I knew about the svirfneblin, they just didn't spring to mind for some reason - thanks for the note about gold dwarves.)

That does seem notable to me, but as tenbones says - one can make of that whatever, depending.

yeah I really can't think of *any* examples of a "good" matriarchy in the Realms (or any other setting I can think of from D&D).

If we're going OUTSIDE of the Realms - I dunno if the Irda from Dragonlance count. They had darkblue skin... now I think they're light-blue. And they were good.

Would Aglarond, Rashemar and Silverymoon not count?

Quote from: HorusArisen;1060834Would Aglarond, Rashemar and Silverymoon not count?

Aglarond and Silverymoon are not overt Matriarchies. They're ruled by Queens. But they happen to be immortals that to my knowledge have no actual culture beyond the fact these immortal women rule. I don't believe there is any discussion anywhere about some line of succession.

Rashemar might definitely count.

Quote from: tenbones;1060856Aglarond and Silverymoon are not overt Matriarchies. They're ruled by Queens. But they happen to be immortals that to my knowledge have no actual culture beyond the fact these immortal women rule. I don't believe there is any discussion anywhere about some line of succession.

Rashemar might definitely count.

Agreed that having a queen doesn't make a country a matriarchy. I'm not familiar with Rashemen. From reading the wiki entry, I guess female witches are traditionally in positions of leadership?

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Rashemen

But it doesn't sound like men are considered second-class like male drow, or women in many historical societies. I think it's especially the lack of patriarchy that seems weird to me. The drow entry in the Monster Manual explicitly says,

QuoteMatriarchal Rule. Lolth, through her faithful priestesses, dictates the rules of drow society, ensuring that her orders and plots are carried out. Since Lolth is prone to manifesting on the Material Plane and directly punishing those that disobey her, the drow have learned to heed what she says and do as her priestesses command.
In drow society, males are subservient to females. A male drow might lead an Underdark patrol or a raiding party to the surface, but he reports to a female drow-either the matron of his house or one of her hand-picked female subordinates. Although male drow can fill almost any function in drow society, they can't be priests, nor can they rule a house.

But it seems like no race or country specifies that women can't be priests or rule a house - which was common in many historical societies. Having played and run in many historical or alternate-historical games, I don't think it's sexist for a setting to have in-game patriarchal societies. But taking out patriarchy and leaving in evil matriarchy seems weird.

Quote from: jhkim;1060863But it seems like no race or country specifies that women can't be priests or rule a house - which was common in many historical societies. Having played and run in many historical or alternate-historical games, I don't think it's sexist for a setting to have in-game patriarchal societies. But taking out patriarchy and leaving in evil matriarchy seems weird.

Weird like what? Would it be less weird if they had a matching evil patriarchy to "balance" it out? How about a good matriarchy, and a good patriarchy to balance those out? Etc, etc, etc.

I'm not sure where this matters? Frankly I don't know of any OVERTLY patriarchal nations in the Realms - that aren't simply Might Makes Right. That men run the show of most of these nations is kinda obvious - but no overtly so. I don't know of any examples - and there *might* actually be some - where the lines of succession in the many city-states and kingdoms are patriarchal through the eldest son.

If we're going to assume patriarchy of those non-specific examples, then there are *clearly* more evil patriarchal civilizations than matriarchal ones. If not? then maybe it's about even.

If we're taking a headcount of Male to Female rulers... that's going to take some time. I know in the Realms Adventure books a *LOT* of those City States are ruled by women. And I'm pretty sure even in the 1st and 2nd editions of the Graybox and Book respectively one of those leaders is a lesbian, pretty much out and out (I think she's a NG Ranger). I know of know openly male gay NPC's. (though I could be wrong there).

 I think it would surprise people more than they'd think about how many females are running things in the Realms.

Quote from: jhkimBut it seems like no race or country specifies that women can't be priests or rule a house - which was common in many historical societies. Having played and run in many historical or alternate-historical games, I don't think it's sexist for a setting to have in-game patriarchal societies. But taking out patriarchy and leaving in evil matriarchy seems weird.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1060866Weird like what? Would it be less weird if they had a matching evil patriarchy to "balance" it out? How about a good matriarchy, and a good patriarchy to balance those out? Etc, etc, etc.

I don't think of it as adding stuff in. It's normal for societies - particularly pseudo-historical ones - to not be perfectly egalitarian between the sexes. If I were doing it, I would probably expect one of:

1) No sexism is mentioned for any society. It's an option that individual GMs can bring to their games, but not a part of the official canon. This is close to how D&D is approaching things with the exception of the drow.

2) Light sexism. The default is ahistorical egalitarianism, but a minority of societies are exceptions. There is some mix of good patriarchy, good matriarchy, evil patriarchy, and evil matriarchy.

3) Pseudo-historical sexism. The default is patriarchy, but notes are given about ways for women PCs to still be viable and fun to play.

Do you think the Drow are "Problematic?" If so, in what ways? Nope, I'm ok with them.

If you like the Drow, why do you like them? While I'm not a Drow fanboy or anything, I think they make good villains in a campaign.  They are intelligent, civilized, manipulative, etc. which makes for a nice change of pace from beasts, monsters and other more savage opponents.

Do you use the Drow in your campaigns? I have.  I would again.  I usually use them as powers behind the scene.  The group is doing something or have something that the Drow want and go from there.

Have you done anything bizarre with the Drow, or somehow made them different?  I haven't but I picked up Spire at GenCon this year and I'm really looking forward to running a few games of it.  The setting has the Drow as the oppressed underclass, subservient to the High Elves in a mile high tower city.  As per the book's description:

QuoteThe story of Spire is one of rebellion. You and your friends will become drow freedom fighters, clawing back their city through subterfuge, sedition and brutal violence. They will have to risk their relationship with their community to save it from the cruel overlords of Spire – what are they prepared to lose to liberate their people? Who are they prepared to hurt, or kill, to see Spire under drow control once more?

I like the drow, warts and all. But just like with all my tabletop games that I GM, if a player has a problem with 'em, all they gotta do is actually say something before the game starts. Or whenever they want to tell me. Truthfully, though, I don't really find the drow to be so crucial to my D&D experience that my games must have them exactly as written, rules-as-written. I don't mind substituting in something else or homebrewing up something new to suit a player sometimes. Though I don't know if that's me trying to be nice or me just being very, very, very addicted to homebrewing new races for my gaming groups.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/13KwaOs6Y7VZ1C/giphy.gif)

Quote from: jhkim;1060565Are 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.

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.

1: Various queens and empresses have popped up in Greyhawk and especially Forgotten Realms. Others left fairly open ended. Sometimes the elven kingdoms are presented as matriarchal too. Other times its never stated as usually its a non-issue. Wasnt there a matriarchal kingdom in Birthright? Theres certainly some in modules too.

2: Definitly are. The Flan in Greyhawk are specifically noted as dark skinned. Not positive but aren't the people of Chult in FR dark skinned? Theres been others over the years. And more in the Mystara setting.

The Greyhawk Flan have golden/bronze skin tones; if dark grey deep gnomes don't count then I guess they don't count either. Greyhawk is also notable for the wicked Suel being very fair skinned.

Re Matriarchies, Greyhawk has Gynocratic city-state of Hardby which is Good-aligned, though Gygax seemed to see Neutral as 'better' than Good anyway. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1061238The Greyhawk Flan have golden/bronze skin tones; if dark grey deep gnomes don't count then I guess they don't count either. Greyhawk is also notable for the wicked Suel being very fair skinned.

Re Matriarchies, Greyhawk has Gynocratic city-state of Hardby which is Good-aligned, though Gygax seemed to see Neutral as 'better' than Good anyway. :)

Ive seen the Flan describe previously as dark skinned so at least at some point they have. I do not have access to my Greyhawk books to check though.

I do not think the Drow are "problematic." I think people who use the word "problematic" are likely to be unpleasant people to have around.

Quote from: Omega;1061239Ive seen the Flan describe previously as dark skinned so at least at some point they have. I do not have access to my Greyhawk books to check though.

This site says 'light copper to dark brown' - http://greyhawk.wikia.com/wiki/Flan_(ethnicity)

Drow are retarded; is that problematic?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1061500Drow are retarded; is that problematic?

Only since use of the word "problematic" is retarded. ;)

(Holds up X-Card.)Don't ask me why I'm bothered right now because I don't need to tell anyone why.

Quote from: sureshot;1061548(Holds up X-Card.)Don't ask me why I'm bothered right now because I don't need to tell anyone why.

(Holds up X-Card.) His lack of transparency is triggering my X-Card!

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1061539Only since use of the word "problematic" is retarded. ;)

Good answer!

Greetings!

I'm kind of wondering though, why did they pick on the Drow Elves to have a meltdown over? As has been mentioned, they have absolutely nothing to do with African people, aside from also being *Black*

But Orcs can be *Black*. Trolls can also be Black. Fire Giants are also typically Black. Matter of fact, mythologies from around the world have many creatures and spirits of various kinds that are *Black*. European culture has for centuries--long before the stupid trans-Atlantic slave trade with Africans--associated many mythological concepts as being *Black* Hell, in many Asian countries, various colours are considered evil and taboo. I think Black might be one of them.

Who the hell said THEY are somehow the "Authority" to censor and decide what colours and races are appropriate or not? If you tried to do this kind of stupid shit in India or China--or *gasp*--even AFRICA for god's sake, they would laugh at you, and think you were a total moron.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1061878Greetings!

I'm kind of wondering though, why did they pick on the Drow Elves to have a meltdown over? As has been mentioned, they have absolutely nothing to do with African people, aside from also being *Black*

But Orcs can be *Black*. Trolls can also be Black. Fire Giants are also typically Black. Matter of fact, mythologies from around the world have many creatures and spirits of various kinds that are *Black*. European culture has for centuries--long before the stupid trans-Atlantic slave trade with Africans--associated many mythological concepts as being *Black* Hell, in many Asian countries, various colours are considered evil and taboo. I think Black might be one of them.

Who the hell said THEY are somehow the "Authority" to censor and decide what colours and races are appropriate or not? If you tried to do this kind of stupid shit in India or China--or *gasp*--even AFRICA for god's sake, they would laugh at you, and think you were a total moron.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Because they're black. Because there are sexy women. Because a guy's not doing what the sexy women say. Because it's Tuesday. Because there's a panther, which makes them think of Black Panther, which makes them think of black slaves, which makes them think of white supremacy, which makes them think of President Trump, which makes them think of migrants, which makes them think of how the guy not doing what the sexy women say migrated to the surface, which makes them think of his panther, which...

Basically, because it's any given day and they don't realize how great their lives must be if bitching about Drow can be such a huge concern.

Quote from: SHARK;1061878But Orcs can be *Black*.

I've seen plenty of people arguing that orcs (or at least always-evil orcs) are stand-ins for black people (and thus inherently racist), even if they're not "black orcs".

Nonsense, orcs are stand ins for Native Americans and 19th century genocides.

Never mind that orcs were originally violent invaders with endless numbers and superior immune systems and thus a better stand-in for Europeans.

I think I'm triggered!

Quote from: nDervish;1061927I've seen plenty of people arguing that orcs (or at least always-evil orcs) are stand-ins for black people (and thus inherently racist), even if they're not "black orcs".

The argument is correct in the main. JRR Tolkien was heavily inspired by his experiences in the trenches of WW1, in which England was invaded by a massive horde of Africans.

Quote from: SHARK;1061878Greetings!

I'm kind of wondering though, why did they pick on the Drow Elves to have a meltdown over? As has been mentioned, they have absolutely nothing to do with African people, aside from also being *Black*

But Orcs can be *Black*. Trolls can also be Black. Fire Giants are also typically Black. Matter of fact, mythologies from around the world have many creatures and spirits of various kinds that are *Black*. European culture has for centuries--long before the stupid trans-Atlantic slave trade with Africans--associated many mythological concepts as being *Black* Hell, in many Asian countries, various colours are considered evil and taboo. I think Black might be one of them.

Who the hell said THEY are somehow the "Authority" to censor and decide what colours and races are appropriate or not? If you tried to do this kind of stupid shit in India or China--or *gasp*--even AFRICA for god's sake, they would laugh at you, and think you were a total moron.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1061921Because they're black. Because there are sexy women. Because a guy's not doing what the sexy women say. Because it's Tuesday. Because there's a panther, which makes them think of Black Panther, which makes them think of black slaves, which makes them think of white supremacy, which makes them think of President Trump, which makes them think of migrants, which makes them think of how the guy not doing what the sexy women say migrated to the surface, which makes them think of his panther, which...

Basically, because it's any given day and they don't realize how great their lives must be if bitching about Drow can be such a huge concern.

Quote from: nDervish;1061927I've seen plenty of people arguing that orcs (or at least always-evil orcs) are stand-ins for black people (and thus inherently racist), even if they're not "black orcs".

Quote from: David Johansen;1061943Nonsense, orcs are stand ins for Native Americans and 19th century genocides.

Never mind that orcs were originally violent invaders with endless numbers and superior immune systems and thus a better stand-in for Europeans.

I think I'm triggered!

I think that it is impossible for [name humanoid race here] not to bear a close resemblance to something unsightly from human history, simply because of the limits of human imagination and psychology. The savage humanoids can only ever be indigenous peoples, colonialist invaders, or members of a multicultural empire, because those are the only things that most human writers can write sapient beings as.

The structure of the game itself requires violence, which is in itself a rather disturbing worldview to for designers to take. Thus, I have suggested multiple times that adventures should offer non-violent solutions where possible. The presence of mental manipulation and communication spells/effects means that you can even negotiate with animals, plants, inanimate objects and so forth.

I don't think we should dismiss such concerns out of hand. Rather, we should take the opportunity to reflect on why the game is as it is and whether that really fits our wants.

The existence of evil races is an inherently sadistic concept, because the only reason you would ever need evil races is to cause suffering. Why would you want to cause suffering? Who knows!

For example, the "problems" with the drow are fairly easy to solve. Their entire appeal is that they are supposed to represent the white man's worst fear and fetish of being dominated socially and sexually by black women, right? Play that up! Seriously, there is loads and loads of romance novels, fanfiction, fanart, etc that spin doctors the whole thing into a positive. I don't know, write an adventure path where the party become slaves to the dark elves and this is presented as a good thing.

QuoteI don't think we should dismiss such concerns out of hand.

Actually, given how aggressive and awful Team Purple Hair has become, I think it's important to dismiss them out of hand.

QuoteFor example, the "problems" with the drow are fairly easy to solve. Their entire appeal is that they are supposed to represent Ed Greenwood's worst fear and fetish of being dominated socially and sexually by black women and also sometimes transforming in to a sexy woman to dominate men, right?

FTFY

Thank you for posting that pirate. It just goes to show how mentally unstable the purple place has become. You think they would be happy that Drow society is matriarchal instead seeing nefarious plots everywhere.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061957Their entire appeal is that they are supposed to represent the white man's worst fear and fetish of being dominated socially and sexually by black women, right?

Is that why Norse peoples in the Dark Ages told myths about dark elves under the earth - their fear of being dominated socially and sexually by black women?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061957For example, the "problems" with the drow are fairly easy to solve. Their entire appeal is that they are supposed to represent the white man's worst fear and fetish of being dominated socially and sexually by black women, right? Play that up! Seriously, there is loads and loads of romance novels, fanfiction, fanart, etc that spin doctors the whole thing into a positive. I don't know, write an adventure path where the party become slaves to the dark elves and this is presented as a good thing.

"Fear" yeah, that's it, that's my worst fear, "Oh please don't throw me into that briar patch!"

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061954The argument is correct in the main. JRR Tolkien was heavily inspired by his experiences in the trenches of WW1, in which England was invaded by a massive horde of Africans.

Ironically, Tolkien's orcs seem inspired much less by the dastardly Hun than by the cockneys in the next trench over.

Quote from: sureshot;1061961Thank you for posting that pirate. It just goes to show how mentally unstable the purple place has become. You think they would be happy that Drow society is matriarchal instead seeing nefarious plots everywhere.

Here is an article explaining why the drow matriarchy is not a real matriarchy: https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/

Not everybody who disagrees with you is a lunatic. I literally read erotica that depicted more realistic matriarchies.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061963Is that why Norse peoples in the Dark Ages told myths about dark elves under the earth - their fear of being dominated socially and sexually by black women?

Technically speaking, dark elves and dwarves were not really distinguished in Norse myth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar). It is not clear if the "dark" part ever referred to their skin color, either, since it could easily refer to their homeland being shrouded in darkness.

Quote from: S'mon;1061987Ironically, Tolkien's orcs seem inspired much less by the dastardly Hun than by the cockneys in the next trench over.

I would think that actually reinforces the idea that orcs are a metaphor for racist propaganda. Whoever is writing about them subconsciously attributes them with traits from a disliked ethnic group. Or romanticizes them like the noble savage myth. In essence, orcs are generally written as something to be despised or aspired to. Not as people with free will.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061963Is that why Norse peoples in the Dark Ages told myths about dark elves under the earth - their fear of being dominated socially and sexually by black women?

Also their memories of WW1.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061992Here is an article explaining why the drow matriarchy is not a real matriarchy: https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
I would think that actually reinforces the idea that orcs are a metaphor for racist propaganda. Whoever is writing about them subconsciously attributes them with traits from a disliked ethnic group.

Probably don't want to go down that road if you want to stay on Team Goodperson, because if you can't hate ethnic subgroups in your country who are the same race as you, but diverge significantly from you in terms of regional dialect, religion, moral norms, education, politics, family structure, and diet, pretty much 95% of SJW fantasies have to be thrown out.

So it's settled. The orcs represent black people. Just like the Drow. And the Fire Giants. And the night hags. And the duergar. And the svorfnobberlings or whatever. And the xvarts. Gibberlings, too? IDK, reading the Monster Manual while woke is tough.

The elves represent the English (collapsed empire completely overrun by a far more aggressive, mercantile people, mentally living in a past where they were #1, extremly poor manufacturing productivity).

The dwarves represent the Finns (hardy, simple, live in the cold, women have beards).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061992I would think that actually reinforces the idea that orcs are a metaphor for racist propaganda. Whoever is writing about them subconsciously attributes them with traits from a disliked ethnic group. Or romanticizes them like the noble savage myth. In essence, orcs are generally written as something to be despised or aspired to. Not as people with free will.

Gygax's orcs are initially still  Tolkien's faceless legions of evil, but they began to drift towards more of a "savage races" archetype, perhaps more in keeping with dnd's pulp fantasy roots. By 3e the transition was complete. You could call it a colonialist mentality if you like. But they were not given attributes of any real world human group, even though they took on the place of Red Indians in  cowboy pulps, Frazetta Apemen in Conanesque pulps, and so on.

In British games like Warhammer, orcs stayed cockneys, true to their classist roots in Tolkien.

Quote from: S'mon;1061999Gygax's orcs are initially still  Tolkien's faceless legions of evil, but they began to drift towards more of a "savage races" archetype, perhaps more in keeping with dnd's pulp fantasy roots. By 3e the transition was complete. You could call it a colonialist mentality if you like. But they were not given attributes of any real world human group, even though they took on the place of Red Indians in  cowboy pulps, Frazetta Apemen in Conanesque pulps, and so on.

In British games like Warhammer, orcs stayed cockneys, true to their classist roots in Tolkien.

WF Orks are Soccer Hooligans.  Absolutely funny until they happen to you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1062007WF Orks are Soccer Hooligans.  Absolutely funny until they happen to you.

Millwall soccer hooligans maybe. Not Chelsea!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061992Here is an article explaining why the drow matriarchy is not a real matriarchy: https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/

So much bad rationalizations in that article. But I can't help going for the low hanging fruit...

The Drow matriarchy isn't a real matriarchy because Drow aren't real!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062013So much bad rationalizations in that article. But I can't help going for the low hanging fruit...

The Drow matriarchy isn't a real matriarchy because Drow aren't real!

Greetings!

You know, Ratman, your comments here reminded me with a good laugh, but also the irony--a long time ago, when I used to debate eager young liberals at my university, after some time, I lamented the fact that these people were *not* interested in facts, evidence, and truth. Time and time again, whether the debate was about women in combat, guns, foreign policy, biology, crime policy, social welfare policy--no matter how many facts were presented, none of it ultimately mattered. The liberals would always resort to a conclusive dismissal of your argument based on emotion and ideology--not facts, or truth. That soon led me to ultimately conclude that liberals, and liberalism--is really a kind of mental disease, a psychological disease of the mind that seems to totally *unhinge* them from any kind of reality. They are entirely incapable of comprehending reality in any meaningful way. Today's SJW's are merely the most recent "flavour of the month" incarnation of these people. Whether they go by the name of "Social Progressives", "Progressives", "Liberals", or "SJW's"--they are all, whether they realise it or not--they are all part of the post-modernist, Marxist soup. My buddies in the Marines would simply dismiss them "They're all just a bunch of fucking Communists!".

I say all of that as a context for seeing the depth of your comment. "The Drow are not real!"--even in this, our RPG hobby, the SJW's break with reality becomes frighteningly all too clear.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061957The existence of evil races is an inherently sadistic concept, because the only reason you would ever need evil races is to cause suffering. Why would you want to cause suffering? Who knows!

Why would you want your imaginary world to contain imaginary creatures which cause imaginary suffering?  So that the players' characters can stop them!

The nature of the imaginary opponents is closely correlated to the desired style of game - if you want to have a beer & pretzels romp where the PCs mindlessly trash monsters by the dozen, then you're more likely to have monsters which are equally mindless and "always evil", while a more nuanced and morally ambiguous game generally calls for nuanced and morally ambiguous foes.

Quote from: nDervish;1062053Why would you want your imaginary world to contain imaginary creatures which cause imaginary suffering?  So that the players' characters can stop them!

Seems like there is some inherent problematic structures of oppression that need to be unpacked here...why not run a more inclusive, socially conscious RPG where there's no conflict? For example, we could get rid of the "fighter" class and replace it with the "befriender."

Quote from: SHARK;1062018Greetings!

You know, Ratman, your comments here reminded me with a good laugh, but also the irony--a long time ago, when I used to debate eager young liberals at my university, after some time, I lamented the fact that these people were *not* interested in facts, evidence, and truth. Time and time again, whether the debate was about women in combat, guns, foreign policy, biology, crime policy, social welfare policy--no matter how many facts were presented, none of it ultimately mattered. The liberals would always resort to a conclusive dismissal of your argument based on emotion and ideology--not facts, or truth. That soon led me to ultimately conclude that liberals, and liberalism--is really a kind of mental disease, a psychological disease of the mind that seems to totally *unhinge* them from any kind of reality. They are entirely incapable of comprehending reality in any meaningful way. Today's SJW's are merely the most recent "flavour of the month" incarnation of these people. Whether they go by the name of "Social Progressives", "Progressives", "Liberals", or "SJW's"--they are all, whether they realise it or not--they are all part of the post-modernist, Marxist soup. My buddies in the Marines would simply dismiss them "They're all just a bunch of fucking Communists!".

I say all of that as a context for seeing the depth of your comment. "The Drow are not real!"--even in this, our RPG hobby, the SJW's break with reality becomes frighteningly all too clear.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I don't buy Patriarchy Theory, and it's rotten fruits (male gaze, toxic masculinity, etc) So I'm perfectly fine with "traditional" masculinity, and male sexuality. Which does seem to bother a lot of "progressives".
If I have Drow in my campaign, they're going to have jet black skin, be a cruel matriarchy, wear chainmail bikinis and have a BDSM undertone. It's a goddamn game, and I'll indulge tropes as much as I like and the group will go with. I can manage this and refrain from going on a patriarchy infused rape spree.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062062I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I don't buy Patriarchy Theory, and it's rotten fruits (male gaze, toxic masculinity, etc) So I'm perfectly fine with "traditional" masculinity, and male sexuality. Which does seem to bother a lot of "progressives".

As a ruling system, Patriarchy has proven to be terrible for men.  Women get live longer than men by 5 or so years.  Women get to initiate divorce scottfree and when they do, they get money to live on, but the men usually don't.  Women have at least 14 different methods of birth control, men have 2 maybe 3.  Women spend 60% less time in jail for committing the exact same crimes.  Women got the vote without any responsibilities, while men had to accept the risk of being drafted into the Military.  Women still spend 60% of the world's money...

Yeah, for a pro-man government, it's doing a terrible job.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062062If I have Drow in my campaign, they're going to have jet black skin, be a cruel matriarchy, wear chainmail bikinis and have a BDSM undertone. It's a goddamn game, and I'll indulge tropes as much as I like and the group will go with.

That's metal as FUCK!  \m/  I'm stealing this.

The problem with demi-humans in D&D is they are too human, and thus allow all sorts of wankery about modern politics and culture.

In using Drow, I suggest playing up their non-human aspects. They're magical spider elves. They're evil fae. Their behavior is far more spider than human.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Spiders. I'm sure we can graft bits to the Drow to increase their coolness, and negate the wankery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider

Quote from: Spinachcat;1062097The problem with demi-humans in D&D is they are too human, and thus allow all sorts of wankery about modern politics and culture.

Same goes for humanoids. They aren't analogs to human cultures - they're monsters. Nothing like any human society that has ever existed. Superhumanly brutal. Cannibals. They revel in murder and cruelty. Monsters.

I never fail to be astonished by how many people who play fantasy roleplaying games (or read fantasy fiction) have feeble imaginations.

Not just feebleminded also insecure about themselves with a extra side helping of self loathing. Normal sane do not get offended and triggered at everything and anything. While seeing evil in every dark corner.

Quote from: Haffrung;1062109Same goes for humanoids. They aren't analogs to human cultures - they're monsters. Nothing like any human society that has ever existed. Superhumanly brutal. Cannibals. They revel in murder and cruelty. Monsters.

I never fail to be astonished by how many people who play fantasy roleplaying games (or read fantasy fiction) have feeble imaginations.

The real Aztecs, Mongols, Assyrians, Persians, Han, Comanche, etc had what we would consider inhumanly brutal cultures. The thing about all this hand-wringing is that if you were to put a society in your culture that actually functioned like a 9th-century caliphate or hell, even something that resembled Actual Rome more than Movie Rome, you'd have SJWs screaming about how racist and bigoted you were being.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1060615I apologize.

I previously linked to an article explaining why this was the case in the grander context (https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/)

Completely misses the connection to spiders, Black Widows in particular who are notorious for A having a bite dangerous to humans (shut up Aussies, I hear you giggling and saying "Oi, that's not a spider, this is a spider"), B having jet black "skin", and C eating the males after having sex with them. Yes, there is debate on how common this really is, but it does happen and is widely circulated so clearly was a consideration when the Drow were created.

Damn sexist mother nature.


Wouldn't want to bother with a fact that goes against the general screed though.

Quote from: SHARK;1061878Greetings!

I'm kind of wondering though, why did they pick on the Drow Elves to have a meltdown over? As has been mentioned, they have absolutely nothing to do with African people, aside from also being *Black*

Because they have black skin. Thats it. Thats all. Everything else has been tacked on since.

And if it isnt that then Orcs are problematic because they "represent oppressed black people!"

And tomorrow Mind flayers will be problematic because they "represent the plight of the migrant worker in America!"

And after that the colour Red will be problematic because "it is appropriation of native american culture!"

SJWs are insane people. Anyone who kowtows to appease their demands is insane. Anyone who thinks they are one of them or buddies with them is insane.

Quote from: David Johansen;1061943Nonsense, orcs are stand ins for Native Americans and 19th century genocides.

Never mind that orcs were originally violent invaders with endless numbers and superior immune systems and thus a better stand-in for Europeans.

I think I'm triggered!

Exactly. I've said this many a time. Orcs are the european invaders destroying the land and ousting or better yet totally enslaving or exterminating the natives who happen to be the PCs.

In AD&D the land is dotted in the ruins of human and/or demi-human cities and villages. And those habitations that are found have appallingly low populations sometimes.

And in 5e it is made very clear that periodically orcs sweep through the land to devastate civilization and massacre whole cities. Which may remain fallow for centuries thereafter.

Quote from: Omega;1062130Because they have black skin. Thats it. Thats all. Everything else has been tacked on since.

Yep. And you rarely hear the inverse, that undead (vampires and ghouls and whatnot) have pale skin, but they don't represent whites in a negative manner because... reasons...

Quote from: Omega;1062130Because they have black skin. Thats it. Thats all. Everything else has been tacked on since.

And if it isnt that then Orcs are problematic because they "represent oppressed black people!"

And tomorrow Mind flayers will be problematic because they "represent the plight of the migrant worker in America!"

And after that the colour Red will be problematic because "it is appropriation of native american culture!"

SJWs are insane people. Anyone who kowtows to appease their demands is insane. Anyone who thinks they are one of them or buddies with them is insane.

Greetings!

So true, huh, Omega? You know, after I cool off from being angry with these SJW morons, geesus, I can't help but to laugh maniacally at how impossibly insane they are. I've said it before, but damn, you know, the "Stupid Train" just doesn't stop with these idiots. I know somebody, somewhere, that might be one of our friends--is friends with SJW's. Or married to one. Or related to one. I often wonder, damn, how do they deal with the "Stupid Train" of the SJW's? There's so many topics that the "Stupid Train" touches on and rides through, you know? I imagine trying to be friends with an SJW--the only thing we could ever talk about or discuss would be the weather, or general trivia. Too many other topics would inevitably open the door to the "Stupid Train" and I'd have to school them hard. lol.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062136Yep. And you rarely hear the inverse, that undead (vampires and ghouls and whatnot) have pale skin, but they don't represent whites in a negative manner because... reasons...

Of course not, I believe the proper response to that is to accuse someone using that example of concern trolling.

It is a very technical dance that they have. :rolleyes:

Quote from: S'mon;1061999Gygax's orcs are initially still  Tolkien's faceless legions of evil, but they began to drift towards more of a "savage races" archetype, perhaps more in keeping with dnd's pulp fantasy roots.

Not really. Orcs in OD&D could be Chaotic or Neutral, and Groan has related in one or two threads that the adventurers could and would recruit orcs and about anything else they could persuade. But right out the gate orcs were not inherently evil to the last drop. Just as not all elves are inherently good. There are evil elves aplenty out there, and so on.

It ranks with female sjws complaining about a sandwich special titled for example "gentleman smoke meat special. Yet ladyfinger cookies are exempt because reasons and feels

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062136Yep. And you rarely hear the inverse, that undead (vampires and ghouls and whatnot) have pale skin, but they don't represent whites in a negative manner because... reasons...

Theres been some occasional bitching about "evil albinos." though. The two ghosts in the 2nd Matrix movie for example.

Quote from: sureshot;1062145It ranks with female sjws complaining about a sandwich special titled for example "gentleman smoke meat special. Yet ladyfinger cookies are exempt because reasons and feels

Because the SJW screed is allways one sided, untill it suits them...

Black people in comedy routines is racist. Replacing white characters with black ones is progressive. Black people in evil roles is racist. depicting a culture in their common garb is racist. But if you dont depict them right thats racist. If you dont have them in your movie, book, whatever thats racist. Black people calling out black people for not being black enough isnt racist. Black people getting makeup touchups to be black enough is racist.

And on and on and on and on ad freaking nausium.

Quote from: Omega;1062147Theres been some occasional bitching about "evil albinos." though. The two ghosts in the 2nd Matrix movie for example.

That's true. But I think it's more about their albino (minority) status than analogies with whiteness. It's been a while since I read the critiques though.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1062143Of course not, I believe the proper response to that is to accuse someone using that example of concern trolling.

It is a very technical dance that they have. :rolleyes:

Yep. Thus the attempt to redefine racism as "prejudice plus power".
It's (not surprisingly) similar to an abusive partner's attempts to redirect blame.

Quote from: Omega;1062147Theres been some occasional bitching about "evil albinos." though. The two ghosts in the 2nd Matrix movie for example.

The bigger crime that all sides should get behind is that the second and third Matrix movies exist.

Quote from: Omega;1062130SJWs are insane people. Anyone who kowtows to appease their demands is insane. Anyone who thinks they are one of them or buddies with them is insane.

That's the crux of it. You should not spend any time trying to appease crazy people or listening to what they say. There's nothing to be gained.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062163That's the crux of it. You should not spend any time trying to appease crazy people or listening to what they say. There's nothing to be gained.

Unless, like me, you get paid to listen to crazy people.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1062164Unless, like me, you get paid to listen to crazy people.

In olden times they used to call that torture. :eek:

Quote from: Omega;1062165In olden times they used to call that torture. :eek:

Well, that or "bartending." :D

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061997Probably don't want to go down that road if you want to stay on Team Goodperson, because if you can't hate ethnic subgroups in your country who are the same race as you, but diverge significantly from you in terms of regional dialect, religion, moral norms, education, politics, family structure, and diet, pretty much 95% of SJW fantasies have to be thrown out.

So it's settled. The orcs represent black people. Just like the Drow. And the Fire Giants. And the night hags. And the duergar. And the svorfnobberlings or whatever. And the xvarts. Gibberlings, too? IDK, reading the Monster Manual while woke is tough.

The elves represent the English (collapsed empire completely overrun by a far more aggressive, mercantile people, mentally living in a past where they were #1, extremly poor manufacturing productivity).

The dwarves represent the Finns (hardy, simple, live in the cold, women have beards).

I consider myself centrist/leftist, but I do recognize the unhelpful activities of the far left. It is possible to be bigoted against white people, and a growing feeling of victimization (even if irrational) is what helped Trump get elected despite him being yet another evil rich person who actively denigrates his own voting block.

Quote from: S'mon;1061999Gygax's orcs are initially still  Tolkien's faceless legions of evil, but they began to drift towards more of a "savage races" archetype, perhaps more in keeping with dnd's pulp fantasy roots. By 3e the transition was complete. You could call it a colonialist mentality if you like. But they were not given attributes of any real world human group, even though they took on the place of Red Indians in  cowboy pulps, Frazetta Apemen in Conanesque pulps, and so on.

In British games like Warhammer, orcs stayed cockneys, true to their classist roots in Tolkien.

Orcs have always been used as stand-ins for disliked ethnic groups or idealized myths. Cockneys, blacks, Asians, the noble savage myth, angelic paladins, the list goes on. It's really just a sublimation of tribalism.

Claiming that orcs only represent black people and only in a negative manner is a very limited view. There is so much fanart of deliberately sexy orcs in faux tribal garb.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062013So much bad rationalizations in that article. But I can't help going for the low hanging fruit...

The Drow matriarchy isn't a real matriarchy because Drow aren't real!

That's no excuse for being so lazy in writing them.

Quote from: SHARK;1062018Greetings!

You know, Ratman, your comments here reminded me with a good laugh, but also the irony--a long time ago, when I used to debate eager young liberals at my university, after some time, I lamented the fact that these people were *not* interested in facts, evidence, and truth. Time and time again, whether the debate was about women in combat, guns, foreign policy, biology, crime policy, social welfare policy--no matter how many facts were presented, none of it ultimately mattered. The liberals would always resort to a conclusive dismissal of your argument based on emotion and ideology--not facts, or truth. That soon led me to ultimately conclude that liberals, and liberalism--is really a kind of mental disease, a psychological disease of the mind that seems to totally *unhinge* them from any kind of reality. They are entirely incapable of comprehending reality in any meaningful way. Today's SJW's are merely the most recent "flavour of the month" incarnation of these people. Whether they go by the name of "Social Progressives", "Progressives", "Liberals", or "SJW's"--they are all, whether they realise it or not--they are all part of the post-modernist, Marxist soup. My buddies in the Marines would simply dismiss them "They're all just a bunch of fucking Communists!".

I say all of that as a context for seeing the depth of your comment. "The Drow are not real!"--even in this, our RPG hobby, the SJW's break with reality becomes frighteningly all too clear.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You do realize you are denigrating half the voting block of the United States as mentally ill, right? The far left does not speak for the entirety of the leftist block, that's why they are called far left.

Are leftists perfect? No, but neither is the right. Both sides hold anti-science views. The left has people who believe nuclear power, GMOs and vaccines are harmful and the right has people who believe that LGBTQ+ is a mental illness and non-whites are genetically inferior.

But I digress.

Are the drow racist? Well, whoever cursed them with black skin was certainly a skinhead since the Eberron drow were always black and aren't predisposed toward evil. Are they fetishistic? Hell yes they are. Are they a remotely realistic matriarchy? Not really, to the point where I've read more realistic matriarchies in erotica.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062115The real Aztecs, Mongols, Assyrians, Persians, Han, Comanche, etc had what we would consider inhumanly brutal cultures. The thing about all this hand-wringing is that if you were to put a society in your culture that actually functioned like a 9th-century caliphate or hell, even something that resembled Actual Rome more than Movie Rome, you'd have SJWs screaming about how racist and bigoted you were being.

I took history and anthropology in school and this is very true. Values today are very different from values back then.

Possibly the poster child for this sort of thing is The History of Childhood by Lloyd deMause (https://psychohistory.com/books/foundations-of-psychohistory/chapter-1-the-evolution-of-childhood/). The basic premise is that all child rearing practices prior to the modern day were actually child abuse and that this is why people back then were homicidal and fought so many wars. While I think Lloyd is reaching here since we cannot really test that (and no, the statistics on spanking children causing more crime is not sufficient), he is right about child rearing back then being abusive.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062171That's no excuse for being so lazy in writing them.

A crticism that's a far cry from Drow being "problematic".

And a very generic one that could be levelled at the whole of RPGs, not just Drow and Dungeons and Dragons.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062171Possibly the poster child for this sort of thing is The History of Childhood by Lloyd deMause (https://psychohistory.com/books/foundations-of-psychohistory/chapter-1-the-evolution-of-childhood/). The basic premise is that all child rearing practices prior to the modern day were actually child abuse and that this is why people back then were homicidal and fought so many wars. While I think Lloyd is reaching here since we cannot really test that (and no, the statistics on spanking children causing more crime is not sufficient), he is right about child rearing back then being abusive.

I read something a while ago on how you don't really find "civilization" without slavery until the beginnings of the industrial revolution, at which point productivity without slavery becomes increasingly feasible, plus there is rising demand for factory labor, which is urban and therefore plays according to different economic & demographic rules. I tend to stay away from moralizing history, because social norms and economic practices evolve for a reason. The fact that agrarian societies with little to no contact, from the Mexico Valley to the Italian peninsula, were built on forced labor, suggests that without modern industry, those who enslave will typically conquer those who don't. Okay, so what? This isn't off topic, I swear. If you reflect that in your typical fantasy-premodern RPG campaign, it's going to make people upset. I mean if you have a setting where every society has slaves of some sort, and the only people who don't, don't even have written language, metal-working, or domesticated animals, it's not considered in the least bit controversial, and should the players try to liberate the slaves, they will cripple the economy, the ability to field an army, and ensure conquest by the neighbors. Do such a thing, and you'll be accused of normalizing/celebrating slavery. And frankly, I would find playing a game in such a setting to be ponderously depressing.

But my point here is you really can't please the SJWs, because you cannot portray history itself with strict, fact-driven rigor without coming under fire, reality is now a minefield when it comes to inspiration for fiction, at least if you want to please the screaming bluehair set. So IMO, the correct thing to do is not try.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062176A crticism that's a far cry from Drow being "problematic".

And a very generic one that could be levelled at the whole of RPGs, not just Drow and Dungeons and Dragons.

I do level it at D&D in general. My blog focuses on lazy world building.

The Drow are "problematic" in several ways, which I attribute to laziness and I believe are not particularly difficult to rectify. There are saner tumblr feminists out there that draw drow porn (particularly femdom and male/male), so it's something that can be done without also alienating existing players.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062177I read something a while ago on how you don't really find "civilization" without slavery until the beginnings of the industrial revolution, at which point productivity without slavery becomes increasingly feasible, plus there is rising demand for factory labor, which is urban and therefore plays according to different economic & demographic rules. I tend to stay away from moralizing history, because social norms and economic practices evolve for a reason. The fact that agrarian societies with little to no contact, from the Mexico Valley to the Italian peninsula, were built on forced labor, suggests that without modern industry, those who enslave will typically conquer those who don't. Okay, so what? This isn't off topic, I swear. If you reflect that in your typical fantasy-premodern RPG campaign, it's going to make people upset. I mean if you have a setting where every society has slaves of some sort, and the only people who don't, don't even have written language, metal-working, or domesticated animals, it's not considered in the least bit controversial, and should the players try to liberate the slaves, they will cripple the economy, the ability to field an army, and ensure conquest by the neighbors. Do such a thing, and you'll be accused of normalizing/celebrating slavery. And frankly, I would find playing a game in such a setting to be ponderously depressing.

But my point here is you really can't please the SJWs, because you cannot portray history itself with strict, fact-driven rigor without coming under fire, reality is now a minefield when it comes to inspiration for fiction, at least if you want to please the screaming bluehair set. So IMO, the correct thing to do is not try.

Not all the people who complain are loony far leftists. I do appreciate attempts at being "realistic" within a given context.

I think I mentioned this before, but it's relevant here. The Amazonian orc fiction I read engaged in some world building in which the beliefs and actions of the Amazons were laid out in a clear, unambiguous fashion. In standard D&D, half-orcs are at one point claimed to be smarter than regular orcs and this allows them to advance in some tribes; the story I read ran with that idea and added a matriarchal twist. While not cartoonishly evil, the Amazons aren't remotely moral from a modern perspective. They enslave humans, forcing both sexes to work and using the men in particular as sperm donors; this is in contrast to how Amazons are typically depicted in fiction. The Amazons seem to operate on a one-drop rule that doesn't distinguish orcs and half-orcs, assuming those categories apply in the fictional world. They are extremely sexist and racist in highly specific, ritualized ways: male orcs sit at the bottom of the social hierarchy, considered brutish, stupid and not allowed to reproduce; humans are physically weak, but cleverer and sociable compared to orc males which makes the men superior husband-slaves.

I would really like to see more world building like that rather than ham-fisted attempts at politically correct history.

The whole "civilization cannot exist without slavery" is a meaningless argument because it takes specifically Colombian-era slavery and retroactively applies it to all of history. There were many different forms of slavery that existed across history and even today, including paid slaves, slaves owning slaves, etc. Ancient Egypt, for example, had laws prohibiting the mistreatment of slaves due to what I can only assume was a mixture of compassion and pragmatism (happy healthy slaves work better). Slavery wasn't omnipresent either. The pyramids, for example, were constructed by guilds of paid laborers rather than slaves.

You don't have to world build to satisfy far leftists. World building is its own reward.

Fantasy tends to demonize slavery ...while valorising feudalism, the actual basis of most pre modern economies.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062188The whole "civilization cannot exist without slavery" is a meaningless argument because it takes specifically Colombian-era slavery and retroactively applies it to all of history.

No, it doesn't. Forced labor is slavery. It doesn't magically stop being slavery because you found some difference between the way the Assyrians whipped their slaves and the way Southerners whipped their slaves, or because you discovered the Persians had a literate slave class, or whatever. What the left tries to do is set Colombian-era slavery apart from the rest of history by magnifying every difference so that it's portrayed as a sui generis historical evil, thus allowing us to excuse or even lionize non-European cultures as repositories of virtue and humanity prior to Big Bad Europe inventing the carrack and ruining the world. This is then used to demand that Western nations flagellate themselves into non-existence as penance for what is supposedly a great, unique historical evil. The fact is the bulk of agricultural work in history has been done under compulsion, frequently by conquered peoples.

QuoteAncient Egypt, for example, had laws prohibiting the mistreatment of slaves due to what I can only assume was a mixture of compassion and pragmatism (happy healthy slaves work better).

QuoteSlavery wasn't omnipresent either. The pyramids, for example, were constructed by guilds of paid laborers rather than slaves.

I can only guess that you're trying to argue Egyptian slavery wasn't really slavery with these two irrelevant factoids. Of course, the Americas both had laws about properly treating slaves and freemen doing things that weren't done with slaves, so it doesn't make the point you seem to think it does.

Quote from: S'mon;1062190Fantasy tends to demonize slavery ...while valorising feudalism, the actual basis of most pre modern economies.

Hence the frequent observation that the World of Greyhawk is more like "the wild west with swords and magic" than an actual medieval era. Nobody really wants to play in a game world where the masses of people are illiterate and unfree.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062188The Drow are "problematic" in several ways, which I attribute to laziness and I believe are not particularly difficult to rectify. There are saner tumblr feminists out there that draw drow porn (particularly femdom and male/male), so it's something that can be done without also alienating existing players.

Really, if you want to world build with a particular agenda, that's your business. And I don't use the term agenda in a derogatory fashion. I often have an agenda when I DM. Like, wanting to emphasize desert survival in a Dark Sun game. I've said my piece about how I feel about Drow, and won't beat a dead horse.

Quote from: S'mon;1062190Fantasy tends to demonize slavery ...while valorising feudalism, the actual basis of most pre modern economies.

That's equally absurd, since many lords were jerks who abused their vassals. The ones who were not jerks included Vlad the Impaler, and just look at that epithet.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062195No, it doesn't. Forced labor is slavery. It doesn't magically stop being slavery because you found some difference between the way the Assyrians whipped their slaves and the way Southerners whipped their slaves, or because you discovered the Persians had a literate slave class, or whatever. What the left tries to do is set Colombian-era slavery apart from the rest of history by magnifying every difference so that it's portrayed as a sui generis historical evil, thus allowing us to excuse or even lionize non-European cultures as repositories of virtue and humanity prior to Big Bad Europe inventing the carrack and ruining the world. This is then used to demand that Western nations flagellate themselves into non-existence as penance for what is supposedly a great, unique historical evil. The fact is the bulk of agricultural work in history has been done under compulsion, frequently by conquered peoples.




I can only guess that you're trying to argue Egyptian slavery wasn't really slavery with these two irrelevant factoids. Of course, the Americas both had laws about properly treating slaves and freemen doing things that weren't done with slaves, so it doesn't make the point you seem to think it does.

Then I misunderstood you. We seem to be in agreement.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062197Hence the frequent observation that the World of Greyhawk is more like "the wild west with swords and magic" than an actual medieval era. Nobody really wants to play in a game world where the masses of people are illiterate and unfree.

This is one the things I emphasize in my world building. A generic D&D world should not emulate actual medieval Europe, but pulp fiction. The Wilderlands of High Fantasy is my go-to example.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062217This is one the things I emphasize in my world building. A generic D&D world should not emulate actual medieval Europe, but pulp fiction. The Wilderlands of High Fantasy is my go-to example.

Yeah, I run my Wilderlands as much more post-apocalypse than feudal. Post-cyclic-apocalypse, really; the last big one was the Gnoll Times 250 years ago.

Quote from: S'mon;1062190Fantasy tends to demonize slavery ...while valorising feudalism, the actual basis of most pre modern economies.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062197Hence the frequent observation that the World of Greyhawk is more like "the wild west with swords and magic" than an actual medieval era. Nobody really wants to play in a game world where the masses of people are illiterate and unfree.

I agree with both of these. What bugs me both in this thread and in the "presentism" thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39748-Have-you-encountered-quot-presentism-quot-in-D-amp-D-style-settings) is people who argue that old-school D&D has authentic medieval flavor, and that it is ruined by later editions and/or SJWs and their political correctness. For example, in post #26 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39748-Have-you-encountered-quot-presentism-quot-in-D-amp-D-style-settings&p=1062036&viewfull=1#post1062036) of the other thread:

Quote from: Razor 007;1062036Just compare the artwork found in the D&D PHB, throughout the various editions of D&D.  Compare the 4E PHB to all those prior to it, and then compare the 5E PHB to the 4E PHB.  A pattern is there to see.  Less Medieval Flavor; More average WalMart shopper.

However, I do like the 5E game itself.

Quote from: jhkim;1062233I agree with both of these. What bugs me both in this thread and in the "presentism" thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39748-Have-you-encountered-quot-presentism-quot-in-D-amp-D-style-settings) is people who argue that old-school D&D has authentic medieval flavor, and that it is ruined by later editions and/or SJWs and their political correctness. For example, in post #26 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39748-Have-you-encountered-quot-presentism-quot-in-D-amp-D-style-settings&p=1062036&viewfull=1#post1062036) of the other thread:

Are you saying there weren't any warrior babes in chainmail bikinis back in the 1200s?

Quote from: SHARK;1062137I often wonder, damn, how do they deal with the "Stupid Train" of the SJW's?

It's easy. You make the game table off limits to politics and get everyone to buy in.

My rule is simple. I don't fucking care if we agree on politics, STFU about politics at the table. Gaming is our escape during our free time.

Most people are good with that. If someone has to be 24/7 fucktard (of any political stripe), they get the boot.

I'm in LA so I either game with SJWs or I don't game at public venues like FLGS, Meetups or cons.

I'm sure the hardcore SJWs would never accept my rule, but most I've encountered are happy to have a politics-free space to toss dice.

Quote from: Omega;1062144Orcs in OD&D could be Chaotic or Neutral

The big advantage of Law / Neutral / Chaos is you don't have to deal with Good vs. Evil labels.

Lawfuls and Chaotics can exist in the same party...with tension, concern over betrayals, snarky banter and other good stuff. Good and Evils tend to just roll initiative.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1062157The bigger crime that all sides should get behind is that the second and third Matrix movies exist.

LOL! I love them for the action scenes, even I have to protect my brain from the plot bombs!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062177But my point here is you really can't please the SJWs, because you cannot portray history itself with strict, fact-driven rigor without coming under fire, reality is now a minefield when it comes to inspiration for fiction, at least if you want to please the screaming bluehair set. So IMO, the correct thing to do is not try.

You are right. SJWs don't have the numbers to justify pandering to them.

The internet, MSM and Hollywood wants to pretend SJWs are a massive group. They're not. "Get Woke, Go Broke" has been proven dozens of times because SJWs can't buy enough stuff to equal their overly amplified presence on social media.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062195No, it doesn't. Forced labor is slavery. It doesn't magically stop being slavery because you found some difference between the way the Assyrians whipped their slaves and the way Southerners whipped their slaves, or because you discovered the Persians had a literate slave class, or whatever.

Of thats the case then from experience. modern factory work is still slavery. Its just gilded in a pretty little paycheck. And not just being treated like slaves. But as disposable slaves. Which is exactly how Games Workshop treats its non-managerial employees. Me and my dad have both seen factories that would rather let a worker be slowly ground in a machine rather than stop the damn thing and dissassemble it. And one of the people I worked with was trapped for two fucking hours in a grinder.

Quote from: Omega;1062239Of thats the case then from experience. modern factory work is still slavery. Its just gilded in a pretty little paycheck. And not just being treated like slaves. But as disposable slaves. Which is exactly how Games Workshop treats its non-managerial employees. Me and my dad have both seen factories that would rather let a worker be slowly ground in a machine rather than stop the damn thing and dissassemble it. And one of the people I worked with was trapped for two fucking hours in a grinder.

Employees - who are free to leave - are not slaves, and are often treated much worse than slaves, precisely because they're not property.

Quote from: S'mon;1062306Employees - who are free to leave - are not slaves, and are often treated much worse than slaves, precisely because they're not property.

Leave where? That is oft the problem.

Back on topic. Such as it is.

SJW insanity knows no bounds. Was going over a game review last month for a very old game and out of the blue the reviewer declared that the art on the rules cover was racist. What was this racist depiction? A Chinese person in traditional style robe and hat. Yeah. That was racist.

No.

What it was was mildly stereotypical. But an easily recognizable imagery is not racist. People have even bitched about Warhammer 40ks Orks as being "racist".

And so it goes

Quote from: Omega;1062314Leave where? That is oft the problem.

Back on topic. Such as it is.

SJW insanity knows no bounds. Was going over a game review last month for a very old game and out of the blue the reviewer declared that the art on the rules cover was racist. What was this racist depiction? A Chinese person in traditional style robe and hat. Yeah. That was racist.

No.

What it was was mildly stereotypical. But an easily recognizable imagery is not racist. People have even bitched about Warhammer 40ks Orks as being "racist".

And so it goes

That's because 40k orks are British football hooligans. Ere we go!Ere we go! Ere we go!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062217That's equally absurd, since many lords were jerks who abused their vassals. The ones who were not jerks included Vlad the Impaler, and just look at that epithet.

To be fair, his subjects were FINE with that epithet. He was known for Impaling the Muslim invaders who were trying to conquer his lands (and all of Europe), not the subjects he was protecting.

Quote from: Omega;1062314Leave where? That is oft the problem.

The United States currently has a labor shortage. There are six million people collecting unemployment and over seven million posted jobs. Average wages are up 3.8% over last year and companies are offering signing bonuses of thousands of dollars to get people to come work for them.

Frankly, if you can just show up on time these days you can probably get just about any of those seven million jobs you'd care to apply for.

In terms of actual fantasy/history... plagues and similar mass depopulation generally proved very economically advantageous to the survivors as the labor shortage gave an edge to those whose labor was actually needed to keep civilization afloat.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1062236It's easy. You make the game table off limits to politics and get everyone to buy in.

My rule is simple. I don't fucking care if we agree on politics, STFU about politics at the table. Gaming is our escape during our free time.

Most people are good with that. If someone has to be 24/7 fucktard (of any political stripe), they get the boot.

I'm in LA so I either game with SJWs or I don't game at public venues like FLGS, Meetups or cons.

I'm sure the hardcore SJWs would never accept my rule, but most I've encountered are happy to have a politics-free space to toss dice.

Spinachcat - have you ever run into issues in your game that have nothing to do with actual real-world politics that an SJW player has gotten triggered over?

For example - and this happened at my table.

Player #1 is playing an Imperial Elf (Elf from the Imperial Navy of Spelljammer - super bigotted against other races by default. Not necessarily full-on racist, but definitely looks down on everyone). So he's a mage and is called in on some big issue relating to a demon discovered stalking the city.


Player #2 is a real-world SJW, male-feminist type. Playing a happy-go-lucky halfling, he's embroiled some halfling-clan drama where he realizes the local thieves guild that's trying to recruit him is actually comprised of halfling family members. It's really a side-story that has nothing to do with the rest of the party per-se.

Player #2 decides to enlist he aid of the party, and Player #1 who is dealing with a *much* bigger issue tells him something to the effect of "Your family of halflings are petty thieves? How shocking. Run along, and come back to me once I'm done dealing with real problems." and says so in a really demeaning tone (roleplaying. The guy's character IS supposed to be an asshole. A very competent asshole).

Player #2 pulls me aside after the game and tells me he doesn't think he can play with Player #1 anymore because the player is clearly racist. He couldn't differentiate between the PC and the Player. And worse - he really believed it. (We sacked him from the group two sessions later).

You never had anything like that happen? Or have an SJW player get triggered because things like slavery, bigotry, and even outright racism might exist in your game? This same SJW guy was triggered that slavery was a big deal in Calimport where the game was set. I mentioned to him - technically all these Djinn and Efrit that the nobility had under their thumb were at best indentured servants... and that freaked him out too.

Edit: Same thing happened in my Underdark Campaign. I set it in a Drow city, and yeah it was Trigger-Central.

I don't care what the crazy SJWs think about censorship. I think that, from a moderate perspective, the way the drow are written can and does offend women and black folks.

Firstly, the default assumption in typical D&D fiction is that the drow are black because they are evil or vice versa. This isn't challenged unless you bring in less famous campaign settings like Eberron or rely on homebrewed elves of color. Of course this will offend black people.

Secondly, the way the drow matriarchy is written isn't a reversal of the patriarchy or a unique government that never existed in reality. Several aspects of it are distinctly ironic, as in you would not really expect a true matriarchy to display those characteristics because they are distinctly patriarchal in origin (e.g. men do all the work, women are catty, women show lots of skin whereas men don't, etc).

I'm not saying we should get rid of those aspects, but we could certainly try to mitigate their overwhelming influence by not treating those aspects as the default.

For example, the aspect of modesty could certainly stand to be analyzed. The way that drow women show skin but drow men do not is, as far as I know, not directly analogous to any existing human culture except possibly to a reversal of Ancient Greek gender modesty (https://whatistalent.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/gender-portrayals-in-classical-greek-statuary/). Modesty is an extremely broad topic and I cannot do it justice in one post.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062684The way that drow women show skin but drow men do not

This is the first I've ever heard of this supposed trope.

Anyway the drow females are sexually predatory because female spiders are supposedly sexually predatory, the 'black widow' devouring her mate after copulation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062684I don't care what the crazy SJWs think about censorship. I think that, from a moderate perspective, the way the drow are written can and does offend women and black folks.

Firstly, the default assumption in typical D&D fiction is that the drow are black because they are evil or vice versa. This isn't challenged unless you bring in less famous campaign settings like Eberron or rely on homebrewed elves of color. Of course this will offend black people.

Secondly, the way the drow matriarchy is written isn't a reversal of the patriarchy or a unique government that never existed in reality. Several aspects of it are distinctly ironic, as in you would not really expect a true matriarchy to display those characteristics because they are distinctly patriarchal in origin (e.g. men do all the work, women are catty, women show lots of skin whereas men don't, etc).

I'm not saying we should get rid of those aspects, but we could certainly try to mitigate their overwhelming influence by not treating those aspects as the default.

For example, the aspect of modesty could certainly stand to be analyzed. The way that drow women show skin but drow men do not is, as far as I know, not directly analogous to any existing human culture except possibly to a reversal of Ancient Greek gender modesty (https://whatistalent.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/gender-portrayals-in-classical-greek-statuary/). Modesty is an extremely broad topic and I cannot do it justice in one post.

[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.

Quote from: S'mon;1062688This is the first I've ever heard of this supposed trope.

Anyway the drow females are sexually predatory because female spiders are supposedly sexually predatory, the 'black widow' devouring her mate after copulation.

I don't really pay much attention, but this probably varies immensely by artist.

The funny thing about the drow matriarchy is drow females are larger than the males...i.e. their ruling structure derives from physical dominance and sexual dimorphism, it's just the drow's dimorphism aligns opposite from other humanoids.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062696The funny thing about the drow matriarchy is drow females are larger than the males...i.e. their ruling structure derives from physical dominance and sexual dimorphism, it's just the drow's dimorphism aligns opposite from other humanoids.

More importantly, the Drow are evil. (Whether racially innate or social construct, or both, is another discussion) Therefore the usual aspects of responsibility and authority are skewed. A Drow noble doesn't care about the hordes of disposable men at her command. But any "good" authority would, in principle, be responsible for the people they command.

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.

Actually, there are some real life matriarchies.  They're still living in grass huts and using stone weapons.

My current favorite take on the drow is from Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, where they are a race of elf tieflings. IOW, taking their origin and cranking it up to 11.

Quote from: RandyB;1062758My current favorite take on the drow is from Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, where they are a race of elf tieflings. IOW, taking their origin and cranking it up to 11.

Greetings!

That's right, my friend. In my campaigns, I've had Drow Elves interbreeding with Demons forever. It has always really made sense. At least in 5E, I hate the Tieflings. I don't hate the concept of a culture of human/demon hybrids, or obviously Drow Elf/Demon hybrids. Many races work exceedingly well with such flavour.

I just get bothered when they make demon hybrids front and center in the official rules for *player characters*--and make them extra special with angsty snowflake sauce that just grinds me to no end. LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

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.

Greetings!

"Can and does offend women and black folks"? Geesus. That is such bullshit. I have black friends--and women, too--that never, ever--not once--viewed the Drow Elves as being somehow "offensive" to them in any way. They viewed them simply as a super evil, depraved, magic race of wicked black elves that live deep underground. Full Stop. That doesn't have fuck all to do with "offending women or black folks." You have to have drank DEEP from the fucking feminist/post modernist fucking KOOLAID to even come up with a insane interpretation like that. That's right. You have to GO LOOKING for something to be offended by, and even then, you have to take that pathetic scrap and twist it into some fucking horrible pretzel to end up with an interpretation where you are somehow "offended" as a woman or a black person. You know what I'm saying? Give me a fucking break. The source material right there is so not offensive. Just fucking garden-variety good use of mythology and classic moral themes. Anyone that is educated beyond a drooling shoggoth level would comprehend that, you know?

That's what I hate about SJW's so much. They have been brain-fucked so hard with feminist/post modernist Koolaid to search out "offense" everywhere, and with everything, that they can't fucking think straight to save their life. It's corrupting our entire society, tragically. Now this SJW bullshit is even threatening to corrupt and fuck up our hobby.

God, doesn't this kind of nonsense make you want to pull your hair out, my friend? LOL

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hmm I like the idea of Drow being demon/elf crossbreed. Lolth the Demon Queen returns.

May nick this idea.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062684I don't care what the crazy SJWs think about censorship. I think that, from a moderate perspective, the way the drow are written can and does offend women and black folks.

I don't believe you.  If you you are offended by the drow, then occam's razor suggests you are of the perpetually aggrieved, not some 'moderate'.

QuoteFirstly, the default assumption in typical D&D fiction is that the drow are black because they are evil or vice versa. This isn't challenged unless you bring in less famous campaign settings like Eberron or rely on homebrewed elves of color. .

Or, get this. Maybe the Drow have black skins because they are inspired by the Svartalfar, the Dokkalfar and Myrkalfar... and any other subterranian fantasy creatures that are described as having dark or black skins because 'underground'.   Leaping to the most offensive possible interpretation doesn't sound very moderate at all.  

QuoteOf course this will offend black people

I didn't know you were the appointed spokesperson for black people.

QuoteSecondly, the way the drow matriarchy is written isn't a reversal of the patriarchy or a unique government that never existed in reality. Several aspects of it are distinctly ironic, as in you would not really expect a true matriarchy to display those characteristics because they are distinctly patriarchal in origin (e.g. men do all the work, women are catty, women show lots of skin whereas men don't, etc).

Now you are just bafflegarbing.  Did you miss a word, or perhaps a whole clause?  It isn't a reversal OR a unique government?  Ok, then...  by your own words here it is... not a reversal of patriarchy but IT IS a form of government that really existed in reality?   Pfgh. Actually, if you look at real historical patriarchies (say... ancient Rome), I can see some clear parallels to the Drow Matriarchy, but I'm hardly the deep and abiding expert on it that you seem to be.  Its amazing how many incoherent ideas you crammed into two sentences, I must admit, but it does seem the entire majority of your beef with the matriarchy is that... Drow women have 'freed the nipple' but make the drow Men wear shirts.  That is... incredibly shallow.

QuoteFor example, the aspect of modesty could certainly stand to be analyzed. The way that drow women show skin but drow men do not is, as far as I know, not directly analogous to any existing human culture except possibly to a reversal of Ancient Greek gender modesty (https://whatistalent.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/gender-portrayals-in-classical-greek-statuary/). Modesty is an extremely broad topic and I cannot do it justice in one post.

Here is a thought for you: The Drow are a fantasy race in a made up game that is entirely optional to play, and rarely features in most of said optional games anyway. Rather than forcing every D&D writer to take on PHD level comparative anthropology studies before they make up a made up race for their made up fantasy world, you relax a little and stop looking for trivial excuses to force everyone else to stop having fun with sexy-evil elves so we don't hurt their feels by objectifying them.


I'd go on, but other posters have already begun calling out your pre-selected offenses that are entirely in your own imagination, so I'll leave the fine work to them.

A fantasy race that has nothing whatsoever to do with black people is "problematic" because they're dark. Meanwhile, basically every single Russian or German (which are real ethnicities) in the movies being evil is fine.

Nobody has any idea what they believe, they just want internet Good Boy Points for being outraged.

It's classic lose one own self respect to be part of the cool kids club. I saw it in high school with the various cliques. Then with some of my ex-friends who only wanted to be around the cooler friends. I can't respect that choice and left that kind of bullshit back in high school.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062684I don't care what the crazy SJWs think about censorship. I think that, from a moderate perspective, the way the drow are written can and does offend women and black folks.

What is "moderate" about this. To what degree are women and blacks offended by Drow as written in D&D. Seriously. Are you saying that outside of SJW's and the extremely fringe elements of minorities that drink from the same trough in gaming - that *this* is a real issue?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062684I'm not saying we should get rid of those aspects, but we could certainly try to mitigate their overwhelming influence by not treating those aspects as the default.

Exactly what is being influenced overwhelmingly by these things? What precisely is "the bad" thing about the Drow? That they're black? That the women show skin? That men don't show enough? To what degree?  Where is the demarcation line exactly? Who is the one that gets to decide this for the poor silent consumers that don't realize (or believe) these things are in fact innocuous and merely "whelmed"? And what is the negative impact it's actually having on what segment of *reality*?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062885A fantasy race that has nothing whatsoever to do with black people is "problematic" because they're dark. Meanwhile, basically every single Russian or German (which are real ethnicities) in the movies being evil is fine.

Nobody has any idea what they believe, they just want internet Good Boy Points for being outraged.

That's outrageous!

Quote from: tenbones;1062904What is "moderate" about this. To what degree are women and blacks offended by Drow as written in D&D. Seriously. Are you saying that outside of SJW's and the extremely fringe elements of minorities that drink from the same trough in gaming - that *this* is a real issue?

My wife is mildly offended by the notion that adults would sit around for hours, pretending to be elves in a magical kingdom chasing down trolls to steal their gold. Gets me out of the house, though, so she tolerates it.

I an not saying that the drow offend me or that I know innately what is and is not offensive. I have seen black and female commentators criticize some aspects of the drow without being frothing SJWs like you seem to think.

I linked very non-hostile articles discussing how to tweak the drow to be less so without rendering them unrecognizable.

Dark elves in Norse myth were not literally dark skinned. They were dwarves. I have said this already.

If thinking the drow need some updating for modern markets is SJW by your standards, I really do not know what to say back. Is this forum a haven for the right or not?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062952I an not saying that the drow offend me or that I know innately what is and is not offensive. I have seen black and female commentators criticize some aspects of the drow without being frothing SJWs like you seem to think.

I have seen black and female RPG fans either not care, or think the racist/sexist criticism are dumb. Which demographic should we cater to?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062952I an not saying that the drow offend me or that I know innately what is and is not offensive. I have seen black and female commentators criticize some aspects of the drow without being frothing SJWs like you seem to think.

At no point did I accuse you of being offended. I specifically asked *who* are these people? Because there is nothing that exists that people enjoy *someone* doesn't find objectionable - especially these days. I'm trying to ascertain the degree and amount and the reasons why anyone would find the Drow as presented objectionable - and to whom and to what degree should, if at all, anyone else should agree?

You said specifically

QuoteI think that, from a moderate perspective, the way the drow are written can and does offend women and black folks.

"Can and Does" and "Folks" is murky waters for making such a claim, insofar that those that don't find it offensive (largely because it's all fiction in an elf-game) - by direct comparison are much larger and seem to be reasonably able to state that fiction-is-fiction. I'm trying to figure out "who, what, why, and how much?" of this is even real. Because making such a claim ignores the possibility that such opinions are ludicrious, if I'm being generous and I'm pretty goddamn generous when its comes to stuff.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062952I linked very non-hostile articles discussing how to tweak the drow to be less so without rendering them unrecognizable.

But I see no reason to do any of these until these other questions are answered. I found the reasoning in those links spurious in their attempts at presenting their case. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you don't seriously believe any of this.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062952Dark elves in Norse myth were not literally dark skinned. They were dwarves. I have said this already.

But D&D isn't supposed to be a direct translation of Norse myth. And wtf does Drow having *black* skin have to do with anything?  Humans don't have black/blue/indigo skin. This is an extremely neurotic leap of ill-logic.  Not to mention - if they were a direct lift of Norse mythos - wouldn't that be "problemetized" because once again we're using White People Myths instead of BI-POC myths? Where does the crazy-train stop?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062952If thinking the drow need some updating for modern markets is SJW by your standards, I really do not know what to say back. Is this forum a haven for the right or not?

I'm TOTALLY up for changing the Drow. Tell me what and WHY first. Let's not skip that last part. You've already labeled it "problematic" insufficiently for me - and a lot of others. Don't try to tie both ideas together as if they're the same thing. Change for change's sake is one thing. Change because someone wants "Right Think" perspective in order to eliminate another perspective entirely is quite different.

Edit: So what is the precise color palette code when a shade of whitish moves into the Ethnically sensitive range? I confess my own POC-Lore is deficient in this area... but I guess it might stem from the fact I'm in the Yellow Shade Tradition, not the Black and White one. I asked my local Yellow Shade Magistrate if we have something similar with Nose-extension length and width ratio, as well as Eye Shape anglularity - they just stared at me like I was stupid. So I guess the answer is no.

Quote from: sureshot;1062903It's classic lose one own self respect to be part of the cool kids club. I saw it in high school with the various cliques. Then with some of my ex-friends who only wanted to be around the cooler friends. I can't respect that choice and left that kind of bullshit back in high school.

Well it's not like they teach critical thinking in High-School...

And parents should pick up that slack.

Quote from: SHARK;1062769Greetings!

That's right, my friend. In my campaigns, I've had Drow Elves interbreeding with Demons forever. It has always really made sense. At least in 5E, I hate the Tieflings. I don't hate the concept of a culture of human/demon hybrids, or obviously Drow Elf/Demon hybrids. Many races work exceedingly well with such flavour.

I just get bothered when they make demon hybrids front and center in the official rules for *player characters*--and make them extra special with angsty snowflake sauce that just grinds me to no end. LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yep. I always want to lampshade the "evil but not really" vibe the Tieflings give off.

Quote from: HorusArisen;1062861Hmm I like the idea of Drow being demon/elf crossbreed. Lolth the Demon Queen returns.

May nick this idea.

It meshed perfectly with thoughts I had for the "deep history" of the drow and their Most Common Patron. Today, her name is spelled Lolth. Back when, it was spelled Lloth, which strikes me as a hide-in-plain-sight corruption of an older, and more widely known name...

Quote from: tenbones;1062957At no point did I accuse you of being offended. I specifically asked *who* are these people? Because there is nothing that exists that people enjoy *someone* doesn't find objectionable - especially these days. I'm trying to ascertain the degree and amount and the reasons why anyone would find the Drow as presented objectionable - and to whom and to what degree should, if at all, anyone else should agree?

You said specifically

"Can and Does" and "Folks" is murky waters for making such a claim, insofar that those that don't find it offensive (largely because it's all fiction in an elf-game) - by direct comparison are much larger and seem to be reasonably able to state that fiction-is-fiction. I'm trying to figure out "who, what, why, and how much?" of this is even real. Because making such a claim ignores the possibility that such opinions are ludicrious, if I'm being generous and I'm pretty goddamn generous when its comes to stuff.




But I see no reason to do any of these until these other questions are answered. I found the reasoning in those links spurious in their attempts at presenting their case. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you don't seriously believe any of this.



But D&D isn't supposed to be a direct translation of Norse myth. And wtf does Drow having *black* skin have to do with anything?  Humans don't have black/blue/indigo skin. This is an extremely neurotic leap of ill-logic.  Not to mention - if they were a direct lift of Norse mythos - wouldn't that be "problemetized" because once again we're using White People Myths instead of BI-POC myths? Where does the crazy-train stop?



I'm TOTALLY up for changing the Drow. Tell me what and WHY first. Let's not skip that last part. You've already labeled it "problematic" insufficiently for me - and a lot of others. Don't try to tie both ideas together as if they're the same thing. Change for change's sake is one thing. Change because someone wants "Right Think" perspective in order to eliminate another perspective entirely is quite different.

Edit: So what is the precise color palette code when a shade of whitish moves into the Ethnically sensitive range? I confess my own POC-Lore is deficient in this area... but I guess it might stem from the fact I'm in the Yellow Shade Tradition, not the Black and White one. I asked my local Yellow Shade Magistrate if we have something similar with Nose-extension length and width ratio, as well as Eye Shape anglularity - they just stared at me like I was stupid. So I guess the answer is no.

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Oh, my god. I choked on my coffee reading this, Tenbones. Excellent post, brother. Your Yellow Shade stuff is just awesomely funny! I love your analysis on this kind of stuff. Tenbones, you really show a good, sharp grasp of the philosophical points that the SJW's try and get wormy on--and you hammer them on it. Topping it off with great humour as icing. LOL!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Here are links explaining both why and how to tweak the drow:

http://knighterrantjr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-problem-with-drow.html
http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2014/01/27/ravenflight-part-1-my-halflings-elves-and-dwarves-are-different/
https://www.geeknative.com/19332/drow-a-non-racist-alternative/
https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/which-skin-tone-do-you-find-most-appealing-for-the-dark-elves-images-in-blog.41631/page-3#post-437454

I personally find some aspects of the drow unsavory because of what it implies about the fantasy world physics, like the association of race, appearance and morality. From a biological perspective it makes little sense for drow to be black and I have no idea how they avoid rickets. From an aesthetic perspective a variety of skin tones like snow white, violet, indigo, night black, red, etc as in the everquest forum post make drow look cooler and more exotic to me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062971Here are links explaining both why and how to tweak the drow:

http://knighterrantjr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-problem-with-drow.html?m=1
http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html?m=1
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2014/01/27/ravenflight-part-1-my-halflings-elves-and-dwarves-are-different/
https://www.geeknative.com/19332/drow-a-non-racist-alternative/
https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/which-skin-tone-do-you-find-most-appealing-for-the-dark-elves-images-in-blog.41631/page-3#post-437454

I personally find some aspects of the drow unsavory because of what it implies about the fantasy world physics, like the association of race, appearance and morality. From a biological perspective it makes little sense for drow to be black and I have no idea how they avoid rickets. From an aesthetic perspective a variety of skin tones like snow white, violet, indigo, night black, red, etc as in the everquest forum post make drow look cooler and more exotic to me.

No thank you.

Here's an image example: http://i.imgur.com/eNTh4wg.jpg

Quote from: RandyB;1062964It meshed perfectly with thoughts I had for the "deep history" of the drow and their Most Common Patron. Today, her name is spelled Lolth. Back when, it was spelled Lloth, which strikes me as a hide-in-plain-sight corruption of an older, and more widely known name...

:eek::eek::eek:

Wow!! I never did spot that one before. Hats off to you, sir!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062974Here's an image example: http://i.imgur.com/eNTh4wg.jpg

Very sexist and exploitave. ;)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062974Here's an image example: http://i.imgur.com/eNTh4wg.jpg

3/10 would not bang

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1062971From a biological perspective it makes little sense for drow to be black and I have no idea how they avoid rickets.

"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

From a biological perspective nothing whatsoever makes sense about D&D.

Quote from: nDervish;1063023"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

What is it with some in our hobby wanting to apply real world physics to D&D . It's as bad as those insisting that D&D can and does represent medieval times.

Quote from: nDervish;1063023"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

May as well give females a -1 modifier to their Strength stat because women are generally less physically strong as men.
But we haven't done that since 1st Ed because *beat dead horse about fun versus realism*

Quote from: nDervish;1063023"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOL!!!! Ahhh. Yeah. Just fantastic, my friend.

Real-world biology and physics and blah blah....only occasionally applies to the game world. Most of the time it doesn't--and it doesn't have to. Geesus. These people don't understand that it is a *Fantasy game*

LOLOLOL. Great post!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: tenbones;1062357You never had anything like that happen? Or have an SJW player get triggered because things like slavery, bigotry, and even outright racism might exist in your game? This same SJW guy was triggered that slavery was a big deal in Calimport where the game was set. I mentioned to him - technically all these Djinn and Efrit that the nobility had under their thumb were at best indentured servants... and that freaked him out too.

Luckily so far I have never had a player freak out over something they deem "problematic" in a session. I have had players do things I dont like. But nothing the SJW crowd would deem a problem. I though tend to screen players well ahead and try to weed out the nuts. Which so far have been mercifully rare.

Worst I have ever had was the fan who wanted to get in a session and then during a normal discussion on various subjects tells me flat out that if I argued that raping babies was bad. He would argue its good. I voiced my concern about this and he flipped out! As you might guess he was not invited to any sessions and I haven't heard from him since. Nor do I care to. I wouldn't call that an SJW incident though.

Quote from: nDervish;1063023"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

In an older thread I posted an interesting idea I had after reading some medical reports.

What if the drow skin tone was a product of environment? Specifically colloidal silver in the water supply. Get enough of this stuff in your system and this happens on exposure to sunlight.

Spoiler

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59d54c108941a6378d5bb261/master/w_2400,c_limit/blueman-TA.jpg)

Just replace sunlight with drow artificial lighting having the same radiant element to trigger the skin change.

I think this is why they were made Purple in the Forgotten Realms.

In the Guide to the Drow, they also made them the African Drow.

Here's a more basic question: WHY should we care if anyone gets offended?

Taking offense is a choice.

When I look at an image or hear a word, I am the one making the association between that experience and my need to be offended.

Even if I have an instant reaction of "Do Not Like", I am the one deciding that moving forward I am "offended".

Quote from: tenbones;1062357Spinachcat - have you ever run into issues in your game that have nothing to do with actual real-world politics that an SJW player has gotten triggered over?

Yes.

A trio of Glorantha fans didn't like me running RQ 2e as it didn't incorporate the lore from RQ 3e and beyond and I couldn't give a fuck. But that was also the last time I ran RQ. I have no such issues when running Stormbringer 3e which scratches my BRP itch better anyway. Those same clowns became nigh-evangelical storygamers (aka, everyone who plays D&D is brain damaged!) and surprise surprise, I recently saw one of them wearing its #resist shirt.

Recently had a SJW complain that I wasn't being sex positive when I critiqued a playtest which combined sexual themes with an art style common in children's media. AKA, I called it "NAMBLA: the card game." But I'm never surprised when SJWs are pro-pedophilia. My response was sarcasm and fire because I'm kinda hardcore on "leave the kids out of your fucking kink."

Quote from: tenbones;1062357Player #2 is a real-world SJW, male-feminist type.

White knights don't live in the real world.

Quote from: tenbones;1062357Player #2 pulls me aside after the game and tells me he doesn't think he can play with Player #1 anymore because the player is clearly racist. He couldn't differentiate between the PC and the Player. And worse - he really believed it. (We sacked him from the group two sessions later).

I have ABSOLUTELY seen that at conventions at one-shot events.

But I saw that 30+ years ago too. The technical term back then was "fucking lunatic" and we shrugged the nutters off.

Though, occasionally the fucking lunatic was the guy playing the character / alignment / race into stupid land where it was just disrupting the game and they kept crying "I'm just roleplaying!" but they were really just ass nuggets.

Quote from: tenbones;1062357Or have an SJW player get triggered because things like slavery, bigotry, and even outright racism might exist in your game?

My drop-in OD&D campaign is humanocentric (aka, all PCs are humans who are Clerics, Fighting Men or Magic Users) because the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a genocidal war across the planet, and they live nigh-forever so you rarely meet Elves & Dwarves who aren't beyond the PCs in level / power.

This has caused a few players in the past decade to up and leave because Legolas and Gimli always must love each other, and one freak of the week said me running a humanocentric campaign was racist against non-humans as they couldn't be heroes.

My response was BYE!

My other player's response was GOOD RIDDANCE!

Quote from: RandyB;1062758My current favorite take on the drow is from Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, where they are a race of elf tieflings. IOW, taking their origin and cranking it up to 11.

That's my take. Lolth's crib is called the DEMON Web Pits.

Quote from: tenbones;1062957Where does the crazy-train stop?

It doesn't. It just goes off the rails. So sayeth Ozzy!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126Here's a more basic question: WHY should we care if anyone gets offended?

Taking offense is a choice.

When I look at an image or hear a word, I am the one making the association between that experience and my need to be offended.

Even if I have an instant reaction of "Do Not Like", I am the one deciding that moving forward I am "offended".

Seconded and how I feel as well. I do not know how those who instantly take offense at everything can function normally in society. I suppose the threat of losing ones job maybe a big factor.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126Recently had a SJW complain that I wasn't being sex positive when I critiqued a playtest which combined sexual themes with an art style common in children's media. AKA, I called it "NAMBLA: the card game." But I'm never surprised when SJWs are pro-pedophilia. My response was sarcasm and fire because I'm kinda hardcore on "leave the kids out of your fucking kink."

Is it just me or do many too many SJWs and White Knights have some strange weird sexual kinks. I can see why you said what you said and quite frankly fucking disturbing. Then again Youtube had to be public-ally shamed to take down videos of pro-pedophiles off their platform awhile back. As for the ex-player and his shirt all he needed was one of those silly pussy hats and it would have been perfect. They look silly on women on guys it's even worse.
 

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126White knights don't live in the real world.

Many of those so called White Knights want to actually do good. Most act that way to get a women to like them so she will then date and/or possibly sleep with them. The sad part is most women can see that a mile away and do not want to have anything to do with them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126I have ABSOLUTELY seen that at conventions at one-shot events.

But I saw that 30+ years ago too. The technical term back then was "fucking lunatic" and we shrugged the nutters off.

Though, occasionally the fucking lunatic was the guy playing the character / alignment / race into stupid land where it was just disrupting the game and they kept crying "I'm just roleplaying!" but they were really just ass nuggets.

I have not been to major conventions and my gaming has been mostly home games yet even those have not been perfect. yet one black player wanted to play a Drow in the Forgotten Realms. Myself, the DM and the players friend who introduced and brought him to the game told him that the Drow in FR are feared and hated. That ti would be at least at third level maybe even fifth level that he might be accepted by most people. That he would face hate and racism even if he did good deeds. He gave one of those roger ten-four nods which mean "I'm not LISTENING to any of you". So campaign starts and after two sessions he is asked to leave because he accused the DM of being racist towards black people. His way of winning people over in game was "Yeah I'm a Drow but you can trust me I'm a good guy like Drizzt". Not willing to understand that it will take more than that. Even Drizzt still faces racism and discrimination. No the DM was RACIST!!. He left never invited again. We are talking about a openly gay DM who at the time had a black boyfriend yet the DM was racist.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126My drop-in OD&D campaign is humanocentric (aka, all PCs are humans who are Clerics, Fighting Men or Magic Users) because the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a genocidal war across the planet, and they live nigh-forever so you rarely meet Elves & Dwarves who aren't beyond the PCs in level / power.

This has caused a few players in the past decade to up and leave because Legolas and Gimli always must love each other, and one freak of the week said me running a humanocentric campaign was racist against non-humans as they couldn't be heroes.

My response was BYE!

My other player's response was GOOD RIDDANCE!

That kind of bullshit would piss me off to the point I would actually toss the player from my house. One does not join a humanocentric campaign because the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a genocidal war across the planet. Then complain that both races do not get along. More importantly complain that a human only playable race campaign..allows on humans. Sometimes I wonder if many too many people have un-diagnosed mental illness.  Good for you for getting rid of that moron.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126It doesn't. It just goes off the rails. So sayeth Ozzy!

What i even more frightening is that they took a heavy wrench to the head of the conductor. Then began smashing as much machinery to make sure the train will never stop.

I have some players currently goofing around in my old oriental themed BX setting. It is mostly humanocentric with demi-humans being very rare and not very tolerated due to past problems. There are a four beast folk races that are tolerated. Aaaaand arcane magic is just short of outlawed after a war. So if you are playing an elven wizard you are likely not very welcome at all. Racist? No. Just local distrust of demi-humans + local dislike of arcane magic. Play an elven fighter? People will be wary at first. Then, depending on your deeds, probably treat you like anyone else. Play an elven cleric? People may be wary, or may shrug and give you a pass depending on how you present yourself. Drow are treated as any other elf.  

And I still love that little backstory for Thunder Rift where dwarves and elves were so bigoted that they banded together to kill the first ever dwarven/elven union. And after the deed were so ashamed that they pretty much ended the ages old feuding.

Look, I am not saying you guys are doing it wrong. I think the drow are pretty cool, evil, sexy, sexy evil, blah blah blah. I'm not trying to be hostile here. Please don't denigrate me for disagreeing on some things. It's a fictional concept, so you don't need to defend it. Especially not with arbitrary arguments.

Some responses here have claimed that the drow are black because dark elves in Norse myth were black. Firstly, this is false. There's no indication they were literally black skinned in any of the original Norse sources. Gary and co got it into their heads that this referred to skin color without any evidence and that was that. Secondly, that is a non-sequitur. You shouldn't justify something as being okay just because someone else did it first, that's just laziness.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062973No thank you.

Look, I keep seeing you guys asking for arguments on how/why and I provide. Then you tell me you never wanted to read it. That's really disingenuous.

Please read and engage with the articles. Critique it in this thread if you like.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1062977Very sexist and exploitave. ;)

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10629843/10 would not bang

I'm not trying to be politically correct. I think drow with a variety of skin colors, or horns, or whatever give some freshness to an otherwise stagnant concept.

Quote from: nDervish;1063023"I'll take 'Real-World Science Does Not Apply In D&D-World' for $600, Alex."

"This substance is produced by the skin of real-world humans and is important to their good health, but is not found in many settings using fantastic biology, such as the Four Humours."

"What is vitamin D?"

"Correct!"

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063025From a biological perspective nothing whatsoever makes sense about D&D.

Quote from: sureshot;1063035What is it with some in our hobby wanting to apply real world physics to D&D . It's as bad as those insisting that D&D can and does represent medieval times.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1063043May as well give females a -1 modifier to their Strength stat because women are generally less physically strong as men.
But we haven't done that since 1st Ed because *beat dead horse about fun versus realism*

Quote from: SHARK;1063051Greetings!

LOLOLOLOL!!!! Ahhh. Yeah. Just fantastic, my friend.

Real-world biology and physics and blah blah....only occasionally applies to the game world. Most of the time it doesn't--and it doesn't have to. Geesus. These people don't understand that it is a *Fantasy game*

LOLOLOL. Great post!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Claiming that physics don't apply in a fantasy world is a nonsensical argument. I have gotten into arguments with people who believed that the fantasy world operates according to reality except with magic tacked on. This made it very difficult for me to argue with them on world building matters because I was working from the premise that the fantasy physics are fantastical.

For example, I tried to argue with people who sincerely believed that everything was made of periodic elements and thus my arguments regarding the four humors were invalid from their perspective.

So please don't try that on me because I basically gave up on arguing with whole forums because of that kind of stupidity and you guys are the only ones who really understood where I was coming from.

Furthermore, fantasy physics does not invalidate the concept of nutrient deficiency. If that were the case then the fictional people could eat nothing but sawdust and survive just fine.

Ancient cultures were aware of the concept of nutrient deficiency through simple trial and error, such as treating scurvy by eating onions, etc.

Quote from: Omega;1063087In an older thread I posted an interesting idea I had after reading some medical reports.

What if the drow skin tone was a product of environment? Specifically colloidal silver in the water supply. Get enough of this stuff in your system and this happens on exposure to sunlight.

Spoiler

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59d54c108941a6378d5bb261/master/w_2400,c_limit/blueman-TA.jpg)

Just replace sunlight with drow artificial lighting having the same radiant element to trigger the skin change.

The suggestion about underground radiation is very clever and neatly explains how a subterranean ecosystem could support high energy megafauna.

I use spontaneous generation in my setting, but as with the real hypothesis I subject it to restrictions on conservation of matter specifically to explain why the world isn't crushed by the weight of spontaneously generating creatures.

Quote from: CTPhipps;1063105I think this is why they were made Purple in the Forgotten Realms.

In the Guide to the Drow, they also made them the African Drow.

I don't understand this. Could you provide more context?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1063126Here's a more basic question: WHY should we care if anyone gets offended?

Taking offense is a choice.

When I look at an image or hear a word, I am the one making the association between that experience and my need to be offended.

Even if I have an instant reaction of "Do Not Like", I am the one deciding that moving forward I am "offended".




Yes.

A trio of Glorantha fans didn't like me running RQ 2e as it didn't incorporate the lore from RQ 3e and beyond and I couldn't give a fuck. But that was also the last time I ran RQ. I have no such issues when running Stormbringer 3e which scratches my BRP itch better anyway. Those same clowns became nigh-evangelical storygamers (aka, everyone who plays D&D is brain damaged!) and surprise surprise, I recently saw one of them wearing its #resist shirt.

Recently had a SJW complain that I wasn't being sex positive when I critiqued a playtest which combined sexual themes with an art style common in children's media. AKA, I called it "NAMBLA: the card game." But I'm never surprised when SJWs are pro-pedophilia. My response was sarcasm and fire because I'm kinda hardcore on "leave the kids out of your fucking kink."


 

White knights don't live in the real world.




I have ABSOLUTELY seen that at conventions at one-shot events.

But I saw that 30+ years ago too. The technical term back then was "fucking lunatic" and we shrugged the nutters off.

Though, occasionally the fucking lunatic was the guy playing the character / alignment / race into stupid land where it was just disrupting the game and they kept crying "I'm just roleplaying!" but they were really just ass nuggets.




My drop-in OD&D campaign is humanocentric (aka, all PCs are humans who are Clerics, Fighting Men or Magic Users) because the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a genocidal war across the planet, and they live nigh-forever so you rarely meet Elves & Dwarves who aren't beyond the PCs in level / power.

This has caused a few players in the past decade to up and leave because Legolas and Gimli always must love each other, and one freak of the week said me running a humanocentric campaign was racist against non-humans as they couldn't be heroes.

My response was BYE!

My other player's response was GOOD RIDDANCE!




That's my take. Lolth's crib is called the DEMON Web Pits.




It doesn't. It just goes off the rails. So sayeth Ozzy!

Quote from: sureshot;1063142Seconded and how I feel as well. I do not know how those who instantly take offense at everything can function normally in society. I suppose the threat of losing ones job maybe a big factor.



Is it just me or do many too many SJWs and White Knights have some strange weird sexual kinks. I can see why you said what you said and quite frankly fucking disturbing. Then again Youtube had to be public-ally shamed to take down videos of pro-pedophiles off their platform awhile back. As for the ex-player and his shirt all he needed was one of those silly pussy hats and it would have been perfect. They look silly on women on guys it's even worse.
 


Many of those so called White Knights want to actually do good. Most act that way to get a women to like them so she will then date and/or possibly sleep with them. The sad part is most women can see that a mile away and do not want to have anything to do with them.



I have not been to major conventions and my gaming has been mostly home games yet even those have not been perfect. yet one black player wanted to play a Drow in the Forgotten Realms. Myself, the DM and the players friend who introduced and brought him to the game told him that the Drow in FR are feared and hated. That ti would be at least at third level maybe even fifth level that he might be accepted by most people. That he would face hate and racism even if he did good deeds. He gave one of those roger ten-four nods which mean "I'm not LISTENING to any of you". So campaign starts and after two sessions he is asked to leave because he accused the DM of being racist towards black people. His way of winning people over in game was "Yeah I'm a Drow but you can trust me I'm a good guy like Drizzt". Not willing to understand that it will take more than that. Even Drizzt still faces racism and discrimination. No the DM was RACIST!!. He left never invited again. We are talking about a openly gay DM who at the time had a black boyfriend yet the DM was racist.




That kind of bullshit would piss me off to the point I would actually toss the player from my house. One does not join a humanocentric campaign because the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a genocidal war across the planet. Then complain that both races do not get along. More importantly complain that a human only playable race campaign..allows on humans. Sometimes I wonder if many too many people have un-diagnosed mental illness.  Good for you for getting rid of that moron.




What i even more frightening is that they took a heavy wrench to the head of the conductor. Then began smashing as much machinery to make sure the train will never stop.

Some people had a problem with the way that the drow were cursed with black skin, or portrayed matriarchy as bad in a world without good matriarchies, blah blah blah. Call them SJWs if you like, dismiss their arguments out of hand, whatever.

I don't have a problem with the black matriarchal evil BDSM elves. I am more concerned with the way that the drow are pigeonholed and such, so I like to add new ideas every so often to keep them fresh. I'm not trying to be some rabid SJW telling you guys to stop having fun.

---

[/HR]

So I'm going to go over those articles I linked and simplify them into a digestible form.

http://knighterrantjr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-problem-with-drow.html
This article just lists a few of the so-called "problems" with the drow as depicted over the years. This is Forgotten Realms-specific, as Eberron and other campaign settings may have different conceits. Essentially the curse of black skin recalls the real world "curse of Ham," Drizzt is the exception that proves the rule, there are no good matriarchies in fantasy, and the "born evil" conceit of D&D is as annoying as ever.

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html
This article not only explains "problems" with drow, it provides solutions. In brief, Lolth is an archdevil not demon, the drow encountered near the surface are darker skinned due to tanning and are naturally pale, and the drow are lawful evil but don't consider themselves evil because their harsh existence requires harsh methods to survive. (Honestly I think it works better without the enforced alignment system.)

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2014/01/27/ravenflight-part-1-my-halflings-elves-and-dwarves-are-different/
This article criticizes the typical drow and then proceeds to make up its own "deep elves." They are Sub-Saharan African elves with a culture modeled after typical fantasy dwarves with clockpunk and mining and such.

https://www.geeknative.com/19332/drow-a-non-racist-alternative/
This articles suggests that drow could be dark skinned due to a practice of extreme tattooing. It includes pictures of a real practice like that.

https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
This article explores how matriarchies are generally depicted in fiction and then deconstructs them as being essentially false matriarchies. It also lists some brief ideas for how to depict a true matriarchy, but the complexity of the topic precludes a detailed answer.

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/which-skin-tone-do-you-find-most-appealing-for-the-dark-elves-images-in-blog.41631/page-3#post-437454
This is a forum discussion for EverQuest, which includes both official and fan-made artwork of EverQuest dark elves with a variety of skin colors. I think it is a great example of how diverse the dark elves could be if we opened our minds to possibility.

These articles do not strike me as the crazy SJWs everyone seems to be complaining about. These articles seem fairly well reasoned to me. If you disagree then please due a proper analysis and share it. Don't just say "it makes generalizations" without further explanation.

I 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. :D

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1063276Look, I keep seeing you guys asking for arguments on how/why and I provide. Then you tell me you never wanted to read it. That's really disingenuous.

I'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.

QuoteI don't have a problem with the black matriarchal evil BDSM elves. I am more concerned with the way that the drow are pigeonholed and such, so I like to add new ideas every so often to keep them fresh. I'm not trying to be some rabid SJW telling you guys to stop having fun.

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.

Quotehttp://knighterrantjr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-problem-with-drow.html
This article just lists a few of the so-called "problems" with the drow as depicted over the years. This is Forgotten Realms-specific, as Eberron and other campaign settings may have different conceits. Essentially the curse of black skin recalls the real world "curse of Ham," Drizzt is the exception that proves the rule, there are no good matriarchies in fantasy, and the "born evil" conceit of D&D is as annoying as ever.

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html
This article not only explains "problems" with drow, it provides solutions. In brief, Lolth is an archdevil not demon, the drow encountered near the surface are darker skinned due to tanning and are naturally pale, and the drow are lawful evil but don't consider themselves evil because their harsh existence requires harsh methods to survive. (Honestly I think it works better without the enforced alignment system.)

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2014/01/27/ravenflight-part-1-my-halflings-elves-and-dwarves-are-different/
This article criticizes the typical drow and then proceeds to make up its own "deep elves." They are Sub-Saharan African elves with a culture modeled after typical fantasy dwarves with clockpunk and mining and such.

https://www.geeknative.com/19332/drow-a-non-racist-alternative/
This articles suggests that drow could be dark skinned due to a practice of extreme tattooing. It includes pictures of a real practice like that.

https://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
This article explores how matriarchies are generally depicted in fiction and then deconstructs them as being essentially false matriarchies. It also lists some brief ideas for how to depict a true matriarchy, but the complexity of the topic precludes a detailed answer.

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/which-skin-tone-do-you-find-most-appealing-for-the-dark-elves-images-in-blog.41631/page-3#post-437454
This is a forum discussion for EverQuest, which includes both official and fan-made artwork of EverQuest dark elves with a variety of skin colors. I think it is a great example of how diverse the dark elves could be if we opened our minds to possibility.

These articles do not strike me as the crazy SJWs everyone seems to be complaining about. These articles seem fairly well reasoned to me. If you disagree then please due a proper analysis and share it. Don't just say "it makes generalizations" without further explanation.

This is called a Gish Gallo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)p, 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.

This whole problematic issue seems very easy to solve.  No SJW's allowed in my game and I never have an issue.

Generally speaking, I think there is some issue with the drow, but it has to do with the bigger context - not some single element of the drow in particular. As a parallel, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a Chinese villain in a film. However, if in an extended film series, the villains are always Chinese and the heroes are always European - then I will suspect that it represents prejudice.

In the case of the drow - to me one big issue is that the only serious and explicit sexism at all within the core game is sexism against men in an evil matriarchy. That's bizarro weird and leads me to suspect bias. I can understand reasons for eliminating sexism against women among the good races of the core game, but even so, there should at least be evil patriarchies.

As I said back in Post #102 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39705-The-Gloriously-Evil-Drow-Elves-are-the-Drow-quot-Problematic-quot&p=1060878&viewfull=1#post1060878):

Quote from: jhkim;1060878It's normal for societies - particularly pseudo-historical ones - to not be perfectly egalitarian between the sexes. If I were doing it, I would probably expect one of:

1) No sexism is mentioned for any society. It's an option that individual GMs can bring to their games, but not a part of the official canon. This is close to how D&D is approaching things with the exception of the drow.

2) Light sexism. The default is ahistorical egalitarianism, but a minority of societies are exceptions. There is some mix of good patriarchy, good matriarchy, evil patriarchy, and evil matriarchy.

3) Pseudo-historical sexism. The default is patriarchy, but notes are given about ways for women PCs to still be viable and fun to play.

So if it were more like #2 where there were a mix of good/evil matriarchies/patriarchies, then I think the drow as written would be fine. As it is, I think it is a problem.

In my own current campaign, the core races are highly changed, which is how I've approached it.

EDITED TO CHANGE: I replaced "black" with "Chinese" in my film example, to clarify that it is an unrelated hypothetical.

Quote from: jhkim;1063290Generally speaking, I think there is some issue with the drow, but it has to do with the bigger context - not some single element of the drow in particular. As a parallel, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a black villain in a film. However, if in an extended film series, the villains are always black and the heroes are always white - then I will suspect that it represents prejudice.

The Drow aren't "black" in the real-world sense. And D&D has never been "the villains are always black and the heroes are always white". I've already pointed out the undead, especially vampires, are typically portrayed as white Europeans with pale skin, and there is Drizzt D'Udren (fuck if I can spell that shit) the notorious exception to the Drow being innately evil.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1063292The Drow aren't "black" in the real-world sense. And D&D has never been "the villains are always black and the heroes are always white". I've already pointed out the undead, especially vampires, are typically portrayed as white Europeans with pale skin, and there is Drizzt D'Udren (fuck if I can spell that shit) the notorious exception to the Drow being innately evil.

Please reread what I wrote. I am not claiming that (a) D&D is a film series, or (b) that D&D had all villains be black. I was simply trying to establish the general point that there can be nothing wrong with a single case, but it can be evidence when in a larger context. Please replace "black" with "Chinese" to clarify that point - I've edited to establish that.

Quote from: jhkim;1063295Please reread what I wrote. I am not claiming that (a) D&D is a film series, or (b) that D&D had all villains be black. I was simply trying to establish the general point that there can be nothing wrong with a single case, but it can be evidence when in a larger context. Please replace "black" with "Chinese" to clarify that point - I've edited to establish that.

Huh. Ok.

But you're making the case that "blackness" as in the literal color is equivalent to "Chinese" for purposes of your parallel example and it only works IF you're already of some offended mindset. You know... like Japanese are always villains in Chinese cinema. Mexicans are always the villains of American stories concerning the Spanish-American war... Germans... well. They're always bad guys. Right? Do we *REALLY* need hand-holding to explain why?

And to the degree that we're going to boil it down to a fucking color - that *literally* no one is represented by - except a general hazy "darker" side of the spectrum that no one can really put their finger on where it begins and ends but feels morally superior enough to say "not-white" as the only demarcation line. Sorry, that's pretty special. And pretty sad.

The problem is still in the minds of the "offended". And to *whom* are we to toe some imaginary line of offense? To all possible people to be offended? Well this is why everything has become "problemetized". This deconstructivist, victim-as-virtue position is as commensurately offensive to general intelligence as it is to their feelings. The deeper you go with it, the dumber it looks and sounds. It clearly doesn't make for much useful policy on anything.

TL/DR - why should anyone feel invested in other people's self-victimization today? Should I worry about Yellow Shaming? Should I be marching in front of Rice University for culturally appropriating my people's grain of choice? Should I be upset at the lack of black representation in Kara-tur boxset - we'll have to go after Mike Pondsmith (who wrote it) and get some explanations. (it will be awkward since he's black - but this outrage needs to be addressed! Think of the Chinese minority!

Yeah - I dunno, I kinda think this is a white-leftist thing. Not really about minorities in the real-world. That's just my hunch. I'll back this up with this clever thought - "In a game about makebeleive... no one has to be a victim of they don't want to be."

Holy fuck. That's mindblowing.

Of course the corollary of that is - if you can't imagine yourself not being a victim. You probably need professional help and need to put the dice down.

Ok, so jhkim, am I getting this correctly?
Your beef in that post is that there is one notable matriarchy in D&D, and it's evil?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1063276

---

[/HR]

So I'm going to go over those articles I linked and simplify them into a digestible form.

http://knighterrantjr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-problem-with-drow.html
This article just lists a few of the so-called "problems" with the drow as depicted over the years. This is Forgotten Realms-specific, as Eberron and other campaign settings may have different conceits. Essentially the curse of black skin recalls the real world "curse of Ham," Drizzt is the exception that proves the rule, there are no good matriarchies in fantasy, and the "born evil" conceit of D&D is as annoying as ever.

The 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.

Quotehttp://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2010/03/drow-should-be-lawful-evil-among-other.html
This article not only explains "problems" with drow, it provides solutions. In brief, Lolth is an archdevil not demon, the drow encountered near the surface are darker skinned due to tanning and are naturally pale, and the drow are lawful evil but don't consider themselves evil because their harsh existence requires harsh methods to survive. (Honestly I think it works better without the enforced alignment system.)

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.

Quotehttp://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2014/01/27/ravenflight-part-1-my-halflings-elves-and-dwarves-are-different/
This article criticizes the typical drow and then proceeds to make up its own "deep elves." They are Sub-Saharan African elves with a culture modeled after typical fantasy dwarves with clockpunk and mining and such.

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?

Quotehttps://www.geeknative.com/19332/drow-a-non-racist-alternative/
This articles suggests that drow could be dark skinned due to a practice of extreme tattooing. It includes pictures of a real practice like that.

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.

Quotehttps://zaewen.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/tropebusting-matriarchies-in-gaming-and-sci-fifantasy/
This article explores how matriarchies are generally depicted in fiction and then deconstructs them as being essentially false matriarchies. It also lists some brief ideas for how to depict a true matriarchy, but the complexity of the topic precludes a detailed answer.

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.

Quotehttps://forums.daybreakgames.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/which-skin-tone-do-you-find-most-appealing-for-the-dark-elves-images-in-blog.41631/page-3#post-437454
This is a forum discussion for EverQuest, which includes both official and fan-made artwork of EverQuest dark elves with a variety of skin colors. I think it is a great example of how diverse the dark elves could be if we opened our minds to possibility.

So?   More filler links?

QuoteThese articles do not strike me as the crazy SJWs everyone seems to be complaining about. These articles seem fairly well reasoned to me. If you disagree then please due a proper analysis and share it. Don't just say "it makes generalizations" without further explanation.

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.

Quote from: tenbones;1063303But you're making the case that "blackness" as in the literal color is equivalent to "Chinese" for purposes of your parallel example and it only works IF you're already of some offended mindset. You know... like Japanese are always villains in Chinese cinema. Mexicans are always the villains of American stories concerning the Spanish-American war... Germans... well. They're always bad guys. Right? Do we *REALLY* need hand-holding to explain why?

Again, read what I wrote. I didn't say a goddamn thing about the drow's blackness. I did talk about matriarchy and patriarchy and sexism.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1063304Ok, so jhkim, am I getting this correctly?
Your beef in that post is that there is one notable matriarchy in D&D, and it's evil?

Yes. However, it's not just one notable matriarchy - only one society which features sexism of any sort within the core game.

There are no patriarchies. The drow specifically have defined that men are second-class citizens, but there are no societies where women are second-class citizens.

Quote from: jhkim;1063307Again, read what I wrote. I didn't say a goddamn thing about the drow's blackness. I did talk about matriarchy and patriarchy and sexism.

Yep. I read exactly where you inferred it - then shifted to the sexism thing.

By inference the thread *is* about the "problemitization" of the Drow. Your inference is that people that identify as "black" would eventually get upset if they saw representations of blackness being associated with "bad". In the larger spectrum that they - people that identify with the word and *every* connotative meaning associated with that word - would (eventually) feel that it is a bigotry assigned to them wherever in the larger scope it appears.

So when you say "it's not this one thing" it's *all the things* representative of that criteria. Thus - Drow blackness is conflated to be analog representation of American "blackness" and the connotation is evil. But only in the minds of those that identify as victims of this thought construct.

Which ignores the entirety of the populace that doesn't look at it this way at all. Because of the manifold reasons being 1) It's insane to think Drow represent real-world black people 2) Black isn't the actual color of black-Americans. It's a euphemism. 3) Black americans do not practice a culture that is anything like the dumb culture of the Drow. 4) The real reason this is a problem *at all* has nothing to do with Black Americans. It has to do with leftist, predominately white, people and those that drink from their ideological well that *do* look down on black Americans as pitiable for their color rather than valuing them as individuals. Because if you believe victimhood is virtue, they're an easy target largely due to practices of the those same collectivists on the left.

To your point about Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy - Why is it a problem in gaming? Why is *anything* in a make-believe game about fantasy a *real* problem? What is the value of having non-threatening cultures *at all* in our RPGs? Where is the challenge in that? What is the point other than to contrast that yes - there are evil gender-driven nations in fantasy games.

Are you insinuating this has some real-world issue?

Quote from: jhkim;1063309Yes. However, it's not just one notable matriarchy - only one society which features sexism of any sort within the core game.

There are no patriarchies. The drow specifically have defined that men are second-class citizens, but there are no societies where women are second-class citizens.

Well, me and tenbones seem to be converging on the same idea, so I'll defer to his posts at this point, just so we're not posting the same thing twice.

Quote from: tenbones;1063303 Kara-tur boxset - we'll have to go after Mike Pondsmith (who wrote it)

I never noticed that. I've always had high respect for his game design work. Mekton Zeta being, IMO, his best work of all.

(I'm ignoring your point about African-Americans, which is completely unrelated to anything I said.)

Quote from: tenbones;1063311To your point about Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy - Why is it a problem in gaming? Why is *anything* in a make-believe game about fantasy a *real* problem? What is the value of having non-threatening cultures *at all* in our RPGs? Where is the challenge in that? What is the point other than to contrast that yes - there are evil gender-driven nations in fantasy games.

Are you insinuating this has some real-world issue?

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.

In Gygax era stuff patriarchy is an assumed default, one that mostly goes without saying since the societies are loosely based off the real world. You only get egalitarianism as assumed default with WoTC.

Quote from: jhkim;1063309Yes. However, it's not just one notable matriarchy - only one society which features sexism of any sort within the core game.

There are no patriarchies. The drow specifically have defined that men are second-class citizens, but there are no societies where women are second-class citizens.

Not to get into the political parts of this discussion, but this is 100% false. Orc society in general is even more sexist than drow. Most females are treated like valuable possessions if they're lucky; many are just basically breeding stock.

Even when we get a civilized orc nation in Many-Arrows, it's nowhere even close to egalitarian from what I've read. Males rule and often keep multiple wives. There are one or two exceptions here and there (I think the first Obould Many-Arrows had a female advisor, IIRC), but many orcs prefer the old ways of pillage and destruction and I can't recall any information saying females in general are treated better than the typical orc female. That might have been updated for 5e as I haven't followed it lately, but even if it has that doesn't change the fact the majority of all other orcs treat their women absolutely horribly.

Quote from: jhkimYes. However, it's not just one notable matriarchy - only one society which features sexism of any sort within the core game.

There are no patriarchies. The drow specifically have defined that men are second-class citizens, but there are no societies where women are second-class citizens.

Quote from: Brand55;1063333Not to get into the political parts of this discussion, but this is 100% false. Orc society in general is even more sexist than drow. Most females are treated like valuable possessions if they're lucky; many are just basically breeding stock.

Even when we get a civilized orc nation in Many-Arrows, it's nowhere even close to egalitarian from what I've read. Males rule and often keep multiple wives.

I'm sure there is something about that in some writing somewhere about orcs. I remember Roger Moore's series on humanoid culture in early Dragon magazine that included material about them being sexist. However, it's not in the core rules at present. Nothing in the orc entry mentions this sexism.

Quote from: S'mon;1063326In Gygax era stuff patriarchy is an assumed default, one that mostly goes without saying since the societies are loosely based off the real world. You only get egalitarianism as assumed default with WoTC.

Fair 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.

Quote from: jhkim;1063334I'm sure there is something about that in some writing somewhere about orcs. I remember Roger Moore's series on humanoid culture in early Dragon magazine that included material about them being sexist. However, it's not in the core rules at present. Nothing in the orc entry mentions this sexism.

From the 3rd edition Monster Manual on orc society:

QuoteOrc society is patriarchal: Females are prized possessions at best and chattel at worst. Male orcs pride themselves on the number of females they own and male children they sire as well as their battle prowess, wealth, and amount of territory.

It's on page 147, for what it's worth. I'd have to dig up my 3.5 copy to see if there were any changes there, but that's the version of orcs that's present throughout most of Faerun in a lot of the novels. At least, it was back when I was reading them heavily in the early- to mid-2000s. As I said, it wouldn't surprise me if there had been revisions in the newer stuff, but there is certainly precedent for an evil, patriarchal society going back an edition or two.

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. :D

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 Gallo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)p, 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?

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. :D

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.

Quote from: S'mon;1064149Some 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.

I made the connection upthread, but I had never looked to see if anyone else had ever done so. Best I can claim is independent invention.

The thing that will always bug me about Drow is how a (usually) subterranean race has dark skin. I know, I know the answer is 'lol magic' but it bugs me. If anything I always found the idea of Drow being pale and albino-like to be much creepier in appearance, with them having super pale, almost translucent skin, stringy white hair (which somewhat hint at cobweb) and either red eyes or, even more creepy, glassy eyes like a spider to be much more conceptually fitting.

Quote from: S'mon;1064141I KNEW someone would say that. :D

I have severe reactions to spider venom. I lived in an area where spiders could fly and liked to gather together for who knows why. So yeah. I would. :eek:

Next setting I do. Drow are going to be straight-up spider people.

If they had gone the albino route then we would now be talking about how the SJWs are all "Waaa waaa! Evil Albino trope is racist!"

WOTC should have left them blue or purple.

The problem with the drow is that they are pigeonholed. Dark elves in the rest of fantasy fiction are remarkably diverse, but the drow are stuck in a rut.

Regarding their appearance, I always preferred to give them more diversity. The various suggestions for EverQuest dark elf designs I linked a while back were perfect for what I had in mind.

As for environment, I always figured that they could just as easily live in jungle or arctic or outer space environments. Anywhere harsh enough to justify their harsh culture that earns them the appellation of "dark." (As opposed to introducing wholly new races of elf who just so happen to be evil too, which I have seen a few times in the d20 era such as evil star elves, evil forest elves, evil winter elves, etc that were not dark elves.)

I had just as many ideas for making the other elves less generic, such as styling the wood elves after Magic's satyr-like Lorwyn elves and the high elves after the creepy elves from Hellboy 2.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1064122True, 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.

Yep. This is the premise of Talislanta's Danuvians. They are a matriarchy with these very conceits. The women are larger and as a design adaptation (they were artificially created) they can mate with nearly any other race in the game but usually produce only females. Their males are usually smaller and physically weaker, while the females average 6'+ and are more powerful.

As an example of a "good" Matriarchy - they're a matriarchal meritocracy. As a warrior culture they extol physical prowess as well as intelligence and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world demand optimum results for their people - not just "might-makes-right".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064521The problem with the drow is that they are pigeonholed. Dark elves in the rest of fantasy fiction are remarkably diverse, but the drow are stuck in a rut.

Regarding their appearance, I always preferred to give them more diversity. The various suggestions for EverQuest dark elf designs I linked a while back were perfect for what I had in mind.

As for environment, I always figured that they could just as easily live in jungle or arctic or outer space environments. Anywhere harsh enough to justify their harsh culture that earns them the appellation of "dark." (As opposed to introducing wholly new races of elf who just so happen to be evil too, which I have seen a few times in the d20 era such as evil star elves, evil forest elves, evil winter elves, etc that were not dark elves.)

I had just as many ideas for making the other elves less generic, such as styling the wood elves after Magic's satyr-like Lorwyn elves and the high elves after the creepy elves from Hellboy 2.

They're only pigeonholed if you as a GM allow them to wallow in it without the assumption ANYONE in the Drow society doesn't have a "better idea" than the shitshow they're living.

That *unto* itself is enough for an epic campaign.

Edit: the issue I have with applying Problemitization to gaming - in any form - is it assumes the problem isn't there to be dealt with as a function of the game itself, rather than to worry about people's neurotic perceptions of themselves they project into the game based on superficial assumptions.

Quote from: tenbones;1064537They're only pigeonholed if you as a GM allow them to wallow in it without the assumption ANYONE in the Drow society doesn't have a "better idea" than the shitshow they're living.

That *unto* itself is enough for an epic campaign.

Edit: the issue I have with applying Problemitization to gaming - in any form - is it assumes the problem isn't there to be dealt with as a function of the game itself, rather than to worry about people's neurotic perceptions of themselves they project into the game based on superficial assumptions.

Did you read my post? I wasn't referring the "problematic" elements at all, so your response doesn't really make sense. By your line of logic you are implicitly suggesting that I run, among other possible interpretations, a campaign in which the drow try to whiten their skin. I certainly hope you weren't suggesting that, because if you don't understand what is wrong with that statement then nothing I say will enlighten you.

I thought we were past the alt-right anti-SJW ramblings by now. I get the impression you have lived a very sheltered life and are ill-informed about how prejudice affects people in the USA. Despite what a bunch of propaganda machines on Youtube are claiming, the modern era is not an egalitarian wonderland under attack by "cultural marxists" or whatever other euphemism is being used for jews this week. The USA still has massive social injustices and it ain't improving any time soon. Our political parties are treated like sports teams by a populace devoid of coherent ideology or any understanding of policy. Things are improving, but the societal ills are still appalling.

But that's irrelevant to the way I want to portray my dark elves. Rather than rely on lazy static D&D tropes, I prefer to use the new ideas presented in fantasy media outside the D&D circlejerk. Like dark elves who are not black-skinned, do not live underground, are not matriarchal, do not wear BDSM gear in public, blah blah blah. D&D tropes got tiresome a long time ago.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557I get the impression you have lived a very sheltered life and are ill-informed about how prejudice affects people in the USA. Despite what a bunch of propaganda machines on Youtube are claiming, the modern era is not an egalitarian wonderland under attack by "cultural marxists" or whatever other euphemism is being used for jews this week.

You're a couple years old on the PC talking point with cultural Marxist. Current version is that Globalist is a euphemism for Jew, so anyone opposing Globalism is anti-Semitic. I guess those Occupy Wall Street guys were a bunch of Nazis.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557Did you read my post? I wasn't referring the "problematic" elements at all, so your response doesn't really make sense. By your line of logic you are implicitly suggesting that I run, among other possible interpretations, a campaign in which the drow try to whiten their skin. I certainly hope you weren't suggesting that, because if you don't understand what is wrong with that statement then nothing I say will enlighten you.

I was speaking euphemistically. I don't pretend to know what you specifically do at your table. My direct response to your assertion that the "Drow are pigeonholed".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557I thought we were past the alt-right anti-SJW ramblings by now. I get the impression you have lived a very sheltered life and are ill-informed about how prejudice affects people in the USA.

Are you honest enough with yourself to admit if this is your impression of me, that if I told you the actual truth of my background you'd question whatever instincts led you to this impression? If you're game, I am. But you're not gonna like the answer.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557Despite what a bunch of propaganda machines on Youtube are claiming, the modern era is not an egalitarian wonderland under attack by "cultural marxists" or whatever other euphemism is being used for jews this week. The USA still has massive social injustices and it ain't improving any time soon. Our political parties are treated like sports teams by a populace devoid of coherent ideology or any understanding of policy. Things are improving, but the societal ills are still appalling.

So... you should re-read my post. I was pretty specific. In fact, I was *really* specific. Here I'll quote myself

Quote from: Tenbonesthe issue I have with applying Problemitization to gaming - in any form - is it assumes the problem isn't there to be dealt with as a function of the game itself, rather than to worry about people's neurotic perceptions of themselves they project into the game based on superficial assumptions.

Where in the world did you decide to conflate what I posted - bolded for emphasis on the actual subject-matter pertinent to this thread, to the hyperbolic rant that you posted that steamrolls every bit of nuance, every bit of discussion on what the thread is about? You realize the entire point of the discussion is to figure out if the Drow are actually a "problem"? My point is - "to whom" and "why"? Your rant seems to preclude your own assumptions that do not apply to me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557But that's irrelevant to the way I want to portray my dark elves. Rather than rely on lazy static D&D tropes, I prefer to use the new ideas presented in fantasy media outside the D&D circlejerk. Like dark elves who are not black-skinned, do not live underground, are not matriarchal, do not wear BDSM gear in public, blah blah blah. D&D tropes got tiresome a long time ago.

But... Drow *are* part of the D&D circlejerk. No one is disputing that. No one even *said* that. No one is denying you can't make Drow any color under the rainbow you want. No one is saying you can't give them tails, no one is saying you can't give them hooves. No one is saying you can't make them live in the clouds on flying islands. No one is saying *anything* about what you can't do. You can do any of those. Hell do them all simultaneously - but the fact is - what you and I do with Drow, have *zero* impact on how WotC presents them.

What we are discussing is whether Drow as presented are "problematic". I say no.

At no point am I telling anyone what they can/can't do with the Drow at their table.

Quote from: tenbones;1064537They're only pigeonholed if you as a GM allow them to wallow in it without the assumption ANYONE in the Drow society doesn't have a "better idea" than the shitshow they're living.

That *unto* itself is enough for an epic campaign.

Edit: the issue I have with applying Problemitization to gaming - in any form - is it assumes the problem isn't there to be dealt with as a function of the game itself, rather than to worry about people's neurotic perceptions of themselves they project into the game based on superficial assumptions.

Greetings!

Yeah, brother! That boggles my mind as well. As far as the whole fucked up Drow society having in-game problems, yeah, I've had different Drow city-states respond differently, in point of fact, the males respond differently. Lolth, being the bad-ass spider queen has of course, immense powers. I get that the Drow are inspired by the real-world idea from female spiders devouring the male spider.
(As a side note, in my office library, I have a favoured animal book. In the insect section, it discusses how the female Preying Mantis will grab onto the male Preying Mantis when they are mating, and she proceeds to bite his head off with her mandibles, and eat him. In the moments she is biting his head off, the male goes into a frenzy, and deposits even more sperm into the female, thus ensuring a higher rate of pregnancy and ensuing offspring. It always makes me think, damn, couldn't the Mantis have a more agreeable mating process?:) LOL. But, that's how they do it, so apparently it isn't unheard of certainly in the insect world).

I'm always aware of history, anthropology, and politics though, too. Unlike spiders and Mantis, humans, the Drow Elves, etc. are humanoids, and social creatures. Drow males, typically being warriors, rogues and especially mages--are in a prime position to make the female drow's lives a living hell, one way or another. So, I often assume that underneath the veneer of female priestess domination in Drow society, the males have leveraged a far deeper level of respect, authority and power than outsiders are typically ever able to realize. So, while the Drow priestesses still rule a Matriarchal Theocracy, at least in my campaign, it doesn't mean that the male Drow haven't actually made political, social progress, and thus enforce some political and social changes that mitigate some of the chaos and female stupidity. I mean, when looking at all the stupid sex games, the constant, uncontrolled hedonism, the constant vendettas and assination wars going on, the little personal hatreds going on between all the Drow priestesses and their Matriarchs--plus them killing any male Drow that get "uppity"--well, it becames seeming impossible to imagine that the Drow City States could ever barely manage to function, let alone actually accomplish anything beyond their own borders. Thus, in my campaign I have the Drow City States still being Matriarchal Theocracies, but often times the Males have formed stronger guilds, more powerful warrior and rogue societies which have enforced concessions of social and political power on the females. The males typically have various "high councils" which wield immense political power that the Matriarchs are forced to deal with in a pragmatic and cooperative manner. Thus, there isn't as much stupidity going on, and the Drow city-states can actually function reasonably well, and even do so where they can form a consistent military and political threat to the surface world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1064566Greetings!

Yeah, brother! That boggles my mind as well. As far as the whole fucked up Drow society having in-game problems, yeah, I've had different Drow city-states respond differently, in point of fact, the males respond differently. Lolth, being the bad-ass spider queen has of course, immense powers. I get that the Drow are inspired by the real-world idea from female spiders devouring the male spider.
(As a side note, in my office library, I have a favoured animal book. In the insect section, it discusses how the female Preying Mantis will grab onto the male Preying Mantis when they are mating, and she proceeds to bite his head off with her mandibles, and eat him. In the moments she is biting his head off, the male goes into a frenzy, and deposits even more sperm into the female, thus ensuring a higher rate of pregnancy and ensuing offspring. It always makes me think, damn, couldn't the Mantis have a more agreeable mating process?:) LOL. But, that's how they do it, so apparently it isn't unheard of certainly in the insect world).

Sure. Drow are very much part of the D&D cultural pantheon. In fact, I'd pretty much say they're one of the most iconic antagonist cultures in the game. It's perfectly natural for those of us to tinker with the assumptions of Drow, Githyanki, Orcs, Elvs, Humans, whatever... as much as we want. The point being - they represent an antagonistic culture with which to contrast the baseline of the game, which normally doesn't assume you're running an evil-ass game in the Underdark.

But you could! Or you could bring the Underdark to the PC's. Or the PC's to the Underdark. And you can get some really quality gaming either making those changes organically, or challenging the PC's assumptions and have those changes already made when the PC's encounter them.

Quote from: SHARK;1064566I'm always aware of history, anthropology, and politics though, too. Unlike spiders and Mantis, humans, the Drow Elves, etc. are humanoids, and social creatures. Drow males, typically being warriors, rogues and especially mages--are in a prime position to make the female drow's lives a living hell, one way or another. So, I often assume that underneath the veneer of female priestess domination in Drow society, the males have leveraged a far deeper level of respect, authority and power than outsiders are typically ever able to realize. So, while the Drow priestesses still rule a Matriarchal Theocracy, at least in my campaign, it doesn't mean that the male Drow haven't actually made political, social progress, and thus enforce some political and social changes that mitigate some of the chaos and female stupidity. I mean, when looking at all the stupid sex games, the constant, uncontrolled hedonism, the constant vendettas and assination wars going on, the little personal hatreds going on between all the Drow priestesses and their Matriarchs--plus them killing any male Drow that get "uppity"--well, it becames seeming impossible to imagine that the Drow City States could ever barely manage to function, let alone actually accomplish anything beyond their own borders. Thus, in my campaign I have the Drow City States still being Matriarchal Theocracies, but often times the Males have formed stronger guilds, more powerful warrior and rogue societies which have enforced concessions of social and political power on the females. The males typically have various "high councils" which wield immense political power that the Matriarchs are forced to deal with in a pragmatic and cooperative manner. Thus, there isn't as much stupidity going on, and the Drow city-states can actually function reasonably well, and even do so where they can form a consistent military and political threat to the surface world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Exactly!!! No RPG game culture is so fleshed out by fiat that it can't be examined *as written* where a GM can't figure out what is the sinew that allows these hierarchies to exist? That's part of the fun of world-building. To the specifics of what you said - much of this has actually been done already in the Realms (which means it's likely true in other settings by assumption) - not all Drow cities are the same. Not all Drow cities worship Lolth. Not all Drow cities follow the same rules. There are obvious *reasons* for these, but those reasons are addressed in how that particular city operates.

None of these scenarios deviate from canon - You can find examples of these outliers in pretty much all of the established Drow books that have been written in all of the various editions of D&D... and yes, including the Drizzt novels. (and of course 3rd party products). But it doesn't change the realities of Drow as presented. It only qualifies these places in terms of WotC's primary settings as outliers.

Quote from: tenbones;1064564Are you honest enough with yourself to admit if this is your impression of me, that if I told you the actual truth of my background you'd question whatever instincts led you to this impression? If you're game, I am. But you're not gonna like the answer.

Try not to take it personally. The current political climate made me paranoid of falling into the anti-sjw-to-alt-right pipeline and I just spent the last month suffering insomnia. Anybody who tries to deny basic observations like "prejudice is alive and well" or "D&D has colonial inspiration" trips my spidey sense. China has very disturbing views regarding "white liberals" (https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-term-White-Left-%E7%99%BD%E5%B7%A6-refer-to-in-current-Chinese-views-on-politics?share=1) and Canadian vloggers keep claiming Britain has a problem with Muslim immigrants even though most immigrants are Polish. I can't give anybody from any country a free pass on my paranoia meter.

One of the big considerations about Drow culture, outside of the inherent demon-worship etc. are the environmental factors required to maintain a civilization the size of the various Drow cities down in the Underdark.

Cave-systems are *insanely* poor places to live in large populations. They typically don't have enough remotely enough food and water-sources to supply the populaces that Drow live at without *tremendous* amounts of cruelty.

I have no evidence that any of the early Drow writers fundamentally understood this. But even without demon-worshipping and assuming you hand-waved water availability - which is easy to do in the ubiquitous Hollow-Earth Underdark... there would be required a fantastical amount of slave-labor to produce enough food to maintain a virtual immortal population that by the conceits of the setting suffer from crazy levels of attrition that the Drow do.

I wrote an Underdark book (I wish I had more time to do it - but it was a fast turn-around) and one of the big considerations was the barren environment of cave-systems in general. In reality, Drow would likely have to live at much smaller population levels. But even Menzoberranzan which is sporting 60k - 98% of them are Drow. 40k of them are slaves - which is about right given their culture and size. But the kicker is Menzo is considered a "MID-SIZED" city. There are cities - like Ched Nasad which were double that size, and still others even larger.

The logistics of maintaining such places at that scale in a place like the Underdark would requre *insane* levels of cruelty. You could mitigate a lot of this with magic - but not much. And arguably nor should you - just understanding any of these details is excellent gaming fodder. It makes you realize the delicate balance of the environment upon which the Drow house of cards firmly hangs... but it's still a House of Cards. you just need to know which one to tip.

If anything - the Drow are far less evil in presentation than they *should* be to justify their own existence. That should be a scary thought.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064572Try not to take it personally. The current political climate made me paranoid of falling into the anti-sjw-to-alt-right pipeline and I just spent the last month suffering insomnia. Anybody who tries to deny basic observations like "prejudice is alive and well" or "D&D has colonial inspiration" trips my spidey sense. China has very disturbing views regarding "white liberals" (https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-term-White-Left-%E7%99%BD%E5%B7%A6-refer-to-in-current-Chinese-views-on-politics?share=1) and Canadian vloggers keep claiming Britain has a problem with Muslim immigrants even though most immigrants are Polish. I can't give anybody from any country a free pass on my paranoia meter.

I'm not taking it personally. I'm taking it as you present it. You're projecting a projection of what you believe the creators of D&D must have projected when they invented this game.

That the things you cited exist is *irrelevant* to me for the purposes of this thread - but only insofar as one is willing to say implicitly that is what you believe is in play here. At which point you should ask yourself - are what those things those Chinese Canadians are saying true? Is there any validity to what they're saying?

And if so - why do you think it's a problem as it pertains to elf-games? Because I can assure you - there is probably an ideological thread that connects these ideas. And that ideology seems to be on your side, not mine. If you want to talk about collectivism vs individualism on the personal level, or globalism vs. nationalism in the plural level, go make a thread on Pundit's forum, I'm game.

I get that your paranoid because of what you believe and project onto what you see. But I think what's missing in your perspective, if your former post is a soft-indicator is context. But build that thread - and I'll happily go over there. Should be fun.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064521The problem with the drow is that they are pigeonholed. Dark elves in the rest of fantasy fiction are remarkably diverse, but the drow are stuck in a rut.

Regarding their appearance, I always preferred to give them more diversity. The various suggestions for EverQuest dark elf designs I linked a while back were perfect for what I had in mind.

Drow stopped being pigeonholed when Unearthed Arcana came out. Possibly before even that as there were I believe articles in Dragon mentioning good drow. And just they got less pigeonholed as time went on. While in some settings they are something other than what the MM presents. Even some modules have them as doing very non-drow stuff.

As for "diversity". "Diversity" can go straight to hell when it just another virtue signal.

Quote from: Omega;1064801Drow stopped being pigeonholed when Unearthed Arcana came out. Possibly before even that as there were I believe articles in Dragon mentioning good drow. And just they got less pigeonholed as time went on. While in some settings they are something other than what the MM presents. Even some modules have them as doing very non-drow stuff.

As for "diversity". "Diversity" can go straight to hell when it just another virtue signal.

And you, Omega, really just unearthed the *real* problem. There is NO level of actual nuance you can apply to the "Drow Problem" to get around -

1) They're Black and Evil
2) They're Matriarchal and Evil

NONE. You can say - Hey! This family of Drow are secretly run by a conspiracy of males that worship a Good god/No god - and want to overthrow the Lolth Matrons! Then it's Patriarchal Colonization! You can make them albinos. Then it's literal white-washing.

The real issue has nothing to do with the historical context of Drow. It has nothing to do with the fact they were designed to be antagonist with nuanced contradictions, like all cultural constructs have. No, instead this is about people blinded by their ideological beliefs that insist those box of cigars are actually boxes of dildos crafted by males to flaunt their power over others (are you reading this Pundit? Your cigar is showing! we're on to you!)

But he's a pipe smoker.  What would Freud make of that?

Quote from: Franky;1064897But he's a pipe smoker.  What would Freud make of that?

have you ever SEEN... the shape of that pipe? hmm? Hmmm? HMMMMMM?


Hmmm....

Quote from: tenbones;1064904have you ever SEEN... the shape of that pipe? hmm? Hmmm? HMMMMMM?


Hmmm....

I'll be in my bunk....

I've got the PERFECT solution for anyone who finds the Drow "problematic"!  It's full proof and solves every conceivable issue.

They leave the hobby, never to return. Boom. Done. Total gain for the hobby.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064557The USA still has massive social injustices

No. The USA has ZERO "massive social injustices". Go visit some Third World shitholes to learn what "massive" really means in terms of injustice.

Especially those Third World shitholes who thought communism was a good idea.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1064572China has very disturbing views regarding "white liberals" (https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-term-White-Left-%E7%99%BD%E5%B7%A6-refer-to-in-current-Chinese-views-on-politics?share=1)

That link was awesome!! I had no idea the Chinese online were so absolutely on top of the "white liberal' bullshit.

Quote from: tenbones;1064904have you ever SEEN... the shape of that pipe? hmm? Hmmm? HMMMMMM?

There's a pill for that!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1064966That link was awesome!! I had no idea the Chinese online were so absolutely on top of the "white liberal' bullshit.

Campaign idea: The orcs of the Western Reach have fairly recently destroyed elven influence in their land. A great warlord expelled the elves and tore down all the structures that reminded the orcs of elves. Now the humans have been making inroads into the Western Reach, teaching the importance of the Good alignment and how to build productive farms.

The orcs are starting to get really sick of it. Raiding is so much cooler. Time to kick out the humans and do what orcs do best.

Bemusingly the Aranea spider people from Red Steel are about the opposite of the drow. They are neutral or even friendly and rather close in their famililal ties. Probably what Drow would be if they weren't under the web of a goddess.

Quote from: tenbones;1064871And you, Omega, really just unearthed the *real* problem. There is NO level of actual nuance you can apply to the "Drow Problem" to get around -

1) They're Black and Evil
2) They're Matriarchal and Evil

NONE. You can say - Hey! This family of Drow are secretly run by a conspiracy of males that worship a Good god/No god - and want to overthrow the Lolth Matrons! Then it's Patriarchal Colonization! You can make them albinos. Then it's literal white-washing.

The real issue has nothing to do with the historical context of Drow. It has nothing to do with the fact they were designed to be antagonist with nuanced contradictions, like all cultural constructs have. No, instead this is about people blinded by their ideological beliefs that insist those box of cigars are actually boxes of dildos crafted by males to flaunt their power over others (are you reading this Pundit? Your cigar is showing! we're on to you!)

That's not I want to tweak the drow. In other fiction dark elves have developed beyond being black and matriarchal, but D&D stubbornly clings to that. Why do they need to be black and matriarchal? Why can't they just be vicious elves who live in harsh environments? Why the baggage?

Every time someone suggests changing the drow to reflect the greater range of modern fiction, they get labeled an SJW.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1064966That link was awesome!! I had no idea the Chinese online were so absolutely on top of the "white liberal' bullshit.

I have no idea what you are referring to. The first answer was written by a Chinese "white liberal" (because it is used as a slur in China against political progressives), specifically explaining that the "white liberal" meme is a farce.

The anti-SJW movement is a pipeline to the alt-right. The danger posed by the radical fringe of SJWs is radically overblown, to point where one poster here recently stated they think left-leaning views are a mental illness. The real problem is the overblown reactions to the fear mongering. Most people don't actually have a coherent ideology and just vote for political parties like they do sports teams. So people voted for an incompetent lunatic like Trump because of party loyalty rather than because they wanted a competent president or even agree with his views.

Whenever I see people crying about the SJWs, I'm not really inclined to take them seriously because now the term has become synonymous with any and all left-leaning views (https://medium.com/@lucylit/where-did-the-term-sjw-come-from-32d69d26c9c7). If someone is using it seriously, either they are far right or ignorant of its wider connotations.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297That's not I want to tweak the drow. In other fiction dark elves have developed beyond being black and matriarchal, but D&D stubbornly clings to that. Why do they need to be black and matriarchal? Why can't they just be vicious elves who live in harsh environments? Why the baggage?

Every time someone suggests changing the drow to reflect the greater range of modern fiction, they get labeled an SJW.

Probably because they lean heavily into the racist/sexist/oppressor/oppressed angle, like you did earlier in the thread.

Why do they need to be black and matriarchal? We could be playing monochrome squares fighting spheres, and avoid all the baggage. But we don't because there are certain tropes that resonate with people, like darkness/light, male/female, good/evil, and that's why they keep popping up.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297That's not I want to tweak the drow. In other fiction dark elves have developed beyond being black and matriarchal, but D&D stubbornly clings to that. Why do they need to be black and matriarchal? Why can't they just be vicious elves who live in harsh environments? Why the baggage?

Every time someone suggests changing the drow to reflect the greater range of modern fiction, they get labeled an SJW.

Because they'be been established that way. They have been accepted that was by definition into the 'canon' of D&D Fantasy, as such, for the last 40+ years.

The reasons they're matriarchal (which isn't uniform even in their kitchen-sink settings like the Forgotten Realms) is because of Lolth. Same reason why they're evil. They *sided* with Lolth in her great betrayal against the Seldarine. This is a mythical allegory to all the western myths of "The Great Betrayal" and the "Fall". The Drow in this respect are like "rebel angels".

Is it that difficult to grasp?

The fact make some attribution of political correctness *based* about their appearance which isn't even relevant since "blacks" in real life aren't actually *black*, and that they're a Matriarchy - as if somehow the THEOCRATIC DICTATES of a Demon Goddess who takes upon herself the identity of the black widow archetype, seems to require an extremely intense level of cognitive dissonance or willful ignorance, at best, to ignore.

Feel free to create "dark elves" in your games. But the Drow exist writ-large in D&D as they are because of their contextual history that seems to be a cosmological event.

I'll do you one better - Dark Elves in Raymond Feist's novels "The Riftwar" don't look black. They look like the other elves (with some small differences that are totally cosmetic). BUT they're tied fundamentally to their history which makes them Moredhel. Ironically they're referred to as "The Brotherhood of the Dark Path" or "Dark Brothers" who are pledged to follow the service of their evil demi-god creators. On rare occasion one of them will forsake the "Dark Path" and try return to the main body of Elves (the Eledhel) and the Elves do this communal celebration "The Returning" to bring them back into the fold.

It's pretty cool.

The ISSUE here is that you seem to be hung up on superficial issues about the Drow - not things that explain why they exist or are game-worthy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297I have no idea what you are referring to. The first answer was written by a Chinese "white liberal" (because it is used as a slur in China against political progressives), specifically explaining that the "white liberal" meme is a farce.

That's because they correctly identity that white-"liberals" (that aren't really liberal at all) are the primary drivers of this ideology that is at its heart self-destructive not just to the individual - but the nation-state. That is something Chinese people - especially actual liberal leaning ones highly value. They live in an authoritarian communist society that fundamentally leverage crony-capitalism for state-needs. America is a beacon to them - now they see white-leftists drinking from the trough that *they* are living under. Hence the term. Hence the scorn.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297The anti-SJW movement is a pipeline to the alt-right. The danger posed by the radical fringe of SJWs is radically overblown, to point where one poster here recently stated they think left-leaning views are a mental illness.

Ah. So if it's overblown - why are we incessently talking about Identity Politics in fantasy-elf games and every single other form of pop-culture, and nearly every form of domestic policy gets questioned via the lense of this ultra-small minority to the detriment of the nation itself, as well as every foreign policy and political appointment and vote get dragged into the pit of self-loathing not an issue? Why is the entire EU consumed with it to their own potential detriment? Why are all of the west's education systems compromised by the "instructors" pumping this ideology out - eerily its mutating into a secular religion of the worst king.

If it's really that small... why has it proliferated? Which of us isn't looking at this "issue" with the correct lens? Clearly it must be us actual-liberal/libertarian/conservative/civic-nationalists in Asia and America that *really* have nothing better to do than talk about the Left's non-stop attempts at deconstructing civilization they pretend they're not benefiting from?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297The real problem is the overblown reactions to the fear mongering. Most people don't actually have a coherent ideology and just vote for political parties like they do sports teams. So people voted for an incompetent lunatic like Trump because of party loyalty rather than because they wanted a competent president or even agree with his views.

I agree. But I think you are greatly glossing over the impact of what happens when an ideology really digs into the ignorant masses. Constantine had no fucking clue/didn't give a fuck about the Roman Empire having largely converted to Christianity before he intelligently co-opted them. I'm not speaking of the outcomes - I'm speaking of the phenomenon of belief. It takes very little to have idiots believe some very dumb things. It doesn't help that the requirements to maintain our state of civilization in the west takes greater and greater technical competency that those self-same idiots can't possibly comprehend - nor want to.

Worse: now those idiots want to call it "evil".

There are very few things you can do with true-believers in an ideology that believe the "other" is evil. History is filled with such dead civilizations.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065297Whenever I see people crying about the SJWs, I'm not really inclined to take them seriously because now the term has become synonymous with any and all left-leaning views (https://medium.com/@lucylit/where-did-the-term-sjw-come-from-32d69d26c9c7). If someone is using it seriously, either they are far right or ignorant of its wider connotations.

And this is precisely why the Left doesn't understand exactly how memes work. You know - like when SJW's call white people (and Jews, and Asians) that don't agree with their views "Nazis". Because you know where that term came from right? I seriously doubt any whites, Jews or Asians here in America are actually part of a defunct party of National Socialists from 20th century Germany. See how it works?

The funny part is being called an SJW means, euphemistically, you're an ideological dumbass. I have very close friends that are SJW's. I love them. They're family. They're also ill-thought dummies. The reverse of that is not the same - SJW's call people Nazis, Racists, etc. *because* they want to have harm come upon them. That's why you *call* someone a Nazi - to justify the ability to do any action necessary to stop them.


I don't even think the Drow get this kind of treatment. But probably should. They're evil as fuck.

Let's take this from the top:


We're still contending that - "The reason Drow are 'problematic' is because they're 1)physically dark and evil. 2)they are a matriarchy and evil."

The corollary of all this is:  for the people that feel these things are what makes the Drow problematic are: "Because it insinuates being dark with evil" - which they illogically believe is associated with dark-skinned people in the real world (which says more about what they think than anything else). And further they do not like the idea about their view a Matriarchy happens to be portrayed as EVIL. When the only thing that makes the Drow Matriarchy actually evil is the fact that it's a THEOCRACY based on a Matriarchal Religion, at the top of which is a very hands-on Demon Queen Spider Goddess that is *eeeeevil*.

Somehow... this is a problem in our make-believe worlds of fantasy D&D where Twin-Baboon Headed Demon Lords and Ram-Horned Pig Demons are peers of the Spider Queen. Where shit-swillng Otyugh's probably eat dozens if not hundreds of people each year down in city-sewers of major metropolises. Where Orc genocide is not only a thing - its a thing in both directions. Orcs wanna kill everyone. Everyone want's to kill orcs for the same reason! How do we subject ourselves to these psychological horrors?

Did I miss anything?

Maybe the issue is that all other elf groups are considered "white" by default. Are there any D&D setting that show "non-Caucasian" members of non-Drow elf groups? Any brown-skinned wood elves or sallow-skinned high elves in the mainstream settings?

In general, over the past 20-30 years or so, there has been growing two-sided partisanship in the U.S. - now fed particularly by social media and click-bait. Regarding SJW, there are two distinct behaviors here:

1) Calling anyone who disagrees with you a nazi
2) Frequently pushing for social justice causes including LGBT rights, sexism, racism, etc.

There is plenty of overlap between these two, but these are distinct behaviors. The same goes for conservatives.

Quote from: tenbones;1065320We're still contending that - "The reason Drow are 'problematic' is because they're 1)physically dark and evil. 2)they are a matriarchy and evil."

The corollary of all this is:  for the people that feel these things are what makes the Drow problematic are: "Because it insinuates being dark with evil" - which they illogically believe is associated with dark-skinned people in the real world (which says more about what they think than anything else). And further they do not like the idea about their view a Matriarchy happens to be portrayed as EVIL. When the only thing that makes the Drow Matriarchy actually evil is the fact that it's a THEOCRACY based on a Matriarchal Religion, at the top of which is a very hands-on Demon Queen Spider Goddess that is *eeeeevil*.

This is not my position, which you have ignored. I would again point out that it's not just that there happens to be an evil matriarchy. It's how the drow matriarchy is not just the only matriarchy in the core game, but also the most prominent example of sexism of any sort in the core game. Orcs are noted as being "mostly patriarchal" but without specifying to what degree there is sexism.

As I've said, I think the drow would be fine if there were a mix of different matriarchies and patriarchies, evil and good. But it stands out like a sore thumb if sexism against male drow is the most prominent example of sexism in the game.

I wonder about D&D fiction as well. For those who have read D&D fiction - how much does sexism against women feature? Or is Drizz't the most prominent example of sexism in the fiction as well?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1065358Maybe the issue is that all other elf groups are considered "white" by default. Are there any D&D setting that show "non-Caucasian" members of non-Drow elf groups? Any brown-skinned wood elves or sallow-skinned high elves in the mainstream settings?

My favorite D&D setting (Midnight) has brown-skinned wood elves, black-skinned jungle elves, pale-skinned snow elves, and really tan sea elves. And I know there are others like that out there. I've read multiple settings that use brown-skinned elves as the baseline, but not as much in the few D&D settings I know.

There's also Castlemourn, where the elves have extremely pale, almost blue-white skin that constantly emits a pale glow... and the vast majority of them are xenophobes who shoot the other races on sight if they try to enter their forest.

For the 80's era, I assumed every group had one of every ethnicity, and someone in a wheelchair. :D

Quote from: jhkim;1065362In general, over the past 20-30 years or so, there has been growing two-sided partisanship in the U.S. - now fed particularly by social media and click-bait. Regarding SJW, there are two distinct behaviors here:

1) Calling anyone who disagrees with you a nazi
2) Frequently pushing for social justice causes including LGBT rights, sexism, racism, etc.

There is plenty of overlap between these two, but these are distinct behaviors. The same goes for conservatives.

Really? But who is really pushing for all of this in gaming and pop-culture? What kind of "rights" are LGBT, women, POC being denied in pop-culture? Expression? Representation? The overlap you're speaking of is not the non-outliers to these beliefs overtly forcing people to play a certain way. It's the outliers demanding their perspectives be conflated to the same level of engagement as the non-outliers. There is a reason why that won't work - the same reason why those perspectives *are* outliers. The SJW crowd misunderstand "acceptance" and "engagement" as being one and the same. They're not. If you want SJW themed games/movies/comics/etc: make them. Make them good. If it's good - people will consume them.

Quote from: jhkim;1065362This is not my position, which you have ignored. I would again point out that it's not just that there happens to be an evil matriarchy. It's how the drow matriarchy is not just the only matriarchy in the core game, but also the most prominent example of sexism of any sort in the core game. Orcs are noted as being "mostly patriarchal" but without specifying to what degree there is sexism.

I wasn't speaking to you or about you specifically. But I'm happy to address these things: why do these things honestly matter? Do you have some kind of protractor that measures the degree of "problemtization" in your games to give "fair warning". What degree is too much sexualization? I have prostitutes, slave-trade, human-sacrifice, cannibalism, orgies, genocide and other atrocities at different points in my games where necessary. But I also have great heroism - with the attempts to deal with all of this stuff (cept maybe the occasional orgy). The point being - run your games as you will. But for the purposes of moralizing on established standards - it's probably a dumb idea for a game that is make-believe.

Quote from: jhkim;1065362As I've said, I think the drow would be fine if there were a mix of different matriarchies and patriarchies, evil and good. But it stands out like a sore thumb if sexism against male drow is the most prominent example of sexism in the game.

You *do* realize that Drow society at least as protrayed in the Realms DOES have examples of other other forms of government other than Lolthian Matriarchies. They're rare, but they do exist. Again - what *IS* the problem with having antagonists be sexist/homophobic/racist/genocidal/demon-worshipping/cannibalistic? Because you feel it hurts your sensibilities over the large swathes of people likewise engaged in make-believe games that treat it exactly as it is? A game. And those problematic things as elements of the game to give challenge? Maybe this TTRPG thing is not for those people? (or maybe you if that includes you.)

Quote from: jhkim;1065362I wonder about D&D fiction as well. For those who have read D&D fiction - how much does sexism against women feature? Or is Drizz't the most prominent example of sexism in the fiction as well?

What do you wonder about? If it makes men sexist?  Maybe. Maybe there are Satanic messages in my Slayer vinyl too.

And wait... Drizz't is sexist? (dang man... I need some examples now LOL)

Quote from: jhkim;1065362I wonder about D&D fiction as well. For those who have read D&D fiction - how much does sexism against women feature? Or is Drizz't the most prominent example of sexism in the fiction as well?

Sexism in general does not have a large role in Forgotten Realms; I can't speak to many of the other settings that had books written about them. You certainly see some of it with savage races like orcs, and it crops up from time to time with barbarians and the like. I recall that Catti-Brie, one of Drizzt's companions and eventually his lover, occasionally had to deal with it when men would look down on her and underestimate her skills as a warrior. The stuff with Drizzt is simply the most prominent example of sexism because he's by far the most popular character. If you skip over the origin story, though, you don't really see much sexism directed his way. Instead it's very much a story about him trying to overcome the surface peoples' hatred of drow and finding a place a fit in. Drizzt doesn't worry so much about sexism. It's racism he has to deal with, and that's something Faerun has plenty of.

As far as those unhappy with the drow go, here's an easy fix: Eilistraee came out on top during the War of the Spider Queen and the drow are redeemed. Boom, problem solved. You can work out the details from there, but Eilistraee worship has replaced that of Lolth for the vast majority of drow. Lolth was the one who was eventually reborn, and now it's her followers who are the splinter group trying to influence the majority of drow society. Or leave her dead and do something else, whatever works best for you.

Greetings!

You know, I personally think the whole base motivation of critique is weak, mewling pathos by a bunch of stuffed-animal clutching social freaks. Why MUST there be all of this extra-racial and extra-sexual "representation" of the Elves, and Drow Elves specifically in the game? And in the various races in general?

Note: Yes, I personally enjoy and applaud creativity and making different races be different colours, have different cultures, mixing in different religious philosophy and political systems, and so on--all of that is fine, for the purposes of creativity and fun.

What I do not enjoy is this deep-seated, idealogically-driven NEED to include such--are harass, judge, and seek to critique and shame others that do not happen to embrace the particular racial or sexual flavour of the day. The arrogant, self-righteous mantle of looking down upon all of the "unwashed masses" for "Doing it wrong."

That is the real problem, JHKIM, and you know it. All of this other stuff--this psuedo-intellectual posturing of moral superiority and judgement is merely a pathetic attempt by SJW's to gain control over the hobby, and to exersize influence and control over not only how people *play* the game--but also how people *think* about the game.

Tenbones, brother, you're zeroing in on it precisely--what IS the problem with having black coloured, evil, matriarchal Drow Elves--that incidentally, as you mentioned, engage in a whole buffet table of horrible sins.

I specifically point out the politically ideologically driven nonsense for exactly what it is. Why is the Drow being black, sexist, and homophobic such horrifying sins? They aren't really. They are engaged in demon-worshipping, human-sacrifice, cannibalism, genocide, slavery, rape and horrific sadism against everything they can get their hands on. On a moral plane of wickedness and being "problematic" I would suggest that these moral failings and moral sins are on a higher ranking of importance and significance than being black coloured, sexist and homophobic. Interesting how the SJW's focus on THOSE THREE SINS as making the Drow Elves "problematic"--and not the contstant, daily and zealous cultural embrace of far more horrible moral sins. That's also a tell in how we know this is all just ideological stuffed-animal clutching, and not a deep philosophical analytical critique. The Drow Elves have deep, horrific cultural attributes that, from a truly moral view, are far more disturbing than sexism, homophobia, and being black coloured. Then, of course, all of the psuedo-moralistic outrage has to be set into the backdrop of context that all of the Drow cultural attributes exist, as Tenbones pointed out--for the purposes of conflict in a game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Why... one would almost think the Drow are problematic because in-game they're EVIL and need to be dealt with? (or wisely avoided until you're 10th lvl)

/shock

Quote from: tenbones;1065371The SJW crowd misunderstand "acceptance" and "engagement" as being one and the same. They're not. If you want SJW themed games/movies/comics/etc: make them. Make them good. If it's good - people will consume them.

Generally speaking, I agree here. If people want more liberal games, I would advise they spend their effort making and promoting liberal games as opposed to complaining loudly about how all the game publishers are too conservative. Conversely, if people want more conservative games, I would advise they spend their effort making and promoting conservative games. The issue I have is that when people make SJW-themed games, they are called "SJWs" just the same as if they were spending their time complaining about conservative games. For example, there's a "patronizing garbage" thread now where people here are complaining about authors making SJW-themed games. For example, in a recent post was complaining about in-game background for a Fate setting book -

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39667-Angry-at-patronizing-garbage-in-my-game-books&p=1065289&viewfull=1#post1065289

My position is that there should be both conservative-themed games and liberal-themed games, as well as various other political or non-politically themed games. Also, mainstream politics in a game shouldn't warrant outrage and/or boycott.

Quote from: tenbones;1065371You *do* realize that Drow society at least as protrayed in the Realms DOES have examples of other other forms of government other than Lolthian Matriarchies. They're rare, but they do exist. Again - what *IS* the problem with having antagonists be sexist/homophobic/racist/genocidal/demon-worshipping/cannibalistic? Because you feel it hurts your sensibilities over the large swathes of people likewise engaged in make-believe games that treat it exactly as it is? A game. And those problematic things as elements of the game to give challenge? Maybe this TTRPG thing is not for those people? (or maybe you if that includes you.)

tenbones, I've posted about this several times, so I feel like you are either failing to read me or deliberately ignoring what I say.  I don't know all of the drow societies in the Realms - but then neither do most D&D players. When I refer to the core game, I mean the Player's Handbook + Dungeon Master's Guide + Monster Manual. As of 5th edition in those books, the only explicit sexism described for any society is sexism against male drow. For a medieval-themed game, I think that's fricking weird. I would expect that there should at least be represented having historical-type sexism against women, or if they're going to edit out sexism against women, then they should also edit out sexism against men.

I have no problem with any of the following:

1) Having historical sexism be the rule, with women as second-class citizens in most societies. I've played plenty of historical games, and there are some potential pitfalls that can make the game not fun for female players - but they are surmountable.

2) Having sexism be mostly edited out of the fantasy world, but leaving in a few examples of it - with a mix including good patriarchy, good matriarchy, evil patriarchy, evil matriarchy. This would be what I would think normal for D&D.

3) Leave sexism out of the core books as something to be introduced by GMs as they see fit.

Any of these are fine. But featuring sexism that most prominently is a thing that men suffer from? That seems more like something for an odd fantasy world of reversals, not for core D&D.

Quote from: tenbones;1065371And wait... Drizz't is sexist? (dang man... I need some examples now LOL)

When I say the Drizz't is an example of sexism, I mean that in the books about him, I understand that he is discriminated against by sexist drow society. This is a theme in those boosk. A parallel to this would be the Tortall books by Tamora Pierce - where a number of the series focus on women struggling against the sexism of the patriarchal fantasy society (like the Alanna books or the Protector of the Small books). I was curious if there are examples in D&D novels where sexism against women is portrayed.

Quote from: jhkim;1065383Any of these are fine. But featuring sexism that most prominently is a thing that men suffer from? That seems more like something for an odd fantasy world of reversals, not for core D&D.

Why?

Quote from: jhkimAny of these are fine. But featuring sexism that most prominently is a thing that men suffer from? That seems more like something for an odd fantasy world of reversals, not for core D&D.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1065385Why?

Because sexism against women is a prominent part of the history and the fiction that D&D is inspired by, and sexism against men is not. Tolkien featured Eowyn struggling against her society's role for her. R.E. Howard featured Red Sonja as a woman warrior against type in a man's world. They and others portrayed a world that wasn't exactly historical medieval, but still had key features of it - including male leadership and dominance. Look through the list of inspirational works and there will be tons more examples of women struggling against society's restrictions. To have that nowhere in the world and have men be the more oppressed gender just doesn't fit the genre, in my opinion.

Quote from: jhkim;1065395Because sexism against women is a prominent part of the history and the fiction that D&D is inspired by, and sexism against men is not. Tolkien featured Eowyn struggling against her society's role for her. R.E. Howard featured Red Sonja as a woman warrior against type in a man's world. They and others portrayed a world that wasn't exactly historical medieval, but still had key features of it - including male leadership and dominance. Look through the list of inspirational works and there will be tons more examples of women struggling against society's restrictions. To have that nowhere in the world and have men be the more oppressed gender just doesn't fit the genre, in my opinion.

Interesting. Do you think D&D should be sexist towards women to properly emulate the tropes that inspired it?

Quote from: jhkim;1065395Because sexism against women is a prominent part of the history and the fiction that D&D is inspired by, and sexism against men is not. Tolkien featured Eowyn struggling against her society's role for her. R.E. Howard featured Red Sonja as a woman warrior against type in a man's world. They and others portrayed a world that wasn't exactly historical medieval, but still had key features of it - including male leadership and dominance. Look through the list of inspirational works and there will be tons more examples of women struggling against society's restrictions. To have that nowhere in the world and have men be the more oppressed gender just doesn't fit the genre, in my opinion.

Greetings!

Hey JHKIM. You made me think of the Amazons. According to the ancient Greeks, the Amazons oppressed men. It certainly seems to me that the Drow Elves were inspired by the habits of spiders and Amazon women, with a bit of Elven tropes and Bondage tropes mixed in--walaa--you have Drow Elves. Make them glossy black in colour, reflecting the dark/light dichotomy of at least European mythology, and make them live deep underground--also consistent with European mythology that Underground=dark, evil, mysterious and terrifying.

Popular history/culture wise, everyone is familiar with sexism towards women being historical. So hey--lets play that up against the male Drow even more for added *alien* effect. That will surely make the Drow culture fun and weird. I can see the reasoning quite clearly.

All of the elements of the Drow seem well-sourced and blended for the purposes of fun. I'm still boggled by what or how the Drow are viewed as being somehow "problematic" in any legitimate sense. If someone really wanted something to be morally triggered by, it seems like oh, I don't know--the Aboleth, the Mind Flayers and the Beholders would qualify far better for moral outrage and stuffed-animal clutching. Those three races are existentially and morally horrifying in every way imaginable. And yet--all the weeping and gnashing of teeth is about the Drow.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1065375Yes, I personally enjoy and applaud creativity and making different races be different colours, have different cultures, mixing in different religious philosophy and political systems, and so on--all of that is fine, for the purposes of creativity and fun.

What I do not enjoy is this deep-seated, idealogically-driven NEED to include such--are harass, judge, and seek to critique and shame others that do not happen to embrace the particular racial or sexual flavour of the day. The arrogant, self-righteous mantle of looking down upon all of the "unwashed masses" for "Doing it wrong."

That is the real problem, JHKIM, and you know it. All of this other stuff--this psuedo-intellectual posturing of moral superiority and judgement is merely a pathetic attempt by SJW's to gain control over the hobby, and to exersize influence and control over not only how people *play* the game--but also how people *think* about the game.

I am totally in agreement against harassing games of opposing politics. Within my more liberal social forums, I also clash with liberal friends for promoting free speech and the open marketplace of ideas. I'm frequently in the position of defending D&D against criticism, and am very much against arrogant elitism. I'm running D&D myself, and have some critiques of various parts of it, but nothing huge. It's a good game.

I do think that there is a point about the drow - and it's worth discussing without descending into bitch-fests and name-calling.


As for posturing judgement, I agree that is a problem among liberals - and I have often defended D&D to such. On the other hand, there are a lot of posters here who are perfectly willing to bring up some liberal-themed game and start bitching about it for how "woke" it is and start into name-calling and judgement about it. When I first joined this site ages ago, Pundit was in the midst of numerous tirades against the Blue Rose RPG for it's left-leaning content. I'd say it's fine to critique an RPG, but it should be open for debate and not mindless name-calling - and that should go for left-leaning, right-leaning, and other content.

Quote from: SHARK;1065398Hey JHKIM. You made me think of the Amazons. According to the ancient Greeks, the Amazons oppressed men. It certainly seems to me that the Drow Elves were inspired by the habits of spiders and Amazon women, with a bit of Elven tropes and Bondage tropes mixed in--walaa--you have Drow Elves. Make them glossy black in colour, reflecting the dark/light dichotomy of at least European mythology, and make them live deep underground--also consistent with European mythology that Underground=dark, evil, mysterious and terrifying.

First of all, in all my reading of Amazon myths, they didn't have any men. Any male babies were given away, and men were mated with from neighboring tribes as purely temporary liaisons. But for arguments sake, sure, let's suppose there were male Amazons who were oppressed.

Say there was an ancient Greece RPG - and it portrayed that normal Greek society with no mention of any sexism against women, but then in the entry on Amazons featured about how sexist they were and the men are oppressed in their society. I would say that this goes against both history and Greek myth. The whole point of the Amazons is that they are weird and the opposite of normal society for women to be warriors this way.

Quote from: jhkim;1065383As of 5th edition in those books, the only explicit sexism described for any society is sexism against male drow. For a medieval-themed game, I think that's fricking weird. I would expect that there should at least be represented having historical-type sexism against women, or if they're going to edit out sexism against women, then they should also edit out sexism against men.

The reason there is no strong, obvious depictions of sexism against women in most forms of modern fiction is because it inevitably results in a rage-mob screaming about all the sexism, thus the only ALLOWABLE depictions of sexism are against men, which results in attack threads like this. Kafka-trap, where the only solution is to make settings that are so abysmally bland and perfect that no one would ever want to play in them.

Quote1) Having historical sexism be the rule, with women as second-class citizens in most societies. I've played plenty of historical games, and there are some potential pitfalls that can make the game not fun for female players - but they are surmountable.

That hasn't been allowable in western society for pretty much thirty odd years now.

Quote3) Leave sexism out of the core books as something to be introduced by GMs as they see fit.

That is not a solution, as it pretty much eliminates world books.  If the only way "problematic" content is allowed is via GM introduction, then any and all settings will be perforce reduced to indistinguisable pap, since EVERYTHING is political these days and EVERYTHING is potentially problematic.  Your solution is to try to cater to screaming Outrage Junkies, who have demonstrated time and again that they will never be satisfied.  The purpose is not to spare the feelings of the Drow who are being subject to Sexism, but to demonstrate social power via bullying.

QuoteAny of these are fine. But featuring sexism that most prominently is a thing that men suffer from? That seems more like something for an odd fantasy world of reversals, not for core D&D.

Again, because it bears repeating: No game in at least thirty years... pretty much no form of modern media... has been allowed to depict sexism against women in any way unless it is meant to protest said sexism.   THAT, and that alone, is the reason you have this one-sided case where the only obvious sexism is against men.

Drow are homophobic?

I agree that the lack of patriarchies in D&D is due to political correctness issues.

Quote from: S'mon;1065411Drow are homophobic?

Not at all. They're into all kinds of things. Drizzt even had an older sister who tried to screw him during the orgy that was held during his graduation.

Homosexuality isn't really delved into deeply, but I've seen plenty of references to it as far as female drow go. For males, they'd risk the ire of whichever female(s) they have to answer to if their relationship became known... or it might be a case where said female was into that sort of thing and was fine with it or even commanded it to happen for whatever reason.

Quote from: Spike;1065410The reason there is no strong, obvious depictions of sexism against women in most forms of modern fiction is because it inevitably results in a rage-mob screaming about all the sexism, thus the only ALLOWABLE depictions of sexism are against men, which results in attack threads like this. Kafka-trap, where the only solution is to make settings that are so abysmally bland and perfect that no one would ever want to play in them.

Quote from: Spike;1065410Again, because it bears repeating: No game in at least thirty years... pretty much no form of modern media... has been allowed to depict sexism against women in any way unless it is meant to protest said sexism.   THAT, and that alone, is the reason you have this one-sided case where the only obvious sexism is against men.

But, as you say, sexism *is* portrayable if it is portrayed as a flaw. So in modern historical fiction like Deadwood or Mad Men or fantasy like Game of Thrones, sexism definitely is portrayed - but it is shown as a flaw rather than a virtue. Much like racism and slavery is these days only portrayed as a wrong in modern media. Even from the time of 1E AD&D, slavery has been portrayed as something unquestionably wrong and even evil. I don't think there's anything wrong in this. In my opinion, there's been plenty of good sci-fi and fantasy in the last 30 years, including well-handled depictions of sexism, racism, and slavery.

So why the hell shouldn't orcs have their sexism more highlighted - to be delivered righteous feminist fury from the good characters in-game? Plenty of liberal-loved fiction portrays evil sexist bad guys - or even flawed sexist good guys. Tamora Pierce's Tortall books are all about women struggling against sexism in the ostensibly good kingdom of Tortall, for example. D&D could easily include this.

It's not because of bending over solely to appease the feminists and liberals. It's because of bland political correctness of not wanting to do anything to support or antagonize either feminists or anti-feminists. You imply that this sort of blandness sucks, and I would agree.

Quote from: Brand55;1065417Not at all. They're into all kinds of things. Drizzt even had an older sister who tried to screw him during the orgy that was held during his graduation.

Homosexuality isn't really delved into deeply, but I've seen plenty of references to it as far as female drow go. For males, they'd risk the ire of whichever female(s) they have to answer to if their relationship became known... or it might be a case where said female was into that sort of thing and was fine with it or even commanded it to happen for whatever reason.

That's what I thought.

In my FR female drow often have a trusted female partner who can guard them when they are giving birth, an obvious time of vulnerability when assassination attempts are likely.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1065358Maybe the issue is that all other elf groups are considered "white" by default. Are there any D&D setting that show "non-Caucasian" members of non-Drow elf groups? Any brown-skinned wood elves or sallow-skinned high elves in the mainstream settings?

Yes. Quite a few. And that goes back quite a ways too. There have been gold skinned elves. Blue skinned elves. Pretty darn sure there are brown at least heavily tanned skinned elves. Red skinned elves. And non-evil black skinned elves. And if there is not a race of green skinned elves then there should be! (And technically there are in Gamma World so there is that. ahem.)

From the PHB. Sun elves have bronze skin, Moon elves have alabaster with a bit of blue skin, Wood elves are copper with a bit of green, and so on. In fact one of the presented ef PHB elves is actually straight up Caucasian.

But I am sure some village idiot will screech "wah wah wah copper skin is caucasian! wah wah bronze skin is caucasian! wah white skin is caucasian!" like they have before.

Quote from: jhkim;1065418It's not because of bending over solely to appease the feminists and liberals. It's because of bland political correctness of not wanting to do anything to support or antagonize either feminists or anti-feminists. You imply that this sort of blandness sucks, and I would agree.

I doubt very seriously that major publishers are worried about antagonizing anti-feminists.

Quote from: Omega;1065421Yes. Quite a few. And that goes back quite a ways too. There have been gold skinned elves. Blue skinned elves. Pretty darn sure there are brown at least heavily tanned skinned elves. Red skinned elves. And non-evil black skinned elves. And if there is not a race of green skinned elves then there should be! (And technically there are in Gamma World so there is that. ahem.)

From the PHB. Sun elves have bronze skin, Moon elves have alabaster with a bit of blue skin, Wood elves are copper with a bit of green, and so on. In fact one of the presented ef PHB elves is actually straight up Caucasian.

But I am sure some village idiot will screech "wah wah wah copper skin is caucasian! wah wah bronze skin is caucasian! wah white skin is caucasian!" like they have before.

When I hear bronze skin I tend to think tanned Latin Americans and when I hear copper skin I tend to think Native (North) Americans, neither of which are European white.

Can we please not make new racial classifications?  There are only THREE types of humans, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, science has known this for centuries, please don't make us Hispanics into some sort of weird fetish group that the Whites have to protect, please.

A skin color alone is not a racial classification.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1065430A skin color alone is not a racial classification.

Exactly.  It's based on skeletal, muscle structure, and other physical traits.

Fantasy races should work the same way.

Quote from: jhkim;1065418But, as you say, sexism *is* portrayable if it is portrayed as a flaw. So in modern historical fiction like Deadwood or Mad Men or fantasy like Game of Thrones, sexism definitely is portrayed - but it is shown as a flaw rather than a virtue. Much like racism and slavery is these days only portrayed as a wrong in modern media. Even from the time of 1E AD&D, slavery has been portrayed as something unquestionably wrong and even evil. I don't think there's anything wrong in this. In my opinion, there's been plenty of good sci-fi and fantasy in the last 30 years, including well-handled depictions of sexism, racism, and slavery.  

I would rather like to see period pieces that simply depicted the period as it was rather than always having to either whitewash it or moralize about it.  It feels rather patronizing to always have to get sanitized versions of history.   Of course I may be asking far too much, since any piece of fiction by its very nature is far more limited than life, what to include or exclude inevitably reflects bias.   I'm not saying you can't have sanitized or moralized period pieces, just that I'd love to see the third option of 'accurate and not preachy about it', if you like.

QuoteSo why the hell shouldn't orcs have their sexism more highlighted - to be delivered righteous feminist fury from the good characters in-game? Plenty of liberal-loved fiction portrays evil sexist bad guys - or even flawed sexist good guys. Tamora Pierce's Tortall books are all about women struggling against sexism in the ostensibly good kingdom of Tortall, for example. D&D could easily include this.

On the first part, I agree that it should be allowable to showcase Orcish sexism, or rather chauvanism. Indeed, I would applaud it, but I am not part of the Outrage Brigade, nor am I involved in writing D&D settings except for the occasional thread here.    Of course, then too you have the screaming brigade of nerd-porn fans who what 'hawt muscle chicks' in orc flavor.  Not all of the pandering comes from Outrage Mobs*

As for the second part: I'd rather not 'code' that sort of story into the setting, but rather allow groups to run that sort of campaign for themselves if they like. Agreed that underwriting/blandification pandering makes that sort of story harder, maybe we should spend less energy telling everyone that its okay to play Waifu Warriors, and let them decide for themselves if thats the way they want to go?   Once you make Waifu Warriors the default of the setting it automatically excludes, or at least severely weakens, the possiblity of playing the rebel stereotype breaker.

QuoteIt's not because of bending over solely to appease the feminists and liberals. It's because of bland political correctness of not wanting to do anything to support or antagonize either feminists or anti-feminists. You imply that this sort of blandness sucks, and I would agree.

False dichotomy. Political correctness has ever been 'of the left', or if you will: Appeasing the Feminists and Liberals, though in this case I should argue against the use of liberal in favor of the more correct term 'progressive', but that would lead to a semantic argument that would be pointless.   Further, even if I accept your premise that Political Correctness is entirely a separate concept from Feminism, rather than a tool frequently used by Feminists, it doesn't change the fact that it is Feminists, or at least feminist arguments, are exactly why no one wants to depict women in any negative light in fiction.  PC may be used by non-feminists for other reasons (such as, oh, charges of racism because Drow be Black, yo...), but I'm not clever enough of a poster to put up the venn diagram I'm sure we can all imagine just fine here.

Regarding your broadside against anti-feminism: I am sure that deliberate attempts to subvert the current feminist portrayal of women in D&D would be just as obnoxious and lopsided, but I'd truly love to hear which main-stream RPGs or, for that matter, novelists are writing such anti-feminist settings?   This is a 'both sides bad, because hypothetical I just made up' argument. If that isn't a thing, it should be.




* Regarding Outrage Mobs, I feel honorbound to point out that there is no real political bent to Outrage Mobs as a thing.  Censorious people who love to bully others into submission for their own aggrandizement tend to flock to the social structures that allow them the power to act as they do. In the 80's it was still 'christian morality', since the late nineties is has been PC culture and the progressive stack.  By itself this is not a condemnation of Christian Morality or Progressive Morality, and I tend to judge the Outrage Brigades independent of the beliefs they currently profess. There are always bad people who will abuse any social capital they can beg, borrow or steal.  If there is any good in their existance it may be that they serve as a check on the monopoly of culture by tearing down the very organizations/ideologies that give them power.

But that's just my theory.

Quote from: jhkim;1065383Generally speaking, I agree here. If people want more liberal games, I would advise they spend their effort making and promoting liberal games as opposed to complaining loudly about how all the game publishers are too conservative. Conversely, if people want more conservative games, I would advise they spend their effort making and promoting conservative games. The issue I have is that when people make SJW-themed games, they are called "SJWs" just the same as if they were spending their time complaining about conservative games. For example, there's a "patronizing garbage" thread now where people here are complaining about authors making SJW-themed games. For example, in a recent post was complaining about in-game background for a Fate setting book -

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39667-Angry-at-patronizing-garbage-in-my-game-books&p=1065289&viewfull=1#post1065289

My position is that there should be both conservative-themed games and liberal-themed games, as well as various other political or non-politically themed games. Also, mainstream politics in a game shouldn't warrant outrage and/or boycott.

So by corollary are you also saying that SJW's don't castigate non-SJW themed RPG's for not being SJW enough? They don't, you know, call studios.... oh I dunno... Nazis? Or Homophobic? Or Transphobic? etc.? *Which* is a more prevalent occurrence today? What is the stigma of being called an SJW vs. say - a Nazi/Sexist/Misogynist/Racist/phobe?

One is certainly not equal to the other. Furthermore... is it a healthy reaction to go into the cultural circle of a group you know fully well doesn't agree with your ideas (regardless of their value) and cast aspersions at them? Probably not. The question here is to what degree is this happening? Seems pretty obvious in online forums. In terms of game content? Well we've already agreed on that.

As it stands right now - if you try to produce an RPG without signalling your SJW bonafides, once you break a certain level of awareness (a decent kickstarter for instance) - you will be checked for your papers. It *will* happen especially if you do any promotion. And because SJW's insert that stuff into their games, it's having the usual backfire effect. Not because that stuff exists - Blue Rose as we all love to trot out is a perfect example of that. It came and went. Non-SJW's didn't attack it enmasse. It exists on its own merits (I'm a fan of the system, not particularly of the setting as I find it boring, but I certainly don't hate it). The well was poisoned by the outliers. Not the other way around. You *can't* make someone believe your beliefs by beating everyone over the head with those beliefs.

Quote from: jhkim;1065383tenbones, I've posted about this several times, so I feel like you are either failing to read me or deliberately ignoring what I say.  I don't know all of the drow societies in the Realms - but then neither do most D&D players. When I refer to the core game, I mean the Player's Handbook + Dungeon Master's Guide + Monster Manual. As of 5th edition in those books, the only explicit sexism described for any society is sexism against male drow. For a medieval-themed game, I think that's fricking weird. I would expect that there should at least be represented having historical-type sexism against women, or if they're going to edit out sexism against women, then they should also edit out sexism against men.

And you seem to be talking past my larger point: Sexism IS CONFLICT TO BE DEALT WITH IN-GAME. Like Orcs Hating Elves = Racism. Deal with it in game. It's grist for the mill. I've been saying this repeatedly - the fixation that these things are *BAD* and should be removed from the game implicitly is counter-productive to gaming. You're insinuating that because this stuff exists implicitly it has some real-world effect on people.

This has been examined repeatedly in all the moral-panics of our modern time. Does it affect people? Probably. Those people shouldn't be gaming or listening to Motley Crue albums backwards too. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm saying explicitly: sexism portrayed in a work of fiction is not tacit approval of ACTUAL SEXISM. Same is true with all of these other ideas spawned from the Sacred Holy Intersectional Tautology cesspool. It wasn't true then. It's not true now. This doesn't mean shitty people don't engage in our hobby. But that doesn't mean we change the hobby or worse: our thinking, to make room for alternative shitty people on the left.

And to MY point - the presentation of Drow is largely what it is. But they wouldn't be Drow otherwise. They'd be something else. And those elements *DO* exist in these settings within the Drow, if you care to look, for the express purpose of overturning in your game this very problem you're complaining about (which is why I keep bringing it up). But then... that's not really the issue because...

Quote from: jhkim;1065383I have no problem with any of the following:

1) Having historical sexism be the rule, with women as second-class citizens in most societies. I've played plenty of historical games, and there are some potential pitfalls that can make the game not fun for female players - but they are surmountable.

2) Having sexism be mostly edited out of the fantasy world, but leaving in a few examples of it - with a mix including good patriarchy, good matriarchy, evil patriarchy, evil matriarchy. This would be what I would think normal for D&D.

3) Leave sexism out of the core books as something to be introduced by GMs as they see fit.

Any of these are fine. But featuring sexism that most prominently is a thing that men suffer from? That seems more like something for an odd fantasy world of reversals, not for core D&D.

I read all that and it sounds like you have a problem with sexism (among other things) in RPG's. Or at least more than you are willing to admit.

Who in the hell would design around such caveats outside of making a game explicitly for children? Who makes all these calls? What ARE those few examples? Even in your own explanation of how you "don't have a problem" you stipulate conditionals that clearly show there are problems.

I have *never* had a female player have a problem with my very adult game. Want to know why? I treat them like adults. I treat my game seriously. It's not that bad things don't happen, it's not that bad things - horrifying things - aren't going on. It's that they, like all my players, are empowered to deal with them. This insipid coddling you're advocating seems to be to protect people from a demon that doesn't actually exist unless it's already in their heads.

Quote from: jhkim;1065383When I say the Drizz't is an example of sexism, I mean that in the books about him, I understand that he is discriminated against by sexist drow society. This is a theme in those boosk. A parallel to this would be the Tortall books by Tamora Pierce - where a number of the series focus on women struggling against the sexism of the patriarchal fantasy society (like the Alanna books or the Protector of the Small books). I was curious if there are examples in D&D novels where sexism against women is portrayed.

Or you know... conversely, this is just the conceit of one of many conflicts the protagonist exists in the form of a heroic story to overcome. Yeah. That's probably what it is.

Quote from: tenbones;1065477This has been examined repeatedly in all the moral-panics of our modern time. Does it affect people? Probably. Those people shouldn't be gaming or listening to Motley Crue albums backwards too. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm saying explicitly: sexism portrayed in a work of fiction is not tacit approval of ACTUAL SEXISM. Same is true with all of these other ideas spawned from the Sacred Holy Intersectional Tautology cesspool. It wasn't true then. It's not true now. This doesn't mean shitty people don't engage in our hobby. But that doesn't mean we change the hobby or worse: our thinking, to make room for alternative shitty people on the left.

Amen. While I'm usually not a lurid guy, I do occasionally dip into sexist tropes, especially in my Dark Sun games, where the world is harsher and people tend to be nastier. It doesn't mean I think womens should be barfoot and preggers in the kitchen making me a sammich.

I had a female player who loved playing her evil drow matriarch warlock PC... she ended the campaign ruler of Ched Nasad having overthrown the egalitarian government and restored the Matriarchy.

Quote from: S'mon;1065481I had a female player who loved playing her evil drow matriarch warlock PC... she ended the campaign ruler of Ched Nasad having overthrown the egalitarian government and restored the Matriarchy.

Ahh Ched Nasad. I miss that place. The halfling jerky there is *delicious*.

Quote from: tenbones;1065499Ahh Ched Nasad. I miss that place. The halfling jerky there is *delicious*.

Halfling? Now that's just ridiculous.

...Surely you meant svirfneblin, right?

I'm currently researching for a blog post in which I criticize D&D goblins for being bland and boring compared to the amazing variety of goblins in folklore and fiction.

I intend to write similar posts about most D&D monsters, including drow. I have already finished and published several.

I never heard of drow being problematic until the internet. None of the guys I play with now had.

They just always made sense to me because of the black widow theme. Black skin / black chitin, red eyes / red hour glass, white hair / white webbing. Larger females. Maybe I'm just a shallow thinker.

Thanks for fixing my registration Pundit. Looooooooooooooooooong time lurker.

Quote from: Mind Crime;1065553I never heard of drow being problematic until the internet. None of the guys I play with now had.

They just always made sense to me because of the black widow theme. Black skin / black chitin, red eyes / red hour glass, white hair / white webbing. Larger females. Maybe I'm just a shallow thinker.

Thanks for fixing my registration Pundit. Looooooooooooooooooong time lurker.

Greetings!

Welcome, Mind Crime!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mind Crime;1065553I never heard of drow being problematic until the internet. None of the guys I play with now had.

They just always made sense to me because of the black widow theme. Black skin / black chitin, red eyes / red hour glass, white hair / white webbing. Larger females. Maybe I'm just a shallow thinker.

Thanks for fixing my registration Pundit. Looooooooooooooooooong time lurker.

They make more sense as spider-elves. Those things should have been emphasized because they went over some people's heads.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065615They make more sense as spider-elves. Those things should have been emphasized because they went over some people's heads.

Those things were emphasized and it still went over peoples heads or they just ignored things like that so they could have an excuse to bitch.

Quote from: Brand55;1065503Halfling? Now that's just ridiculous.

...Surely you meant svirfneblin, right?

Nay! Halfling! It's imported (I know a dealer). Do you realize how *hard* it is to find good halfling down in the Middledark? They like to frolic in the sun for Lolth's sake!

Svirfneblin is tough, and sinewy. Not enough fat. We like only the best. Go halfling!

... wait... the spider-theme for Drow wasn't emphasized enough?


Am I high again? Goddammit... I knew this whole lack of awareness thing for the last few years was me the WHOLE TIME. Dang I knew it. sorry guys, my bad. I'm just trippin.

Quote from: Mind Crime;1065553They just always made sense to me because of the black widow theme. Black skin / black chitin, red eyes / red hour glass, white hair / white webbing. Larger females. Maybe I'm just a shallow thinker.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065615They make more sense as spider-elves. Those things should have been emphasized because they went over some people's heads.

Yeah, I think spider-theme is cool and flexible. It is very visible in some incarnations of the drow, but less so in others.

My current campaign has good-aligned drow, and I'm trying to stick with the spider theme while also having them be good. So they're more like friendly neighborhood spider-elves. :D

This was the short pitch I had for my pre-generated drow wizard -

QuoteThe drow are sometimes accused of too much pride, but you have much to be proud of. Your people have woven swaths of the Underdark into elegant wonderlands, and your society is a model of equality and interdependence. Within the drow's web of social relations, everyone has a part to play. On the other hand, drow can be insular from outsiders, and are often misunderstood. Short-lived races can have trouble seeing time as the drow do.

You are a delver into the mysteries of magic, and are active in breaking out of the drow's insular culture to bring their magic and learning to the rest of civilization. You are free to do this, but have not been supported the way you like. It is your hope that if the Temple of the Elements can be restored, that it will be a place where drow learning is shared with the learning of other races.

So I play up weaving and web themes - but as I detail more of their culture, I'd like to go farther with the spider-stuff while keeping the associations positive rather than creepy.

Quote from: jhkim;1065693So I play up weaving and web themes - but as I detail more of their culture, I'd like to go farther with the spider-stuff while keeping the associations positive rather than creepy.

So no extra eyes, chitin-like patches of skin, patches of urticating hair, poison bites, or any other spider-based body horror for Drow? Other than driders, of course.

Quote from: SHARK;1065559Greetings!

Welcome, Mind Crime!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thank ya sir. And thank you for your service. May you never have to buy your own drinks on Veterans Day.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1065615They make more sense as spider-elves. Those things should have been emphasized because they went over some people's heads.

Was Lotlth/Lloth ever described as long looking like a black widow in her spider form (if anyone knows for sure)? I honestly cannot remember. I thought she had in a few writings, if not in the art, but there's been so much written I'm drawing a blank. The bodies of the driders resemble a black widow in a lot of the art.

Quote from: jhkim;1065693Yeah, I think spider-theme is cool and flexible. It is very visible in some incarnations of the drow, but less so in others.

So I play up weaving and web themes - but as I detail more of their culture, I'd like to go farther with the spider-stuff while keeping the associations positive rather than creepy.

Considering the wide variety of form and function and abilities of spiders and their webbings, there is a metric tonne of things you can play with. I grew up on a farm so common garden spiders where the bane of my existence but I always thought their webs with the lightning bolt pattern in there where cool.

Quote from: Mind Crime;1065706Was Lotlth/Lloth ever described as long looking like a black widow in her spider form (if anyone knows for sure)? I honestly cannot remember. I thought she had in a few writings, if not in the art, but there's been so much written I'm drawing a blank. The bodies of the driders resemble a black widow in a lot of the art.

Yeah, I've always seen her either as a drow or a half-drow, half-giant black spider. The Forgotten Realms wiki says she has the black widow's hourglass on her thorax. That's not a detail that I remember personally but it sounds about right.

Quote from: Brand55;1065708Yeah, I've always seen her either as a drow or a half-drow, half-giant black spider. The Forgotten Realms wiki says she has the black widow's hourglass on her thorax. That's not a detail that I remember personally but it sounds about right.

Just went to the wiki entry on Lloth here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolth

...never noticed before now but look at her drawing. That is a HUGE ass. She needs to do some squats.

This is from the old D&D cartoon. IIRC, it was either Lolth or based off of her.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3059[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Mind Crime;1065706Thank ya sir. And thank you for your service. May you never have to buy your own drinks on Veterans Day.



Was Lotlth/Lloth ever described as long looking like a black widow in her spider form (if anyone knows for sure)? I honestly cannot remember. I thought she had in a few writings, if not in the art, but there's been so much written I'm drawing a blank. The bodies of the driders resemble a black widow in a lot of the art.

Lolth in the Fiend Folio:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/Lolth.JPG/200px-Lolth.JPG)

Queen of the Demonweb Pits:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YjP9Uj-hoMg/TqHMnVK9xWI/AAAAAAAAB28/y0SsTKF0zD4/s1600/Lolth+2.jpg)

Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1066055Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

Now you're just taunting us.

And speaking of drow not always being evil. That even made it into Lodoss War where the dark elf Priotess was pretty darn loyal to Ashram all the way.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1065716Lolth in the Fiend Folio:

Queen of the Demonweb Pits:

The fiend folio version can just chalk up to the artist being bad at drawing spiders perhaps.

The Demonweb one may be a black widow. Id have to dig out the module and check.

Quote from: Omega;1066178And speaking of drow not always being evil. That even made it into Lodoss War where the dark elf Priotess was pretty darn loyal to Ashram all the way.

That anime is greatness. Probably a perfect D&D campaign, full of good cheese, superb-action, politics, intriguing bad guys (Ashram is wtfawesome), *dungeons & dragons*, it had it all. No GM that watched that didn't smile when Pirotess makes her loyalty pledge. You knew she was down.

Agreed.

Like the half-races, mainly half-orc and half-elf. I never thought rape was the default explanation. I always figured it implied some kind of common genetic heritage that allowed for cross-breeding and considering real world humans, why is it so far fetched to think humans in a fantasy could/would willingly have relations with orcs and elves.

Between that and the drow being racist (and probably a whole list of other shit), I'm chalking it up to people having their blinders on and set to see everything explained in the most negative way possible. Too bad those people are so god damn loud.

Also, maybe the black widow thing was mentioned in a Salvatore book? Can't for the life of me remember where I'm getting this from but something tainted my memory somewhere.

Quote from: Mind Crime;1066274Also, maybe the black widow thing was mentioned in a Salvatore book? Can't for the life of me remember where I'm getting this from but something tainted my memory somewhere.

Personally, I find widows and other thin legged-big bodied spiders creepier than the furry, fat tarantula kinds.

You're damn skippy sir. Seen many a brown relcuse and only one black widow in the wild. I know the recluse is potentially more damaging, but they never got the response from me the widow did. Not gonna lie, I backpeddled like a wuss and had my girlfriend kill it.

Quote from: Mind Crime;1066286You're damn skippy sir. Seen many a brown relcuse and only one black widow in the wild. I know the recluse is potentially more damaging, but they never got the response from me the widow did. Not gonna lie, I backpeddled like a wuss and had my girlfriend kill it.

Black widows like to hide under rocks, plastic, and other things.  They are mostly predictable.  You can usually check for one before picking something up.  They are also easier to spot, being so shiny, and larger, and distinctive.

Brown recluses infect buildings, cannot be poisoned by the usual means (because they don't clean their legs), can hibernate for weeks with no food or water, hide in clothes, and boxes, are difficult to spot, except when they run across your bedspread at night (if you are lucky) or your face at 2:00 A.M. (if not so lucky).  Even if you vacate every week and gas bomb it for a month, you'll only kill the ones in the house.  They'll migrate back in within a year or two.

My dad has been bitten by both (lucky I guess).  A black widow bite, unless you are very young, old, or have a heart condition, you've got a good chance of surviving even without professional medical care.  Like a rattlesnake, you'll be sick for days, and need to stay warm and fed, but you'll get better most likely.  A brown recluse bite, unless you are very lucky or got a trace amount of venom or got professional care within the hour, you stand a good chance of needing months to fully heal.  Untreated for just a little too long, you could easily lose a limb or worse.

If I built a fantasy monster on the black widow, and sent it after my players, they'd find it somewhat scary.  Then they'd squash it or run and move on.  If I sent the equivalent built on the brown recluse, half of them would probably leave the session.  A "giant brown recluse" would make phase spiders seem tame.

My house has a lot of little spiders, mostly living in corners, they're quite timid. I had to get used to letting them live with me, rather than getting rid of them, because there's a ton of other bugs down here and spiders help keep more pest-like bugs under control.