... As I said, "I grew with D&D with a view that drow are black. I don't see the point of them changing something that they've established."
It's retconning past lore which for me is unnecessary and unwelcome.
Here's the thing. This change is not just about you. Lots of lore has been retconned over the years in D&D and lots of people are supportive of this change. Your opinion is not more valid than anyone else's.
I never said that wasn't the thing, in fact, I stated it and then never claimed anything else.
It's just when people are arguing against me having a different opinion it all seems to get a bit Stepford which has also been unwelcome.
... As I said, "I grew with D&D with a view that drow are black. I don't see the point of them changing something that they've established."
It's retconning past lore which for me is unnecessary and unwelcome.
Here's the thing. This change is not just about you. Lots of lore has been retconned over the years in D&D and lots of people are supportive of this change. Your opinion is not more valid than anyone else's.
I never said that wasn't the thing, in fact, I stated it and then never claimed anything else.
It's just when people are arguing against me having a different opinion it all seems to get a bit Stepford which has also been unwelcome.
You're complaining that a new change to the game's lore designed to make the game more inclusive doesn't appeal to you. And you have continued saying that for a number of days now.
You're free to give your opinion. You're not free to have no one respond to that opinion, that's not how message forums work. And as your opinion is not an uncontroversial one, it's bound to attract a lot of response.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
And once again this thread has come full circle. Those that are unhappy with the "change" will continue to be unhappy and the rest of us will be content to go on. In a few weeks, we will have the new Monsters of the Multiverse out in the world and with it will come another thread just like this one, with the same handful of people complaining.
Maybe one day Netflix will make a live-action adaptation of your favorite cartoon and you'll come to understand why hamfisted retconning of lore is simultaneously the epitome of lazy writing and one of the most reliable ways to piss off a fanbase.
And once again this thread has come full circle. Those that are unhappy with the "change" will continue to be unhappy and the rest of us will be content to go on. In a few weeks, we will have the new Monsters of the Multiverse out in the world and with it will come another thread just like this one, with the same handful of people complaining.
Maybe one day Netflix will make a live-action adaptation of your favorite cartoon and you'll come to understand why hamfisted retconning of lore is simultaneously the epitome of lazy writing and one of the most reliable ways to piss off a fanbase.
Which cartoon of yours did Netflix butcher. Also I completely agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
And once again this thread has come full circle. Those that are unhappy with the "change" will continue to be unhappy and the rest of us will be content to go on. In a few weeks, we will have the new Monsters of the Multiverse out in the world and with it will come another thread just like this one, with the same handful of people complaining.
Maybe one day Netflix will make a live-action adaptation of your favorite cartoon and you'll come to understand why hamfisted retconning of lore is simultaneously the epitome of lazy writing and one of the most reliable ways to piss off a fanbase.
I just turned 50. I am far to old to give a crap about cartoons from 40 years ago and any remakes they make of them.
It seems to me that, while the skin color change can be seen as progressive, the issue for WotC is that the Drow and other races had the "EVIL" tag on everything they touched.
That alignment issue they addressed by removing it from play officially. I would have thought the way forward would have been the promotion of the struggle between the good and evil drow and how the evil guys get all the press, and thus the stereotype. The good guys get lumped in with the comparatively few that are generating the bad impression, much akin to the way real life may function. WotC may have missed the real issue, and a real way to make their change known. Championing the difference in what is under the skin is more important than a superficial nod to what is visible upon the skin.
The "kill it on sight' murder hobo rule might still apply to some games but it does open up a more nuanced world that would seem to be more fun to play in.
P.S. In nature, cave dwellers without access to the sun, loose all coloring and become either bleached white or translucent. The colors that would aid in blending in or standing out would be meaningless to those creatures. Many cave dwellers also lose their sight and rely on other methods to be aware of their surroundings, for both offense and defense.
... As I said, "I grew with D&D with a view that drow are black. I don't see the point of them changing something that they've established."
It's retconning past lore which for me is unnecessary and unwelcome.
Here's the thing. This change is not just about you. Lots of lore has been retconned over the years in D&D and lots of people are supportive of this change. Your opinion is not more valid than anyone else's.
Nor is it more invalid. He's got every right to be upset as you do to feel vindicated. He's got every right to voice that opinion. Those of you who support changes like this, come off very much as though you are right, and the other side is wrong, then get upset when the people whom you are telling that their opinion is wrong and irrelevant get upset and push back. There are good points made by both sides, even if most people aren't willing to accept that the other side also has a valid point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
... As I said, "I grew with D&D with a view that drow are black. I don't see the point of them changing something that they've established."
It's retconning past lore which for me is unnecessary and unwelcome.
Here's the thing. This change is not just about you. Lots of lore has been retconned over the years in D&D and lots of people are supportive of this change. Your opinion is not more valid than anyone else's.
Nor is it more invalid. He's got every right to be upset as you do to feel vindicated. He's got every right to voice that opinion. Those of you who support changes like this, come off very much as though you are right, and the other side is wrong, then get upset when the people whom you are telling that their opinion is wrong and irrelevant get upset and push back. There are good points made by both sides, even if most people aren't willing to accept that the other side also has a valid point.
Though what's really shitty is when contributors go for underhand tactics like calling dissenters from a previous thread, far-right or talking about people freaking out for sticking to their views - of not wanting a greywashed world. Write in some more white villains to go along with the vampires etc.
I don't think the issue is with people who play a drow whose skin is black. The issue is with drow being created black and designated evil, and the implication that there's a correlation between those two things.
Take blackface. It's offensive, because of background and the roots in minstrel shows and their portrayal of black people. Now, if someone white who genuinely doesn't know about any of this and genuinely isn't racist puts on blackface, it's still offensive - but it wouldn't make that person racist. Here in Europe there are several countries with a Saint-Nicolas tradition that involves Black Pete, Saint-Nic's helper, who is typically portrayed in blackface, with exaggerated red lips, in a colourful outfit. Now, Black Pete is also the guy with the bag - to carry presents for the good children, but potentially also to put bad children in. In French he's called Pierre Fouettard: Pete with the whip, to punish bad children. If you look at it with awareness of racism, it's really not acceptable at all. But it's a tradition that predates the US by centuries, and kids don't see any of that when they see Saint-Nicolas and Black Pete arriving from Spain with gifts and treats for everyone who's been good this year. I'm not trying to solve that mess here (this happens every year on Dec 6 and even if this year it wasn't as bad, probably due to covid putting a break on a lot of events that can't be properly socially distanced, it's a lot of back and forth arguing between those who value the tradition and those who find the racist implications unacceptable), just trying to illustrate it's not something straightforward and easily sorted out.
This is an interesting topic, and it should be discussed so that depending on which things stop being done. However, I think very different things are mixing here. Zwarte Piet is a racist tradition. And I don't care if it's a tradition. It is racist, it is offensive, and it should disappear or become something non-offensive (as is already done in some cities in the Netherlands, with greater or lesser success). But it is not offensive, in my opinion, because it represents a bad person with a face painted black. It is offensive because it ridicules black people by exaggerating their features to the grossest caricature. Whether it is bad or not is the least of it. There are bad black people, and there are good black people. We are people, whatever our skin color, and we are made of the same wood. Then again, the problem is the cartoonish mockery and exaggeration of the supposed traits of black people. Another curious thing here is that the fact that he is evil is not because he is black (that is a racist mockery), but because he comes from Spain. This has a historical explanation, which we are not going into, but whose roots lie in the Eighty Years' War. A different case is Père Fouettard (or Krampus, or Schmutzli, or whatever his name is depending on the country). This character is not racist. We may like that tradition more or less, since it deepens into the culture of reward and punishment, but there is nothing racist about it. He is usually depicted as a monk or sometimes as a demon. But not as a black person. At least as far as I know. Picking up, and going back to the drow topic, I don't see why a black drow can be offensive. He does not represent an ethnic or cultural group from reality. Nor does it caricature it. And much less does he do it in a racist way. A black drow has nothing to do with black people in the real world in any sense. However, I don't see any problem with WoTC removing any suspicion of racism by making his skin a variety of grays instead of black or dark tones. Actually, that's fine with me. It is something that does not imply anything negative, and it prevents someone from being offended, whether or not they have a reason to be offended. Anything that is avoiding disturbing anyone is cool.
Make them purple or at least something with style.
Purple is a hue, so also conforms to the language they used to describe the drow skin colors. The range "grey tones of many hues" is actually a very large spectrum of available colors, and it does, in fact, include every skin tone any published drow has ever been. "Gray skin tones of many hues" is an expansive palette.
Fun Fact: Black is a shade of achromatic gray.
Another Fun Fact: This font is currently displaying in a gray tone. And, it is pretty dark! (This is black, for comparison, can you even tell the difference??)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Picking up, and going back to the drow topic, I don't see why a black drow can be offensive. He does not represent an ethnic or cultural group from reality. Nor does it caricature it. And much less does he do it in a racist way. A black drow has nothing to do with black people in the real world in any sense.
Something doesn't have to be true or intentional to be problematic. The potential implication is that when Gygax wanted to create an evil offshoot of the elves he made them black because that fits a connotation with evil: white elves are good elves, black elves are bad elves. I'm 100% certain that's not the case (it's presumably something to do with the Norse Svartalfe - I might be butchering the spelling - so folklore rather than bigotry), but the implication is still there for those who want to see it. Same with linking orc tribes to Native Americans or Mongols, though that actually was deliberate, and the additional problem then becomes that actual bigotry taints anything it touches: because of the Mongol orcs being introduced, for any race that can be connected to real world ethnicities that connection becomes more plausible.
Since from your use of Zwarte Piet you appear to be Dutch or Belgian, you might be familiar with the Grote Meneer Cactus Show (I may be showing my age here, but ok). If you recall, it was a zany tv show with over the top characters aimed at children. One of those characters was named Kweetniet ("Idunno" or something like that in English). His name was also his catchphrase, it was the character who never knew anything. And it was the one black character on the show, until the actor was replaced with a white one because it was seen as offensive that the actor picked to play the "dumb" character on the show just happened to be the one black one. There also, pretty sure it wasn't intentional - but that doesn't mean it wasn't shortsighted, or that it couldn't be painful for black kids to see their skin colour reflected by a character whose total persona was saying "I dunno" to every question asked. Intent or lack thereof doesn't make the difference between offensive and not offensive (even if the former is obviously worse).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Picking up, and going back to the drow topic, I don't see why a black drow can be offensive. He does not represent an ethnic or cultural group from reality. Nor does it caricature it. And much less does he do it in a racist way. A black drow has nothing to do with black people in the real world in any sense. However, I don't see any problem with WoTC removing any suspicion of racism by making his skin a variety of grays instead of black or dark tones. Actually, that's fine with me. It is something that does not imply anything negative, and it prevents someone from being offended, whether or not they have a reason to be offended. Anything that is avoiding disturbing anyone is cool.
Your understanding of Drow rendering is either wearing blinders or is just ignorant. To lead your syllabus, AD&D's GDQ1-7 Queen of the Spiders is a well cited example of the way TSR art direction at the time made use of, took advantage of, exploited (pick your verb) hyper-sexualized caricatures of the black, as in human black, female form in their presentation of Drow. It's rendering is reflective of 80s pop cultural use of the sexualized black female form. It's one of those instances which with better thought and sensitivity overtime is now one of those moments for which the hobby is trying to do reparative work, and do better in the future. So it's a factor in current WotC art direction and lore descriptors.
"I don't see why x can be offensive" is more often than not a profession of not knowing as opposed to a statement with any moral authoritative weight to it. At this point between this and the other thread on the recent WotC errata, the refrain of "I just don't see it" is reaching Doubting Thomas ad absurdum/nauseam proportions. Really, refrain from absolute claims unless you really know what you're talking about. Anyone who has looked into the complexities of Drow imagery and real world blackness is aware of these sorts of artwork.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Picking up, and going back to the drow topic, I don't see why a black drow can be offensive. He does not represent an ethnic or cultural group from reality. Nor does it caricature it. And much less does he do it in a racist way. A black drow has nothing to do with black people in the real world in any sense.
Something doesn't have to be true or intentional to be problematic. The potential implication is that when Gygax wanted to create an evil offshoot of the elves he made them black because that fits a connotation with evil: white elves are good elves, black elves are bad elves. I'm 100% certain that's not the case (it's presumably something to do with the Norse Svartalfe - I might be butchering the spelling - so folklore rather than bigotry), but the implication is still there for those who want to see it. Same with linking orc tribes to Native Americans or Mongols, though that actually was deliberate, and the additional problem then becomes that actual bigotry taints anything it touches: because of the Mongol orcs being introduced, for any race that can be connected to real world ethnicities that connection becomes more plausible.
Since from your use of Zwarte Piet you appear to be Dutch or Belgian, you might be familiar with the Grote Meneer Cactus Show (I may be showing my age here, but ok). If you recall, it was a zany tv show with over the top characters aimed at children. One of those characters was named Kweetniet ("Idunno" or something like that in English). His name was also his catchphrase, it was the character who never knew anything. And it was the one black character on the show, until the actor was replaced with a white one because it was seen as offensive that the actor picked to play the "dumb" character on the show just happened to be the one black one. There also, pretty sure it wasn't intentional - but that doesn't mean it wasn't shortsighted, or that it couldn't be painful for black kids to see their skin colour reflected by a character whose total persona was saying "I dunno" to every question asked. Intent or lack thereof doesn't make the difference between offensive and not offensive (even if the former is obviously worse).
Yes you've just shown your age, I remember it, but then it was for kids younger than me. There is also the Clark Doll experiment, first done in 1939. Just to point out to everyone who doesn't want to see how ingrained, low-key racism gets to people.
100% agree that just because something wasn't intended doesn't mean it can't be damaging.
Whilst the original drow were all described as being black, that's no more reasonable than all the humans of the world being described as white. giving them a range of skin tones not only removes the concept that they are a different race of elves who, as a whole race, went evil, forming a direct divide between two races of the same species, but it makes them much fuller as a concept. To my mind, their lore is richedr from this.
The original lore said "the dark skinned elves went evil", whereas with the new lore, it is simply that some of the elves went to live in the underdark, and as a result their skin turned colourless.
Ultimately, you can still have your elvish race-war if you think that that's so important to your world, but it's probably not a good thing to promote as the default state.
The original lore said "the dark skinned elves went evil", whereas with the new lore, it is simply that some of the elves went to live in the underdark, and as a result their skin turned colourless.
Did it? I don't think it did. My recollection is that the drow were originally coloured much like any other group of (surface) elves and they only became dark-skinned with light hair as part of being cursed (or as a result of the ritual, possibly not technically a curse). It's been a long while since I last looked up anything related to their origins though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The original lore said "the dark skinned elves went evil", whereas with the new lore, it is simply that some of the elves went to live in the underdark, and as a result their skin turned colourless.
Did it? I don't think it did. My recollection is that the drow were originally coloured much like any other group of (surface) elves and they only became dark-skinned with light hair as part of being cursed (or as a result of the ritual, possibly not technically a curse). It's been a long while since I last looked up anything related to their origins though.
It's a bit vague:
So it's unclear whether the race was dark skinned before it went evil, or was evil before it went dark skinned. It does seem that the skin colour was the mane baseline for the divide, though - it seems to be written that "all dark skinned elves worshipped Lolth, so were banished", or "All the elves wh oworshipped lolth were dark skinned, so were banished".
So it's unclear whether the race was dark skinned before it went evil, or was evil before it went dark skinned. It does seem that the skin colour was the mane baseline for the divide, though - it seems to be written that "all dark skinned elves worshipped Lolth, so were banished", or "All the elves wh oworshipped lolth were dark skinned, so were banished".
Old lore included groups of drow who did not belong to the Lolth worshippers and who were not evil. This isn't new. In fact Eilistraee, the Chaotic Good drow goddess of beauty, dance, freedom, moonlight etc was first published in 1991 in "The Drow of the Underdark" forgotten realm supplement for 2nd edition. People acting like the drow are always evil or whatever are simply mistaken. Many were, their society as a whole could be characterized as such, but not all drow were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So it's unclear whether the race was dark skinned before it went evil, or was evil before it went dark skinned. It does seem that the skin colour was the mane baseline for the divide, though - it seems to be written that "all dark skinned elves worshipped Lolth, so were banished", or "All the elves wh oworshipped lolth were dark skinned, so were banished".
Old lore included groups of drow who did not belong to the Lolth worshippers and who were not evil. This isn't new. In fact Eilistraee, the Chaotic Good drow goddess of beauty, dance, freedom, moonlight etc was first published in 1991 in "The Drow of the Underdark" forgotten realm supplement for 2nd edition. People acting like the drow are always evil or whatever are simply mistaken. Many were, their society as a whole could be characterized as such, but not all drow were.
Haven't we covered this already? Or was it in one of the other threads?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never said that wasn't the thing, in fact, I stated it and then never claimed anything else.
It's just when people are arguing against me having a different opinion it all seems to get a bit Stepford which has also been unwelcome.
You're complaining that a new change to the game's lore designed to make the game more inclusive doesn't appeal to you. And you have continued saying that for a number of days now.
You're free to give your opinion. You're not free to have no one respond to that opinion, that's not how message forums work. And as your opinion is not an uncontroversial one, it's bound to attract a lot of response.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Maybe one day Netflix will make a live-action adaptation of your favorite cartoon and you'll come to understand why hamfisted retconning of lore is simultaneously the epitome of lazy writing and one of the most reliable ways to piss off a fanbase.
Which cartoon of yours did Netflix butcher. Also I completely agree.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
I just turned 50. I am far to old to give a crap about cartoons from 40 years ago and any remakes they make of them.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It seems to me that, while the skin color change can be seen as progressive, the issue for WotC is that the Drow and other races had the "EVIL" tag on everything they touched.
That alignment issue they addressed by removing it from play officially. I would have thought the way forward would have been the promotion of the struggle between the good and evil drow and how the evil guys get all the press, and thus the stereotype. The good guys get lumped in with the comparatively few that are generating the bad impression, much akin to the way real life may function. WotC may have missed the real issue, and a real way to make their change known. Championing the difference in what is under the skin is more important than a superficial nod to what is visible upon the skin.
The "kill it on sight' murder hobo rule might still apply to some games but it does open up a more nuanced world that would seem to be more fun to play in.
P.S. In nature, cave dwellers without access to the sun, loose all coloring and become either bleached white or translucent. The colors that would aid in blending in or standing out would be meaningless to those creatures. Many cave dwellers also lose their sight and rely on other methods to be aware of their surroundings, for both offense and defense.
Just a thought.
Make them purple or at least something with style.
Nor is it more invalid. He's got every right to be upset as you do to feel vindicated. He's got every right to voice that opinion. Those of you who support changes like this, come off very much as though you are right, and the other side is wrong, then get upset when the people whom you are telling that their opinion is wrong and irrelevant get upset and push back. There are good points made by both sides, even if most people aren't willing to accept that the other side also has a valid point.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Though what's really shitty is when contributors go for underhand tactics like calling dissenters from a previous thread, far-right or talking about people freaking out for sticking to their views - of not wanting a greywashed world. Write in some more white villains to go along with the vampires etc.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHey folks,
please stick to discussing the topic, rather than attacking other posters.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
This is an interesting topic, and it should be discussed so that depending on which things stop being done. However, I think very different things are mixing here. Zwarte Piet is a racist tradition. And I don't care if it's a tradition. It is racist, it is offensive, and it should disappear or become something non-offensive (as is already done in some cities in the Netherlands, with greater or lesser success). But it is not offensive, in my opinion, because it represents a bad person with a face painted black. It is offensive because it ridicules black people by exaggerating their features to the grossest caricature. Whether it is bad or not is the least of it. There are bad black people, and there are good black people. We are people, whatever our skin color, and we are made of the same wood. Then again, the problem is the cartoonish mockery and exaggeration of the supposed traits of black people. Another curious thing here is that the fact that he is evil is not because he is black (that is a racist mockery), but because he comes from Spain. This has a historical explanation, which we are not going into, but whose roots lie in the Eighty Years' War.
A different case is Père Fouettard (or Krampus, or Schmutzli, or whatever his name is depending on the country). This character is not racist. We may like that tradition more or less, since it deepens into the culture of reward and punishment, but there is nothing racist about it. He is usually depicted as a monk or sometimes as a demon. But not as a black person. At least as far as I know.
Picking up, and going back to the drow topic, I don't see why a black drow can be offensive. He does not represent an ethnic or cultural group from reality. Nor does it caricature it. And much less does he do it in a racist way. A black drow has nothing to do with black people in the real world in any sense. However, I don't see any problem with WoTC removing any suspicion of racism by making his skin a variety of grays instead of black or dark tones. Actually, that's fine with me. It is something that does not imply anything negative, and it prevents someone from being offended, whether or not they have a reason to be offended. Anything that is avoiding disturbing anyone is cool.
Purple is a hue, so also conforms to the language they used to describe the drow skin colors. The range "grey tones of many hues" is actually a very large spectrum of available colors, and it does, in fact, include every skin tone any published drow has ever been. "Gray skin tones of many hues" is an expansive palette.
Fun Fact: Black is a shade of achromatic gray.
Another Fun Fact: This font is currently displaying in a gray tone. And, it is pretty dark! (This is black, for comparison, can you even tell the difference??)
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Something doesn't have to be true or intentional to be problematic. The potential implication is that when Gygax wanted to create an evil offshoot of the elves he made them black because that fits a connotation with evil: white elves are good elves, black elves are bad elves. I'm 100% certain that's not the case (it's presumably something to do with the Norse Svartalfe - I might be butchering the spelling - so folklore rather than bigotry), but the implication is still there for those who want to see it. Same with linking orc tribes to Native Americans or Mongols, though that actually was deliberate, and the additional problem then becomes that actual bigotry taints anything it touches: because of the Mongol orcs being introduced, for any race that can be connected to real world ethnicities that connection becomes more plausible.
Since from your use of Zwarte Piet you appear to be Dutch or Belgian, you might be familiar with the Grote Meneer Cactus Show (I may be showing my age here, but ok). If you recall, it was a zany tv show with over the top characters aimed at children. One of those characters was named Kweetniet ("Idunno" or something like that in English). His name was also his catchphrase, it was the character who never knew anything. And it was the one black character on the show, until the actor was replaced with a white one because it was seen as offensive that the actor picked to play the "dumb" character on the show just happened to be the one black one. There also, pretty sure it wasn't intentional - but that doesn't mean it wasn't shortsighted, or that it couldn't be painful for black kids to see their skin colour reflected by a character whose total persona was saying "I dunno" to every question asked. Intent or lack thereof doesn't make the difference between offensive and not offensive (even if the former is obviously worse).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Your understanding of Drow rendering is either wearing blinders or is just ignorant. To lead your syllabus, AD&D's GDQ1-7 Queen of the Spiders is a well cited example of the way TSR art direction at the time made use of, took advantage of, exploited (pick your verb) hyper-sexualized caricatures of the black, as in human black, female form in their presentation of Drow. It's rendering is reflective of 80s pop cultural use of the sexualized black female form. It's one of those instances which with better thought and sensitivity overtime is now one of those moments for which the hobby is trying to do reparative work, and do better in the future. So it's a factor in current WotC art direction and lore descriptors.
"I don't see why x can be offensive" is more often than not a profession of not knowing as opposed to a statement with any moral authoritative weight to it. At this point between this and the other thread on the recent WotC errata, the refrain of "I just don't see it" is reaching Doubting Thomas ad absurdum/nauseam proportions. Really, refrain from absolute claims unless you really know what you're talking about. Anyone who has looked into the complexities of Drow imagery and real world blackness is aware of these sorts of artwork.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yes you've just shown your age, I remember it, but then it was for kids younger than me. There is also the Clark Doll experiment, first done in 1939. Just to point out to everyone who doesn't want to see how ingrained, low-key racism gets to people.
100% agree that just because something wasn't intended doesn't mean it can't be damaging.
Whilst the original drow were all described as being black, that's no more reasonable than all the humans of the world being described as white. giving them a range of skin tones not only removes the concept that they are a different race of elves who, as a whole race, went evil, forming a direct divide between two races of the same species, but it makes them much fuller as a concept. To my mind, their lore is richedr from this.
The original lore said "the dark skinned elves went evil", whereas with the new lore, it is simply that some of the elves went to live in the underdark, and as a result their skin turned colourless.
Ultimately, you can still have your elvish race-war if you think that that's so important to your world, but it's probably not a good thing to promote as the default state.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Did it? I don't think it did. My recollection is that the drow were originally coloured much like any other group of (surface) elves and they only became dark-skinned with light hair as part of being cursed (or as a result of the ritual, possibly not technically a curse). It's been a long while since I last looked up anything related to their origins though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's a bit vague:
So it's unclear whether the race was dark skinned before it went evil, or was evil before it went dark skinned. It does seem that the skin colour was the mane baseline for the divide, though - it seems to be written that "all dark skinned elves worshipped Lolth, so were banished", or "All the elves wh oworshipped lolth were dark skinned, so were banished".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Old lore included groups of drow who did not belong to the Lolth worshippers and who were not evil. This isn't new. In fact Eilistraee, the Chaotic Good drow goddess of beauty, dance, freedom, moonlight etc was first published in 1991 in "The Drow of the Underdark" forgotten realm supplement for 2nd edition. People acting like the drow are always evil or whatever are simply mistaken. Many were, their society as a whole could be characterized as such, but not all drow were.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Haven't we covered this already? Or was it in one of the other threads?