If I remember correctly one had to get to the Fane in Erelhei-hoo and then like do a dance while holding a chime and wishing on some golden goose egg.. that was the bridge from D to Q.
My memory is highly suspect.. it was like almost 40 years ago.. and mostly I think my character was continually surprised that the whole party had not died..
But mostly just adding my voice to those saying there have always been Drow of unusual alignments, heritages, and social dynamics, ever since their introduction modules.
But in all those (And the Fiend Folio) the guys all had the longstache!
I always pictured Drow as being pale anyway, because 90% of subterranean creatures are. I'm curious as to how much of a reaction it would have gotten if this had been the justification, rather than anything political.
"We have retconned Drow to include a range of mostly colourless skin tones, known as Grey, because they live underground and it makes a lot of sense for them to have that skin tone".
I mean, regardless of the alignment they assigned to the people who worship an evil spider goddess because they were enslaved by her, simply stating "this type of person can only be this colour" is always going to spark some form of racial disturbance. Allowing them to have a variety of shades to their skin - being any shade of grey, that includes pitch black to pure white - means that there is racial diversity within the "race" of dark elves. Is that really an issue? I am curious as to the actual reason why there is outrage at this change. "it was always like this, and now it is different" doesn't spark threads of people complaining that dragons wings are backwards on some new art, or any of the other things which they have changed or updated over the years (kenku's used to be different, for example). As soon as it's skin colour, though, you get people complaining, which implies that their issue with the change revolves entirely around the fact that it is related to skin colour.
Ultimately, the game has changed from "Drows skin is black and they are evil" to "Drows skin can be any shade of grey, which by definition includes white, black, and everything in between, and they can be whatever alignment the character requires".
This is better for world building. The Drow that live in the underdark and worship Lolth and enslave people and all that can still be evil and whatever colour you want in your world, but they can also be good beings who work at night and bolster the economy, or who hunt down nocturnal creatures who threaten the world, or they can be pale evil cultists who plan to put the world in an eternal night because they have to keep spending too much money on aftersun. They have gone fro ma one-dimensional "bad guy" to something much more interesting (which does not prohibit the one-dimensional "bad guy") and people are complaining that it somehow makes them worse.
Yeah, I think a lot depends on the way different people may have pictured the drow.
I've always pictured a race of fearsome but elegant mystique and, for me, grey just seems relatively and comparatively drab. They're the colours of a wet weekend or of ooze.
I always pictured Drow as being pale anyway, because 90% of subterranean creatures are. I'm curious as to how much of a reaction it would have gotten if this had been the justification, rather than anything political.
"We have retconned Drow to include a range of mostly colourless skin tones, known as Grey, because they live underground and it makes a lot of sense for them to have that skin tone".
I mean, regardless of the alignment they assigned to the people who worship an evil spider goddess because they were enslaved by her, simply stating "this type of person can only be this colour" is always going to spark some form of racial disturbance. Allowing them to have a variety of shades to their skin - being any shade of grey, that includes pitch black to pure white - means that there is racial diversity within the "race" of dark elves. Is that really an issue? I am curious as to the actual reason why there is outrage at this change. "it was always like this, and now it is different" doesn't spark threads of people complaining that dragons wings are backwards on some new art, or any of the other things which they have changed or updated over the years (kenku's used to be different, for example). As soon as it's skin colour, though, you get people complaining, which implies that their issue with the change revolves entirely around the fact that it is related to skin colour.
Ultimately, the game has changed from "Drows skin is black and they are evil" to "Drows skin can be any shade of grey, which by definition includes white, black, and everything in between, and they can be whatever alignment the character requires".
This is better for world building. The Drow that live in the underdark and worship Lolth and enslave people and all that can still be evil and whatever colour you want in your world, but they can also be good beings who work at night and bolster the economy, or who hunt down nocturnal creatures who threaten the world, or they can be pale evil cultists who plan to put the world in an eternal night because they have to keep spending too much money on aftersun. They have gone fro ma one-dimensional "bad guy" to something much more interesting (which does not prohibit the one-dimensional "bad guy") and people are complaining that it somehow makes them worse.
Apologies, rant over!
The Shadow Elves from the Mystara setting were pallid and had white hair, because of the underground setting (and the radioactivity). They were not considered evil but still brutal and insular. I prefer that description of their culture to the one Drow got.
If WotC wanted to give the drow a fresh start, they should have limited the free spell options of drow magic, at most, to dancing lights and faerie fire and not have included darkness.
Alternatively, they could have offered pass without trace or a choice between darkness or pass without trace.
If WotC wanted to give the drow a fresh start, they should have limited the free spell options of drow magic, at most, to dancing lights and faerie fire and not have included darkness.
Alternatively, they could have offered pass without trace or a choice between darkness or pass without trace.
darkness =/= evil though. For all that people harp on about "fighting against the forces of darkness", they aren't referring to people who go around blowing out candles. They're on about the people who do evil things, and that can be in broad daylight.
If WotC wanted to give the drow a fresh start, they should have limited the free spell options of drow magic, at most, to dancing lights and faerie fire and not have included darkness.
Alternatively, they could have offered pass without trace or a choice between darkness or pass without trace.
Darkness isn't an evil spell or necessarily associated with evil. It's also a pretty important part of balancing the Drow features - they'd be crippled in any daylight adventures if they couldn't cast Darkness and Faerie Fire, and with only one casting (since you're getting rid of Darkness that would still be really burdensome.
Back to the main topic, I wonder if it could have been resolved if they'd created more black races so the Drow would just be one race among many [black ones] and just happened to be the evil one. I know that some object to thr concept of evil races, but I've always viewed that as a trend. [REDACTED]
Personally, though, I think the alignment system needs an overhaul. Good v evil just doesn't work well when you start diving into motivations etc on a deep level. There are spectrums you can use (selfless v selfish, for instance), but the evil label just doesn't sit well.
Notes: Please refrain from generalizing any culture, nationality, or group of people.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If WotC wanted to give the drow a fresh start, they should have limited the free spell options of drow magic, at most, to dancing lights and faerie fire and not have included darkness.
Alternatively, they could have offered pass without trace or a choice between darkness or pass without trace.
darkness =/= evil though. For all that people harp on about "fighting against the forces of darkness", they aren't referring to people who go around blowing out candles. They're on about the people who do evil things, and that can be in broad daylight.
True, but it's still a spell commonly used by "forces of darkness". It's still a trap in the web kind of magic. It still prescribes a route for drow that involves a use of darkness despite the possibility of other character ideals. If they wanted to give drow a fresh start they could have either dropped this or given alternatives.
No need to be coy about it, it's because of allegations of racism; nothing recent I believe, but because of feelings that go back decades. I don't see the point in disseminating that old chestnut yet again - as with most such things it something people shouldn't necessarily take offense at, but certainly can if it comes across as such to them. Nothing really wrong with either position. If you prefer them jet black and nobody in your game will take offense, godspeed and have at it. If somebody in your game would take offense on the other hand, I'd say the proper thing to do would be to switch to greys or blues or purples or anything else that doesn't strike the wrong tone anyway - regardless of any official lore or errata to said lore.
What I don't understand is why someone would take offense that someone else played a drow whose skin color is black. What's so offensive about that? I would like someone to explain it to me, because perhaps i'm not looking at it with perspective. In fact, the first thing that comes to mind is that this person has some kind of prejudice against people whose skin is black, and transfers it to the game. In that case, I simply would not play with that person. I don't like racists, and I'm not going to play a game with one of them. But a normal person, why would be offended?
No need to be coy about it, it's because of allegations of racism; nothing recent I believe, but because of feelings that go back decades. I don't see the point in disseminating that old chestnut yet again - as with most such things it something people shouldn't necessarily take offense at, but certainly can if it comes across as such to them. Nothing really wrong with either position. If you prefer them jet black and nobody in your game will take offense, godspeed and have at it. If somebody in your game would take offense on the other hand, I'd say the proper thing to do would be to switch to greys or blues or purples or anything else that doesn't strike the wrong tone anyway - regardless of any official lore or errata to said lore.
What I don't understand is why someone would take offense that someone else played a drow whose skin color is black. What's so offensive about that? I would like someone to explain it to me, because perhaps i'm not looking at it with perspective. In fact, the first thing that comes to mind is that this person has some kind of prejudice against people whose skin is black, and transfers it to the game. In that case, I simply would not play with that person. I don't like racists, and I'm not going to play a game with one of them. But a normal person, why would be offended?
If it were a one off, I think that would be one thing. That it was an entire race thay was black, and the only canonically black race to boot, that was, by default, evil, that's a bit pointed. If a person had a tendency of playing evil characters and one just happened to be black, I wouldn't think much of it. But when the only fully black race is also the only one (from the PHB) that's also canonically evil (from my memory, there are others that can have a tendency or potential for it, but the Drow are the only ones that are out and out described as evil), then it looks very bad. I think what they could have done is made more black races that were good and just make the Drow, if you'll excuse the expression, the black sheep of the group, rather than the main one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No need to be coy about it, it's because of allegations of racism; nothing recent I believe, but because of feelings that go back decades. I don't see the point in disseminating that old chestnut yet again - as with most such things it something people shouldn't necessarily take offense at, but certainly can if it comes across as such to them. Nothing really wrong with either position. If you prefer them jet black and nobody in your game will take offense, godspeed and have at it. If somebody in your game would take offense on the other hand, I'd say the proper thing to do would be to switch to greys or blues or purples or anything else that doesn't strike the wrong tone anyway - regardless of any official lore or errata to said lore.
What I don't understand is why someone would take offense that someone else played a drow whose skin color is black. What's so offensive about that? I would like someone to explain it to me, because perhaps i'm not looking at it with perspective. In fact, the first thing that comes to mind is that this person has some kind of prejudice against people whose skin is black, and transfers it to the game. In that case, I simply would not play with that person. I don't like racists, and I'm not going to play a game with one of them. But a normal person, why would be offended?
If it were a one off, I think that would be one thing. That it was an entire race thay was black, and the only canonically black race to boot, that was, by default, evil, that's a bit pointed. If a person had a tendency of playing evil characters and one just happened to be black, I wouldn't think much of it. But when the only fully black race is also the only one (from the PHB) that's also canonically evil (from my memory, there are others that can have a tendency or potential for it, but the Drow are the only ones that are out and out described as evil), then it looks very bad. I think what they could have done is made more black races that were good and just make the Drow, if you'll excuse the expression, the black sheep of the group, rather than the main one.
It seems good to me that WoTC has changed the description of the drow from "all black", to "grayscale". I see no problem with that. What I don't understand is why someone is offended when someone else plays a black drow. I don't see any reason for it.
On the other hand, personally, I never saw the drow as an iteration of real-world African descent. They are not alike in anything, neither in their physique nor in their culture. However, I understand that if there is someone who does see similarities, and understands that having a race "entirely black (which was never the case, by the way) and evil", is insulting, WoTC change it to "grayscale" and change "all evil" by "the followers of such a goddess are evil. The rest varied like everyone else." I don't see that that hurts the game at all.
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
Nothing has changed, they still have the exact same skin tone range as ever. You're freaking out over something that isn't real. Want dark black skin tone Drow? have dark black skin tone Drow. Nothing about the text says otherwise.
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.
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
Nothing has changed, they still have the exact same skin tone range as ever. You're freaking out over something that isn't real. Want dark black skin tone Drow? have dark black skin tone Drow. Nothing about the text says otherwise.
5e lore has changed. Please consider rereading the thread.
No need to be coy about it, it's because of allegations of racism; nothing recent I believe, but because of feelings that go back decades. I don't see the point in disseminating that old chestnut yet again - as with most such things it something people shouldn't necessarily take offense at, but certainly can if it comes across as such to them. Nothing really wrong with either position. If you prefer them jet black and nobody in your game will take offense, godspeed and have at it. If somebody in your game would take offense on the other hand, I'd say the proper thing to do would be to switch to greys or blues or purples or anything else that doesn't strike the wrong tone anyway - regardless of any official lore or errata to said lore.
What I don't understand is why someone would take offense that someone else played a drow whose skin color is black. What's so offensive about that? I would like someone to explain it to me, because perhaps i'm not looking at it with perspective. In fact, the first thing that comes to mind is that this person has some kind of prejudice against people whose skin is black, and transfers it to the game. In that case, I simply would not play with that person. I don't like racists, and I'm not going to play a game with one of them. But a normal person, why would be offended?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
Nothing has changed, they still have the exact same skin tone range as ever. You're freaking out over something that isn't real. Want dark black skin tone Drow? have dark black skin tone Drow. Nothing about the text says otherwise.
5e lore has changed. Please consider rereading the thread.
The lore says "typically" (i.e. not always) 'shades' of grey (which includes black).
You are reading things into the revised lore that are not there.
I know and understand the way in which the lore has changed.
I have the right to either like or not like things in exactly the way I like.
... 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.
We can go through all the last four days of discussion again if you want but I don't understand people "freaking out" that someone has a different point of view.
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
Nothing has changed, they still have the exact same skin tone range as ever. You're freaking out over something that isn't real. Want dark black skin tone Drow? have dark black skin tone Drow. Nothing about the text says otherwise.
5e lore has changed. Please consider rereading the thread.
The lore says "typically" (i.e. not always) 'shades' of grey (which includes black).
You are reading things into the revised lore that are not there.
I know and understand the way in which the lore has changed.
Nothing has changed.
"grayish skin of many hues" describes every single skin tone a drow has ever been described in any lore ever. Ever.
You are wrong.
I have the right to either like or not like things in exactly the way I like.
... 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.
We can go through all the last four days of discussion again if you want but I don't understand people "freaking out" that someone has a different point of view.
Nothing has changed. Black skin is a subset of "grayish skin of many hues". Nothing has changed dude.
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.
... 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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I remember correctly one had to get to the Fane in Erelhei-hoo and then like do a dance while holding a chime and wishing on some golden goose egg.. that was the bridge from D to Q.
My memory is highly suspect.. it was like almost 40 years ago.. and mostly I think my character was continually surprised that the whole party had not died..
But mostly just adding my voice to those saying there have always been Drow of unusual alignments, heritages, and social dynamics, ever since their introduction modules.
But in all those (And the Fiend Folio) the guys all had the longstache!
I always pictured Drow as being pale anyway, because 90% of subterranean creatures are. I'm curious as to how much of a reaction it would have gotten if this had been the justification, rather than anything political.
"We have retconned Drow to include a range of mostly colourless skin tones, known as Grey, because they live underground and it makes a lot of sense for them to have that skin tone".
I mean, regardless of the alignment they assigned to the people who worship an evil spider goddess because they were enslaved by her, simply stating "this type of person can only be this colour" is always going to spark some form of racial disturbance. Allowing them to have a variety of shades to their skin - being any shade of grey, that includes pitch black to pure white - means that there is racial diversity within the "race" of dark elves. Is that really an issue? I am curious as to the actual reason why there is outrage at this change. "it was always like this, and now it is different" doesn't spark threads of people complaining that dragons wings are backwards on some new art, or any of the other things which they have changed or updated over the years (kenku's used to be different, for example). As soon as it's skin colour, though, you get people complaining, which implies that their issue with the change revolves entirely around the fact that it is related to skin colour.
Ultimately, the game has changed from "Drows skin is black and they are evil" to "Drows skin can be any shade of grey, which by definition includes white, black, and everything in between, and they can be whatever alignment the character requires".
This is better for world building. The Drow that live in the underdark and worship Lolth and enslave people and all that can still be evil and whatever colour you want in your world, but they can also be good beings who work at night and bolster the economy, or who hunt down nocturnal creatures who threaten the world, or they can be pale evil cultists who plan to put the world in an eternal night because they have to keep spending too much money on aftersun. They have gone fro ma one-dimensional "bad guy" to something much more interesting (which does not prohibit the one-dimensional "bad guy") and people are complaining that it somehow makes them worse.
Apologies, rant over!
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!
Yeah, I think a lot depends on the way different people may have pictured the drow.
I've always pictured a race of fearsome but elegant mystique and, for me, grey just seems relatively and comparatively drab. They're the colours of a wet weekend or of ooze.
The Shadow Elves from the Mystara setting were pallid and had white hair, because of the underground setting (and the radioactivity). They were not considered evil but still brutal and insular. I prefer that description of their culture to the one Drow got.
If WotC wanted to give the drow a fresh start, they should have limited the free spell options of drow magic, at most, to dancing lights and faerie fire and not have included darkness.
Alternatively, they could have offered pass without trace or a choice between darkness or pass without trace.
darkness =/= evil though. For all that people harp on about "fighting against the forces of darkness", they aren't referring to people who go around blowing out candles. They're on about the people who do evil things, and that can be in broad daylight.
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!
Darkness isn't an evil spell or necessarily associated with evil. It's also a pretty important part of balancing the Drow features - they'd be crippled in any daylight adventures if they couldn't cast Darkness and Faerie Fire, and with only one casting (since you're getting rid of Darkness that would still be really burdensome.
Back to the main topic, I wonder if it could have been resolved if they'd created more black races so the Drow would just be one race among many [black ones] and just happened to be the evil one. I know that some object to thr concept of evil races, but I've always viewed that as a trend. [REDACTED]
Personally, though, I think the alignment system needs an overhaul. Good v evil just doesn't work well when you start diving into motivations etc on a deep level. There are spectrums you can use (selfless v selfish, for instance), but the evil label just doesn't sit well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
True, but it's still a spell commonly used by "forces of darkness". It's still a trap in the web kind of magic. It still prescribes a route for drow that involves a use of darkness despite the possibility of other character ideals. If they wanted to give drow a fresh start they could have either dropped this or given alternatives.
What I don't understand is why someone would take offense that someone else played a drow whose skin color is black. What's so offensive about that? I would like someone to explain it to me, because perhaps i'm not looking at it with perspective.
In fact, the first thing that comes to mind is that this person has some kind of prejudice against people whose skin is black, and transfers it to the game. In that case, I simply would not play with that person. I don't like racists, and I'm not going to play a game with one of them. But a normal person, why would be offended?
If it were a one off, I think that would be one thing. That it was an entire race thay was black, and the only canonically black race to boot, that was, by default, evil, that's a bit pointed. If a person had a tendency of playing evil characters and one just happened to be black, I wouldn't think much of it. But when the only fully black race is also the only one (from the PHB) that's also canonically evil (from my memory, there are others that can have a tendency or potential for it, but the Drow are the only ones that are out and out described as evil), then it looks very bad. I think what they could have done is made more black races that were good and just make the Drow, if you'll excuse the expression, the black sheep of the group, rather than the main one.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It seems good to me that WoTC has changed the description of the drow from "all black", to "grayscale". I see no problem with that. What I don't understand is why someone is offended when someone else plays a black drow. I don't see any reason for it.
On the other hand, personally, I never saw the drow as an iteration of real-world African descent. They are not alike in anything, neither in their physique nor in their culture. However, I understand that if there is someone who does see similarities, and understands that having a race "entirely black (which was never the case, by the way) and evil", is insulting, WoTC change it to "grayscale" and change "all evil" by "the followers of such a goddess are evil. The rest varied like everyone else." I don't see that that hurts the game at all.
We've got the "Gray Dwarf (Duergar)" race, we've got svirfneblin deep gnomes with their Stone Camouflage, we've got orcs which, in 5e, are also grey. We had the sexy, elegant, exotic drow and they gave them the same grey wash as everything else. They could at least have gone with the pigmentation of Drizzt.
I'd have liked WotC to have come up with an untinted white, underground race/grouping of inhumans, the kind of thing that Boromir might have become and fanatically aligned to a god such as Myrkul.
Have some imagination. Don't just make everything the same.
Nothing has changed, they still have the exact same skin tone range as ever. You're freaking out over something that isn't real. Want dark black skin tone Drow? have dark black skin tone Drow. Nothing about the text says otherwise.
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.
5e lore has changed. Please consider rereading the thread.
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.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I know and understand the way in which the lore has changed.
I have the right to either like or not like things in exactly the way I like.
This from four days ago:
We can go through all the last four days of discussion again if you want but I don't understand people "freaking out" that someone has a different point of view.
Nothing has changed.
"grayish skin of many hues" describes every single skin tone a drow has ever been described in any lore ever. Ever.
You are wrong.
And I have the right to get mad at the clouds.
Nothing has changed. Black skin is a subset of "grayish skin of many hues". Nothing has changed dude.
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.
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.
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.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master