Third_Sundering isn't the only one who noted it. I remember thinking something similar. Its a change we'll likely see going forward.
At the end of the day it really isn't a big deal. But it does show the changing landscape of the hobby. To pretend, however, "Oh you guys are seeing smoke where there is no fire. This is just coincidence. Drow were ALWAYS varying shades..." is disingenuous.
The reality is the game does need to evolve and continue to new eyes. It can't cater to a bunch of nostalgic old people who are like, "Remember in Against the Giants when the drow were introduced? That was awesome..."
Wizards is making decisions for the future. Okay. I get that. But call it like it is. They are changing things. We used to think of drow as ebony/coal/etc. That clearly isn't the case anymore.
A friend of mine convinced me that the best way is Albino Drow.
Seriously, it's what always happens to animals that evolve underground for a while. Their eyesight deteriorates and sometimes they lose it entirely (since it's not as useful a sense underground), skin pigments go away (because there's no point to skin pigmentation undeground).
It's what's been my headcanon for drow for a while now, and it's a coloring that actually makes sense given where the Drow live.
Their eyesight deteriorates in real life, because you need light to see, which is not present underground without a light source. However, D&D takes place in a fantasy world where darkvision functions without any light sources, so that wouldn't necessarily happen when creatures move to the Underdark in D&D worlds (especially when there's a magical force that can speed up this transformation).
If underground races can see without a light source, they would probably adapt to have similar skin tones to the stone they live in if their region does have light for creatures to see color, which would just make them typically have the same color for skin as their stony environment. However, if there is no light available they would get darker skin tones (as Darkvision makes everything look gray, white, or black). This would lead to them typically grays and blacks, in order to help camouflage them.
Although there is some kind of fantasy logic to having them be dark-skinned for camouflage purposes, you could just as easily make up an excuse for having a different skin tone. For example, in many bird species, the male is more colorful and beautiful than the female in order to get a mate. This drives the species to be colorful and have other talents/features that are not necessary for their survival (building intricate nests, having the largest waddle, the most beautiful voice, etc). Evolution doesn't care specifically about survival, it merely cares about passing on your genes, and survival until you can pass on your genes is a subset of that. WotC could easily change their color to silvery-gray or light purple and excuse it with a lore change saying "Female Drow prefer males of that color, so they evolved to do that." Or, they could just say that the faezress changed its mind and made drow that color.
Basically, my point is that in D&D, typical logic and evolutionary reasoning for races and species to have specific features is much more lenient than real life (which is already pretty lenient). There is no reason why in a fantasy world it is necessarily more realistic to have drow be albino or obsidian-black or silvery grey. I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone that any coloring is better, merely explaining that real world evolution has just as much control over fantasy evolution as the wind has over the currents of magma and molten metals that are deep in the center of the Earth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I honestly can't even begin to fathom how thats remotely true.. Drow are evil bastards because Lolth and her fellow drow gods are completely psychopaths. Not because they are black.
Even if WOTC released a statement that All drow are grey now (which they haven't) it changes nothing in gameplay.
"Drow are evil because of Lolth" is not true for all campaign worlds (Eberron and Ravnica, for example). And, it does matter, it matters a lot. If WotC released a statement saying that all humans are Thanos-purple, that Gnomes have chicken-feet, and becoming a druid changes your skin green, that would very much impact gameplay, even if it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and is easily ignored by the parts of the community that doesn't use those changes. I honestly can't even begin to fathom how you appear think that cosmetic changes don't effect the game at all.
I never said that drow are evil because of their skin color, and to say that I did say that is a strawman argument. I am well aware of that fact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
the simple fact is, that WotC got blasted for not being inclusive enough. People pointed out the fact that all drow are evil as supporting evidence of that. So, WotC made a change. They are going to distance themselves as completely as possible for any kind of controversy related to social justice.
It's unfortunate IMO, however, it's also something that's simply inescapable at this point. It's better just to accept it, because ultimately...you're going to lose.
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.
I'm still not seeing it..The game I'm running this weekend isn't impacted by different RGB colors in my newest book. The drow storyline I have planned isn't impacted. The books on my shelf aren't combusting. My pillow is soft. I'll sleep. My dice will still roll this weekend. D&D Beyond still works. I can click on all the books. Some of my players love the new content. Others not so much. Some will use the new content. Others not so much. Tasha's has provided some inspiration for my games. Yet, I may not use a single thing from it for months. To you and others it matters. A lot. To others, like myself, not at all.
You're right. The art doesn't really matter. The art all shows tieflings with horns and a tail. I play /only/ variant tieflings, because I /never/ want my character to have horns and a tail. There's another thread kicking around on here where someone's asking about what kind of weapon is shown in the artwork. It's not a real weapon, and you can only speculate what the artist might have been trying to portray it's so bad.
What do drow look like? You tell me. What's the vision in your head. If you envision them as grey or silver, good on you. If you envision them as jet, like it says in the 2e Drow of the Underdark book, good on you. Art work is just that...someone's idea of what an abstract concept looks like. Don't let yourself get too worked up over it. It really...doesn't matter.
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.
It matters to D&D campaigns and worlds. Also, I'm not obsessing, just informing people of a major possible change to highly controversial race in D&D.
to your campaigns and worlds or all campaigns and worlds?
major and controversial. I don't see it. I wouldn't use those words. They're just drow. Or dark elves. They're shifty. Crafty. Evil (mostly). Drizzt and Jarlaxle are badass, otherwise, they're shifty, crafty, and evil. I'll slay them if I see 'em. Because they're drow. In 3 decades of what drow do and are, their reputation precedes them. This is for one reason only. Because they are drow. There's isn't more to it than that.
A change in skin color to a whole race would be a major change. Like I said in my other post that you cookie-cutted, if you change cosmetic parts of the races that don't effect mechanics, it still effects the game, the world, and the campaign. They're a controversial race due to the reason crzyhawk stated, because they are evil and have dark skin. To prove that they're controversial, on Netflix the TV show Community had an episode where a character dressed up as a drow, and that episode was pulled down due to that.
Also, I am assuming that you're speaking in hyperbole when you say that all drow are shifty, crafty, and evil, because that's definitely not true for Wildemount, the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and other D&D settings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Unfortunately, 4e pushed the agenda that all drow are evil as are things like orcs. Chris Perkins admitted it, because they wanted Drizzt to feel more unique. That's why Salvatore had to turn evil again, then kill off one of the more interesting drow (imo) Tos'un Armgo. Tosun had done "good-ish" in early 3e. It's why the kingdom of many-arrows was destroyed.
Now, they're like, my bad. Let me retcon things. Again. they just can't stop themselves from fiddling with established lore for STUPID reasons (Hi, Tieflings, and welcome back to your 2e status with variant Tieflings). I really, really wish they'd have just used the POL/Nentir Vale setting as the default 5e setting like 4e did, rather then keep driving a truck over FR lore. but FR is a cash cow, and people will pay big bucks for information on what's current in Waterdeep and not so much for...whatever the primary settlement in Nentir Vale was.
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.
Prove it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your personal problem. Explain how blackface matters to the drow when they've had alternate skin tones for years now.
If WotC released a statement saying that all humans are Thanos-purple, that Gnomes have chicken-feet, and becoming a druid changes your skin green, that would very much impact gameplay, even if it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and is easily ignored by the parts of the community that doesn't use those changes.
First of all, Wizards hasn't released a statement that drow no longer have some members with coal-black skin. They've just released a few images that use a skintone that drow have had for editions, and just one of several tones that have existed for years now. Secondly, you accuse me of stawmen, but set up your own? The purple human I'll take a swing at, but the other two have no bearing on the skin tone of a race. Purple humans, while a silly argument, are fine. There should be no issues in character, because that's normal for the people in game. It will have no bearing on how I play a human PC, it won't change how NPCs interact with my character, it doesn't affect anything. At best, you might argue that if all humans had the exact skin tone, it removes the ability to possibly detect ethnicity visually, but that's not what's happening with the drow at all - we still have a variety of skin tones that aren't confused with wood or high elf skin tones.
I honestly can't even begin to fathom how you appear think that cosmetic changes don't effect the game at all.
Because, by definition, cosmetic changes literally means, "improve the appearance of a situation or thing but do not change its basic nature." Cosmetic changes are the exact word to use for a change that has zero impact.
At the end of the day it really isn't a big deal. But it does show the changing landscape of the hobby. To pretend, however, "Oh you guys are seeing smoke where there is no fire. This is just coincidence. Drow were ALWAYS varying shades..." is disingenuous.
Hardly. The argument is more, "drow don't need to be black; as proof, here are some grey and purple dark elves from years past." Are the devs moving away from blackface? Probably. Is it changing anything? Just where the spotlight hits; nothing's been added or removed, just a minor shift in focus on what shows up on art pieces.
Not to burst bubbles but in a game that is completely imaginary, with the ability to homebrew entire universes, let alone versions of your races in your own games, you can have it be what ever you want. Sure the drow were lighter skinned in this book, but so wasnt the very first depiction of drizzt. I love Drow, or at least playing a follower of the dark maiden but ive always leaned more to a purplish dark tone for my characters. Its to each his own, but if something like an artistics rendition with out any real text gets you all upset about it, you probably shouldn't play a game where others interpretations and fantasies mixes with your own unmoving vision.
It matters to D&D campaigns and worlds. Also, I'm not obsessing, just informing people of a major possible change to highly controversial race in D&D.
to your campaigns and worlds or all campaigns and worlds?
major and controversial. I don't see it. I wouldn't use those words. They're just drow. Or dark elves. They're shifty. Crafty. Evil (mostly). Drizzt and Jarlaxle are badass, otherwise, they're shifty, crafty, and evil. I'll slay them if I see 'em. Because they're drow. In 3 decades of what drow do and are, their reputation precedes them. This is for one reason only. Because they are drow. There's isn't more to it than that.
A change in skin color to a whole race would be a major change. Like I said in my other post that you cookie-cutted, if you change cosmetic parts of the races that don't effect mechanics, it still effects the game, the world, and the campaign. They're a controversial race due to the reason crzyhawk stated, because they are evil and have dark skin. To prove that they're controversial, on Netflix the TV show Community had an episode where a character dressed up as a drow, and that episode was pulled down due to that.
Also, I am assuming that you're speaking in hyperbole when you say that all drow are shifty, crafty, and evil, because that's definitely not true for Wildemount, the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and other D&D settings.
In a fantasy game, the assumption that all drow are shifty, crafty, and evil is what keeps PCs alive. Prince Humperdink said it best.
And drow are NOT controversial. The episode was pulled because of blackface. Had that person dressed up as Blade, Denzel Washington, or Nick Fury, it most likely would have gotten pulled. Most folk don't even know what a DROW is. It's not because of the drow. Say they dressed up as a Redguard from Skyrim. Would it be pulled if a white actor dressed up with such makeup and costume? Probably. Does that mean Redguard are controversial now?
Mephista, I feel like you and Jacked_Goblin are arguing against something that doesn't need to be argued against. I honestly do not care if WotC chooses to make drow greyish silver. They own the game, they do them. If they do this change, I will be the first person to accept it into my games. I am not arguing against having this change, if it indeed happens. I have no opinion on whether or not they should do this change. I personally would never argue against it and would readily embrace it as the new normal, unlike a lot of others who have posted in this thread. See this post of mine to see my position on this change (if you can call it a position).
I have no "personal problem," on this matter. There is absolutely no need for insults in this thread, and it was completely, utterly uncalled for.
*facepalm. First, I never said that WotC had released a statement saying that drow are all silvery-grey now. Strawman number two. Please just do us all a favor and read my posts. Otherwise, you're just shouting at an invisible wall. As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, it is not clear if this is indeed a change to drow, as WotC has not commented on this as of yet (as far as I know). My point was that if they had done any one of those three things it would very much effect how you play the game.
Second, I was not setting up a strawman, and accusing me of doing so is either yet another strawman, or you just not understanding what I am trying to argue here. Though the other two are not merely changes of a race's skin tone, they are both valid to the discussion that you opened of cosmetic changes having no effect on the game.
Third, cosmetic changes do effect the setting, how a campaign is played, and other aspects of the game. A tail granted to a Yuan-Ti Pureblood, Human, or Minotaur character that has no mechanical benefits or effects would still change how the game is played and how roleplay comes about. The same thing applies to horns, claw-like fingernails, a change in skin color, and any other purely cosmetic change. Cosmetic changes may not change mechanics, but to argue the notion that they have absolutely no effect on the campaign is ridiculous and a hill I do not think you want to die on. Just because you emboldened the word "change" out of context from the definition of cosmetic does not prove the point I think you want it to prove.
As for the argument that has been repeated dozens of times in this thread, which I'm getting quite sick of, there is no indication in art or descriptive text in 5e that drow are assumed to have the variety of skin colors that they had in previous editions. That may have been the status quo for previous editions, but that has next to no relevance in a thread talking about the depictions of drow in 5e. That's like saying that Goblins are green in 5e or that orcs in 5e are pig-faced because they were in some previous editions. There were no indications of drow being purple or gray in 5e up until this book was released, with all of its drow art having their skin be a shiny, silvery, light-grey in the 5 images that they appear in.
I was fitting to contradict you, because I was certain it called out other skin tones in the PHB or Mordenkainen's, however, from the PHB:
Also called dark elves, the drow have skin that resembles charcoal or obsidian, as well as stark white or pale yellow hair.
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.
I was fitting to contradict you, because I was certain it called out other skin tones in the PHB or Mordenkainen's, however, from the PHB:
Also called dark elves, the drow have skin that resembles charcoal or obsidian, as well as stark white or pale yellow hair.
Yep! Already posted that awhile ago, but it's worth repeating.
I also double checked Mordenkainen's, the word "skin" never appears in the drow section to describe their skin color, and the art is all consistent with the art and descriptions of the PHB and MM. The ones that do have a slight purplish/bluish tint to them (Matron Mother and Arachnomancer) still have very dark, charcoal-colored skin, and that small tint could be easily explained as the light of a spell for the Arachnomancer or lighting that drow use for their rooms, which appears to be purple based on those pictures and these few (room, cavern, fire room) show that there is for some reason a purple tint to the rooms and environment these drow are shown in.
Basically, in 5e, there is no indication through clear images of drow or flavor text/lore that drow are meant to be any color other than charcoal/obsidian black. That is, of course, until TCoE came out.
(Also, to make sure that no one misunderstands me, I am not upset about this. I am just thorough and dedicated in proving that I'm correct. I don't care about this, but I am instead showing the disconnect between the art in TCoE and all the other art and descriptions in D&D 5e.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If the appearance of drow need to change a little to avoid the appearance of blackface, then I'm all for it.
Exactly no one has EVER drawn a drow character thinking, "How can I mock actual dark brown humans today?"...
Even if your extreme hyperbole is correct (which is absolutely impossible to prove), that's not the point. For Halloween or for LARPing, people can dress up as sun elves, dwarves, half-orcs, and a lot of other races. However, you can't for drow as depicted and described in 5e. That's blackface. And, no matter the intent or purpose, blackface is not acceptable in modern society (at least in America, that is). It's taboo. No one cares how awesome, fun, and unique your drow character is, you cannot paint your face to look like theirs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Just another point on this, from the other side of the spectrum, the D&D movie (really bad although it has some good characters and moments) has a really beautiful and cool elven ranger, who admittedly is not a drow, but still
They do have some pretty wood elves like that, don't they? I really like the wood elf artistocrat from Patrons in Tasha's.
2nd was the worst mechanically. 2nd was arguably also the best in terms of settings. In part because aside from the satanic panic, there was little or no restraint for political correctness’ sake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Primarily, the association of black = evil has problematic roots, and discourages people of color from finding characters they resonate with. Unconscious bias is a real thing.
First, I agree with most of what you said, just wanted to point out that unfortunately that association is much older and deeper than the ethnical one, and should also be culturally respected for what it wasand still is. Amongst many, many others, it was the darkness of night that inspired the myths, and these myths became legends that are still part of most cultures on the planet today. Negating all that to respect the feelings of a few people is not right either, respect should flow both ways, as well as understanding.
As someone who is fine with non-black drow.. I 100% agree that the change should not come from the desire to not offend certain overly sensitive groups. Obviously certain tropes are based in actual problematic things, but black/dark being negative is not one of them.
As you pointed it, people have probably been fearing the dark ever since there were people with the ability to fear. Until electricity, the darkness of night represented all kinds of danger, animals, mystical forest beings, getting lost, freezing.. all kinds of nasty scary stuff could happen in the dark.
Drow living in caves deep underground with black skin seems to me to be a extention of the darker aspects of traditional folktale elves or "hidden people", who'd lure people into their undergronud dwellings.
But yea.. since I've only had a loose connection to Dnd untill a few years ago, I'm perfectly fine with grey drow myself... But I can see how someone who's used to seeing the race differently would find it strange... As a star wars fan, I've been going through that kidn of stuff a LOT recently.
Exactly no one has EVER drawn a drow character thinking, "How can I mock actual dark brown humans today?"...
Dear God, I cannot like this enough! Thank you!
Again, for those that aren't paying attention, this change throws all of us older fans (as well as the co-creator of D&D and any of the original artists like Erol Otus that drew/painted them) under the bus. Hasbro and WotC are full of effete corporate snobs who will kowtow to the outrage mobs instead of standing up and telling them to F' right off. Gary IS spinning over in his grave because at least he had the cajones to tell that con artist Ed Bradley to effectively cram it and that there was nothing but coincidental connection with the various murders, suicides and other elements of the Satanic Panic. Instead of having our backs, as we're the ones that kept their brand alive, they are now conveniently tossing us aside because they're either full of goobs who lack a spine (like most modern corporations) or they've got actual drooling morons on staff somewhere that make these idiotic decisions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Third_Sundering isn't the only one who noted it. I remember thinking something similar. Its a change we'll likely see going forward.
At the end of the day it really isn't a big deal. But it does show the changing landscape of the hobby. To pretend, however, "Oh you guys are seeing smoke where there is no fire. This is just coincidence. Drow were ALWAYS varying shades..." is disingenuous.
The reality is the game does need to evolve and continue to new eyes. It can't cater to a bunch of nostalgic old people who are like, "Remember in Against the Giants when the drow were introduced? That was awesome..."
Wizards is making decisions for the future. Okay. I get that. But call it like it is. They are changing things. We used to think of drow as ebony/coal/etc. That clearly isn't the case anymore.
Their eyesight deteriorates in real life, because you need light to see, which is not present underground without a light source. However, D&D takes place in a fantasy world where darkvision functions without any light sources, so that wouldn't necessarily happen when creatures move to the Underdark in D&D worlds (especially when there's a magical force that can speed up this transformation).
If underground races can see without a light source, they would probably adapt to have similar skin tones to the stone they live in if their region does have light for creatures to see color, which would just make them typically have the same color for skin as their stony environment. However, if there is no light available they would get darker skin tones (as Darkvision makes everything look gray, white, or black). This would lead to them typically grays and blacks, in order to help camouflage them.
Although there is some kind of fantasy logic to having them be dark-skinned for camouflage purposes, you could just as easily make up an excuse for having a different skin tone. For example, in many bird species, the male is more colorful and beautiful than the female in order to get a mate. This drives the species to be colorful and have other talents/features that are not necessary for their survival (building intricate nests, having the largest waddle, the most beautiful voice, etc). Evolution doesn't care specifically about survival, it merely cares about passing on your genes, and survival until you can pass on your genes is a subset of that. WotC could easily change their color to silvery-gray or light purple and excuse it with a lore change saying "Female Drow prefer males of that color, so they evolved to do that." Or, they could just say that the faezress changed its mind and made drow that color.
Basically, my point is that in D&D, typical logic and evolutionary reasoning for races and species to have specific features is much more lenient than real life (which is already pretty lenient). There is no reason why in a fantasy world it is necessarily more realistic to have drow be albino or obsidian-black or silvery grey. I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone that any coloring is better, merely explaining that real world evolution has just as much control over fantasy evolution as the wind has over the currents of magma and molten metals that are deep in the center of the Earth.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Drow are evil because of Lolth" is not true for all campaign worlds (Eberron and Ravnica, for example). And, it does matter, it matters a lot. If WotC released a statement saying that all humans are Thanos-purple, that Gnomes have chicken-feet, and becoming a druid changes your skin green, that would very much impact gameplay, even if it doesn't change the mechanics of the game and is easily ignored by the parts of the community that doesn't use those changes. I honestly can't even begin to fathom how you appear think that cosmetic changes don't effect the game at all.
I never said that drow are evil because of their skin color, and to say that I did say that is a strawman argument. I am well aware of that fact.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
the simple fact is, that WotC got blasted for not being inclusive enough. People pointed out the fact that all drow are evil as supporting evidence of that. So, WotC made a change. They are going to distance themselves as completely as possible for any kind of controversy related to social justice.
It's unfortunate IMO, however, it's also something that's simply inescapable at this point. It's better just to accept it, because ultimately...you're going to lose.
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
I'm still not seeing it..The game I'm running this weekend isn't impacted by different RGB colors in my newest book. The drow storyline I have planned isn't impacted. The books on my shelf aren't combusting. My pillow is soft. I'll sleep. My dice will still roll this weekend. D&D Beyond still works. I can click on all the books. Some of my players love the new content. Others not so much. Some will use the new content. Others not so much. Tasha's has provided some inspiration for my games. Yet, I may not use a single thing from it for months. To you and others it matters. A lot. To others, like myself, not at all.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
You're right. The art doesn't really matter. The art all shows tieflings with horns and a tail. I play /only/ variant tieflings, because I /never/ want my character to have horns and a tail. There's another thread kicking around on here where someone's asking about what kind of weapon is shown in the artwork. It's not a real weapon, and you can only speculate what the artist might have been trying to portray it's so bad.
What do drow look like? You tell me. What's the vision in your head. If you envision them as grey or silver, good on you. If you envision them as jet, like it says in the 2e Drow of the Underdark book, good on you. Art work is just that...someone's idea of what an abstract concept looks like. Don't let yourself get too worked up over it. It really...doesn't matter.
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
A change in skin color to a whole race would be a major change. Like I said in my other post that you cookie-cutted, if you change cosmetic parts of the races that don't effect mechanics, it still effects the game, the world, and the campaign. They're a controversial race due to the reason crzyhawk stated, because they are evil and have dark skin. To prove that they're controversial, on Netflix the TV show Community had an episode where a character dressed up as a drow, and that episode was pulled down due to that.
Also, I am assuming that you're speaking in hyperbole when you say that all drow are shifty, crafty, and evil, because that's definitely not true for Wildemount, the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and other D&D settings.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Drow are whatever color your DM allows them to be, end of discussion really.
Unfortunately, 4e pushed the agenda that all drow are evil as are things like orcs. Chris Perkins admitted it, because they wanted Drizzt to feel more unique. That's why Salvatore had to turn evil again, then kill off one of the more interesting drow (imo) Tos'un Armgo. Tosun had done "good-ish" in early 3e. It's why the kingdom of many-arrows was destroyed.
Now, they're like, my bad. Let me retcon things. Again. they just can't stop themselves from fiddling with established lore for STUPID reasons (Hi, Tieflings, and welcome back to your 2e status with variant Tieflings). I really, really wish they'd have just used the POL/Nentir Vale setting as the default 5e setting like 4e did, rather then keep driving a truck over FR lore. but FR is a cash cow, and people will pay big bucks for information on what's current in Waterdeep and not so much for...whatever the primary settlement in Nentir Vale was.
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
Prove it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your personal problem. Explain how blackface matters to the drow when they've had alternate skin tones for years now.
First of all, Wizards hasn't released a statement that drow no longer have some members with coal-black skin. They've just released a few images that use a skintone that drow have had for editions, and just one of several tones that have existed for years now. Secondly, you accuse me of stawmen, but set up your own? The purple human I'll take a swing at, but the other two have no bearing on the skin tone of a race. Purple humans, while a silly argument, are fine. There should be no issues in character, because that's normal for the people in game. It will have no bearing on how I play a human PC, it won't change how NPCs interact with my character, it doesn't affect anything. At best, you might argue that if all humans had the exact skin tone, it removes the ability to possibly detect ethnicity visually, but that's not what's happening with the drow at all - we still have a variety of skin tones that aren't confused with wood or high elf skin tones.
Because, by definition, cosmetic changes literally means, "improve the appearance of a situation or thing but do not change its basic nature." Cosmetic changes are the exact word to use for a change that has zero impact.
Hardly. The argument is more, "drow don't need to be black; as proof, here are some grey and purple dark elves from years past." Are the devs moving away from blackface? Probably. Is it changing anything? Just where the spotlight hits; nothing's been added or removed, just a minor shift in focus on what shows up on art pieces.
Not to burst bubbles but in a game that is completely imaginary, with the ability to homebrew entire universes, let alone versions of your races in your own games, you can have it be what ever you want. Sure the drow were lighter skinned in this book, but so wasnt the very first depiction of drizzt.
I love Drow, or at least playing a follower of the dark maiden but ive always leaned more to a purplish dark tone for my characters. Its to each his own, but if something like an artistics rendition with out any real text gets you all upset about it, you probably shouldn't play a game where others interpretations and fantasies mixes with your own unmoving vision.
In a fantasy game, the assumption that all drow are shifty, crafty, and evil is what keeps PCs alive. Prince Humperdink said it best.
And drow are NOT controversial. The episode was pulled because of blackface. Had that person dressed up as Blade, Denzel Washington, or Nick Fury, it most likely would have gotten pulled. Most folk don't even know what a DROW is. It's not because of the drow. Say they dressed up as a Redguard from Skyrim. Would it be pulled if a white actor dressed up with such makeup and costume? Probably. Does that mean Redguard are controversial now?
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Mephista, I feel like you and Jacked_Goblin are arguing against something that doesn't need to be argued against. I honestly do not care if WotC chooses to make drow greyish silver. They own the game, they do them. If they do this change, I will be the first person to accept it into my games. I am not arguing against having this change, if it indeed happens. I have no opinion on whether or not they should do this change. I personally would never argue against it and would readily embrace it as the new normal, unlike a lot of others who have posted in this thread. See this post of mine to see my position on this change (if you can call it a position).
I have no "personal problem," on this matter. There is absolutely no need for insults in this thread, and it was completely, utterly uncalled for.
*facepalm. First, I never said that WotC had released a statement saying that drow are all silvery-grey now. Strawman number two. Please just do us all a favor and read my posts. Otherwise, you're just shouting at an invisible wall. As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, it is not clear if this is indeed a change to drow, as WotC has not commented on this as of yet (as far as I know). My point was that if they had done any one of those three things it would very much effect how you play the game.
Second, I was not setting up a strawman, and accusing me of doing so is either yet another strawman, or you just not understanding what I am trying to argue here. Though the other two are not merely changes of a race's skin tone, they are both valid to the discussion that you opened of cosmetic changes having no effect on the game.
Third, cosmetic changes do effect the setting, how a campaign is played, and other aspects of the game. A tail granted to a Yuan-Ti Pureblood, Human, or Minotaur character that has no mechanical benefits or effects would still change how the game is played and how roleplay comes about. The same thing applies to horns, claw-like fingernails, a change in skin color, and any other purely cosmetic change. Cosmetic changes may not change mechanics, but to argue the notion that they have absolutely no effect on the campaign is ridiculous and a hill I do not think you want to die on. Just because you emboldened the word "change" out of context from the definition of cosmetic does not prove the point I think you want it to prove.
As for the argument that has been repeated dozens of times in this thread, which I'm getting quite sick of, there is no indication in art or descriptive text in 5e that drow are assumed to have the variety of skin colors that they had in previous editions. That may have been the status quo for previous editions, but that has next to no relevance in a thread talking about the depictions of drow in 5e. That's like saying that Goblins are green in 5e or that orcs in 5e are pig-faced because they were in some previous editions. There were no indications of drow being purple or gray in 5e up until this book was released, with all of its drow art having their skin be a shiny, silvery, light-grey in the 5 images that they appear in.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I was fitting to contradict you, because I was certain it called out other skin tones in the PHB or Mordenkainen's, however, from the PHB:
Also called dark elves, the drow have skin that resembles charcoal or obsidian, as well as stark white or pale yellow hair.
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
Yep! Already posted that awhile ago, but it's worth repeating.
I also double checked Mordenkainen's, the word "skin" never appears in the drow section to describe their skin color, and the art is all consistent with the art and descriptions of the PHB and MM. The ones that do have a slight purplish/bluish tint to them (Matron Mother and Arachnomancer) still have very dark, charcoal-colored skin, and that small tint could be easily explained as the light of a spell for the Arachnomancer or lighting that drow use for their rooms, which appears to be purple based on those pictures and these few (room, cavern, fire room) show that there is for some reason a purple tint to the rooms and environment these drow are shown in.
Basically, in 5e, there is no indication through clear images of drow or flavor text/lore that drow are meant to be any color other than charcoal/obsidian black. That is, of course, until TCoE came out.
(Also, to make sure that no one misunderstands me, I am not upset about this. I am just thorough and dedicated in proving that I'm correct. I don't care about this, but I am instead showing the disconnect between the art in TCoE and all the other art and descriptions in D&D 5e.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Even if your extreme hyperbole is correct (which is absolutely impossible to prove), that's not the point. For Halloween or for LARPing, people can dress up as sun elves, dwarves, half-orcs, and a lot of other races. However, you can't for drow as depicted and described in 5e. That's blackface. And, no matter the intent or purpose, blackface is not acceptable in modern society (at least in America, that is). It's taboo. No one cares how awesome, fun, and unique your drow character is, you cannot paint your face to look like theirs.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They do have some pretty wood elves like that, don't they? I really like the wood elf artistocrat from Patrons in Tasha's.
2nd was the worst mechanically. 2nd was arguably also the best in terms of settings. In part because aside from the satanic panic, there was little or no restraint for political correctness’ sake.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As someone who is fine with non-black drow.. I 100% agree that the change should not come from the desire to not offend certain overly sensitive groups. Obviously certain tropes are based in actual problematic things, but black/dark being negative is not one of them.
As you pointed it, people have probably been fearing the dark ever since there were people with the ability to fear. Until electricity, the darkness of night represented all kinds of danger, animals, mystical forest beings, getting lost, freezing.. all kinds of nasty scary stuff could happen in the dark.
Drow living in caves deep underground with black skin seems to me to be a extention of the darker aspects of traditional folktale elves or "hidden people", who'd lure people into their undergronud dwellings.
But yea.. since I've only had a loose connection to Dnd untill a few years ago, I'm perfectly fine with grey drow myself... But I can see how someone who's used to seeing the race differently would find it strange... As a star wars fan, I've been going through that kidn of stuff a LOT recently.
Dear God, I cannot like this enough! Thank you!
Again, for those that aren't paying attention, this change throws all of us older fans (as well as the co-creator of D&D and any of the original artists like Erol Otus that drew/painted them) under the bus. Hasbro and WotC are full of effete corporate snobs who will kowtow to the outrage mobs instead of standing up and telling them to F' right off. Gary IS spinning over in his grave because at least he had the cajones to tell that con artist Ed Bradley to effectively cram it and that there was nothing but coincidental connection with the various murders, suicides and other elements of the Satanic Panic. Instead of having our backs, as we're the ones that kept their brand alive, they are now conveniently tossing us aside because they're either full of goobs who lack a spine (like most modern corporations) or they've got actual drooling morons on staff somewhere that make these idiotic decisions.