PDA

View Full Version : agghhh!! darn those elfs and their racisim!



Froogleyboy
2009-04-25, 11:32 PM
I am so angry about the fact that nobody gets suspicious or angry when you play an evil elf. But if you play a good dark elf they make all sorts of assumptions and call you a Drizz't clone. agh!

monty
2009-04-25, 11:35 PM
Remember, these are the same people who think all goblins are evil and that orcs are incapable of learning the proper use of pronouns.

chiasaur11
2009-04-25, 11:37 PM
All Elves are evil.

Anyone who finds an evil elf odd doesn't get what elves are.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-25, 11:41 PM
I think part of that stems from their roots in Tolkien's mythos. At first glance, it appears that elves don't have an evil bone in their body. Virtually all the elves work against Sauron in the Third Age. But if you look beyond the Lord of the Rings, you'll find that elves did more than their share of dastardly things. Feanor ordered the genocide of an elven subrace because they refused to help him recover the Silmarils, Maeglin betrayed Gondolin, the greatest elvish city, to the forces of Morgoth. What D&D did was they separated the evil elves from the rest of the elves, making them the drow to be easily identifiable.

Am I making sense?

Froogleyboy
2009-04-25, 11:42 PM
orcs are incapable of learning the proper use of pronouns.

why would anyone think that?!? My orc bard has a 16 in Int. and 18 in Cha.

monty
2009-04-25, 11:46 PM
What D&D did was they separated the evil elves from the rest of the elves, making them the drow to be easily identifiable.

Am I making sense?

Elves: color-coded for your convenience!

Glyde
2009-04-25, 11:49 PM
Elves: color-coded for your convenience!

Oh jeez, this is where things get interesting.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-04-25, 11:51 PM
Oh jeez, this is where things get interesting.

No, it's not. Because, before this gets out of hand, we're stopping discussion of this particular aspect of the discussion. I think we can all agree that it was nothing more than a joke (and not even a particularly offensive one, because, let's face it, in the D&D world they ARE) and leave it at that. Right?

monty
2009-04-25, 11:53 PM
Oh jeez, this is where things get interesting.

I was just paraphrasing a line from OotS. Nothing more.

Nice sig, by the way.

Kyouhen
2009-04-25, 11:57 PM
I think part of that stems from their roots in Tolkien's mythos. At first glance, it appears that elves don't have an evil bone in their body. Virtually all the elves work against Sauron in the Third Age. But if you look beyond the Lord of the Rings, you'll find that elves did more than their share of dastardly things. Feanor ordered the genocide of an elven subrace because they refused to help him recover the Silmarils, Maeglin betrayed Gondolin, the greatest elvish city, to the forces of Morgoth. What D&D did was they separated the evil elves from the rest of the elves, making them the drow to be easily identifiable.

Am I making sense?

Actually the evil elves all turned into orcs. Those elven examples are just elves being idiots. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 12:00 AM
If you just take a look at elves in D&D though, it appears that that is the case. The drow are everything evil that an elf could be separated out of the race and kept in a pen.

Tolkien had Dark Elves too, but they weren't evil by default. It was simply a term for elves who did not make the journey to Valinor in the first age. Sure many of them were captured and were tortured and mutated into the progenitors of the orcs, but they didn't have black skin, they weren't chronic backstabbers, and they certainly weren't dominatrices with a spider fetish.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 12:03 AM
Actually the evil elves all turned into orcs. Those elven examples are just elves being idiots. :smalltongue:

And I've been ninja'd. Yes, those are examples of elves being idiots, but according the customary D&D moral compass, those were evil acts. They were acts that were considered bad by the values Tolkien wove into the story, and they were undertaken for inherently selfish reasons. The elves who sired the orcs weren't neccesarily evil. An elf who commits an evil act doesn't become an orc instantly. There's some sort of torture process that forces the elf to become an orc. Yes, orcs are a race of evil that was spawned from the elves, but that doesn't mean that regular elves aren't capable of some really heinous stuff, which seems to be the D&D paradigm.

Kyouhen
2009-04-26, 01:24 AM
And I've been ninja'd. Yes, those are examples of elves being idiots, but according the customary D&D moral compass, those were evil acts. They were acts that were considered bad by the values Tolkien wove into the story, and they were undertaken for inherently selfish reasons. The elves who sired the orcs weren't neccesarily evil. An elf who commits an evil act doesn't become an orc instantly. There's some sort of torture process that forces the elf to become an orc. Yes, orcs are a race of evil that was spawned from the elves, but that doesn't mean that regular elves aren't capable of some really heinous stuff, which seems to be the D&D paradigm.

I dunno, Feanor's example included swearing a blood oath against the god of evil. That could be considered a good act. He just went chaotic good is all. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 01:31 AM
I dunno, Feanor's example included swearing a blood oath against the god of evil. That could be considered a good act. He just went chaotic good is all. :smalltongue:

When was the last time genocide was considered a Chaotic Good act? Feanor was not a nice guy, and the Kinslaying wasn't the only not-so-nice thing. Part of that blood oath included a curse that ANYONE who came into possession of the Silmarils that wasn't one of them would suffer a terrible fate. This extended to people who were trying to recover the Silmarils for them, like Beren. That curse killed a lot of people, and it's one of the things that Feanor is remembered most for. Not to mention Feanor refused to donate the Silmarils to the Valar so the Trees of the Valar, the greatest and most important sources of light in the world, could be restored. He wanted to keep the Silmarils for himself. Say what you will about swearing a blood-oath against Melkor, that doesn't excuse the stuff Feanor did.

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 01:42 AM
um... WHO ARE THESE PPL YOU SPEAK OF!?! :smalltongue:

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 02:00 AM
I am so angry about the fact that nobody gets suspicious or angry when you play an evil elf. But if you play a good dark elf they make all sorts of assumptions and call you a Drizz't clone. agh!

Actually, we had this situation come up in our Pathfinder game. My dwarf did not believe that the drow was good. As far as he was concerned, it was a lie by a member of an evil and manipulative race.

His evidence?

1) The drow had traveled in disguise for months, without revealing his true nature. He asks us for trust, but refused to trust us.
2) While claiming to be good, he still drew upon the dark gifts of Lolth. In our first combat, he threw a darkness spell-like ability; originally, my dwarf wrote it off as "he's a sorcerer", but when the truth came out about the drow's race, he realized what it was. If he had left behind Lolth, why was he still using her gifts?
3) Related: He's still dark. According to this world, drow are dark because of their allegiance to their dark mistress. Still dark = still evil to my dwarf's mind... if he were loyal to good gods, they would've removed that stain.
4) His favored method of dealing with a problem was to charm the enemy... to dominate their minds into doing his bidding. He attempted to befriend several evil creatures during our campaign... not just "maybe a little bit not-nice", but out and out "We hunt werebears and kidnap people to sell into the Underdark" orcs, "we're destroying human farmland in the name of goblin lebensraum" goblins and "we attack random people on the road" bandits. It is also noticeable that the paladin in the party stood up for him, and when my objections to "He doesn't show up on detect evil" were made, she refused to do the one test that would have proven it to my satisfaction (namely, using Smite Evil on him... and I would have accepted a punch, with a cleric standing by to save him from death as adequate evidence, and stated so). Obviously, the paladin was charmed.
5) Finally, he cast a spell on me, against my express wishes. He said it was healing, but it looked exactly like the magic missiles he was throwing around.

On the other hand, we have an elf who is largely not evil because he doesn't have access to high enough level spells. We're more or less ignoring this, and realizing that we're probably going to have to have him brought up on charges as a necromancer.

Why do people accept evil elves more readily than good drow? Because elves are presented as a race that, while it tends CG, have the same range of alignments as any other race, while drow are presented as being Evil... with a rare few who somehow turn out not-evil. It's not a matter of percentages in the MM; it's how they are presented, and the rationales used.

The reasons for an evil elf are usually pretty well explained... what turned him evil is known and understood. Dalamar, perhaps the prototypical evil non-drow, became evil because Silvanesti society wouldn't let a member of his House study magic, leaving him to study what he could, with people who were not morally upright (because they were willing to break the Silvanesti restrictions).

The reasons for a non-evil drow are, IME, usually not as well described. The prototypical good drow, Drizz't, doesn't really have a reason to be not-evil... there's no defining childhood experience or anything. He's just, randomly, not evil... while Zaknafien reinforces his dislike of drow society, he doesn't instill it. Drizz't was not-evil before Zaknafien. He didn't have a mystical vision of a deity. He was just an aberrant, nigh-mentally ill (in the sense that his moral values differed radically from those of the society that raised him, you could consider him psychopathic), drow. IME, non-evil drow are frequently like this. There's no reason for them to be non-evil other than their player wanted to play a drow, and so the drow in question is not evil.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-26, 03:49 AM
I dunno, Feanor's example included swearing a blood oath against the god of evil. That could be considered a good act. He just went chaotic good is all. :smalltongue:

Are you serious? The story of the Silmarils is explicitly a story about greed bringing about evil. Fëanor and his sons are evil in a multitude of ways, all precipitated by their greed and the terrible oath they swear. They murder, steal, rob, betray, threaten, and kidnap other - good - elves. The Kinslaying is one of the worst crimes in the Silmarillion - when the Teleri of Alqualondë refuse to give up their ships for Fëanor to pursue Morgoth, he leads his sons and followers into the city, slaying everyone who opposes them, and takes the ships by force.

They're hardly the only ones. Eöl, the Dark Elf (referring both to his evil nature, and the fact he's of the Avari, the elves who did not join the journey to Valinor), kidnapped Aredhel, forcing her to be his wife (i.e. raped her); their son, Maeglin, was twisted and selfish, and betrayed Gondolin to Morgoth for vengeance and jealousy.

Orcs also have nothing to do with evil elves; in the "orcs were elves" genesis, Morgoth captured elves and tortured and twisted their forms and spirits into orcs. Evil elves didn't just suddenly change into orcs.

In The Hobbit, the Silvan elves of Mirkwood and their elven-king are hardly very good, either; they're suspicious, greedy, and xenophobic. Certainly some of this can be explained by their circumstances, but they're still just as fallible and "Neutral" as humans.

(Randomly, dwarves weren't that Good either. Not only did some dwarves fight on the side of Sauron in the Second Age, they were often driven to evil by greed. Cf. the murder of Thingol over the Nauglamir.)

Kyouhen
2009-04-26, 03:56 AM
Wow, you guys really know your histories of Middle Earth. I'm impressed. :smalltongue:

Stopping the alignment jokes for Feanor and co., and getting back to the argument at hand, I can think of one good reason not to get all uppity about evil elves. Same reason you don't want to upset an evil dragon, they likely live longer than you. Do you really want to confront an elf wizard who thinks mind controlling the king is a good way to get what the party needs about his ethics, knowing full well he'll likely outlive your grand children? Probably not.

But hey, welcome to the wonderful world of D&D racism. Who says there aren't advantages to people judging you based on your race? :smalltongue:

kamikasei
2009-04-26, 04:30 AM
I am so angry about the fact that nobody gets suspicious or angry when you play an evil elf.

Playing an evil elf isn't a "thing", any more than playing an evil member of any PHB race is. "Playing an evil character" is an act with stereotypes associated with it. Playing a good member of a normally evil race is, too, and drow are the most stereotyped example of it (which, yes, is unfair). But playing an evil character from any specific race just doesn't have a stigma associated with it. What has racism got to do with it?

Satyr
2009-04-26, 04:45 AM
There is no reason for an average intelligent player or game master to copy the ridiculously stupid fantasy racism; Drow are People, as are all opther people. People aren't either good or evil (those overtly simplified, childish terms should be avoided eitherway by all people with an intellectual capacity beyond a 10-year old), they have their problems and virtues, and so on. Morals are conventions and depending on the society the people live in; the very idea that the individuals from one society are intrinsically morally superior to an other is condencending at best and an unreleflected acception of a philosphy that is disgusting - it doesn't matter if the racist crap relates to fictional instead of real cultures- the basic idea doesn't get any better through that.

And that are only societies - if you follow the hopelessly outdated model that culture and ethnics - or even worse, personality - are internally linked, the whole situation only gets worse.

Swordguy
2009-04-26, 05:42 AM
Elves ARE evil...(YouTube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrLMob39qI)


"Elves cause cancer... Elves...are also terrible liars. They go on and on about how they're not ruled by an immortal council of evil elven witches who drink the blood of dwarven children and spit it on each other in villainous orgies of elven hatemongering. Elves have leprosy as well. And tiny penises.

"Especially the women."

imp_fireball
2009-04-26, 06:42 AM
Remember, these are the same people who think all goblins are evil and that orcs are incapable of learning the proper use of pronouns.

I lol that.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-26, 06:54 AM
There is no reason for an average intelligent player or game master to copy the ridiculously stupid fantasy racism; Drow are People, as are all opther people. People aren't either good or evil (those overtly simplified, childish terms should be avoided eitherway by all people with an intellectual capacity beyond a 10-year old), they have their problems and virtues, and so on.

I never got how, say, the orcs of Faerûn are all that inherently evil. Certainly the orcs of the North, for instance, appear no more evil or vile than the human Uthgardt barbarians. Heck, the only reason the orc hordes surge out of the mountains is because they breed so fast that every generation or two, their numbers grow enough that they are unable to support themselves on the mountains (no agriculture or herding to speak of), and have to seek new areas to live in. Unfortunately, not having the knowledge required to actually settle areas, and meeting resistance from those already living in them, they end up fighting, conquering, and pillaging. Even at their worst, they'd be no more evil than the goths and other "barbarians" who sacked Rome. Among themselves, the orcs don't appear crueler or fouler than humans can and often are.

Meanwhile, the isolationist, suprecamist sun elves of Faerûn always strike me as excellent villains or antagonists, despite supposedly being Chaotic Good (they seem to lean way more toward Lawful, though). And I don't even mean the multitude of "evil" cabals that strive for the extermination of non-elves; those groups are just extreme manifestations of the same attitudes.

Morty
2009-04-26, 07:42 AM
I never got how, say, the orcs of Faerûn are all that inherently evil. Certainly the orcs of the North, for instance, appear no more evil or vile than the human Uthgardt barbarians. Heck, the only reason the orc hordes surge out of the mountains is because they breed so fast that every generation or two, their numbers grow enough that they are unable to support themselves on the mountains (no agriculture or herding to speak of), and have to seek new areas to live in. Unfortunately, not having the knowledge required to actually settle areas, and meeting resistance from those already living in them, they end up fighting, conquering, and pillaging. Even at their worst, they'd be no more evil than the goths and other "barbarians" who sacked Rome. Among themselves, the orcs don't appear crueler or fouler than humans can and often are.


Well, in fairness, orcs do worship a Chaotic Evil god. But yeah, you're right. As much as I like Faerun, its strict adherence to D&D moralty is a pain in the neck.
On a related note: OP uses drow as an example, but orcs are, in fact, a much better one, as they're only "Often" Chaotic Evil, so it's much easier to find a good orc than it is to find an evil elf. Yet noone will bat an eyelash at the latter while the former will be called a Drizzt clone.

John Campbell
2009-04-26, 11:09 AM
Remember, these are the same people who think all goblins are evil and that orcs are incapable of learning the proper use of pronouns.

<ic char="Toghrul">
Orcs not dumb. Human tongue just not usually orc's first language. Orcish not use or need pronouns so much. Difficult to remember to put them in. How good humans conjugate Orcish verbs, hmm?

Oh, here joke!

Person who speak two languages called "bilingual". What you call person who speak only one language?

An human!

Laugh now.
</ic>

snoopy13a
2009-04-26, 12:12 PM
Are you serious? The story of the Silmarils is explicitly a story about greed bringing about evil. Fëanor and his sons are evil in a multitude of ways, all precipitated by their greed and the terrible oath they swear. They murder, steal, rob, betray, threaten, and kidnap other - good - elves. The Kinslaying is one of the worst crimes in the Silmarillion - when the Teleri of Alqualondë refuse to give up their ships for Fëanor to pursue Morgoth, he leads his sons and followers into the city, slaying everyone who opposes them, and takes the ships by force.

They're hardly the only ones. Eöl, the Dark Elf (referring both to his evil nature, and the fact he's of the Avari, the elves who did not join the journey to Valinor), kidnapped Aredhel, forcing her to be his wife (i.e. raped her); their son, Maeglin, was twisted and selfish, and betrayed Gondolin to Morgoth for vengeance and jealousy.

Orcs also have nothing to do with evil elves; in the "orcs were elves" genesis, Morgoth captured elves and tortured and twisted their forms and spirits into orcs. Evil elves didn't just suddenly change into orcs.

In The Hobbit, the Silvan elves of Mirkwood and their elven-king are hardly very good, either; they're suspicious, greedy, and xenophobic. Certainly some of this can be explained by their circumstances, but they're still just as fallible and "Neutral" as humans.

(Randomly, dwarves weren't that Good either. Not only did some dwarves fight on the side of Sauron in the Second Age, they were often driven to evil by greed. Cf. the murder of Thingol over the Nauglamir.)

The dwarves aren't that great. The The Hobbit they are often portrayed as cowardly and greedy. The Mirkwood elves are somewhat greedy and they dislike dwarves but they are also charitable as they help out the men of Laketown after Smaug's attack.

Thorin is extremely greedy. He is willing to go to war with the men and elves and will not give them a share of the treasure despite the fact that the men killed Smaug and had their town destroyed. Bard was willing to accept only 1/12 of the dragon horde and would compensate the elves from that. Luckily for Thorin, he repents of his greed on his deathbed.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-26, 12:26 PM
Thorin is extremely greedy. He is willing to go to war with the men and elves and will not give them a share of the treasure despite the fact that the men killed Smaug and had their town destroyed. Bard was willing to accept only 1/12 of the dragon horde and would compensate the elves from that. Luckily for Thorin, he repents of his greed on his deathbed.

The Arkenstone, specifically, appeared to affect dwarves the way that the Nauglamir with the Silmaril did - driving them to violent greed. (Although the results were even worse in the case of the Nauglamir; but then the Silmarils are the greatest treasures in the history of Middle-Earth.) But it may just be their general greed for treasure.

Really, despite the simplistic black-and-white morality (literally, unfortunately) of LOTR itself, the races of Middle-Earth as portrayed by Tolkien are all variable, capable of both good and evil, and overall "neutral."

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 12:42 PM
And that are only societies - if you follow the hopelessly outdated model that culture and ethnics - or even worse, personality - are internally linked, the whole situation only gets worse.

So it is your position that biochemistry plays no part in forming a person's personality?

Elves, dwarves, goblins, etc. are different subspecies at the very least, and frequently different species (in that they cannot breed with humans and produce viable offspring). They are going to have a very different biochemistry and evolutionary track than humans.

In humans, slightly variant brain chemistry results in things like bipolar disorder, autism (and less severe versions, like Asperger's), schizophrenia and even sociopathy. The brain chemistry of elves may well incline them towards a chaotic alignment. Goblins may, as a matter of brain chemistry, naturally prefer the vicious option, seeing it as most advantageous evolutionarily. Humans developed the way we did because we require communities, to a large extent... a human long separated from community tends to become a little messed up, and communities have been generally helpful in ensuring the survival of the species (while you may be able to live indefinitely in the wild, that doesn't propagate the species, and a pair-bonded couple can run into problems feeding and defending offspring that a community does not have).

The other option is that the various races are the special creation by a deity of definite alignment. Corellon Larethian made elves in his CG image. Grumuush formed his orcs as he saw them, which happened to be colored by the fact that he's CE*. Drow were specifically marked by their dark goddess as a reward for their loyalty in whatever event lead to the banishment of the drow. If Lolth can make an entire society find spiders to be sexy, why is it so far out there that she makes her people naturally inclined to stab each other in the back?

Finally, you have the fact that most creatures worship racial deities... and these are frequently the dominant alignment of the race. Orcs worship the CE Grumuush, and tend to be CE. Elves worship Corellon, who is CG, and so tend to be CG. If you follow a deity who has a set alignment, and speaks regularly to followers to make their will known, then you're going to wind up doing as that deity does, and tend towards that alignment.

I see it as highly irregular for humans to worship non-human deities, or demi-humans to worship human deities. Can you see a dwarf (that would be considered sane by other dwarfs... we're not talking Pikel Bouldershoulder) dedicating himself to Sehanine Moonbow? Then why does it make any more sense for dwarves to dedicate themselves to human deities, especially when there are dwarven deities that fill the same niche? By the same token, I don't see many goblins or the like worshiping human deities... while no goblin deities fill the niches of Torm or Illmater, neither do these deities offer much incentive to worship them. "Worship me and be hated by your species and barely tolerated by most of your co-religionists! I will make your life a world of suck!" There's just not much there to entice more than a few, decidedly insane, members of their species convert.

There are good reasons, founded in biology, theology, sociology, and psychology for the various races to have culture, ethnicity, and personality be internally linked... not necessarily hard-wired, unable to ever ever change, but definite inclinations towards an alignment or personality type that are reinforced by their birth culture.

*And may be his single eye is the reason they're so frequently two-dimensional? :smallbiggrin:

Rutskarn
2009-04-26, 12:57 PM
All elves are racist.

I mean, look at the irritating bastards.

(source: The Complete Elf, outdated D&D sourcebook)

"Oh, fah-tee-da, look at me. I'm a laughing, fey, carefree creature who's so much better than everyone else. I live in a fancy tree village that has no crime or badness or pollution whatsoever. We're the best at every kind of craft, from weaving, to woodworking...not that we ever cut down trees to do so, Because That Would Be Wrong...brewing, even though we don't get drunk, cooking, all that. The only thing we're not the best at is stoneworking, which the dwarves are better aaaaaaat wait a minute, no, I tell a lie, we're better at that too. Can't let any of those less fey races be better at anything at all, now can we? Our singing voices are so beautiful that when singing dirges, we literally kill any lesser races who might be listening. We're so peace-loving and caring, except for that whole holiday every year where we go out and murder every single orc we can find, including women and children. Because nothing says rollicking festivities like genocide! Anyway, elves are actually the best thieves, because they're subtler than halflings, better fighters than dwarves, because we're so graceful and godly, better mages than anyone ever because we're mothaflippin' elves, and better at any class than any race ever because we are. Our art is so beautiful it puts people into seizures. Literally. Even when we die, we get to go to this super special double awesome mega-heaven that's much better than any other afterlife, that only we can get into. Sweet, huh? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a lot of Being Better Than You to catch up on, and racial supremacy doesn't maintain itself!"

To be fair, this isn't so much racism as being gratingly superior. Turns out, for that edition, the deity and creator of all the elves was Ma'ry Suue.

Don't even get me started on the fairies from Artemis Fowl, though.

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 01:04 PM
All elves are racist.

I mean, look at the irritating bastards.

(source: The Complete Elf, outdated D&D sourcebook)

"Oh, fah-tee-da, look at me. I'm a laughing, fey, carefree creature who's so much better than everyone else. I live in a fancy tree village that has no crime or badness or pollution whatsoever. We're the best at every kind of craft, from weaving, to woodworking...not that we ever cut down trees to do so, Because That Would Be Wrong...brewing, even though we don't get drunk, cooking, all that. The only thing we're not the best at is stoneworking, which the dwarves are better aaaaaaat wait a minute, no, I tell a lie, we're better at that too. Can't let any of those less fey races be better at anything at all, now can we? Our singing voices are so beautiful that when singing dirges, we literally kill any lesser races who might be listening. We're so peace-loving and caring, except for that whole holiday every year where we go out and murder every single orc we can find, including women and children. Because nothing says rollicking festivities like genocide! Anyway, elves are actually the best thieves, because they're subtler than halflings, better fighters than dwarves, because we're so graceful and godly, better mages than anyone ever because we're mothaflippin' elves, and better at any class than any race ever because we are. Our art is so beautiful it puts people into seizures. Literally. Even when we die, we get to go to this super special double awesome mega-heaven that's much better than any other afterlife, that only we can get into. Sweet, huh? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a lot of Being Better Than You to catch up on, and racial supremacy doesn't maintain itself!"

To be fair, this isn't so much racism as being gratingly superior. Turns out, for that edition, the deity and creator of all the elves was Ma'ry Suue.

Don't even get me started on the fairies from Artemis Fowl, though.

with your permission I would like to put that in my signature

Rutskarn
2009-04-26, 01:05 PM
Go for it.

Hat-Trick
2009-04-26, 01:06 PM
Finally, you have the fact that most creatures worship racial deities... and these are frequently the dominant alignment of the race. Orcs worship the CE Grumuush, and tend to be CE. Elves worship Corellon, who is CG, and so tend to be CG. If you follow a deity who has a set alignment, and speaks regularly to followers to make their will known, then you're going to wind up doing as that deity does, and tend towards that alignment.


But, the halfling patron Deity is LG.

monty
2009-04-26, 01:07 PM
with your permission I would like to put that in my signature

I can't help thinking that might not fit.

Rutskarn
2009-04-26, 01:08 PM
In 3.5, halflings aren't really as explicitly chaotic as they were in previous editions. So, keep that in mind.

Hat-Trick
2009-04-26, 01:13 PM
Yes, but they aren't inclined to be LG, which was my point. You can't tell me they don't lean CG, either. They may not be as inclined as elves, but they lean.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-26, 01:20 PM
In 3.5, halflings aren't really as explicitly chaotic as they were in previous editions. So, keep that in mind.

Actually, they're more so. 2e halflings are explicitly Lawful Good, as per the Monstrous Manual.

Rutskarn
2009-04-26, 01:24 PM
Very true. I agree that the trend is, at best, inconsistent.

Actually, most of our argumentation is flawed because it's based entirely on campaign setting style--which varies tremendously from group to group.

Some campaign settings are black-and-white, where the evil races are evil because they're evil and the good races are good because they're good. Some are greyer, and have evil(ish) societies and good(ish) societies with lots and lots of gray areas.

It really depends on what kind of campaign setting you're playing.

GoC
2009-04-26, 01:33 PM
All Elves are evil.

Anyone who finds an evil elf odd doesn't get what elves are.

There are many kinds of elves. Some pure evil, some pure good, some are humans with pointy ears and a penchant for poetry.

chiasaur11
2009-04-26, 01:45 PM
There are many kinds of elves. Some pure evil, some pure good, some are humans with pointy ears and a penchant for poetry.

No, just two kinds.

Obviously evil elves and sneaky evil elves.

Oh, and Santa's elves. They're alright enough, I guess.

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 02:02 PM
But, the halfling patron Deity is LG.

And, as pointed out, halflings were explicitly LG for 25 years prior to that; if you look at a source like Demihuman Deities (late 2nd edition) or Monster Mythology (mid-2nd edition), it assumes that most halflings are LG, and follow a LG deity. Heck, in 3e's "Faiths and Pantheons", "Deities and Demigods" and "Races of the Wild", their deities are primarily Lawful... Three Lawful Good, one Lawful Neutral, two Neutral, and one Chaotic Neutral (which was a new introduction in Races of the Wild, and doesn't appear anywhere else that I'm aware of).

This is because in 3e they radically changed what was meant by "halfling"... where they once were pastoralists, with rare adventuring types, they became wandering gypsy-types... but in so doing, they didn't change the religion that they followed. 3.x halflings are an aberration in terms of D&D halflings, akin to a Thieves Guild that worships Bahamut.

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 02:19 PM
Playing an evil elf isn't a "thing", any more than playing an evil member of any PHB race is. "Playing an evil character" is an act with stereotypes associated with it. Playing a good member of a normally evil race is, too, and drow are the most stereotyped example of it (which, yes, is unfair). It is by all means fair
in fact, not being suspicious about a drow would be a mental defect, possibly caused by having a wis score in the nega zone.

Their ritual to become adults involve kidnapping a sentient being torturing it to the point where it begs to die and then obliging it's wish.

They are not just "not nice" evil. they are "I'll torture my own son/daughter and have him slowly eaten by spiders if he mispronounces my name" evil.

Obviously a drow can be non-evil. but most of the drows are cheating, stealing, slaving, murdering and psychopathic bastards who follow a goddess who is pretty much insane.

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 02:25 PM
It is by all means fair
in fact, not being suspicious about a drow would be a mental defect, possibly caused by having a wis score in the nega zone.

Their ritual to become adults involve kidnapping a sentient being torturing it to the point where it begs to die and then obliging it's wish.

They are not just "not nice" evil. they are "I'll torture my own son/daughter and have him slowly eaten by spiders if he mispronounces my name" evil.

Obviously a drow can be non-evil. but most of the drows are cheating, stealing, slaving, murdering and psychopathic bastards who follow a goddess who is pretty much insane.

now that is just racisit! That is just speaking of Lolths drow! Drow have other dieties! nicer dieties! so there!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-26, 02:31 PM
The only good elf...
is best described in ways I don't care to discuss.

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 02:32 PM
now that is just racisit! That is just speaking of Lolths drow! Drow have other dieties! nicer dieties! so there!Moar like speciecist.
Problem is that approximately 70% of all Drows follow Lolth, the rest are also kinda insane. (Using FR here because that is the only one where i remember other deities for Drow)

Selvetarm: Insane warrior god who runs around slaughtering anything that even looks at Lolth funny. CE

Vhaerun: God of thievery and evil activity on the surface. (Also patron of male Drows) CE

Ghaunadaur: CE god of jellies, slimes and outcasts.

Kiaransalee: Goddess of undead, vengeance and necromancy. CE

Only good one is Eilistraee, who just so happens to be cast out from the pantheon and is only followed by very few drows.

kamikasei
2009-04-26, 02:50 PM
It is by all means fair
in fact, not being suspicious about a drow would be a mental defect, possibly caused by having a wis score in the nega zone.

I'm not talking about in-game, in-character suspicion, I'm talking about the unfair assumption that a player who brings a good-aligned or just non-evil drow to a game is "playing a Drizzt clone".

It's not unfair to assume a drow is evil. It's unfair to assume that a non-evil drow can only be played in one (disliked) way.

Perhaps the OP can clarify the intent of his question:


I am so angry about the fact that nobody gets suspicious or angry when you play an evil elf. But if you play a good dark elf they make all sorts of assumptions and call you a Drizz't clone. agh!

The mention of "Drizzt clones" leads me to assume that this is an OOC thing - that the problem is that the other players around the table don't trust him to play a good-aligned drow, but are fine with him playing an evil-aligned elf.

If it's a complaint about IC perceptions, it doesn't make much sense. Why would people talk about Drizzt in game, talking about their suspicions that an apparently good dark elf is actually evil? Why would people suspect that an apparently good surface elf is secretly evil?

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 02:50 PM
but we aint talkin about lolth we are talking about the ENTIRE spiecies. If the drow have a good goddess then why are all good drow "drizz't clones"

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 02:53 PM
Elves ARE evil...(YouTube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrLMob39qI)


"Elves cause cancer... Elves...are also terrible liars. They go on and on about how they're not ruled by an immortal council of evil elven witches who drink the blood of dwarven children and spit it on each other in villainous orgies of elven hatemongering. Elves have leprosy as well. And tiny penises.

"Especially the women."

Swordguy, I've watched this four times in the past couple hours. I'm nearly crying from laughter.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-26, 02:57 PM
I'm not talking about in-game, in-character suspicion, I'm talking about the unfair assumption that a player who brings a good-aligned or just non-evil drow to a game is "playing a Drizzt clone".One of my 3 Beguiler concepts involves a Drow who, now on the surface, is looking for acceptance and an end to the bigotry. He idolizes Drizzt, and would love to meet him one day. At which point he dominates the crybaby, has him go on a murderous rampage, and makes sure the surface world never trusts a 'good' Drow again. I love undetectable alignment. :smallbiggrin:

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 03:01 PM
Elistraee is the goddess of the good drow. She is the Matron goddess of all the drow that wish to return to the surface. Her trademarks are song and beauty. Not much is known about Elistraee except that she is quick to anger over the evil that most drow do.

Elistraee will more likely lend aid to a creature she favors intead of appear personally. She will grant favors, small ones, that give the the most practical answers. If the situation warrants her appearance she usually will appear as a tall drow female with long glowing hair down to her ankles.

The clergy of Elistraee are female from any race. These preistesses much further the cause of beauty and song. They must always carry one of their godesses favored instuments, the horn, flute, or harp. Their lot in life is to pursuade drow to return to the surface world and work to improve surface relations.

Swordguy
2009-04-26, 03:07 PM
Swordguy, I've watched this four times in the past couple hours. I'm nearly crying from laughter.

It IS brilliant, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 03:15 PM
Swordguy, I've watched this four times in the past couple hours. I'm nearly crying from laughter."Or maybe i'm thinking of halflings"

Favorite video on youtube now.

kamikasei
2009-04-26, 03:19 PM
It IS brilliant, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:

It's been one of my favourite comedy sketches, period, since I first discovered it.

"I rule ass."

"...And?"

"That's it, that's my argument."

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 03:20 PM
The clergy of Elistraee are female from any race. These preistesses much further the cause of beauty and song. They must always carry one of their godesses favored instuments, the horn, flute, or harp. Their lot in life is to pursuade drow to return to the surface world and work to improve surface relations.

And the Elistraee-worshipers are a vast minority of drow... thus Lolth being an intermediate deity (indicating hundreds of thousands of worshipers, according to 3e's D&DGs), and Elistraee being a lesser (indicating thousands to tens of thousands of worshipers... meaning Elistraee has perhaps 10% of the drow population, but easily .1% of the population).

Quick! A scantily clad drow woman is casting a spell at you! Do you defend yourself, or assume that it's the one in a hundred thousand that happens to be good?

Evil the Cat
2009-04-26, 03:26 PM
but we aint talkin about lolth we are talking about the ENTIRE spiecies. If the drow have a good goddess then why are all good drow "drizz't clones"


Probably because somehow, 1/2 of all good drow are coincidentally CG Rangers dual wielding scimitars. Panther animal companion optional.


More seriously, in most cases these alignments are based on cultures as described. Drow culture is described as being horribly evil, but that doesnt mean there can't be an enclave of good drow hiding away somewhere. Though, it's likely that Lolth would have her followers go exterminate these freaks.

Typical elves have a society that promotes individual freedom, which will be more likely to lead them towards goodness, especially with their entire religion following these standards. Someone raised from birth around a certain religion, with clerics doing visible miracles would have a very high chance of the child believing entirely in this faith, which espouses goodness. Evil elves would pop up, but it would be at a far lower rate than in a society without such upbringing.

Regular elves being evil would be far more common than good drow, since unless these evil people actually commit horrible crimes, the good elves are likely to leave them alone, or simply exile them as a show of mercy. Wheras the Drow will just kill any of the aberrant good drow they can get their hands on, even actively hunting them down.

Satyr
2009-04-26, 04:05 PM
So it is your position that biochemistry plays no part in forming a person's personality?

That may work on an individual level, but on a collective one, this approach resembles awfully a biologistic explanation and those come short even on an individual level.


Elves, dwarves, goblins, etc. are different subspecies at the very least, and frequently different species (in that they cannot breed with humans and produce viable offspring). They are going to have a very different biochemistry and evolutionary track than humans.

This is not the problem. It is rather obvious that the physical and in an extend mental differences of different species have a significant influence on their perspective on the world, group dynamics, etc. From a more or less objective perspective, this is a great way - perhaps the only way - to explain differences between different species in a plausible way.
This is not the problem. The problem is that these differences do not play a significant role in D&D. On the one hand, in the official presentation the humanoids are little more alien than the rubber foreheads from Star Trek - human in all aspects but a one trick difference - and on the other hand, the differences are judged on a moral base and that turns a bad writing problem into a point of view shared by people in white robes and brown shirts.
And that is exactly the problem with the whole fantasy racism issue - it is still racism in the core philosophy. And while it hurts nobody (it is kinda hard to offend dwarves and goblins in the real world, due to the whole nonexistance issue) this basic "philosophical" concept is just stupid. Racism is not only a problem of political correctness, most of the basic concepts of racism - especially from the pseudo-scientific, biologistic approach - is just plain wrong, which is pretty much a well-known fact today. Which leads back to the whole commendment of "Thou shalt not insult the intelligence of your players nor your own one."




In humans, slightly variant brain chemistry results in things like bipolar disorder, autism (and less severe versions, like Asperger's), schizophrenia and even sociopathy. The brain chemistry of elves may well incline them towards a chaotic alignment. Goblins may, as a matter of brain chemistry, naturally prefer the vicious option, seeing it as most advantageous evolutionarily.


So... morals are a result of genetics and prehistoric influences, which makes them basically innate traits? Is that what you are trying to say?

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 04:25 PM
The Arkenstone, specifically, appeared to affect dwarves the way that the Nauglamir with the Silmaril did - driving them to violent greed. (Although the results were even worse in the case of the Nauglamir; but then the Silmarils are the greatest treasures in the history of Middle-Earth.) But it may just be their general greed for treasure.

Really, despite the simplistic black-and-white morality (literally, unfortunately) of LOTR itself, the races of Middle-Earth as portrayed by Tolkien are all variable, capable of both good and evil, and overall "neutral."

Not to mention that there's an unspoken idea in The Hobbit that Smaug's very presence could inflame dragonish greed in others, and that his influence lingered after his death, which affected the dwarves, and even Bilbo to a certain extent. There's a theme of spiralling decay in all of Tolkien's literature, the people, things and events of the Third Age being pale reflections of the First Age. The Arkenstone is a pale imitation of the Silmarils, with a similar effect on people. Aragorn is a pale imitation of Beren, attempting a seemingly insurmountable task for the love of Arwen, herself a pale imitation of Luthien. Smaug could be seen as a pale imitation of Glaurung, Shelob is a pale imitation of her mother Ungoliant, and Sauron is a pale imitation of his former master, Morgoth.

Tolkien class really taught me a lot about this sort of thing.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 04:28 PM
um... WHO ARE THESE PPL YOU SPEAK OF!?! :smalltongue:

Tsotha-lanti's post summed them up pretty well. If you need more information, you can either look 'em up on Wikipedia or get the information straight from the horse's mouth and read Tolkien's The Silmarillion.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-26, 04:32 PM
I agree with most of that, except the bit about Arwen. She's only a few generations removed from Luthien (Luthien -> Dior -> Elwing -> Elrond -> Arwen) - compared to Aragorn's dozens or hundreds - and an elf-princess thousands of years old herself. In fact, isn't she explicitly said to be the only mortal ever to nearly rival Luthien in beauty or something?

The elven fading isn't really a matter of individuals becoming weaker (the Noldor left in the Third Age are as mighty as ever, and the Avari if the First Age were no more powerful than those of the Third, pretty much), but a matter of dwindling numbers and waning influence.

I'd say greed as a theme in The Hobbit is separate from waning and fading as a theme in LOTR, though.

Edit: That isn't to say that you're not correct about the Aragorn-Arwen plot. It's very clearly a reflection of Beren and Luthien. The mortal man and the elven princess; the stern father demands an impossible quest before he'll consent to a marriage...

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 04:37 PM
Quick! A scantily clad drow woman is casting a spell at you! Do you defend yourself, or assume that it's the one in a hundred thousand that happens to be good?Before i answer that.
Is the "clothes" she is wearing a white see-through dress or bondage inspired?

Starbuck_II
2009-04-26, 04:51 PM
Quick! A scantily clad drow woman is casting a spell at you! Do you defend yourself, or assume that it's the one in a hundred thousand that happens to be good?

I think the most important questions are: is she hot? Am I single when meeting her? Is she into my race?

LibraryOgre
2009-04-26, 05:23 PM
So... morals are a result of genetics and prehistoric influences, which makes them basically innate traits? Is that what you are trying to say?

I am saying that they are heavily influenced by them. Biochemistry plays a large factor in people's reactions to things, as can be shown from the PMS defense, "testosterone poisoning", and manic-depressives. It doesn't dictate them, but it does influence them greatly... and that's within a single species.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 05:28 PM
I agree with most of that, except the bit about Arwen. She's only a few generations removed from Luthien (Luthien -> Dior -> Elwing -> Elrond -> Arwen) - compared to Aragorn's dozens or hundreds - and an elf-princess thousands of years old herself. In fact, isn't she explicitly said to be the only mortal ever to nearly rival Luthien in beauty or something?

The elven fading isn't really a matter of individuals becoming weaker (the Noldor left in the Third Age are as mighty as ever, and the Avari if the First Age were no more powerful than those of the Third, pretty much), but a matter of dwindling numbers and waning influence.

I'd say greed as a theme in The Hobbit is separate from waning and fading as a theme in LOTR, though.

Edit: That isn't to say that you're not correct about the Aragorn-Arwen plot. It's very clearly a reflection of Beren and Luthien. The mortal man and the elven princess; the stern father demands an impossible quest before he'll consent to a marriage...

I don't mean that waning and fading is a theme in Lord of the Rings alone though. What I'm saying is that the whole of Tolkien's mythos has this theme. Many of the events in Lord of the Rings are reflections of things that happened in the Silmarillion, or The Children of Hurin. And while greed as a theme is something that features prominently in The Hobbit, it also features prominently in the Silmarillion as well, as you mention with the Silmarils inspiring similar greed.

Swordguy
2009-04-26, 05:29 PM
So... morals are a result of genetics and prehistoric influences, which makes them basically innate traits? Is that what you are trying to say?

NO. He's saying that a LOT of different things, including things that one has no control over (such as genetics) can influence personality. They can be heavily influenced by genetics, but a given genetic makeup isn't a guarantee of a personality type - merely a risk indicator of such.

A HIGHLY simplified version:

50% of the population has personality trait X.
Of those 50%, 90% of THEM have a specific GATC string, which after accounting for environmental variables, seems to be the common factor.

Thus having GATC string is almost certainly means that a person will demonstrate personality trait X. It's not a guarantee (there are people without the string that exhibit the trait), but a very strong indicator. Make sense?

EDIT: Except that he made the same point while I was typing...

Ladorak
2009-04-26, 05:46 PM
I read somewhere of a case of a guy who lusted after children, now he didn't do anything to pursue it, in fact he volunteered for therapy to try and treat it. Then he got a brain tumour and those lustful feelings went away. Then they removed said tumour and the feelings came back.

I'd say the biochemical balance of your brain is in fact a big factor on how you behave. After all it effects the behaviour of the thing that controls your behaviour. Depression and psychopathy are both coupled with brain abnormalities, as are all forms of psychotic behaviour.

If a brain tumour can make a difference this big, between normal individual and deviant of the worst kind... Would would a completely alien brain be like, especially if it was intelligently designed (By one of the most intelligent beings in existence) to be Evil

As to why I don't trust Drow... 99% of them are evil, if one of those 99% found themselves on the surface world would they proclaim that evil for the world to see? Or would they be intelligent enough to play the 'reformed' card until such a time enough gullible fools have lined up to have their necks cut as they slept? 99% of the time you trust a 'reformed' Drow, you'll end up with your neck cut.

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 05:47 PM
poor catgirls...

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 05:49 PM
Huh? We're not discussing physics here. :smallconfused:

Hat-Trick
2009-04-26, 05:53 PM
Yeah, I'd agree with Dixie, but I heard Catgirls respawn when a slash fanfic is written, so we're just moderating the population.

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 05:54 PM
Huh? We're not discussing physics here. :smallconfused:

I believe the catgirl genocide has been expanded to include all Science.
But i may be wrong.

chiasaur11
2009-04-26, 05:56 PM
And the use of chainsaws on their faces.

The personal touch is always more satisfying.

Josh the Aspie
2009-04-26, 06:02 PM
There are several different reasons that a person might wish to roleplay a "Good Drow." The following are reasons that I, personally, am aware may apply, followed by my commenting on those reasons. It is by no means an exhaustive list.


"Wow! He's so cool! He's so bad-ass that he manages to fight off his entire group to escape, because he knows their wrong. And he adventures on his own mostly, but sometimes with friends. He's so unique, and orignal, and brooding and COOL and OMIGAWSH I wanna' play a character JUST LIKE HIM so that I can be unique and original too!"

This is the most common reason I have seen, and it does not apply simply to Drizz't. A large number of people tend to lack any kind of originality at all, and rather than page homage to a character by having there be similarities, or have their life be affected by that character, they make an outright clone, a bad one.

The books that Drizz't first came out in were very popular when they first came out, and I have to admit, had an interesting and somewhat compelling story. Similarly, the books featuring the Justicar were so compelling, that there is a 3.5 prestige class based entirely around him.

This can easily be seen with other characters of similar types, such as Wolverine, the Batman, etc.

There is also a similar effect with pretty-boy villians, such as Sephroth, and Seshomeru... though people often don't want to play a character just like them, so much as wanting to be (or play) the person to 'sooth their soul' and comfort them, despite the likelyhood of abuse, and outright death that might be involved with such an attempt.


They want the statistical effects that come with being a Drow.

Generally speaking, people that play D&D tend to seek every advantage they can get. Many people seek these advantages whether or not it makes sense. This is the second most common instance I have seen, people who want to play Drow just to get the statistical benefits, and most of them don't want to do the storytelling work to explain why their Drow became good.

I once sat at a table with someone who started with this, and then started heading towards the Drizz't clone, before the DM told him no. At this table, no one but me really challenged the realism of this, based on his lack of any real story.

However, people at this same table told me there was no way I should be able to play a Lawful Good rogue... until I explained my character's backstory. He was a locksmith, when hostilities with nearbye enemies began to rise. Due to his locksmithing talents, he was made a scout, since that would make it easier for him to intrude into areas the enemy didn't want him in. I represented him as a scout / ranger. He knew about how to silently strike at vulnerable spots, and the best way to fight his race's enemies. I would have gone with the scout class if it had been released back then. He even had an uncle who was the trainer of the scouts, and so it was his family's typical Method of Service, so it was tradition.

Some people in this group are also the sort who try to justify evil acts, while claiming to have a good alignment... thus playing evil Drow with a good alignment, who were exceptions (not so much) from an evil race.

Also, Drow as a PC race had already entered the consciousness of the gaming community, people started suggesting Drow more often in build, and people that couldn't be bothered to look through all of the Monster Manual for additional possible player races, none the less, considered Drow a possibility.

I've seen a lot of these players who also abuse alignment restrictions in campaigns, and min-max things without having any real clear roleplaying ideas for their character.


"I'm sick and tired of playing the typical races, and I want something different!"

So you go into the monstrous manual, and try to find something else to play. It makes sense. Of course, there aren't very many races in the Monstrous manual that you can play at low levels that aren't antagonistic to the rest of the PC races. This can lead to campaigns that start at low levels having monsterous characters, that otherwise wouldn't be in a good aligned adventuring party.

See last paragraph of reason #2, as well.


The player honestly wants to roleplay a character that has social disadvantages, compared to the rest of the group, and experience some part of what discrimination against their race/species is like, so that they can, perhaps, understand just a little bit more what it is like for people that experience some kind of discrimination against them in real life.

While I'm familiar with reverse discrimination already (though not deep degrees of it), I have yet to experience very much primary discrimination. Because of this fact, I have, for a while now, been interested in occasionally playing characters that are discriminated against on the basis of their race, for the experience of it.

To do so, one of my more recent characters was a Sharakim, a race that looks almost exactly like orcs. He had one home city where he was known by some of the inhabitants. In fact, he was one of the highest level clerics of a cleric of a diety of knowledge, and one of the highest ranking members of his local chapter of a continent-wide society of knowledge.

Any time he was outside of this city, a temple of his diety, or one of these chapter-houses, however, he hid within his full plate armor, with the visor down, in order to lessen the chance of his stigma. He also spoke slowly, to make sure that he would correctly enunciate common without the accent otherwise imposed by his tusks.

I could theoretically see a Drow player take this angle, though I have yet too. Part of the reason is that people that tend to roleplay a character for this reason tend towards less aesthetically pleasing races.


The player wants to play a character "fighting heroically against the biotry and racism of the world around him!"

This type of player plays a character who is attractive, has racial benefits, and makes sure that the character is very virtuous. I have only heard testimonials of this. The closest I have gotten are DMPCs, who are at best 'not evil'. Generally speaking, this kind of RPing, and the testimonials I hear about it from those playing these characters tend to be rather anvilicious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anvilicious).

The player rarely, if ever, acknowledges any good reasons any other characters, or any NPCs may have for having this, and tend to try to make large portions of the session about any slight against the honor of the PC, or their race.

As stated above, this type of player rarely, if ever, plays any less than attractive 'evil' races, from what I've heard.

Interestingly enough, in attitude, this is very far from being Drizz't clone. After all, Drizz't expected prejudice, recognized the evil nature of the rest of his race, and simply tried to live a good life, as a good man.


The player has been wanting to play a Drow for a while, but hasn't been able to find an Evil campaign group.

So they play a "Good Drow" instead of the "Evil Drow" they wanted to play. This may wind up showing through, as the "Good Drow" doesn't always behave like one.


"There's a good deity of Drow. They should be treated like any other playable race, like humans and halflings, and other elves. Why is everyone calling me a Drizz't clone?!?"

Due to reasons 1-6, as listed above, there were a huge number of people playing "Good Drow", and were just as sick of people deriding them for playing them, as other players were for dealing with the "Good Drow". Because of this WotC put the Drow through Spikeification (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassDecay?from=Main.Spikeification), arranging for there to be a REASON for all of these "Good Drow" to exist, incorporating this into the campaign world I already liked least of all of them.

Unfortunately, this created a second wave of "Good Drow", as players who previously did not consider playing Drow at all, now suddenly consider it far more reasonable. This new flood of Drow aggravates existing, but fading animosity from players who had been annoyed by other Drow players in the past, often unleashing this ire on players who may really not deserve it.

This group, also, seems to get bent out of shape by people not trusting the Drow PCs.

To be completely fair, not all "Good Drow" are Drizz't clones. A cleric who does not wield edged weapons, or a mage that has nothing at all to do with weapons besides dagger, wand, or staff, is hardly a Drizz't clone.

On the other hand, as can be seen by the progression above, nearly all "Good Drow" descend intellectually from Drizz't, even if the maker of that Drow has never heard the name, but rather has only read about the deity of "Good Drow". Some people who recognize that the character is not a Drizz't clone, but that it is based, in some way, on Drizz't, may use this buzz-word set, as they do not know how to put it in any other way.

---------------------------------------

As for Drizz't himself? He had a peculiar eye color, and the only Drow he ever found that shared that eye color with himself was his father, who was also his combat trainer. The two were also the only "Good Drow" that were found anywhere in the book series. This eye color mutation was also what gave Drizz't's father the hope that his son might be different from the rest of the Drow, give him the hop to continue carrying on, in the chance of finding another person who felt at he did.

Both of these men, at a very basic and instinctual level. They felt that Drow society, and the Drow way of doing things was wrong, without ever being exposed to the idea, from an outside source.

In the book series it's self, they were both mutants, who deviated from their society from birth. Yet, each of these men made several choices, that set them apart from each other.

And both recognized the evil of the rest of their race, and would likely be even less trusting of Drow (if possible) than any surface dwellers.

Dacia Brabant
2009-04-26, 07:14 PM
I agree with most of that, except the bit about Arwen. She's only a few generations removed from Luthien (Luthien -> Dior -> Elwing -> Elrond -> Arwen) - compared to Aragorn's dozens or hundreds - and an elf-princess thousands of years old herself. In fact, isn't she explicitly said to be the only mortal ever to nearly rival Luthien in beauty or something?

Yes, she's flat-out stated to be Luthien's likeness returned to Middle-earth, so in that sense definitely not a pale imitation of the original. However, Arwen does no great deeds (in the book at least) while Luthien has many such aristeia, overcoming Morgoth and all his servants, and even frigging Mandos--she's the only person to have ever moved him to tears. So in that sense Arwen's fairly minor by comparison, although since she was never given the opportunity to shine it's hard to say what she could have done.


Edit: That isn't to say that you're not correct about the Aragorn-Arwen plot. It's very clearly a reflection of Beren and Luthien. The mortal man and the elven princess; the stern father demands an impossible quest before he'll consent to a marriage...

The film's portrayal of this aside, there's not really much to indicate this in the book--to my recollection the only thing Elrond witheld from Aragorn was the Scepter of Annuminas until he earned it by becoming king. I'm pretty sure Elrond knew and accepted the fact that if the War of the Ring was successful then Aragorn and Arwen would wed, despite the sorrow it would bring by losing her to mortality.


Sauron is a pale imitation of his former master, Morgoth.

I don't agree with this, it's more that Sauron is a different sort of BBEG than Morgoth--the latter was all about corrupting and ruining everything at the cost of his own strength, while the former was all about dominating everything and expanding his personal power. Sauron certainly didn't have the kind of influence upon Arda that Melkor had, but he is described as being personally more powerful than his master, and let's face it, if he had won the War of the Ring (and he had a high probability of winning) he'd rule the world pretty much forever.


Sorry that this is off-topic. I think evil elves shouldn't be any more or less rare than evil humans or dwarves or any other ordinary sapient race. Drow however I'm inclined to say that good ones--as in D&D Good, valuing and respecting life for its own sake--should be rare due to the circumstances of living in the Underdark. This should make them fiercely xenophobic and hateful of any weak links (D&D Good would be a weakness to them) within their community, purely for the sake of survival.

But the way they're presented as constantly killing each other within their own household, all because of their Chaotic Stupid goddess, is counter-intuitive and lame. I would have them operate more like Redcloak really. This of course wouldn't apply to one raised in a less horrifying and more pluralistic locale however.

with an e
2009-04-26, 08:15 PM
A HIGHLY simplified version:

50% of the population has personality trait X.
Of those 50%, 90% of THEM have a specific GATC string, which after accounting for environmental variables, seems to be the common factor.

Thus having GATC string is almost certainly means that a person will demonstrate personality trait X. It's not a guarantee (there are people without the string that exhibit the trait), but a very strong indicator. Make sense?
No. Those numbers give the probability of GATC string, given personality trait X. They do not give the probability of personality trait X, given GATC string. Suppose that 90% of the 50% of the population that does not have personality trait X also have the same GATC string, then the presence of GATC string does not correlate with personality trait X; it's just a characteristic of the population.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 08:27 PM
Yes, she's flat-out stated to be Luthien's likeness returned to Middle-earth, so in that sense definitely not a pale imitation of the original. However, Arwen does no great deeds (in the book at least) while Luthien has many such aristeia, overcoming Morgoth and all his servants, and even frigging Mandos--she's the only person to have ever moved him to tears. So in that sense Arwen's fairly minor by comparison, although since she was never given the opportunity to shine it's hard to say what she could have done.
I always thought that Galadriel was more Luthien's match in terms of power, though she was around during the First Age, so she's not so much a pale imitation as she is a holdover from the time when everything was better and more powerful.

The film's portrayal of this aside, there's not really much to indicate this in the book--to my recollection the only thing Elrond witheld from Aragorn was the Scepter of Annuminas until he earned it by becoming king. I'm pretty sure Elrond knew and accepted the fact that if the War of the Ring was successful then Aragorn and Arwen would wed, despite the sorrow it would bring by losing her to mortality.
Well, the way I see it is, both Finrod (Was it Finrod or Fingol who was Luthien's dad? So many Fins its hard to tell which!) and Elrond demanded seemingly impossible tasks from the respective suitors of their respective daughters. Luthien's father demanded a Silmaril, which was pretty damn impossible to get, considering they were in Morgoth's possession at the time. Elrond demanded that Aragorn unite the race of men and restore the old kingdom, something which at that point was likely just as impossible, since Aragorn, at least in the beginning, doesn't seem like a likely king. And yet despite those long odds, both Beren and Aragorn succeeded.

I don't agree with this, it's more that Sauron is a different sort of BBEG than Morgoth--the latter was all about corrupting and ruining everything at the cost of his own strength, while the former was all about dominating everything and expanding his personal power. Sauron certainly didn't have the kind of influence upon Arda that Melkor had, but he is described as being personally more powerful than his master, and let's face it, if he had won the War of the Ring (and he had a high probability of winning) he'd rule the world pretty much forever.
I should probably read The Silmarillion more carefully then. The main thing I understand about both Sauron and Morgoth is that they expect everybody else to think like them, which leads to their downfall.

Sorry that this is off-topic. I think evil elves shouldn't be any more or less rare than evil humans or dwarves or any other ordinary sapient race. Drow however I'm inclined to say that good ones--as in D&D Good, valuing and respecting life for its own sake--should be rare due to the circumstances of living in the Underdark. This should make them fiercely xenophobic and hateful of any weak links (D&D Good would be a weakness to them) within their community, purely for the sake of survival.

But the way they're presented as constantly killing each other within their own household, all because of their Chaotic Stupid goddess, is counter-intuitive and lame. I would have them operate more like Redcloak really. This of course wouldn't apply to one raised in a less horrifying and more pluralistic locale however.
You're right about the thread getting off-topic, sorry about that. :smallredface:

To be honest, I really don't get Lolth. If she wants her people to be strong, why does she force them into a society that is inherently weak and unstable. If the drow got their act together and united, they'd probably stand a chance of winning if they invaded. But because Lolth insists that her own people backstab each other for seemingly no reason other than just for the hell of it, makes me wonder why the hell the drow even followed her in the first place. She sounds like she's insane.

Tiki Snakes
2009-04-26, 08:36 PM
To be honest, I really don't get Lolth. If she wants her people to be strong, why does she force them into a society that is inherently weak and unstable. If the drow got their act together and united, they'd probably stand a chance of winning if they invaded. But because Lolth insists that her own people backstab each other for seemingly no reason other than just for the hell of it, makes me wonder why the hell the drow even followed her in the first place. She sounds like she's insane.

Because the Strong survive. On an individual basis, the average drow is going to be more cunning, more intelligent, more dangerous in a fight than his equivelant in almost any comparable society, due to the nature of Drow society and life. If Drow society can survive, or even flourish, under these circumstances then imagine their potential when they genuinely DO turn their energies onto the outside world.

To be fair, depending on what you read, Lolth may indeed be insane. Still, she's doing pretty well for herself despite it, and in the Realms has just acheived Greater Deity status, I understand? Despite, or because of, the traits that some would call madness.

Also, is it just me, or do alot of these 'variations' revolve cheifly around setting up either a Patriarchal Drow society, a Good Drow Society, or both?
If they don't look like Drow, don't Act like drow, aren't motivated like Drow, and in general share nothing but a name and at most a passing mention of Lolth, then, well, you've not re-written the Drow, you've written them out. Which is fair enough, but don't confuse the two! :)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-26, 08:41 PM
The clergy of Elistraee are female from any race. These preistesses much further the cause of beauty and song. They must always carry one of their godesses favored instuments, the horn, flute, or harp. Their lot in life is to pursuade drow to return to the surface world and work to improve surface relations.

I played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits as a drow party. We worshiped Vhaeraun, and pretty much slaughtered any other drow we came across. I played a lower-class mongrel (lesser drow, PGtF) ranger, who was a pretty nice guy - once you remove the pride, misogyny, and bloodlust. We didn't get up to meeting any Elistraee minions, but I expect we'd attack the sexists on sight.

Froogleyboy
2009-04-26, 08:41 PM
I just had a cool idea. A szarchei (sp?) (szarchei are albino drow) cleric of Elistraee who goes around saying shes an elf

snoopy13a
2009-04-26, 08:46 PM
I always thought that Galadriel was more Luthien's match in terms of power, though she was around during the First Age, so she's not so much a pale imitation as she is a holdover from the time when everything was better and more powerful.

Well, the way I see it is, both Finrod (Was it Finrod or Fingol who was Luthien's dad? So many Fins its hard to tell which!) and Elrond demanded seemingly impossible tasks from the respective suitors of their respective daughters. Luthien's father demanded a Silmaril, which was pretty damn impossible to get, considering they were in Morgoth's possession at the time. Elrond demanded that Aragorn unite the race of men and restore the old kingdom, something which at that point was likely just as impossible, since Aragorn, at least in the beginning, doesn't seem like a likely king. And yet despite those long odds, both Beren and Aragorn succeeded.



Luthien's parents were Thingol (Elwe) and Melian the Maia. Finrod was Galadriel's brother.

Thingol was a Teleri elf who was one of the three messengers to Aman to see the Valar. He returned to Middle Earth, saw Melian and fell in love. His kingdom of Doriath was protected from evil by Melian and was the home of the Teleri elves who did not cross the ocean who are called the Sindar.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-26, 08:50 PM
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. :smallsmile:

snoopy13a
2009-04-26, 09:03 PM
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. :smallsmile:

There's lots of elf names to keep track off. Especially with the Fins :smallsmile:

Part of Luthien's beauty and power is of course due to her mother being the Tolkien equivalent of an angel (or a minor goddess depending on your interpretation). I think it is a bit funny that the characters in the Simarillion don't usually follow Melian's advice. Yep, don't follow her advice, she doesn't know anything about the world. It isn't like she didn't help create it or anything :smalltongue:

Froogleyboy
2009-04-28, 03:51 PM
This is getting waaaaay off track. this is supposed to be a disscusion about "why are all good drow called drizz't clones"

Weirdlet
2009-04-28, 04:06 PM
Because the material provided on them/popular image of them has a very specific dichotomy and makes it difficult (not impossible- if you inject a little imagination) to see any other option than psycho-evil or blazing psycho-good. Everyone's heard of the Drizzt clone, and is leery of it, so any mention of 'dark elf' in any way that could be acceptable on the surface is automatically suspect. Unless you've actually got something really good and they're willing to give it enough of a chance to see it, it's an automatic 'Not in my game, buddy.'

Me, I've always wanted to play some poor grunt of a drow, whose woman threw him over for a newer model without even having the decency to cut out his heart properly, and *that's* why he's brought himself to the surface and will hire out to anyone who'll pay him enough to keep on destroying his liver.

monty
2009-04-28, 05:02 PM
This is getting waaaaay off track. this is supposed to be a disscusion about "why are all good drow called drizz't clones"

I'm sorry, are you new here? We don't know what "on-topic" means.

FatR
2009-04-28, 05:24 PM
{Scrubbed}

Satyr
2009-04-28, 05:33 PM
{Scrubbed}

Can you see the difference between the equation of two concepts and the application of one concept in a different context? Especially since very often the fantasy creatures at hand are nothing but stand-ins for humans (just with rubber foreheads, etc.) and the essential message is one like "Peace between people who are different is impossible because ... they are different!" ehich is pretty much pure racism in its whole glaurious tautology.

SurlySeraph
2009-04-28, 05:45 PM
Whether or not inherently evil fantasy races are a racist concept, whether or not evil exists, whether or not culture and personality are linked, can we get off this line of discussion?

AbyssKnight
2009-04-28, 05:51 PM
Well, theres not many drow worshipping Eilistrae any more, given that she is.......you know.......dead.

FatR
2009-04-28, 06:08 PM
Can you see the difference between the equation of two concepts and the application of one concept in a different context?
Can you? Because you think you do latter, while in fact you do former.


Especially since very often the fantasy creatures at hand are nothing but stand-ins for humans (just with rubber foreheads, etc.) and the essential message is one like "Peace between people who are different is impossible because ... they are different!" ehich is pretty much pure racism in its whole glaurious tautology.
Essential message is either "BBEGs who need expendable goons and have necessary mojo to create biological killing machines are likely to do so" or "you shouldn't think about phylosophy of violence, or somesuch, when some sanity-blasting creatures, that can only be defined as "people" in the most loose sense of the word, attempt to stab you in the face". Also, yes, peace between beings who are sufficiently different is impossible, because they are different. Humans just aren't going to coexist with illithids. Which has jack and **** to do with racism, because in our world there are no sufficient differences to make this cold, hard fact, while in games and books you have differences that make peace flat-out impossible, such as Sanity loss just from looking, lifecycle inherently harmful to others or programming for extreme agression, to name just the three most common.

Josh the Aspie
2009-04-28, 06:10 PM
This is getting waaaaay off track. this is supposed to be a disscusion about "why are all good drow called drizz't clones"

Well, I made a rather in depth post on an aspect of that topic, and have yet to see a reply on it from anyone, including yourself. It's often rather difficult to keep a thread 'on topic' when it's originator declines to partake in discussion on that topic.

FatR
2009-04-28, 06:11 PM
Whether or not inherently evil fantasy races are a racist concept, whether or not evil exists, whether or not culture and personality are linked, can we get off this line of discussion?
Sorry.

Returning to the topic, I agree with the opinion, that evil elves carry no stigma of being massively overdone. After all, I don't remeber any evil elf, sufficiently popular to be a protagonist of a long series, in DnD novels. Whether any individual good drow really resembles Drizzt is relatively unimportant. Comparisons are unevitable just because Drizzt is so well-known (and annoys so many people).

chiasaur11
2009-04-28, 06:47 PM
I'm sorry, are you new here? We don't know what "on-topic" means.

Is it a type of damage modifier?

Roland St. Jude
2009-04-28, 07:09 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep in mind that discussion of real world politics and religion are prohibited on this forum. Also, we do not permit personal insults or attack on other posters, no matter how tame the insult is or how cleverly it's phrased.

AbyssKnight
2009-04-28, 07:19 PM
Sorry.

After all, I don't remeber any evil elf, sufficiently popular to be a protagonist of a long series, in DnD novels.


Elaith "the Serpent" Craulnober from Elaine Cunningham's novels. Evil, elven, protagonist, and appears in quite a few novels.

Granted, still not as popular as Drizzt, but there you go.

JoshuaZ
2009-04-28, 07:20 PM
Halflings started as LG because they were modeled after Hobbits. But then a lot of material made them appear more and more CG (especially Forgotten Realms stuff) so they were eventually moved over.

Froogleyboy
2009-04-28, 07:20 PM
who insulted who? snd the only religion weve spoken of eilistree

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-28, 07:21 PM
Halflings started as LG because they were modeled after Hobbits. But then a lot of material made them appear more and more CG (especially Forgotten Realms stuff) so they were eventually moved over.

Pre-3.5 FR material portrayed halflings as CG? Huh? Where?

3.5 halflings just got a bunch of kender injected into them.

theMycon
2009-04-28, 07:26 PM
Huh? We're not discussing physics here. :smallconfused:

Because this is the internet, I'm obligated to make a link to XKCD which has no real relevancy to this discussion.
Sociology is basically physics, filtered a few times (http://xkcd.com/435/).
I want you to know I spent ten minutes searching for that. Be grateful I did it, so no-one else has to.

JoshuaZ
2009-04-28, 07:59 PM
Pre-3.5 FR material portrayed halflings as CG? Huh? Where?


Let's see. Regis in the Icewind Dale Trilogy. The books published in 1988,89 and 90. That's well before 3rd edition. Similarly, Alias's halfing bard friend from Azure Bonds and its sequals is also CG and again is prior to 3rd edition. In fact, both are prior to 3.5.

(The kender thing is interesting anyways because the depiction of both kenders and halflings as thieves might in part to come from Bilbo being a thief).

monty
2009-04-28, 09:20 PM
Because this is the internet, I'm obligated to make a link to XKCD which has no real relevancy to this discussion.
Sociology is basically physics, filtered a few times (http://xkcd.com/435/).
I want you to know I spent ten minutes searching for that. Be grateful I did it, so no-one else has to.

You say that like looking through the xkcd archives is a chore.

SurlySeraph
2009-04-28, 09:25 PM
Well, theres not many drow worshipping Eilistrae any more, given that she is.......you know.......dead.

Not in my Forgotten Realms she isn't.
Stupid officially canon novels. :smallannoyed:

Faulty
2009-04-28, 09:32 PM
Not in my Forgotten Realms she isn't.
Stupid officially canon novels. :smallannoyed:

It was an incredibly contrived move to trim down the pantheon for 4E. The 4E Realms are not the Realms. -_-

Josh the Aspie
2009-04-28, 10:06 PM
Not in my Forgotten Realms she isn't.
Stupid officially canon novels. :smallannoyed:

Well in MY... wait. I don't have one... precisely because of things like her, the under-dark, the many deaths of Mystra, Elminster and his wonky hat, and what ever else have you.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-29, 01:55 AM
Let's see. Regis in the Icewind Dale Trilogy. The books published in 1988,89 and 90. That's well before 3rd edition. Similarly, Alias's halfing bard friend from Azure Bonds and its sequals is also CG and again is prior to 3rd edition. In fact, both are prior to 3.5.

(The kender thing is interesting anyways because the depiction of both kenders and halflings as thieves might in part to come from Bilbo being a thief).

Those are individual halflings. When are halflings, as a race or culture, portrayed as CG in pre-3.X material?

LibraryOgre
2009-04-29, 08:44 AM
Let's see. Regis in the Icewind Dale Trilogy. The books published in 1988,89 and 90. That's well before 3rd edition. Similarly, Alias's halfing bard friend from Azure Bonds and its sequals is also CG and again is prior to 3rd edition. In fact, both are prior to 3.5.

(The kender thing is interesting anyways because the depiction of both kenders and halflings as thieves might in part to come from Bilbo being a thief).

Read more than the novels, really. The game material made it pretty clear that such exceptions existed, but that the bulk of halflings were sedentary, lawful, folk. The Moonshae Trilogy is a good example of this... you've got a halfling traveling with the group, but most of them stick around their homes (and get slaughtered by werewolves).

It's just that farmers who dislike adventure are hard to write an adventure novel around, without it turning into either "The Hobbit" or "Father Dowling Mysteries".

hamishspence
2009-04-29, 12:53 PM
Races of the Wild plays halflings up as roguish, wanderers, very Chaotic. Shining South, less so, but they do regularly move house, even in their homeland, because they prefer not to remain in one place for long.

Pre 3.5 though- maybe Basic D&D descriptions of them?

Froogleyboy
2009-04-29, 04:47 PM
Not in my Forgotten Realms she isn't.
Stupid officially canon novels. :smallannoyed:

I don't go bye those novels. they make me mad, because some ppl don't have the novels. My DM pulled that crap on me when I was playing a
half-drow cleric of Elistree after a month of playing I say "I wanna cast..." and he cut me off saying "you cant use your magic anymore because I read last night that someone killed her" so i threw PHB at him and broke his nose in two places :biggrin:

Xenogears
2009-04-29, 06:18 PM
I don't go bye those novels. they make me mad, because some ppl don't have the novels. My DM pulled that crap on me when I was playing a
half-drow cleric of Elistree after a month of playing I say "I wanna cast..." and he cut me off saying "you cant use your magic anymore because I read last night that someone killed her" so i threw PHB at him and broke his nose in two places :biggrin:

That seems a wee bit excessive there.....

Nai_Calus
2009-04-29, 07:13 PM
I'm all for Eilistraee dying because she was a failure at what she was trying to do with the drow for all those thousands of years and they're frankly better off with Corellon, but man, why'd they have to off Vhaeraun?

The only realms-specific deity that didn't suck. :|

Kris Strife
2009-04-29, 10:09 PM
Is it a type of damage modifier?

Yes. The enchantment On Topic gives a +5 against trolls, over comes their DR and regeneration and can not be healed except by Cure X Wounds effects.

This is not a comment on any playgrounders. I have reserved the legal services of Mechanus to dispute any claims to the contrary.

Also, this needs to be homebrewed for Shadowrun or something.

Nai_Calus
2009-04-30, 08:02 AM
Also, this needs to be homebrewed for Shadowrun or something.

Shadowrun elves make Sun Elves look nice and friendly. At least the Tir does, anyway.

Froogleyboy
2009-05-01, 03:34 PM
bumpity bump bump