LE Drow and Lolth


3.5/d20/OGL

101 to 104 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Larry Lichman wrote:
Chaotic doesn't mean stupid.

You nailed me here!

Alright folks, time for me to come clean on my bias -- though it does not diminish my or others' argument,

I've always seen Chaotic as incredibly stupid.
For me, there are 3 possible good alignments:
Lawful Good (my fav)
Neutral Good
Stupid Good

Same with Evil:
LE (my fav)
NE
Stupid Evil

Grand Lodge

On Larry Lichman's fine post:

I agree with just about everything here but let me pull out this one critcal line to challenge.

Larry Lichman wrote:
A Devil Lord has a well organized governmental hierarchy filled with trusted lieutenants who are loyal to the Lord.

Asmodeus's "trusted Lt.'s" aren't so loyal. Just like the Demons, they'd love nothing better than to usurp power.

.
.
.

ARRRGH, sorry guys; it's 5:00 here, I've GOT to get. I will do my best to finish right where I left off in a few hours (no promises -- it may be tomorrow)

Anyway, lots of fun -- I'll catch up soon. I know I'm behind.


Drow live in an inherently chaotic evil society. They thrive on the premise of "survival of the fittest". The strongest, most powerful members of their society are the leaders. When a leader shows weakness, they terminate that individual with extreme prejudice (or at the very least, humiliate them and cast them out). Yes, they have a certain degree of order in their society, but it is simply because it is based around the principle of mutual benefit, not because they believe in a social contract or system of law and order beyond the survival of the fittest principle. As Nietzsche says "from chaos comes order".


OK, ok lots can be ahhh… reinterpreted. Posts are easy targets. (Shame on you all! Don’t you know Archlich knows best?)

No one so far has argued that they are not evil. So the qualifier we are looking for is lawful, chaotic or the dreaded Neutral. [key dramatic music]

For reference:

Spoiler:

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Hmmm anyone else notice the implied ‘good’ written throughout that?

Anyway then we will go here:

LE

Spoiler:

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

NE

Spoiler:

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

CE

Spoiler:

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Key Quotes
“A lawful evil villain … cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.…”

Hmmm doesn’t sound like the drow I know.

“A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble.”

Unfortunately seems on target.

“A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.”

Seems possible. Unlikely but possible.

So looks like NE is in the lead, CE trailing behind and LE seems to have sprained an ankle and fallen behind.


Where puppy go? I like puppies!


Uber McHackistan wrote:
Where puppy go? I like puppies!

Good gods, that's a freaky avatar!

....

Sorry, what were we talking about?


Molech wrote:
Believing the strong shold rule -- "believing" mind you -- is more Lawful than Chaotic

I completely disagree. I see this as the definition of EVIL, whereas the distinction of Law vs. Chaos is the methods used to gain power and stay in power. Chaos is no-holds-barred while Law stipulates a systematic form of competition.

"Anything goes" is not a Code of Conduct, but rather a way of conducting oneself. A being who will "do anything to get ahead" is Chaotic Evil while one who will self-limit because society tells him that is the proper way to act (and not for fear of getting caught and punished) is LE.

CE can act within the rules, but only because they fear punishment while LE acts within the rules because they think it is right. Of course, LE will try to manipulate the rules to their own favor.

Molech wrote:
ArchLich wrote:
Drow society is CE but works within a LE framework.
Well, it's the best attempt yet, but...

HEY !!!! I said almost the exact same thing 25 post earlier. Where's my props ????

Rez :-(

Grand Lodge

Oh lord, how am I ever going to catch up.

I spent the last 10-15 minutes (before starting this at 11:39) reading what I've missed and reviewing my posts from this afternoon. My god, my earlier posts today were badly written! (As were some of my other ones -- I really don't do informal writting!) They're so disorganized, and did you see that huge italics blunder? Well I new had little time and wanted to get as much out as possible.

A few notes before I get into the meat.

Archlich, sorry that it sounds like I dismissed your argument after only reading the first two statements. I saw that it was a long post and that I needed to spend an appropriate amount of time reviewing it. My initial reply to it was just meant to be an intro -- and yes, an intro indicating what I thought I was going to see. (Prof reads the opening paragraph and grades the essay - student says, "you only read my thesis statement" - prof says, "that's all I need to read." Now, we really aren't that dismissive until the grad level, it's just an anecdote to let undergrads know how important the thesis is.) Anyway...

Sorry about a number of grammatical slips, "shold" instead of "should," and poor diction. I'm trained to proofread and edit, then consider some more and proofread and edit again -- and again and again. There have been a number of times where I've seen myself having used a less precise word than was obvious and immedietly thinking, "Argh, I should've used 'this word' instead." Oh, and can you believe I couldn't think of Zaknafien's name!? Also, my use of italics, bold and all-caps has been inconsistant. That's a horrible crime in my field; I'll try to create a consitent model that is obvious.
Mark all this off to me rushing through this stuff. Many of you (and most people, perhaps) may be used to typing informally on messageboards; I am most certainly not accustomed to informal writing. (Sheesh, check the time I started this and the time it will post -- this being a garbage post, to boot). And I'm still not really going to be able to proof it, let alone edit.

Heath, btw, I meant to congratulate you and your family about your new baby on another Thread a while back. Better late than never, right?: CONGRATS!

Rezdave, I realize that Larry was not the first to mention the "CE in a LE framework" model for the drow -- it has been alluded to a few times though I haven't checked the first that was leaning toward it (or perhaps stating it explicitly). I'm not your prof, though, so you know my props are not important. I was trying to say that that general argument was the best idea that I had seen up to that point. Larry's articulation of it made me comment on the whole of that argument up to that point, culminating with Larry's summation.

Grand Lodge

Larry Lichman wrote:


One big point that keeps being driven home is that planning actions/considering consequences for actions makes you lawful.
Chaotic doesn't mean stupid.
Even the most Chaotic creature would think twice before doing something that could result in its death.
Look at Demon Lords.

Like I was beginning to say earlier, this really breaks me. I think that because I have such a low opinion of Chaotic "nature" or "personality," my bias could bleed into my argument. Reevaluating the PHB description of CE, I have to say that the points you provide are indicative of CE -- afterall, the demons are CE.

Of course, this really puts a new dynamic in the whole argument for me. See, up to this point I have not seen the remotest chance that drow are CE as a whole. In fact, I was beginning to side with the idea, distasteful to D&D tradition as it is, that Lolth, by forcing LE behavior on her subjects (who may be any evil or any 1 of the evils) is actually LE!!!

Now that you've made some introductory points on Demon Lord behavior, I can see a possible argument for the drow as CE. Sure, I still see them as wholly LE, but I finally understand why others may not.

Thus, if it ends here, all those who said in the beginning, "it's something that is completely subjective and up to homebrew or DM / Player preference," were right.

But let me ask you this, Larry and other CE supporters, looking at your points -- described in the PHB and accepted as general D&D belief -- which villain, though both are capable -- "feels" to you like the more patient, methodical, hierarchical, orderly villain, the CE or the LE?

Here's Larry's points again:

Larry wrote:


(Demons) all (have) far flung plans to defeat their rivals. Some of these plans take centuries and require great patience. They also rule over minor demons with an iron fist. The demons below them are constantly looking for ways to overthrow the Demon Lord and become more powerful (but none are stupid enough to do this openly). So, they follow the rules set out by their Chaotic Lord until an opportunity presents itself to move up the food chain. If they get caught, they are killed outright. Game over. There is no trust in a Demon's mind.

Grand Lodge

Saern wrote:


It's very likely that Grazz't's guards have to stop hordes of (very stupid) dretch from swarming the palace at times. There are hardly even any ranks or positions to be held, except the self-titled nobility and "rulers." Drow definitely have legitimate positions of authority within their culture. (Of course, the tanar'ri are outsiders and thus a much purer...

Yeah, as I think more about "typical" devil and "typical" demon, this is what I come up with.

Looking back at adventures and novels in D&D history, demons have been far more "random" in their chaos than the Chaotic that Larry has alluded to.

Tenebrous (Orcus) in "Dead Gods," for example, does plan out his course of actions and has a hierarchy BUT it is excruciatingly less deep than the machinations of the drow. He percieves, what, three things he needs to regain his godhood and mauls the planes looking for them. Now, he does assume the identity as Ruler of Nirvana for a while to gather some info, but even then his impatience and chaotic nature drive him to a far different course of actions than those of a, say, Matron Baenre, if she had been on the throne of Nirvana. Now, Orcus still succeeds, but that just implies that either chaos or law can accomplish a villain's goals.

Graz'zt and Iggwilv may be our exceptions. Their long term plans seem quite involved -- though still still short of the degrees of planning and conspiracy as the drow. And Graz'zt and Iggwilv are the "lawfulest" of the demons -- some even smirk that they aren't CE at all.

Demogorgon, well, I've not read STAP yet because I'm REALLY hoping to find someone who can run it for me as a PC. I get to PC so seldomly but I really would like to experience this one as a player, which I can't do if I read it. But, as I understand it, Demogorgon has a plan to turn the whole ocean/s of the Prime Material into a "savage tide" of ickyness (no spoilers, please). So, are his plans as layered as the drow's?

However, those are adventures, not novels. We have to accept that a novel will contain far more depth than an adventure. And "Ah Ha," I say, "That is why the authors choose to make their BBEGs more "LE" feeling (despite being drow) than "CE."

In the novel, The Glass Prison, Monte Cook portrays the Balor (damn, can't think of his name) as CE and makes a point of saying this -- through his cambion son, Vheod, in the closing moments. BUT, Charon (that's his name) had to have planed well in advance the cause and effect scenario of his eventual "rescue" even as he was being captured all those generations ago.

Grand Lodge

ArchLich wrote:
So looks like NE is in the lead, CE trailing behind and LE seems to have sprained an ankle and fallen behind.

LOL

I quoted the intro of LE and some lines of CE waaay earlier in the Thread as the criteria we must use for our basis and added that supplements, novels and (published) adventures are the appropriate interpreters and developpers of ambiguous aspects of the PHB.

Now that I'm forced to acquiesce that (D&D) Chaotic can be more than just "stupid" I've taken a good (new) look at the PHB. It's after 1:00 so I won't get into my conclusions YET but I have to admit, according to the PHB, one could interpret drow as CE -- not drow priestesses (with a few exceptions already mentioned, nor published drow wizards, nor most "warriors," but the possibility that drow in general are CE in a LE structured society.

They still "scream" LE to me (as someone put it earlier) and I still argue that published drow are more LE than CE, but Heath's "whisper on a stream" can work either way -- not just the CE whisper on the LE torrent that I believed a few days ago.

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

My schedule will not likely allow time to come back to Paizo until Monday afternoon.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Molech wrote:


But let me ask you this, Larry and other CE supporters, looking at your points -- described in the PHB and accepted as general D&D belief -- which villain, though both are capable -- "feels" to you like the more patient, methodical, hierarchical, orderly villain, the CE or the LE?

Molech, before I comment further, I just want to give you kudos for a fantastic thread!

I believe both types, CE and LE, can be patient, methodical, hierarchical and orderly. It's just the way they go about it that differs.

A Chaotic Evil villain is more likely to have plans that sow destruction and displeasure, and is more likely to make changes on the fly if things aren't going his/her way. Meaning the plan may undergo hundreds of revisions as it gets closer to fruition.

A Lawful Evil villain is more likely to have plans that elevate him or his belief system to a higher level, and is less likely to make changes without looking at the big picture and analyzing data first. A Lawful Evil villain's plan is also more likely to have more layers of complexity to it than a CE villain's plan. In addition, the LE's plan is more likely to have considered every possibility prior to being put in motion, making for fewer changes to the Master Plan as it reaches fruition.

Also, a CE villain is likely to have plans that do not take as long to complete as a LE villain. Taking my Demons and Devils example, a Demon Lord may have a master plan that takes decades or centuries to come to fruition, while a Devil Lord may have a master plan that takes millenia to come to fruition.

Another big difference is the reaction to failure. If a CE's plan fails, he's likely to lash out at anyone and anything nearby, essentially throwing a very deadly temper tantrum. If an LE's plan fails, he's more likely to concede defeat, learn from his mistakes, and realize that time is on his side. The plan failed. It's a minor setback. He'll just come up with a newer, better plan.

As far as a general "feeling," LE wins that argument. Their penchant for deception and making the rules fit their vision provides them with the patience necessary to be the more methodical villain.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Molech wrote:

On Larry Lichman's fine post:

I agree with just about everything here but let me pull out this one critcal line to challenge.

Larry Lichman wrote:
A Devil Lord has a well organized governmental hierarchy filled with trusted lieutenants who are loyal to the Lord.

Asmodeus's "trusted Lt.'s" aren't so loyal. Just like the Demons, they'd love nothing better than to usurp power.

.
.
.

...but they will work under established rules of engagement to usurp it. A Demon Lord's thralls will ignore any ruleset presented to accomplish the same goal.

This is what sets LE apart from CE.


Molech,

First off I would like to say I think you are doing a fine job. In your attentive monitoring of the thread, responding and doing so in a concise intellectual manner.

When I first had drow described to me by my DM I though CE my arse. I merely point this out to make it clear that this is your own fault :)

I believe you asked for more people to take either the LE or CE and debate.

Personally I don't think drow can be LE. They miss the main tenement of that alignment a sense of honour or a law system which they are loath to break. I also don’t believe they are CE they are too organized and show to much scheming emotional self control. The self serving nature and general evilness says NE to me. It allows for the best of both worlds, a structured looking society and untrustworthy evilness. But then again you said you wanted CE or LE and NE was a cop-out. :P

But then again the best example of a chaotic society I can think of are… can’t really think of one actually. Maybe Chaotic doesn’t produce societies as we think about them. Just loosely banded family structures that alter from generation to generation with loosely binding rules.

Oh and by the way spiders I would say are more chaotic then lawful. (Just ask my California Red Backed Jumping Spider, what a cutie!) I say this because spiders do not work well with others no matter how patient they might seem. Ever seen a spider pack?
...Well I hope you haven’t.


Larry Lichman wrote:
Molech wrote:


But let me ask you this, Larry and other CE supporters, looking at your points -- described in the PHB and accepted as general D&D belief -- which villain, though both are capable -- "feels" to you like the more patient, methodical, hierarchical, orderly villain, the CE or the LE?
Molech, before I comment further, I just want to give you kudos for a fantastic thread!

I agree. I think this is the best thread on Paizo in quite some time now!

Larry Lichman wrote:

I believe both types, CE and LE, can be patient, methodical, hierarchical and orderly. It's just the way they go about it that differs.

A Chaotic Evil villain is more likely to have plans that sow destruction and displeasure, and is more likely to make changes on the fly if things aren't going his/her way. Meaning the plan may undergo hundreds of revisions as it gets closer to fruition.

A Lawful Evil villain is more likely to have plans that elevate him or his belief system to a higher level, and is less likely to make changes without looking at the big picture and analyzing data first. A Lawful Evil villain's plan is also more likely to have more layers of complexity to it than a CE villain's plan. In addition, the LE's plan is more likely to have considered every possibility prior to being put in motion, making for fewer changes to the Master Plan as it reaches fruition.

Interesting points. Musing on this (and quite possibly redudantly covering the same ground as you), I would say I feel an intelligent Chaotic entity (such as Demogorgon or Orcus, etc.) may have many steps in mind to achieve their goal. The ability to think that far ahead is a function of Intelligence, not alignment. However, much, much less time is spent contemplating each step, and there would be few or no contingency plans. Snap decisions and virtually no second guessing or re-examination of the plan is the rule here. Each step, I think, would be very direct. There would be little subtlety unless absolutely necessary (or the entity enjoys such, such as Grazz't might, but even then it's basically a one-track plan with few or no backups). They don't consider what would happen if this or that step faltered; they just choose what (initially and/or obviously) appears to be the most efficient/quickest (or perhaps most fun, for them) option and go with it. "On paper," this is an extremely weak strategy.

But, the "strength" of Chaos comes when the stuff hits the fan, so to speak. An intelligent Chaotic villain simply trusts in his or her ability to rapidly reanalyze the situation and his lack of true investment in the original plan (perhaps he's invested in the overall mission, but not the individual means to get there). He adapts and does something completely unexpected, throwing his opponents off guard (he hopes), and snatching victory from defeat. Of course, if the gambit fails, then comes that deadly rage you mentioned.

So, commenting on Grazz't and his apparent coolness (meaning level headedness and planning), I'd say that is acceptable as Chaotic Evil so long as it's simply a matter of having thought more steps ahead, but not really any more about each particular one (except perhaps the very next thing on his agenda, and still only haphazardly at that).

However, when it comes to Chaotic beings being able to work in the framework of the rules and authority, I have two responses to this. For mortals, I agree. For outsiders, specifically the tanar'ri and other demons, I disagree. I can't concieve of any type of true structure in demonic hordes, other than the barest pretense of authority and order, which is truly only a massive and continual act of intimidation. Only the very loosest definitions of order would even be able to begin ceding the argument that demons have hierarchies beyond the strength of their sword, claw, or spell. And even that doesn't really count because there's no acceptance of that. At the first possible moment that any demon gets even the slightest inkling that they might be able to exert some upward mobility, they take the chance, wishes of others (or even the sanity of the action) be damned.

For example, in a battlefield of the Blood War, a balor fights a pit fiend. The dretch which "serve" him immediately turn and try to take the balor down, seeing this moment of weakness. They only think so far as "we outnumber the 'master,' and he's wounded." They don't consider that the balor barely has to break his rythm of attack against the pit fiend to slay all of them. The more intelligent vrock 'allies' realize (mostly) that the pit fiend will only slaughter all of them if he kills the balor, so they hold off attacking the commander (for now). Some of them simply wait, some attack the pit fiend, some attack the dretch, and maybe one or two who failed their Intelligence checks attack the balor as well.

Demons are the absolute and utter embodiment of Chaos and Evil. This is a far more overriding drive and force on their psyches than any level of intelligence. Afterall, "logic" is a very orderly process.

I still see drow as much more LE than CE, however, though NE (not simply as a bland cop-out, but as an alignment with its own distinct possibility) is gaining credence in my mind.


IMHO, the value and importance of alignment is vastly overrated ... but why not let the drow speak for themselves, aye?

Here you find what Quenthel Baenre of Menzoberranzan, Mistress of the Academy called Arach-Tinilith has to say about drow and their alignment:

The traitor elves of the World Above professed to hate evil. In reality, Quenthel thought, they feared what they didn't understand. Thanks to the tutelage of Lolth, the drow did, and having understood it, they embraced it.
For evil, like chaos, was one of the fundamental forces of Creation, manifest in both the macrocosm of the wide world and the microcosm of the individual soul. As chaos gave rise to possibility and imagination, so evil engendered strength and will. It made sentient beings aspire to wealth and power. It enabled them to subjugate, kill , rob, and deceive. It allowed them to do whatever was required to better themselves with never a crippling flicker of remorse.
Thus, evil was responsible for the existence of civilization and for every great deed any hero had ever performed. Without it, the people of the world would live like animals. It was amazing that so many races, blinded by false religion and philosophies, had lost sight of this self-evident truth. In contrast, the dark elves had based a society on it, and that was one of the points of superiority that served them to exalt them above all other races.

War of the Spider Queen I - Dissolution, p. 243

+ + +
Dark elves are courteous, urbane folk, and can be very amiable companions when they have no pressing reason to kill you.


Zanan wrote:

IMHO, the value and importance of alignment is vastly overrated ... but why not let the drow speak for themselves, aye?

Here you find what Quenthel Baenre of Menzoberranzan, Mistress of the Academy called Arach-Tinilith has to say about drow and their alignment:

The traitor elves of the World Above professed to hate evil. In reality, Quenthel thought, they feared what they didn't understand. Thanks to the tutelage of Lolth, the drow did, and having understood it, they embraced it.
For evil, like chaos, was one of the fundamental forces of Creation, manifest in both the macrocosm of the wide world and the microcosm of the individual soul. As chaos gave rise to possibility and imagination, so evil engendered strength and will. It made sentient beings aspire to wealth and power. It enabled them to subjugate, kill , rob, and deceive. It allowed them to do whatever was required to better themselves with never a crippling flicker of remorse.
Thus, evil was responsible for the existence of civilization and for every great deed any hero had ever performed. Without it, the people of the world would live like animals. It was amazing that so many races, blinded by false religion and philosophies, had lost sight of this self-evident truth. In contrast, the dark elves had based a society on it, and that was one of the points of superiority that served them to exalt them above all other races.

War of the Spider Queen I - Dissolution, p. 243

+ + +
Dark elves are courteous, urbane folk, and can be very amiable companions when they have no pressing reason to kill you.

We are well aware that the drow profess to be Chaotic Evil. What's at question is: are they really? Saying what one believes is one thing, and not a very big thing, when compared to real actions, which is another. There seems to be a suitable amount of evidence through the described actions of the drow to state that they are Neutral or Lawful, rather than Chaotic. Further, even within that passage, the vast majority deals with the drow perception of Evil (an aspect of their alignment that is not in question at all). There's only really a token mention, a lip-service, to the concept of Chaos.


ArchLich wrote:

Molech,

First off I would like to say I think you are doing a fine job. In your attentive monitoring of the thread, responding and doing so in a concise intellectual manner.

I have to second this (or maybe "third" after Saern). I still skim some other folks, but read all of yours.

Molech wrote:
They still "scream" LE to me (as someone put it earlier) and I still argue that published drow are more LE than CE

I'm glad to read recently you're seeing into some of the "CE within LE" arguements.

I originally brought up the issue/problem of basing one's arguements on extant published sources since they come from so many different writers and are purposed by a corporate machine to generate revenue rather than evolve one person's "creative vision".

In the TV industry every narrative (dramatic or comedy) series has a "show runner" responsible for maintaining its creative direction, continuity and canon. Having a single arbitor of such matters is invaluable, and even then slip-ups and changes can happen. When the show-runner (or even a large part of the writing staff) changes then continuity and canon, or simply "tone" can change drastically.

Consider, for example, a series like The Simpsons. How many alternate futures does Lisa have, even if you don't include a single Treehouse of Horror episode? Even the Star Trek franchise, though also known for accepting speculative scripts from fans, was famous for having an extensive "Bible" of canon and fans/writers devoted to the minutiae of the series and yet there are still any number of mistakes in continuity, character and so forth. Let's face it, sometimes you have to say "XXX wouldn't act like that".

How then can we consider the canonocity (is that a word?) of the Drow based on disparate sources published over several decades by different companies with different writers and so forth. To a certain degree, this entire discussion of Drow culture is to me is like trying to evaluate Klingon culture by simultaniously considering ST:TOS and ST:Enterprise as equally canon, or perhaps even engaging in the Klingon change of appearance arguement, again considering both TOS and Enterprise as if they were generated simultaniously.

Circling back to the specifics of the CE / LE debate, let me throw out a final point about published sources.

To quote myself from earlier in this thread, we all know that Drow are "mopey, androgenous, misunderstood CG" :-)

Seriously, though, it is the odd-balls and individuals who make interesting characters. We can't evaluate the "alignment" or "code of conduct" of the average MI-6 agent by basing our judgement on the actions of James Bond. Similarly, we must remember that the Drow in the published sources are the leaders, the odd-balls and so forth. The ordinary ones just aren't that interesting.

All that said, as a novelist I can assure you that a villain who is LE makes a much better long-term antagonist than one who is CE, and so I might write him that way for reasons of plot necessity regardless of his culture.

Here's another thought ... historically, most people would judge feudal Japanese culture of the Tokugawa era as almost undebatably LN. However, if you made that judgement based on the "published sources" of most Samurai Movies set in the era (particularly the Toshiro Mifune stuff) then you would deem samurai to be CG. Within a LN culture, however, the CG outsider makes a better and "more dramatic" hero.

With your Drow sources you could be dealing with the reverse. Most drow are CE seeking to advance themselves, even if it means "playing along" with the rules of those currently in power, but for the purposes of narrative stories (and book-sales) the LE ones make better antagonists or anti-heroes.

At least Moorcock explicitly states from the outset what an odd-ball Elric is.

Molech wrote:
Thus, if it ends here, all those who said in the beginning, "it's something that is completely subjective and up to homebrew or DM / Player preference," were right.

Sort of BenS in post #8, seconded by Baron in #9 and made explicit by ME in #11.

Hurray ... 1/3rd Props for Dave !!!! Go Me !!!

:-P to the rest of you.

Seriously, though, I believe "Do what you think is right for the needs and tone of your individual campaign" is the best answer.

Cheers all 'round.

Rez


Just keep in mind that the D&D drow where intended to be Chaotic Evil, especially their raiding parties and priestesses. That was the general lay out and this has come down to us through the years in lorebooks and novels time and again.

Obviously, society and all came later on and if you think carefully on it, a CE society does not exactly work long enough under all the alignment guidelines - unless there is a certain structure or regime in place. Most knowledge presented on drow (FR- or otherwise) shows us the MM-Lolthite beat-them-up version. Making assumptions from that or the presentation in novels (who often solely focus on the CE evil priestesses and their doings rather than society as a whole) will obviously lead to conflicting views.

IMHO, the NE alignment for the race and society as a whole fits them best ... and I kindly disregard the turn-the-new alignment-on-its-head-again sidebar in the new Drow of the Underdark. But that's just me.

Dark Archive Contributor

My own feelings on Menzobernzan and the society therein is that it is basically a huge clan structure.

To me, Chaotic tends to form loose clans at best, while Lawful implies an ordered city-type structure. Dwarves tend to have many families living and working together under the name "clan", but in reality have a very lawful struture to their societies. Elves tend to form smaller bands and isolated pockets of true clan structure.

On the surface, Drow seem to look more like the Dwarf model. However, their environment dictates that survival of a clan means that the clan has to be bigger.

Look at the other Underdark foes. An Illithid community of a hundred individuals and an Elder Brain is an extremely dangerous foe. CR 8 Mind Flayers (at least) plus a CR 25 leader. Nevermind other leveled Mind Flayers in their midst. Beholders are CR 13 at the minimum, a Neogi and an Umber Hulk are an EL 8 or 9 encounter, the list goes on.

Drow might be more likely to prefer a smaller house-based clan, but their environment forces them together.

That's why they are CE.


Boxhead wrote:
Look at the other Underdark foes. An Illithid community of a hundred individuals and an Elder Brain is an extremely dangerous foe. CR 8 Mind Flayers (at least) plus a CR 25 leader. Nevermind other leveled Mind Flayers in their midst. Beholders are CR 13 at the minimum

Interesting perspective. For those who like math, here's some comparisons (and forget the Elder Brain) ...

100 Mind Flayers (CR8) = 800 drow (CR2) = EL 21.29

18 Beholders (CR13) = 815 drow (CR2) = EL 21.34

Incidentally, the chosen base of "100 Mind Flayers" is half the minimum stated in the MM, which says they "congregate in underground cities of 200 to 2,000 inhabitants, plus at least two slaves for each resident."

Rez :-)

Grand Lodge

Well it's been a hectic week, workwise, as you can imagine, but I got some time last night to come back on-line and read up on what you folks had to say since Thursday -- which is, as I figured, not much.

Anyway. Now that I'm caught up with work I figured I'd throw ought my conclusions, anti-climactic and open-ended as they may be, and then move on to other, less stale Threads.

I spent 4 1/2 hours last night reading the 1E and 2E canon the 3E PHB and a handful of novels. Additionally, I printed out this Thread (OMG, 53 pages; Times New Roman, 8pt font!) and read through the various posts.

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

The PHB is necessarily abstract and brief when it comes to alignment descriptions. It states in the intro of the Alignment section that more than onetype of personality, etc., can have the same alignment. It further gives interpretive definitions on the Law/Chaos axis, many of which are arguably more appropriately on the Good/Evil axis -- or, at least, are certainly interpretable that way.

NOTE: I wrote down a number of quotes from core, supplement, and fiction books to reference and promptly forgot them this morning when I came to work!

Due to the interpretive nature of PHB Alignment descriptions we can easily apply multiple sets of criteria for the various evil alignments when we look at supplement fluff and novels. In other words, using strictly the PHB, one can interpret LE, CE, or NE conclusions from supplements and novels. I think it is purposely and correctly designed this way.

A few examples;

When Drizzt states to Wulfgar in training that (his) people kill... without passion. (The Crystal Shard);

When Drizzt and Zaknafien have a tense conversation of drow nature when Drizzt returns from "Melee-Magthere"(?) and they spar. (Homeland);

When Liriel Baenre passes "The Blooding" and Gromph and she discusses what makes a true drow, and earlier when Gromph declares that there is more to the drow than crude slaughter;

When Krystarn Felhammer describes her dedication to Lolth and plots to overthrow her master, the lich, Shallowsoul, throughout The Lost Library of Cormanthyr;

All of these "drow defining" parts of FR novels, as well as the fluff in Drow of the Underdark, and many other sources, can be defined as CE, LE, or NE(assuming the 3E PHB description of NE). It is, thus, the purview of each DM and each gaming group to set its own criteria, formally or informally, for drow alignment.

For my group, the drow are LE.

-W. E. Ray

Grand Lodge

PS:

Rezdave, your CR equivilent breakdown of Beholders, Mind Flayers and Drow is not accurate BECAUSE the number of CR 2 drow in any society gets smaller and smaller while the number of CR<2 drow gets larger and larger.


Molech wrote:
Rezdave, your CR equivilent breakdown of Beholders, Mind Flayers and Drow is not accurate BECAUSE the number of CR 2 drow in any society gets smaller and smaller while the number of CR<2 drow gets larger and larger.

You mean the number of CR>2 drow increases, but I know where you're coming from. Then again, there would presumably have been leveled Illithids and leveled or advanced Beholders.

This was the simple version. If you assume ratios among Drow and Mind Flayer society are roughly equal for leveled members then the numbers hold. This was just a quickie comparison and I intentionally cut corners.

Rez


Rezdave wrote:
Molech wrote:
Rezdave, your CR equivilent breakdown of Beholders, Mind Flayers and Drow is not accurate BECAUSE the number of CR 2 drow in any society gets smaller and smaller while the number of CR<2 drow gets larger and larger.

You mean the number of CR>2 drow increases, but I know where you're coming from. Then again, there would presumably have been leveled Illithids and leveled or advanced Beholders.

This was the simple version. If you assume ratios among Drow and Mind Flayer society are roughly equal for leveled members then the numbers hold. This was just a quickie comparison and I intentionally cut corners.

Rez

The CR comparisson lags, of course. The political structure of drow cities have been detailed in various sources and you will hardly find simple MM drow warrior 1 en masse opposing e.g. these MM mindflayers. Drow characters are indeed far more likely to advance in levels than mindflayers (if both survive), for the latter already start off with an ECL of 15. But I would assume that this wasn't your point anyway, right?

101 to 104 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / LE Drow and Lolth All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL