Look at this way. The encouragement is not so much as taught but demonstrated through action. In drow society it is survival of the fittest and every drow sees that from day one of their lives.
Still does not compute. First, the extreme social darwinism of that sort is massively inefficient on every level, and drow couldn't afford that in the formative centuries of their race (PF version of history). Second, even if the drow rulers backstab each other all the time, they shouldn't be the least bit interested in encouraging the same kind of behavior in their underlings, because psychopathic backstabbers do not make good underlings. They rule through fear alone (as loyalty, devotion to the common cause and mutual help through friendship are good qualities that are supposed to be unknown)? Why, then, not terrorize the commoners into being submissive and unthinkingly loyal instead (with magical mojo that cuts through deceptions and secrets, if necessary)?
For me the 'clone' label doesn't really require specifically duplicating Drizzt (or Wolverine, or some other flavor-of-the-month character), but duplicating the basic concept.
Then we need to rename everyting in the PHB
Races:
Legolas Clone
Gimly Clone
Boromir Clone
Urukhai Clone
Frodo Clone
Elrond Clone
Classes:
Boromir Clone
Conan Clone
Aragorn Clone
Gallahad Clone
.....
You get the point. The game doesn't have that many basic concepts to not "clone" them.
A character - especially drizzt - is so much more than the basic concept.
Unusual race, unusual race / class combo, unusual / distinctive / signature weapon choice or attack style, loner (who might have an animal friend or spirit companion or familiar or evil soul-sucking sentient artifact sword as his only confidant) / out of element / breaks the 'rules.'
So a chaos gnome barbarian is a drizzt clone?
What do you consider unusual for race or race/class comboHow far away from "longsword and heavy shield" can you go before it becomes an unusual weapon choice or attack tyle?
Is every character who isn't lawful (i.e. one who breaks the rules) a clone?
Back in 1st edition, when Drizzt was a Ranger (a class forbidden to Drow), who had the Weapon Specialization of a Fighter, several different Thief ability *and* could assassinate people like an Assassin (and wore Bracers of the Blinding Strike on his darned ankles, because they 'made him too awesome' if he wore them on his wrists), and happily ignored the Drow sunlight weakness, yeah, he was the poster child for 'have you even read the darned rules?'
The proper responses to that question are either: "huh? Rules? I'm writing a novel here, not a transcript of my game session" or "yeah! They suck. Those restrictions make no sense. Damn, I wish Monte would make haste and invent that 3rd edition thingy so we can kick this garbe into the trash can."
Sometimes, it's fun to play something 'different' (thri-kreen, gnoll, hobgoblin, nerra, gnomish were-giant-space-hamster). Sometimes, it's even more of a challenge to play something utterly *common* and make it special and unique. Due to the sometimes eye-rollingly-bad role-playing of 'very special' unique and precious snowflake characters, I tend to knee-jerk react against them, in my old age.
I have no problem with having a grudge against too many unique characters (if everyone's unique, no one is).
I do have a problem when someone redefines "clone" as "anything even vaguely resembling something else, like having a single characteristic in common" and then whining about all the evil clones out there.
In fact, I think I'll create a Golarion equivalent of Eilistraee just out of spite! }>
The good drow seeking redemption for the evils inflicted upon the world by his race is not supposed to be common; encountering such a character is supposed to be so rare that you'd stand a better chance of being eaten by the tarrasque, enjoying a complete and first-hand tour of the beast's digestive track, and still be able to eat and keep down a full-course meal upon your natural exit. Yet it ends up being a commonly-played concept.
Roleplaying characters, especially in D&D, are by their very definition unique. I sizable part of the community holds that by the end of a campaign, the PCs are among the most powerful beings in the whole world. Every single time, or nearly so.
Of course, you have to remember that in Pathfinder, any drow not towing the party line of Evil is taken and experimented on, and then turned into a bug hybrid.This always seemed like total b#!@#*~* to me. Not only in this particular case. Why in the Nine Hells people who set the rules in the drow society would encourage their underlings to be more backstabbing, ambitious, quarrelsome and generally unreliable? It is not like they have any sort of selfless devotion to the cause of Chaos and Evil, because Chaos+Evil combination is as directly opposite to such idea as theoretically possible. It is also not like they are idiots.
It's easy: They view being a scheming backstabber as the norm. If you fall outside the norm, you're a freak or lunatic. And those get "fixed" or "put away" as a matter of course.
Plus, if that guy being a freak is a member of your family and could bring shame upon you and yours by his nature, he needs to disappear.
|
In fact, I think I'll create a Golarion equivalent of Eilistraee just out of spite! }>
I think Saerenrae herself, as Goddess of Redemption would work quite well without modification. Granted, you could portray her as a Drow for added effect among the tiny handful of Drow worshippers, but she could work.
The good drow seeking redemption for the evils inflicted upon the world by his race is not supposed to be common; encountering such a character is supposed to be so rare that you'd stand a better chance of being eaten by the tarrasque, enjoying a complete and first-hand tour of the beast's digestive track, and still be able to eat and keep down a full-course meal upon your natural exit. Yet it ends up being a commonly-played concept.
Most folks, GMs and players alike, can remember at least one time when they played with such a character. Or played as such a character. Strictly speaking, the simple fact is that the vast majority should never encounter one.
Even though it's a fairly common uncommonality, how many good drow actually exist in a given setting? Outside of the Realms, a good drow PC is usually unique for that setting. And if people enjoy playing that archetype, I don't see why it should be held against them. If they threw together a drow ranger fighting with two scimitars, then that's very much a Drizzt knockoff. But just having a good drow, for whatever reason, doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me if it's a PC and if it's not the only thing that player ever goes with.
|
Still does not compute. First, the extreme social darwinism of that sort is massively inefficient on every level, and drow couldn't afford that in the formative centuries of their race (PF version of history). Second, even if the drow rulers backstab each other all the time, they shouldn't be the least bit interested in encouraging the same kind of behavior in their underlings, because psychopathic backstabbers do not make good underlings. They rule through fear alone (as loyalty, devotion to the common cause and mutual help through friendship are good qualities that are supposed to be unknown)? Why, then, not terrorize the commoners into being submissive and unthinkingly loyal instead (with magical mojo that cuts through deceptions and secrets, if necessary)?
Look at this way. The encouragement is not so much as taught but demonstrated through action. In drow society it is survival of the fittest and every drow sees that from day one of their lives.
Ironically I was re-reading R.A. Salvatore's comments in the beginning of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting today. Drow society makes a whole lot more sense if you view their society in terms of orginized crime. The drow aren't constantly backstabbing each other, but they are always on the look for an exploitable weakness that they can use against thr rivals. Even when they do stab an enemy in the back it is not a literal thing, but simply a way of moving one's rival out of a position via blackmail or other techniques. Basicly the entire drow ociety is held together by a web of favors owed, feuds being waged, and secrets that are being hidden.
|
|
Unusual race, unusual race / class combo, unusual / distinctive / signature weapon choice or attack style, loner (who might have an animal friend or spirit companion or familiar or evil soul-sucking sentient artifact sword as his only confidant) / out of element / breaks the 'rules.'So a chaos gnome barbarian is a drizzt clone?
What do you consider unusual for race or race/class combo
How far away from "longsword and heavy shield" can you go before it becomes an unusual weapon choice or attack tyle?Is every character who isn't lawful (i.e. one who breaks the rules) a clone?
I made a large list of things that I would consider requirements to count as a clone of Drizzt. You are picking single things out of that list and claiming that *any single one of them* would constitute a 'Drizzt clone.'
In short, the thing you are arguing against is not the thing I said.
And if you look closely, you'll notice that I suggested that Elric of Melnibone was pretty darn close to a 'Drizzt clone.'
Also Wolverine. :)
|
I made a large list of things that I would consider requirements to count as a clone of Drizzt. You are picking single things out of that list and claiming that *any single one of them* would constitute a 'Drizzt clone.'Unusual race, unusual race / class combo, unusual / distinctive / signature weapon choice or attack style, loner (who might have an animal friend or spirit companion or familiar or evil soul-sucking sentient artifact sword as his only confidant) / out of element / breaks the 'rules.'So a chaos gnome barbarian is a drizzt clone?
What do you consider unusual for race or race/class combo
How far away from "longsword and heavy shield" can you go before it becomes an unusual weapon choice or attack tyle?Is every character who isn't lawful (i.e. one who breaks the rules) a clone?
I think he is trying to say any one of them by itself could be enough to have a character considered a Drizzt clone, as is most likely the case with Charles, but he is also biased.
It's easy: They view being a scheming backstabber as the norm. If you fall outside the norm, you're a freak or lunatic. And those get "fixed" or "put away" as a matter of course.
Soooo... you're saying that drow in power are selflessly devoted to the cause of Chaos and Evil (hah) to the point of promoting the "norm" that actively hurts and threatens them? Even goddamn Salvatore avoided such lunacy.
Plus, if that guy being a freak is a member of your family and could bring shame upon you and yours by his nature, he needs to disappear.
They are Chaotic Evil. Always Chaotic Evil. About as close to demons in flesh as anyone can get (in PF). Do they even have word "shame" in their language?
I guess, what I want to say here is that PF drow are evil without exceptions for no other reason than "because writers said so". I see no value whatsoever in doing as writers said in this particular case. It limits options, it raises too many unanswerable (as we don't have a convincing reason why) and/or uncomfortable questions and it makes the setting more grimdark. Races that weren't conceived and created from scratch as completely inhuman walking tools of destruction and corruption shouldn't be Always Chaotic Evil.
an awesome drow entry
Any chance you'd like to publish this at the Pathfinder Database?
I played a decidedly wicked, spiteful drow wizard in a campaign set in Menzoberranzan in FR, back in the 2e days. The entire party were lesser nobles in a drow house. It was fun, but we were all playing them thoroughly evil. No angst, no emo, no regrets. hehe
Playing a Mezonberranzan drow were some of my favorite memories of the game. I loved playing a male since it was more challenging than playing a female and always pushed my station way above the safe mark. Most of the time in the shadows. None of my characters were like Drizzt or Zaknafein.
Shame is probably an alien concept to the drow.
I don't think that's quite true.
Of course, they don't have the "oh my god my pands slid down they can see my weewee" shame. But the "this guy lets our whole bloodline look weak" shame is pretty much there, and it comes with a subtitle of "they look weak, let's kill them and take their assets!"
That and the fact that they're not just not good, they're actively evil.
A good society will support those who cannot pull their own weigt (the weak, the sick, the old).
A neutral/pragmatic society might abandon them when they become too much of a liability.
Now where does that leave the evil sadists and their "inadequate ones"?