| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maybe the normal drow, but the noble drow are OP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maybe the normal drow, but the noble drow are OP
This. Normal Drow are cool, but by no means overpowered as compared to most races. Though I suppose the spell-like abilities are cool.
Noble Drow? Are a +1 LA race. And I, for one, generally prefer them to not exist.
Why? What's wrong with that nice monstrous race written to be enemy?
|
|
Why? What's wrong with that nice monstrous race written to be enemy?
I like Drow quite a lot actually. I dislike Noble Drow because, for me, Drow's attitude of racial superiority is one of their best narrative elements as villains, and I think that's undermined significantly if they're objectively correct.
It's like making the Nazi leaders actually physically and mentally superior to other people...it's distasteful, and makes it hard to argue that their racism is wrong.
Additionally, if you do go with an Evil game, it seriously restricts the debauched noble archetype that Drow are made for thematically from regular play (since, logically, those should be Noble Drow, right?).
The normal Drow is slightly (very slightly) more powerful than your typical core rulebook race. I believe it is something like CR 1/4 vs CR 1/3. I think that this is a small enough difference that it won't matter much, other than maybe at 1st lvl.
I never played around attitude of racial superiority in drows - I was focusing too much on their attitude of house superiority or personal superiority but never bothered about racial one... Perhaps because their supposed racial superiority was dimmed by self-proclaimed racial superiority of mind flayers, beholders, dragons, sarrukh and some other Underdark races.
On the other hand I use Drow Nobles not as born but as evolved* into higher stage through rituals and extensive use of magic and have Elf Lords being their elven counterparts with similar evolution possible for other races.
*evolved not in RL biological sense but in sense of individual transcendence of one's race similar to the concepts presented in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Transformation could be a better word strictly speaking but it lacks the sense of improvement that is inherent in the term evolution.
|
|
I never played around attitude of racial superiority in drows - I was focusing too much on their attitude of house superiority or personal superiority but never bothered about racial one... Perhaps because their supposed racial superiority was dimmed by self-proclaimed racial superiority of mind flayers, beholders, dragons, sarrukh and some other Underdark races.
Drow racism (and enslavement of non-Drow) has always been a big part of their makeup every time I've seen them in print or used in games. It certainly was in the Evil game I played a Drow in (despite his personal complete lack of anything resembling it).
On the other hand I use Drow Nobles not as born but as evolved* into higher stage through rituals and extensive use of magic and have Elf Lords being their elven counterparts with similar evolution possible for other races.
*evolved not in RL biological sense but in sense of individual transcendence of one's race similar to the concepts presented in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Transformation could be a better word strictly speaking but it lacks the sense of improvement that is inherent in the term evolution.
See, that I'm cool with. Though PCs should definitely be potentially able to do it, too. It's just Drow specifically having that kind of thing that strikes me as wrong. It should be either everyone or noone.
It's like making the Nazi leaders actually physically and mentally superior to other people...it's distasteful, and makes it hard to argue that their racism is wrong.
No, it doesn't. Abraham Lincoln had his doubts about the mental equality of blacks as compared to whites, but that didn't stop him from opposing slavery and the racism that institution caused in the U.S.
|
|
No, it doesn't. Abraham Lincoln had his doubts about the mental equality of blacks as compared to whites, but that didn't stop him from opposing slavery and the racism that institution caused in the U.S.
I didn't say it made it hard to fight them (which is what Lincoln did), I said it made it hard to argue they were wrong. It's a valid distinction, and them being right is still fairly problematic.
Mike Godwin Was Right.
:)
Though, in fairness, I didn't compare other real people to Nazis, I compared the Drow to them...which considering their racism, tendency towards bizarre 'medical' experimentation, and occasional genocidal tendencies seems relatively fair.
From a perspective of "crunch", Drow aren't that offensive. However, from a "fluff" perspective, they're pretty well prohibited. For a PC Drow to exist, you gotta shake up Golarian quite a bit. They simply don't exist to the average person, they're not even stuff of legends.
Ordinarily I'm not a big background kinda guy, but that tolerance goes out the window in terms of monstrous races. As the DM, you should really challenge the PC with fact that he/she is just plain alien to the surface-world.
/ I'm operating in terms of the background material associated with the Second Darkness AP.
|
Meh, I prefer to think of Drow having gained their differences due to the malign magic inherent to the Darklands, and "Drow Nobles" are simply what the outsider-blooded races are to humans. In other words, whatever magic originally twisted surface elves into drow, noble drow are born with a greater access to/reserve of/ influence from it. That doesn't make them leaders, inherently, but it does make it easier for them in a political system like a drow city to rise to power. Drow who are already nobility born while lacking these abilities die quickly, and peasant drow born with these abilities, if they're intelligent and canny, can move up in the world. I dunno, i don't really like them either, but that's how i see it.
As for "are they fair", they pretty much are. I mean, SR is pretty neat, but their ability scores are no different, nor are their other abilities. Their greater darkvision is canceled out by the fact that ordinary light blinds them (a terrible weakness for an adventurer), and their spell-like abilities are altogether fairly minor and similar to that what gnomes can get, so...nah, they're not that much better.
|
|
From a perspective of "crunch", Drow aren't that offensive. However, from a "fluff" perspective, they're pretty well prohibited. For a PC Drow to exist, you gotta shake up Golarian quite a bit. They simply don't exist to the average person, they're not even stuff of legends.
Ordinarily I'm not a big background kinda guy, but that tolerance goes out the window in terms of monstrous races. As the DM, you should really challenge the PC with fact that he/she is just plain alien to the surface-world.
/ I'm operating in terms of the background material associated with the Second Darkness AP.
I agree with all of this. None of it necessarily applies to all games.
For example, the Drow I played was in a non-Golarion game with all Evil PCs of relatively monstrous races, and included a Half-Orc Antipaladin (LE variant), a Hobgoblin Druid (LN, and the one non-evil party member), a blind Half Elf (fluffed as Half Drow...might've gotten Poison Use instead of something, but I couldn't tell you what) Oracle, and a Rakshasa-spawn Tiefling Sorcerer, in addition to my Drow Bard.
Knowing how they balance up against other PC races is important in a game like that, or an all Darklands game, or a dozen other possible game types.
I still use drow stats from 3.5 (+2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int, +2 Cha; SR 11+CL) with LA +1 and they are fairly balanced in my game. At least their SR does matter and drow BBEG are harder to kill with SoD spells. I'm running an Underdark campaing.
Normal drow are balanced just fine.
Also note that CR values are more likely due to whether or not the default stat block is using an NPC class or a PC class.
It's like making the Nazi leaders actually physically and mentally superior to other people...it's distasteful, and makes it hard to argue that their racism is wrong.No, it doesn't. Abraham Lincoln had his doubts about the mental equality of blacks as compared to whites, but that didn't stop him from opposing slavery and the racism that institution caused in the U.S.
Actually that was inherently political.
There was fear that England might help the South so he framed it as a freedom/rights issue. The Brits would never support their people being okay with slavery (openly); thus losing the south allies.Remember he never freed Northern slaves, only southern slaves.
I agree with all of this. None of it necessarily applies to all games.
For example, the Drow I played was in a non-Golarion game with all Evil PCs of relatively monstrous races, and included a Half-Orc Antipaladin (LE variant), a Hobgoblin Druid (LN, and the one non-evil party member), a blind Half Elf (fluffed as Half Drow...might've gotten Poison Use instead of something, but I couldn't tell you what) Oracle, and a Rakshasa-spawn Tiefling Sorcerer, in addition to my Drow Bard.
You're quite right, Deadman; not all games are going to operate the same way. However, in any world where X race is defined as Chaotic Evil, it's going to take a really special individual, working within a very special set of circumstances, to successfully buck the system.
If you're playing in a world that assumes that all Drow are not CE then that opens things up alot.
/ for me, I prefer my evil races to be, well, evil. :)
|
|
Actually that was inherently political.
There was fear that England might help the South so he framed it as a freedom/rights issue. The Brits would never support their people being okay with slavery (openly); thus losing the south allies.Remember he never freed Northern slaves, only southern slaves.
Uh...Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. At that time, that was the anti-slavery party. That's all they did. He was elected on an anti-slavery platform and (despite his racism) personally despised it. We have personal letters from him saying as much.
He was part of the most conservative wing of the Republicans, and didn't actually ever intend to free the slaves in the South prior to the war getting a bit desperate, but saying that Lincoln didn't care about slavery is deeply inaccurate.
|
|
/ for me, I prefer my evil races to be, well, evil. :)
Oh, we were. That was the only Pathfinder game I've ever played in where I helped commit mass murder, was complicit in genocide, or orchestrated a number of horrible atrocities.
He was very much a subtle rebel within Drow society, though, he was Lawful Evil, not Chaotic. :)
What's the point in playing a Good Drow? ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember he never freed Northern slaves, only southern slaves.
Uh what?
By 1804, slavery was outlawed in every northern state.
Abraham Lincoln was president from 1861-1865.
He couldn't free the northern slaves because at the time there were no longer any northern slaves.
/ for me, I prefer my evil races to be, well, evil. :)Oh, we were. That was the only Pathfinder game I've ever played in where I helped commit mass murder, was complicit in genocide, or orchestrated a number of horrible atrocities.
He was very much a subtle rebel within Drow society, though, he was Lawful Evil, not Chaotic. :)
What's the point in playing a Good Drow? ;)
This is a fun angle that I hadn't considered; a party of Drow surface raiders! If one of my groups were so inclined, I'd do it.
|
|
This is a fun angle that I hadn't considered; a party of Drow surface raiders! If one of my groups were so inclined, I'd do it.
We started out raiding, then fighting in a war, but actually ended the game at 15th level having conquered a couple of kingdoms and placed them under our iron fists. All Good/Normal PC races were conquered (and, in many cases, enslaved) on the continent we lived on and a new age of darkness arose.
Good times, good times. :)
He freed the slaves he had no power to free, and left enslaved the slaves he had the political power to free.
I am a naturalized citizen (originally from Canada), so I view the civil war differently then most. I think the south had the right to secede, they were in the right against an agressor north. HOWEVER I think it is FAR better for the US that the south lost the war.
Actually, there's a very valid legal theory that he had no legal authority to strip citizens of his own country of their property (slaves) but did have the right to do so with the captured property of an enemy nation (which the South effectively was at the time). This is very consistent with the usual practices of belligerent nations.
Remember he never freed Northern slaves, only southern slaves.Uh what?
By 1804, slavery was outlawed in every northern state.
Abraham Lincoln was president from 1861-1865.
He couldn't free the northern slaves because at the time there were no longer any northern slaves.
Nope, there were still northern slaves. It was a political issue, if he freed them, they would secede from the north. Even if it would have been the right thing to do.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm"There was enormous antislavery sentiment in the North, hut such sentiment was also strongly anti-Negro. White Northerners did not wish slavery to expand into new areas of the nation, which they believed should be preserved for white nonslaveholding settlers. This was, in part, why Republicans pledged to protect slavery where it existed. They and their constituencies did not want an influx of ex-slaves into their exclusively white territories, should slavery end abruptly."
Look: "By 1820 there were only about 3,000 slaves in the North, almost all of them working on large farms in New Jersey"
1820 is past 1804. Thus there were slaves in the north. I'm still surprised where you got 1804.
"The fear of slave rebellion preoccupied both the Southern slaveholder and the Northern invader. Strikingly, Northerners were as uneasy about the possibility as were Southerners. Initially the Northern goal in the war was the speedy restoration of the Union under the Constitution and the laws of 1861, all of which recognized the legitimacy of slavery. Interfering with slavery would make reunion more difficult. Thus, Union generals like George B. McClellan in Virginia and Henry W. Halleck in the West were ordered not only to defeat the Southern armies but also to prevent slave insurrections. In the first months of the war, slaves who escaped to Union lines were returned to their masters in conformity with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850"
Heck: "An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860"
North had slaves at least till late 1860.
But I digress.
Going off of Starbuck II's tangent - slavery was definitely a secondary issue during the American civil war. Lincoln's main objective was the preservation of the Union. You just can't have states seceding, okay? It sets a very bad precedent.
|
|
Going off of Starbuck II's tangent - slavery was definitely a secondary issue during the American civil war. Lincoln's main objective was the preservation of the Union. You just can't have states seceding, okay? It sets a very bad precedent.
Oh, absolutely. Lincoln cared vastly more about the secession than he ever cared about slavery, and on the other side of things the south seceding wasn't about slavery per se either, it was about the North's ability to elect someone as President that the entire South disapproved of, and the fact that this was indisputable evidence of the South's dwindling power in the federal government.
The Civil War was, well, a pretty standard civil war. It was about contrasting political interests of the North and South. Slavery was one of those interests, but far from the only one.
|
|
He freed the slaves he had no power to free, and left enslaved the slaves he had the political power to free.
Lincoln took an active role in passing the Thirteenth Amendment. Which freed slaves in the border states and made slavery itself illegal. He did not live to see it enacted though (he died April 15, 1865, the thirteenth amendment was finally adopted on December 6, 1865)
I am a naturalized citizen (originally from Canada), so I view the civil war differently then most. I think the south had the right to secede, they were in the right against an agressor north. HOWEVER I think it is FAR better for the US that the south lost the war.
The south seceded before Lincoln even took office, and it was the Confederacy that started hostilities (attacking Fort Sumter) AFTER which Lincoln formed the volunteer armies of the north to "recapture federal property".
I really don't see the north as being the aggressive party here.
Actually, there's a very valid legal theory that he had no legal authority to strip citizens of his own country of their property (slaves) but did have the right to do so with the captured property of an enemy nation (which the South effectively was at the time). This is very consistent with the usual practices of belligerent nations.
Well the original plan (during the 1860 election) was simply to stop the expansion of slavery, never to end it. The emancipation proclamation made that a goal of the war, and finally the thirteenth amendment made slavery & involuntary labor illegal.
|
|
I think of the Civil War as the culmination of the clash between Alexander Hamilton who created Wall Street, and looked to a capitalistic future, and Thomas Jefferson who romanticised the feudal landlords of the past. The main problem was the economic imbalance caused by the heavy industrialization of the Northern states vs the almost totally rural economy of the South.
I'm not sure that's quite how I'd characterize Jefferson's views (though he certainly romanticised rural life in general), but I'll agree that the conflict that became the Civil War was a culmination of that begun between Jefferson and Hamilton, though the makeup and motives of the particular sides shifted and changed a lot over those sixty or seventy years.
|
|
Slavery is okay with them so there.
It is! Also racism, murder, cannibalism, and other assorted amusing things.
My Drow character politely ate the Elf-meat he was offered (after seeing it torn from the stil-living Elf) while serving as an emissary to the Orc Warlord. He did insist that it be cooked first, though. He was civilized.
What? I'm sorta on-topic now...;)
|
|
Look: "By 1820 there were only about 3,000 slaves in the North, almost all of them working on large farms in New Jersey"
1820 is past 1804. Thus there were slaves in the north. I'm still surprised where you got 1804.
Here
Between 1776 and 1804, slavery was outlawed in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. (Some states did it gradually by converting slaves into indentured servants.)
The quote is by Gary Kornblith, Slavery and Sectional strife in the early American republic, 1776-1821
So you are right. Slavery was outlawed but all slaves weren't freed (yet).
And he did help to free even the northern slaves by pushing the Thirteenth Amendment (which he didn't live to see enacted).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People! History is wonderful but let's try and stick to the topic of drow.
Slavery is okay with them so there.
And Drow are a CE race! Who knew! lol
Seriously, count me in with the camp that says "curse you R.A. Salvatore, and your Dritzz abomination too!"
I think they're pretty balanced as a race, but the evil stigma should be mentioned to the pc that wants to play one, unless the campaign has unusual circumstances.
The Icewind Dale trilogy weren't bad, it was the countless imitators and the books thereafter that were the real problem.And Drow are a CE race! Who knew! lol
Seriously, count me in with the camp that says "curse you R.A. Salvatore, and your Dritzz abomination too!"
I really enjoyed the first six books. Then I listened to Salvatore in an interview in which he said he could write about those characters for the rest of his life, and they weren't going anywhere, and I stopped reading.
When you know the characters are invincible, it kinda takes out the fun.
What about version that he wanted to kill Drizzt to complete the story arc but TSR (or maybe it was at WotC times) said that if he does this they give the franchise to another writer, so he decided to follow with their wishes instead of being cut off of the line?
From a DM perspective I'm just tired of drow as well as tieflings. I don't allow until the day comes when someone has a NEW idea for one as a character.
Game balance wise, as much as I would like to just hate on them, the base drow in the bestiary don't really seem to be an issue.
I actually allowed a player to play a drow in a recent campaign. He made the backstory pretty well setup as to why this particular drow is out in the world instead of stuck down in thier dark holes of cities fighting little wars. This backstory made it impossible to get "backup" from drow society at all(not that it stopped him from bluffing a few times), and I even made him blow a starting feat to have a hat of disguise right off the bat so that he wouldn't show up and get murdered by the party/city guard/angry farmer mob.
As to the drizzt issue, I actually enjoy the legend series even still. in the last 2 I've read everyone in the "party" besides drizzt and guen have been killed off, so now he's rolling with some elf chick with issues. It feels to me like salvatore is outside his comfort zone and exploring new characters along with some new facets of some older characters which still have ways of being around.
Asta
PSY