| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So did your re-skin drow society to be LG? I see two LG there.The religious army they are leading are mostly LG. Beyond that, drow society is sufficiently large that most alignments are represented.
So part of the definition of a Drow in an elf that went into the under dark and became twisted and evil through contact with a crazed and ancient evil deity. They aren't naturally evil at that point. They are 'supernaturally evil'.Hey, another example of all X are Y design.
That is part of the very DEFINITION OF THE RACE. It's as unremarkable as saying 'all dogs are dogs'. It's not all x are y, it's all x are x.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One can certainly have LG drow, or goblins, or aboleth or what have you. Of course, given the information in the ARG and the Second Darkness AP about drow, as an example, you are definitely playing against type there, which is fine.
But when does this become what people were derisively calling a special snowscape? This falls into the conversation from a 1000 or so posts ago where we discussed expectations in the game .. if you are changing things, you are changing player perspective and expectations. Again, not a bad thing, but one that certainly expresses the GMs opinions and likes/dislikes. Which we all have and like to put into our settings.
That was a bit rambling, but it comes down to this: everyone has a right to play their own way, and design their world their own way. No one's way is stupid or wrong, it's their way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is seriously still going?
It is sustained by Drizzt's tears, shed due to the evilness of his people.
Some people in this thread seem to think that there are certain races whose alignment is inherently part of the race. If you change the alignment, then it's no longer the same race, just something else masquerading under the same name. I have to wonder: what happens if you remove alignment completely from the game? Then it cannot be the case that all members of the race are the same alignment, as alignment doesn't exist. If alignment is removed, do drow, orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc. all become fake versions of themselves?
Of course, given the information in the ARG and the Second Darkness AP about drow, as an example, you are definitely playing against type there, which is fine.
Golarion specific information is Golarion specific.
That is part of the very DEFINITION OF THE RACE. It's as unremarkable as saying 'all dogs are dogs'. It's not all x are y, it's all x are x.
All x are x would be all drow are drow.
But there's more to drow than their alignment. For example, there's also the affinity to spiders. When Eberron changed that, were their drow no longer real drow? Or, switching to looking at another race, part of the definition of dwarves is that they live underground. Yet I've read fantasy novels with dwarves who don't live underground. Were those not real dwarves? Is there an amount that it's okay to change? Or does any change to the "definition" of a race mean that it's now something different and shouldn't have the same name? How do we determine the true definition of a race? Are elves defined by Tolkien, or by Pathfinder, or by D&D4e, or by Warcraft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people in this thread seem to think that there are certain races whose alignment is inherently part of the race. If you change the alignment, then it's no longer the same race, just something else masquerading under the same name. I have to wonder: what happens if you remove alignment completely from the game? Then it cannot be the case that all members of the race are the same alignment, as alignment doesn't exist. If alignment is removed, do drow, orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc. all become fake versions of themselves?
Of course, given the information in the ARG and the Second Darkness AP about drow, as an example, you are definitely playing against type there, which is fine.Golarion specific information is Golarion specific.
That is part of the very DEFINITION OF THE RACE. It's as unremarkable as saying 'all dogs are dogs'. It's not all x are y, it's all x are x.All x are x would be all drow are drow.
But there's more to drow than their alignment. For example, there's also the affinity to spiders. When Eberron changed that, were their drow no longer real drow? Or, switching to looking at another race, part of the definition of dwarves is that they live underground. Yet I've read fantasy novels with dwarves who don't live underground. Were those not real dwarves? Is there an amount that it's okay to change? Or does any change to the "definition" of a race mean that it's now something different and shouldn't have the same name? How do we determine the true definition of a race? Are elves defined by Tolkien, or by Pathfinder, or by D&D4e, or by Warcraft?
I usually start with the actual words defining the race. How about you? By all means, you can have YOUR Drow be different, but it doesn't make it somehow wrong to portray them as written. Which you seem to imply.
I usually start with the actual words defining the race. How about you? By all means, you can have YOUR Drow be different, but it doesn't make it somehow wrong to portray them as written. Which you seem to imply.
Whose actual words? This is a point you are ignoring. Is this the words of Pathfinder's ARG? Pathfinder's Bestiary? The Second Darkness adventure path? The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual? The descriptions of the creatures from Shetlandic myth? RA Salvatore's novels? Gary Gygax's novels? Elaine Cunningham's novels? Keith Baker's novels? Eberron's campaign setting? D&D3.5's Monster Manual? D&D3.5's Drow of the Underdark book? D&D4e's Monster Manual? D&D4e's Forgotten Realms Player's Guide?
Well, since you use the fact that things are included in pathfinder as a reason they should automatically be included, I'm using pathfinder. And you are dodging the question.
Well that's clearly going against the definition of drow. BY DEFINITION, drow worship Lolth, which drow in Pathfinder don't. So I guess your drow aren't real drow.
Also, if you also look at "dark elves" in various tabletop games, video games, books, etc., many of which are drow in all but name, you get a lot more variety on what is possible for drow. Listing a bunch of works with dark elves is an exercise for the reader and seeing how they differ from Pathfinder's depiction of drow is an exercise for the reader.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually start with the actual words defining the race. How about you? By all means, you can have YOUR Drow be different, but it doesn't make it somehow wrong to portray them as written. Which you seem to imply.Whose actual words? This is a point you are ignoring. Is this the words of Pathfinder's ARG? Pathfinder's Bestiary? The Second Darkness adventure path? The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual? The descriptions of the creatures from Shetlandic myth? RA Salvatore's novels? Gary Gygax's novels? Elaine Cunningham's novels? Keith Baker's novels? Eberron's campaign setting? D&D3.5's Monster Manual? D&D3.5's Drow of the Underdark book? D&D4e's Monster Manual? D&D4e's Forgotten Realms Player's Guide?
Drow have been evil since they were created by Gygax.
Beastiary: Although related to the elves, the drow are a vile and evil
cousin at best. Sometimes called dark elves, these cunning
creatures prowl the caves and tunnels of the world below,
ruling vast subterranean cities through fear and might.
Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.
Some people run games where somehow the townfolk are not afraid of the hulking troll PC or the dark skinned, evil by legend, drow PC. Not everyone runs those type of games though. I go by the default when it comes to creatures. If you are a drow, then I leave it up to you to establish your reputation as a good guy because the people in my games will not cut you any slack until you prove yourself, and that's only in that specific area.
In pathfinder they don't. Since we are using pathfinder definitions. Unless you want to drop the "it's included in pathfinder therefore it should be included in every game' standard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did this thread become about Drow, in any case? Are Drow the only instance of special snowflakes we have, or are they just an easy target?
For my games, Drow definitely come across as an evil race for the majority of the civilized world. Are there good or neutral or non-baby-eating Drow? There may very well be, but they are a minority of a minority race; the common view of them is as "bad" elves, which is how many civilized areas will react to them. They have an uphill battle to fight to gain trust. Some people/groups will enjoy this challenge, others will find it a hardship.
But this is the special snowflake thread; if Drow are established in your game as not baby-eating monsters, then the random good Drow the players want to play are not special snowflakes in your game, they are just another PC race that doesn't carry the stigma of "Eeeek, a monster, kill it with fire." So not a special snowflake just due to race or alignment.
Arssanguinus, those two things aren't related. My argument why you should be willing to include things in Pathfinder's books was based around mechanics. Specifically, what I said was that the mechanics already exist for the race and are relatively balanced, which removes that major obstacle to introducing a new race into the setting. Drow uniformly being one alignment isn't a matter of wanting extant mechanics. The mechanics exist and work fine whether or not all drow are CE.
Also, if we are to go only by Pathfinder, how do we handle contradictions within just Pathfinder material? As 137ben pointed out above, the rules for alignment state that intelligent humanoids can be any alignment which contradicts the requirement that all drow be evil. Are we supposed to write logical impossibilities into our settings? How do we even do that?
Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.
That's rather arbitrary a restriction. Do you think that we shouldn't use novels to inform what elves or dwarves are? Is referring to LotR now off-limits?
How did this thread become about Drow, in any case?
It started with Immortal Greed responding to something ciretose said. Ciretose mentioned drow being evil in a setting and Immortal Greed chimed in to say that all drow in all settings are evil. I pointed out that this is wrong, as there are settings in which drow are not uniformly evil. As an example, I used some stuff from a campaign I'm working on. Then a bunch of people wanted to chime in to point out that non-evil drow are wrong or something? I'm honestly not entirely sure what their contention is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arssanguinus, those two things aren't related. My argument why you should be willing to include things in Pathfinder's books was based around mechanics. Specifically, what I said was that the mechanics already exist for the race and are relatively balanced, which removes that major obstacle to introducing a new race into the setting. Drow uniformly being one alignment isn't a matter of wanting extant mechanics. The mechanics exist and work fine whether or not all drow are CE.
Also, if we are to go only by Pathfinder, how do we handle contradictions within just Pathfinder material? As 137ben pointed out above, the rules for alignment state that intelligent humanoids can be any alignment which contradicts the requirement that all drow be evil. Are we supposed to write logical impossibilities into our settings? How do we even do that?
Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.That's rather arbitrary a restriction. Do you think that we shouldn't use novels to inform what elves or dwarves are? Is referring to LotR now off-limits?
Oh boy, here we go.
We all know that everything has the potential to be a different alignment, but unless you are told different then you expect the default. This means that all demons are chaotic evil and all devils are lawful evil.
If there was any situation where this is different, then a good DM will work that into the scenario and give the PC's the opportunity to figure that out.
Basically you want to play whatever you want, no matter it's common reputation, without any beef from the populace.
Arssanguinus, those two things aren't related. My argument why you should be willing to include things in Pathfinder's books was based around mechanics. Specifically, what I said was that the mechanics already exist for the race and are relatively balanced, which removes that major obstacle to introducing a new race into the setting. Drow uniformly being one alignment isn't a matter of wanting extant mechanics. The mechanics exist and work fine whether or not all drow are CE.
Also, if we are to go only by Pathfinder, how do we handle contradictions within just Pathfinder material? As 137ben pointed out above, the rules for alignment state that intelligent humanoids can be any alignment which contradicts the requirement that all drow be evil. Are we supposed to write logical impossibilities into our settings? How do we even do that?
Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.That's rather arbitrary a restriction. Do you think that we shouldn't use novels to inform what elves or dwarves are? Is referring to LotR now off-limits?
How did this thread become about Drow, in any case?It started with Immortal Greed responding to something ciretose said. Ciretose mentioned drow being evil in a setting and Immortal Greed chimed in to say that all drow in all settings are evil. I pointed out that this is wrong, as there are settings in which drow are not uniformly evil. As an example, I used some stuff from a campaign I'm working on. Then a bunch of people wanted to chime in to point out that non-evil drow are wrong or something? I'm honestly not entirely sure what their contention is.
I don't think we should be required to include everything in pathfinder. Or in other books". Just include everything which is in the world you are playing in. Possibly add some things which aren't excluded but aren't included either. Possibly even add something you make fit really well. But it shouldn't ever be the assumption that you just add anything you want and ignore the setting you play in.
Some people in this thread seem to think that there are certain races whose alignment is inherently part of the race. If you change the alignment, then it's no longer the same race, just something else masquerading under the same name. I have to wonder: what happens if you remove alignment completely from the game? Then it cannot be the case that all members of the race are the same alignment, as alignment doesn't exist. If alignment is removed, do drow, orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc. all become fake versions of themselves?
Of course, given the information in the ARG and the Second Darkness AP about drow, as an example, you are definitely playing against type there, which is fine.Golarion specific information is Golarion specific.
That is part of the very DEFINITION OF THE RACE. It's as unremarkable as saying 'all dogs are dogs'. It's not all x are y, it's all x are x.All x are x would be all drow are drow.
But there's more to drow than their alignment. For example, there's also the affinity to spiders. When Eberron changed that, were their drow no longer real drow? Or, switching to looking at another race, part of the definition of dwarves is that they live underground. Yet I've read fantasy novels with dwarves who don't live underground. Were those not real dwarves? Is there an amount that it's okay to change? Or does any change to the "definition" of a race mean that it's now something different and shouldn't have the same name? How do we determine the true definition of a race? Are elves defined by Tolkien, or by Pathfinder, or by D&D4e, or by Warcraft?
The context around Drow, their evil matriarchal society of dodginess and their religion, is a lot more than alignment.
Change everything, you make something quite different. Obviously that was your intent, but it means you left the old Drow behind.
Basically you want to play whatever you want, no matter it's common reputation, without any beef from the populace.
This is about something I'm DMing. How does it have anything to do with what I want to play?
Also, there are people in the setting who won't react well to drow, regardless of alignment. For example, the dwarves of the region. This isn't because they think all drow are evil or something like that, but rather because large numbers of drow have been in open rebellion against the dwarven empire of the region for the past decade or so. But that's why the two drow mentioned above have an army with them, so I think it's fine.
The context around Drow, their evil matriarchal society of dodginess and their religion, is a lot more than alignment.
Change everything, you make something quite different. Obviously that was your intent, but it means you left the old Drow behind.
Where did you get the idea I'm changing everything? I'm not. They're still matriarchal, they still have a spider motif, they still mostly live underground, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it becomes academic, and raises the question of "Are we using Drow to refer to a "Culture" or are we using Drow to refer to a sense of Nationality, or Community?"
It is a little like saying "All Gaels are Celts, but not all Celts are Gaels"
So there can be a Drow culture that is, in its attitudes towards other races, Evil, but there can be Drow, individuals and communities, that are not.
Changing the alignment of an individual, or small (even large) community, does not imply changes to the culture as a whole. Now if a DM wanted to include the entirety of the "Drow" racial type (all the trappings of the race, from a mechanical rules stand point) and have this culture be predominantly Good, with evil being very rare, it would not "look" like Drow from a Forgotten Realms viewpoint, and raises the question of "Why call them Drow at all?". But then again, to each her own.
Now if a DM wanted to include the entirety of the "Drow" racial type (all the trappings of the race, from a mechanical rules stand point) and have this culture be predominantly Good, with evil being very rare, it would not "look" like Drow from a Forgotten Realms viewpoint, and raises the question of "Why call them Drow at all?".
Thank you! I'm glad someone finally agrees with me! In Golarion, drow don't worship Lolth and this makes them nothing at all like drow from Forgotten Realms. I really wonder why Paizo even called them drow at all, since they are so different. It's even worse in Eberron. Not only do they not worship Lolth, they worship a scorpion deity instead. A male scorpion deity. I don't know why they even called them drow if they aren't going to respect Forgotten Realms canon.
Drow PC's aren't core therefore, ...
Actually this technically incorrect. The drow can be found in bestiary #1 (one of the two core books, the other being the core rule book) and have racial stats usable to play as a player character.
..., they are not to be expected in the game as a PC unless the DM says otherwise.
This is more accurate, since they are not listed in the CRB, then their inclusion as a player race is more of an issue of a particular group.
But drow are listed in the core materials and do have player stats for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Alright, we'll take the good-drow and the half-nyph lolis, but we don't want the Irish!
Man, how many times am I going to be able to paraphrase this quote fro Blazzing Saddles, this is just awesome sauce!
