Drow Elves and alignment


Advice

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Any character the player wants to play is the right character for that player - no matter how elitist you are or how much fiction you've read.

But it might not be the right character for the group and/or the campaign.

For example, if a player wants to make a demon cultist crazy dude for a classical heroes against demons campaign then that character isn't the right character for the campaign.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
darth_gator wrote:
137ben wrote:
At the time Tolkien was writing, racial discrimination was even more widely accepted among his intended (white) audience. The notion of "light-skin is Good, dark skin is Evil" seemed normal to Tolkien's contemporaries. With that in mind, it isn't surprising that the same racial prejudices were deemed 'correct' by his work.
I'm not sure where this is found in Tolkien's work. There are no dark-skinned elves in Tolkien's writings, and the only elves referred to as "dark elves" are those elves that never made the journey west towards Valinor. Orcs were sometimes described as "black," but I don't believe it was ever implied that ALL orcs had black skin. (Black blood, yes; I guess that may tint their skin?) I suppose he did describe the Southrons and Easterlings as "swarthy," but I don't believe there was ever any indication that they were inherently evil. In fact, Faramir wonders about one of the dead Harradrim after the ambush in Ithilien, asking if the dead man was evil or what violence or threats lead him on the long road to Mordor. If Tolkien was working to reinforce some perceived standard that dark-skin=Evil, he wouldn't have had one of the central characters questioning that exact notion so openly.

There's a lot to legitimately criticize in Tolkien, and Faramir's moment of speculation doesn't buy him a complete pass.

I'm a big fan of Prof T myself, but I would never claim that there is no racial subtext for his writing. I certainly wouldn't claim that he was enlightened on the issue, not from that one passage. Ethnic determinism is pretty much hard coded into his setting.

To an extent. But ethnicity entails more than just skin color; it also covers cultural and societal mores. Yes, Tolkien used "racial" differences in his works, but they were less concerned with the "great Aryan" fetish that some want to hang on him than the (very British) Celtic/Saxon (dark hair, gray eyes) archetype. The West is the last bastion of Good, not so much that the inhabitants are "white," but rather as the place in Middle Earth that retains the realms of the Numenorean Faithful after the Downfall (Arnor and Gondor) and the greatest of the surviving elves (who initially taught the Numenorians, and even intermarried on rare occasions). Tolkien, ultimately, was less concerned about Men than with Elves. The Numenorians, as elf-taught and even in some cases elf-descended, were important as a bridge to the Elder days of the elves more than anything else. And the elves (faery) of the real-world myths that Tolkien used for inspiration (Celtic) are pale-skinned.

It is also worthwhile to remember Gandalf's words at the Council of Elrond: "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Even the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat on the stairs of Cirith Ungol shows even orcs are comprehensible and not just unthinkingly vile; they are deluded pawns of Sauron (talking of the "rebels" outside of Mordor) and cruel, but not really any worse than a group of bandits, organized criminals, pirates, or warlords today.

The various "swarthy men," Easterlings, and Southrons are not ever presented as inherently evil (in fact, Aragorn even gives the Dunlendings a chance to retreat at Helm's Deep before they are trapped by the Huorns), but incited against the West (or controlled through corrupted leaders). Nationalism, settling old scores, border disputes, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Any character the player wants to play is the right character for that player - no matter how elitist you are or how much fiction you've read.

But it might not be the right character for the group and/or the campaign.

For example, if a player wants to make a demon cultist crazy dude for a classical heroes against demons campaign then that character isn't the right character for the campaign.

That would be up to the GM, not the grumbles of the other players at the table.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I find the whole Drizzt situation very ludicrous. There are thousands of other cliches and poeple play those too.

Quite right.

The drunk dwarf with an axe, the graceful elven archer, and the brooding loner ranger all come to mind.

I seem to recall them having a movie as well, unlike Drizzt. Who's really the overexposed cliche?

You're almost right.

Over looking one little fact though...

When Tolkien wrote that story... well... he invented those tropes at the same time. :D

Show one instance of any dwarf being drunk in Tolkien's works... I'll wait. Granted, the dwarves with Thorin are a bit buffoonish at times (but, slapstick is a common source of humor), but even in the Hobbit they never got drunk (I think the strongest wording that was used was "merry..." at a celebration, which doesn't automatically signify drunkenness). And axes? Norse myth.

Graceful elves didn't exist before Tolkien... Rriigghhtt....

And brooding loners never appeared in stories before Tolkien either...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragonchess Player wrote:
It is also worthwhile to remember Gandalf's words at the Council of Elrond: "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Even the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat on the stairs of Cirith Ungol shows even orcs are comprehensible and not just unthinkingly vile; they are deluded pawns of Sauron (talking of the "rebels" outside of Mordor) and cruel, but not really any worse than a group of bandits, organized criminals, pirates, or warlords today..

Considering what organised criminals, pirates, warlords, or other groupings of thugs are capable of, that's not exactly a testament of virtue.

Also keep in mind that the Silmarillion is full of people that seem to be innately bad eggs. Morgoth was a discordant note from the beginning, and Maeglin and his father, seem to be particurlarly twisted elves. And many of the Human heros bring misfortune to those around them due to their innate stubbornness and pride. And while Sauron was offered a genuine chance at redemption, his pride chose otherwise.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
It is also worthwhile to remember Gandalf's words at the Council of Elrond: "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Even the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat on the stairs of Cirith Ungol shows even orcs are comprehensible and not just unthinkingly vile; they are deluded pawns of Sauron (talking of the "rebels" outside of Mordor) and cruel, but not really any worse than a group of bandits, organized criminals, pirates, or warlords today..

Considering what organised criminals, pirates, warlords, or other groupings of thugs are capable of, that's not exactly a testament of virtue.

Also keep in mind that the Silmarillion is full of people that seem to be innately bad eggs. Morgoth was a discordant note from the beginning, and Maeglin and his father, seem to be particurlarly twisted elves. And many of the Human heros bring misfortune to those around them due to their innate stubbornness and pride. And while Sauron was offered a genuine chance at redemption, his pride chose otherwise.

At the same time they all choose to be evil; they may be "seduced" into it by their desires, but it is not "innate." The Silmarillion is full of "tragic" events (in the classic sense, as the actions of the individuals come back to haunt them). In the main, all of Tolkien's works can be held as an indictment against "the end justifies the means," greed/possessiveness, and a lust for power over others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Any character the player wants to play is the right character for that player - no matter how elitist you are or how much fiction you've read.

Any player has the right to play what they want. Any other player has the right to think it's frickin' stupid, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Any character the player wants to play is the right character for that player - no matter how elitist you are or how much fiction you've read.

I like this guy, he just stated, quite politely I will point out, that you all can shove your ideas about what is too cleched up your <Use your imagination>.

The simple fact of the matter is this: People like Drizzt clones, they like being a "special snowflake," and if that enables the player to really enjoy and become invested in the game, then I ask you: what is the problem?

Is it really so deal-breaking for you if someone wants to play a lone drow, trapped in a cruel world that hates him, with his single constant companion: at cat of sorts such as a panther, and is a fantastic swordsman? So what? Everyone starts somewhere, and then their tastes develop to take them elsewhere.

I made a Drizzt Clone for a game. It was really stupid. He took the Drow Nobility line, and at the beginning of each fight blinded everyone. Of course, the next feats in line were the blind-fight line, so it became less of a disadvantage over time, but still. Naturally, we had two dagger throwing rogues in the party, both Fanglord Skinwalkers, so more or less each fight ended with them actually being able to do what rogues were intended to do: kill things from advantage with Sneak Attack.

There are archetypes, not good archetypes mind you, that exist to enable certain characters. My Drizzt was the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype who dual-wielded Ten-Ring Swords so he could take advantage of five rings at once, huzzah for Hand of Glory. It was incredibly stupid, he was horrible at hitting things, but hey, he could cast deeper darkness, then let the Fanglords hold onto him as he levitated 30 feet in the air, then let them rain death on unsuspecting enemies.

Recently I made a Kitsune who uses realistic likeness to sleep with everyone who he can and to steal everything he needs through stupidly high impersonation abilities (his disguise is +19 at level 1 with realistic likeness, its nice) so he exists by not existing. Wonderful.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

{. . .}

Second Darkness was Paizo's big reintroduction of the drow into Pathfinder, and having one of the PCs be a drow would spoil a lot of it, as a major part of its plot is that the PCs are some of the first non-elves to know ANYTHING about the drow, and even elven PCs will learn things about the drow that they might never have otherwise learned.

Got that covered with the character concept I linked earlier -- despite being not a complete noob (mom and dad told her some stuff), she'll be getting a huge culture shock herself.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Plus, Second Darkness showcases drow society and stuff so you understand what they're like You can't really have rebels against a society's norms until you've established just what the default societal norms are to rebel against. I believe that the official stance they have is "sure, you can have a non-evil drow PC, but keep in mind they'll be pretty much one of a kind, and playing one in Second Darkness kind of messes up the plot."

Also got that covered -- she's not a rebel (mom and dad were the rebels, and their reason for rebellion was forbidden love -- the good stuff came later, after they were already on the surface). She's not totally ignorant, but doesn't know the details of what is going on in the Darklands (mom and dad left a generation ago, from the wrong geographic region of the Darklands to have the conspiracy details, and thought it better to give her the best education for the new environment anyway).

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
That said, any drow PC on Golarion that isn't evil, really, REALLY needs to avoid having had too much exposure to drow culture {. . .}

Got that covered too -- mom and dad represented the only Drow culture she has had actual exposure to (as opposed to hearing scary and depressing stories that mom and dad became increasingly reluctant to tell).

Um...pardon? No offense, but I don't recall seeing your link or anything related to it. I was just responding to the OP. If you've got a way to fit a drow PC into Second Darkness, that's perfectly cool, if not ingenious for how you managed to work around the AP's assumptions.

On an unrelated note, it seems a lot of people have a distaste for "special snowflakes," and I'll be honest that's a gut instinct I have too, but one piece of advice from the great James Jacobs that I find truly valuable is that it's kind of unavoidable. PCs are special snowflakes by definition. The people that defy expectations, that have unique stories to justify who and what they are? Those are the kind of people with the attitude that makes a PC a PC. So don't be afraid of your character being a special snowflake, there's no real way to avoid being so. If you weren't a special snowflake, you wouldn't be a PC to begin with.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not a matter of a lack of imagination.

It is just that some characters, are not welcomed in a play group.
It could ruin the immersion for some, or just be obnoxious.

I think it is terribly conceited, and rude, to go forth into a game, with an attitude that says "I don't care what the group thinks. I play whatever I want, no matter how disruptive they may find it."

Nobody wants to play with that kind of dick.

This is a group game. The fun of all players, and the DM, should be considered.

It could the PC named "Fighterman McMurderhobo", or a Drizzt clone, or the CE Cannibal Barbarian. Nobody has to just "shut up, and put up" just to please one player. Maybe one of those examples is right for one group, but not for another.

In the end, just ask your group, don't be a jerk, and remember, everyone wants to have fun.

It's not all about one single player.

@leo1925: The example person was a friend of a friend, who was trying to guilt me, after stating my life goal of eating every creature I could safely, and legally eat. Also, he wanted to go to an expensive vegan restaurant, that no one else wanted to go to. His response, was to convince me, that not only are all humans were naturally vegetarian, but all creatures were naturally vegetarian.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Any character the player wants to play is the right character for that player - no matter how elitist you are or how much fiction you've read.

But it might not be the right character for the group and/or the campaign.

For example, if a player wants to make a demon cultist crazy dude for a classical heroes against demons campaign then that character isn't the right character for the campaign.
That would be up to the GM, not the grumbles of the other players at the table.

Depends on the table. Depends on the GM.

In the scenario sketch laid out by leo1925, a GM who allowed that sort of PC backstory might just be playing a campaign with one player.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I find the whole Drizzt situation very ludicrous. There are thousands of other cliches and poeple play those too.

Quite right.

The drunk dwarf with an axe, the graceful elven archer, and the brooding loner ranger all come to mind.

I seem to recall them having a movie as well, unlike Drizzt. Who's really the overexposed cliche?

You're almost right.

Over looking one little fact though...

When Tolkien wrote that story... well... he invented those tropes at the same time. :D

Show one instance of any dwarf being drunk in Tolkien's works... I'll wait. Granted, the dwarves with Thorin are a bit buffoonish at times (but, slapstick is a common source of humor), but even in the Hobbit they never got drunk (I think the strongest wording that was used was "merry..." at a celebration, which doesn't automatically signify drunkenness). And axes? Norse myth.

Well, being "merry" is a term used by Tolkien alright. Tolkien, a man who thinks drinking two pints of bitter before the noon hour is "going light for Lent". :D

Gimli doesn't merely carry an axe. It's talked about at great length - both IC ("Ax of the Dwarves!"; "Alas! My axe is notched...") and as part of the OOC narative ("Gimli was wandering about, tapping the stone here and there with his axe").

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Graceful elves didn't exist before Tolkien... Rriigghhtt....

So name one that precedes The Hobbit.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
And brooding loners never appeared in stories before Tolkien either...

So name me a "ranger" who is a brooding loner from the literature prior to LotR.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
On an unrelated note, it seems a lot of people have a distaste for "special snowflakes," and I'll be honest that's a gut instinct I have too, but one piece of advice from the great James Jacobs that I find truly valuable is that it's kind of unavoidable. PCs are special snowflakes by definition. The people that defy expectations, that have unique stories to justify who and what they are? Those are the kind of people with the attitude that makes a PC a PC. So don't be afraid of your character being a special snowflake, there's no real way to avoid being so. If you weren't a special snowflake, you wouldn't be a PC to begin with.

A "special snowflake" is special even when compared to the other typical PCs.

If you're not sure what a typical PC looks like, then scan a few pregens in the various products that have them.

A Drizz't clone is way over the line into special snowflake territory. A Drow orphan raised by a monastic order... much less so.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Scythia wrote:
The drunk dwarf with an axe

This is why my dwarves wield a hammer, wear kilts, and speak in a brogue, to avoid your silly cliche.

Grand Lodge

A good Drow is not all around bad, but it could be bad for a particular group. For another group, it could be great.

That is, more or less, all that really matters.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It's not a matter of a lack of imagination.

It is just that some characters, are not welcomed in a play group.
It could ruin the immersion for some, or just be obnoxious.

I think it is terribly conceited, and rude, to go forth into a game, with an attitude that says "I don't care what the group thinks. I play whatever I want, no matter how disruptive they may find it."

Nobody wants to play with that kind of dick.

This is a group game. The fun of all players, and the DM, should be considered.

It could the PC named "Fighterman McMurderhobo", or a Drizzt clone, or the CE Cannibal Barbarian. Nobody has to just "shut up, and put up" just to please one player. Maybe one of those examples is right for one group, but not for another.

In the end, just ask your group, don't be a jerk, and remember, everyone wants to have fun.

It's not all about one single player.

@leo1925: The example person was a friend of a friend, who was trying to guilt me, after stating my life goal of eating every creature I could safely, and legally eat. Also, he wanted to go to an expensive vegan restaurant, that no one else wanted to go to. His response, was to convince me, that not only are all humans were naturally vegetarian, but all creatures were naturally vegetarian.

The argument I was taking offense to was not that certain characters might not fit into a group or story - it was an argument that certain characters were too similar to some other fictional character - and THAT is what was attracting the ire of the other 'better' players at the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It's not a matter of a lack of imagination.

It is just that some characters, are not welcomed in a play group.
It could ruin the immersion for some, or just be obnoxious.

I think it is terribly conceited, and rude, to go forth into a game, with an attitude that says "I don't care what the group thinks. I play whatever I want, no matter how disruptive they may find it."

Nobody wants to play with that kind of dick.

This is a group game. The fun of all players, and the DM, should be considered.

It could the PC named "Fighterman McMurderhobo", or a Drizzt clone, or the CE Cannibal Barbarian. Nobody has to just "shut up, and put up" just to please one player. Maybe one of those examples is right for one group, but not for another.

In the end, just ask your group, don't be a jerk, and remember, everyone wants to have fun.

It's not all about one single player.

There's a huge difference between playing a character with a cliche back story and playing a character which actively derails the game.

Honestly, I don't see how "drow double-scimitar" is more cliche than "elven wizard" or "halfling rogue" or "half-orc barbarian".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
On an unrelated note, it seems a lot of people have a distaste for "special snowflakes," and I'll be honest that's a gut instinct I have too, but one piece of advice from the great James Jacobs that I find truly valuable is that it's kind of unavoidable. PCs are special snowflakes by definition. The people that defy expectations, that have unique stories to justify who and what they are? Those are the kind of people with the attitude that makes a PC a PC. So don't be afraid of your character being a special snowflake, there's no real way to avoid being so. If you weren't a special snowflake, you wouldn't be a PC to begin with.

A "special snowflake" is special even when compared to the other typical PCs.

If you're not sure what a typical PC looks like, then scan a few pregens in the various products that have them.

A Drizz't clone is way over the line into special snowflake territory. A Drow orphan raised by a monastic order... much less so.

I have absolutely no idea what people mean by the use of the term "special snowflake" in these contexts. It just sounds like you mean "something I don't like for irrational reasons".

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what people mean by the use of the term "special snowflake" in these contexts. It just sounds like you mean "something I don't like for irrational reasons".

See also: "Mary Sue" and "emo".

Whatever meaning they may have had has been watered down to "character I don't like" by the internets.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how this new person came here with a very simple question: "can I play a non-evil Drow in a home (non-PFS) game?" and you essentially tripped over each other in your rush to punish him for asking.

Firstly, there is no hard rule on this, nor "official" rule as some of you have stated, but beside that, he never said his game was set in Golarion, so assuming so and shoving that down his throat was extraneous and presumptive, at best. Moreover, this thread is not in PFS.

Worse, you all quickly hijacked the thread to get into a giant argument about emo characters and "Mary Sues" and whatever other bits you lot might have stumbled upon over at TV Tropes.

The short and quick answer is that guys have been playing non-evil Drow in home campaigns since the game began, and as long as his GM is okay with it, really ANY backstory is just fine.

Seriously, this behavior is the cause of two things:

1. It's why we can't have nice things.

2. It's why people are afraid of gamers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP never came here for advice again.


LazarX wrote:
It's not a traditional character, it's a "special snowflake".

Every PC is a "special snowflake". You just don't like mine.


Bruunwald wrote:


Firstly, there is no hard rule on this, nor "official" rule as some of you have stated

Addressing this item, from the SRD:

Paizo's Pathfinder SRD wrote:
Aside from these, you need to decide on your character's name, alignment, and physical appearance.

This is at Getting Started

The official rule is that the player gets to decide on his character's name, alignment, and physical appearance.

That said, it's perfectly fair for a GM to restrict players from playing certain alignments (just like they can restrict certain races, feats, classes, archetypes, and whatnot) but the official rule is that you can choose any alignment for your character.

Side note: your other assessment was spot-on. The piling-on of someone for wanting to play a good drow was ridiculous, particularly the name-calling.


On the off chance the OP is still reading, assuming your DM is ok with it, if you take your original backstory and insert "was left at the monastery by a Paladin with previous underdark adventuring experience" and you should be good to go lore wise. Also given the lifespan of elves, drow included that could have been a generation or two ago.

- Torger


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

Overblown complaints about Drizzt clones far outnumber actual instances of real Drizzt clones. They're more obnoxious as well.

And it's been that way for over a decade.

They're more obnoxious now because we've been taking care of the Drizzt clone character players (who have been around for over two decades now) with a vigorous aerial spraying campaign. It's the only thing that works...


Bruunwald wrote:
Stuff

Paizo Forums! Ask a simple question, get a dissertation for an answer!

To be fair though, such topics tend to get killed by Admins at the first sign of trouble.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
To be fair though, such topics tend to get killed by Admins at the first sign of trouble.

This is why admins get high level fast.


Bruunwald wrote:

Stuff and...

Seriously, this behavior is the cause of two things:

1. It's why we can't have nice things.

2. It's why people are afraid of gamers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP never came here for advice again.

You are handily ignoring two important facts good sir.

1) The OP is undoubtedly already one of us. See what he's said up-thread,

Quote:
Which I appreciate, most of these comments are helping me present my argument for a non-evil Drow PC. Please keep it up with the comments.

2) You think this thread is bad? See what has been done to his other question - LOL!

Blind Monk

wiping away tears as I think about it again


I don't care how elitist it makes me seem, or how close-minded you think I am, or even if it makes me seem like a troll.

I see a Drizzt clone, I call it out, and I ridicule it. And I am not ashamed.

No matter the thread. No matter the situation. No matter the game.

I will call you out and I will roll my eyes.

And you may not care. (And good for you if you don't...sort of...I mean, good for you that you don't let another person's opinion water your own determination down, but...you know...if it's a Drizzt clone, bad for you for that aspect of it.) But I will still do my duty to the world, to ethics, to the very fabric of morality itself by calling out a Drizzt clone as what it is.


Which makes me question... What constitutes a Drizzt clone? Dual-scimitar wielding drow? A drow ranger? A dark and broody drow loner? A drow that has even just 1 scimitar? A drow with a thing for cats perhaps? Or a drow with a human lover, or dwarf friend?

There's a LOT to Drizzt. Parsing bits and pieces of him out to crow the whole "DRIZZT CLONE CLICHE!" BS does little to encourage people to enjoy a race they find interesting. One or a few shared aspects with a fictitious character not a Drizzt Clone make.

This was more directed at everyone who's shouted drizzt clone at me before I even got past the word 'drow'. Aberrant-blooded drow sorcerer? A Drizzle clone? WTF?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm why does everyone talk like everyone knows who Drizzt is. I have no clue who Drizzt is or anything about him. So spouting someone is doing a Drizzt clone with no clue who he is to me seems more close minded on your part.

After all character even if drawn up the same way rolled the same way will never be the same in different campaines with different friends characters. For what truly makes a character a Character is their experiences.

So if you want to play a Drow or any character that might resemble something else or another character. Id say allow it to happen since in all honesty it will be different. You can never mimic fully what they are and if your trying too. Well youd be sorely disapointed.

Tho at this point with how much hate their is for this character. You might as well turn him into a diety.

Liberty's Edge

Long before Drizzt came out, a friend let two players have neutral drow characters who worshipped a nature goddess (as they lived underground, it seemed a good match) and wanted to make money/

I think the key question here is to ask what works with a GM and the players in a group. So long as people are happy, should I be that concerned? Heck, I have showed up at gaming tables where a human character or demihuman character was a minority.

As one option for non-evil drow, a drow from a smaller community or one that is somehow isolated from some of the more infamous locales might be a place for less evil drow. This could happen if they have to rely on trade for some items and have to adjust to their environment. Cultures can change over time and are often influenced by other cultures -- at least among humans in our own world I would argue that the same would seem reasonable for non-human cultures that are not inherently aligned.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Which makes me question... What constitutes a Drizzt clone? Dual-scimitar wielding drow? A drow ranger? A dark and broody drow loner? A drow that has even just 1 scimitar? A drow with a thing for cats perhaps? Or a drow with a human lover, or dwarf friend?

There's a LOT to Drizzt. Parsing bits and pieces of him out to crow the whole "DRIZZT CLONE CLICHE!" BS does little to encourage people to enjoy a race they find interesting. One or a few shared aspects with a fictitious character not a Drizzt Clone make.

This was more directed at everyone who's shouted drizzt clone at me before I even got past the word 'drow'. Aberrant-blooded drow sorcerer? A Drizzle clone? WTF?

For me it's the "I, rare supreme exception to the standard, despite both biological nature and societal pressure to do otherwise, escaped my evil society and became good, and now fight to prove we're not all that evil," storyline. Most of the ideas given here as the drow raised in a monastery don't necessarily cry out Drizzt clone to me...but I do know a lot of people would see it that way, just because it's a good drow.

This is something I'd consider a serious Drizzt clone, even though it's not even a drow. Read through the thread and the guy even admits the player always plays Drizzt clones.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Which makes me question... What constitutes a Drizzt clone? Dual-scimitar wielding drow? A drow ranger? A dark and broody drow loner? A drow that has even just 1 scimitar? A drow with a thing for cats perhaps? Or a drow with a human lover, or dwarf friend?

There's a LOT to Drizzt. Parsing bits and pieces of him out to crow the whole "DRIZZT CLONE CLICHE!" BS does little to encourage people to enjoy a race they find interesting. One or a few shared aspects with a fictitious character not a Drizzt Clone make.

This was more directed at everyone who's shouted drizzt clone at me before I even got past the word 'drow'. Aberrant-blooded drow sorcerer? A Drizzle clone? WTF?

For me it's the "I, rare supreme exception to the standard, despite both biological nature and societal pressure to do otherwise, escaped my evil society and became good, and now fight to prove we're not all that evil," storyline. Most of the ideas given here as the drow raised in a monastery don't necessarily cry out Drizzt clone to me...but I do know a lot of people would see it that way, just because it's a good drow.

This is something I'd consider a serious Drizzt clone, even though it's not even a drow. Read through the thread and the guy even admits the player always plays Drizzt clones.

Now, see, that I can agree with. Drizzt isn't the first (that I'm aware of) one to pull such a story line out of his rumpus, but he's certainly the most famous among gamers. I'm sure I can find more if I raid the older fantasy literature at my library.

Hell, it's a common trope. I'm fairly sure I don't even really have to. All Drizzt did was add the race card to the whole "escaping my evil society to become good and blah blah blah".

Personally, I tend to play drow that are "In it to WIN it... For themselves". Come from some section of the Underdark, er, Darklands in Golarion isn't it?... Anyhow, find a new world rife with possibilities for him to... Well, let's just say that the Drow Matriarch lifestyles are something of a starting point for his grand schemes.

Personal favorite was the Daemon-tainted Drow Souldrinker. Had this whole insane scheme to send Darklanders souls to Charon, while subverting the Demon's hold on the Drow, this weakening them for the Qlippoth to get stronger. It was long, convoluted, and excellent story potential. Was seriously contemplating throwing a Great Old One in the mix...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Which makes me question... What constitutes a Drizzt clone? Dual-scimitar wielding drow? A drow ranger? A dark and broody drow loner? A drow that has even just 1 scimitar? A drow with a thing for cats perhaps? Or a drow with a human lover, or dwarf friend?

There's a LOT to Drizzt. Parsing bits and pieces of him out to crow the whole "DRIZZT CLONE CLICHE!" BS does little to encourage people to enjoy a race they find interesting. One or a few shared aspects with a fictitious character not a Drizzt Clone make.

This was more directed at everyone who's shouted drizzt clone at me before I even got past the word 'drow'. Aberrant-blooded drow sorcerer? A Drizzle clone? WTF?

For me it's the "I, rare supreme exception to the standard, despite both biological nature and societal pressure to do otherwise, escaped my evil society and became good, and now fight to prove we're not all that evil," storyline. Most of the ideas given here as the drow raised in a monastery don't necessarily cry out Drizzt clone to me...but I do know a lot of people would see it that way, just because it's a good drow.

This is something I'd consider a serious Drizzt clone, even though it's not even a drow. Read through the thread and the guy even admits the player always plays Drizzt clones.

Personally, I have more problem with the idea of a race that is biologically destined to be evil. I would find it far more absurd to say that a race cannot produce individuals who are not evil. That is a far more lazy concept than wanting to be a person who defies the expectations of their culture. People do that in the real world all the time.

Would you have an equal issue with a dwarf who shaves? "Not all dwarves are bearded, I'm the one dwarf with a smooth face, and I'm here to show everyone that dwarves have chins."

Silver Crusade

I also dislike the 'Noble Drow, pure of spirit and champion of disproving stereotypes' cliché stories. However, I did make one exception back during 2nd ED for the Night Below box set. I considered the overall threat, and the consequences for all Underdark races involved and came to the conclusion that having a Drow PC was absolutely an option.

I only had one condition for that character; she wouldn't be introduced until the end of the first book where the party was in the cave system transitioning from surface to Underdark. That was the only occasion where everyone at the table was on-board with it.


leo1925 wrote:

{. . .}

@OP

I'm not not the OP, but I'm going to answer anyway, because I also have an axe in the fire (or is that supposed to be an iron to grind?). (@Archpaladin Zousha: Sorry for not putting the same disclaimer in my previous message -- it seemed important for me to be able to answer it too, just as much as for the OP, since your message brought up important points that I need to make sure I have covered if I am going to pull this off. Glad you think this might actually work. Here are some more questions I need to answer even though I am not the OP.)

leo1925 wrote:

Whether a drow would be rocognized as drow in Golarion is dependant on many things, some of them are:

1) Did Second Darkness happened?

Not yet. Coming REAL SOON in my character's history.

leo1925 wrote:
1b) What did the heroes who stopped second darkness did with the knowledge they gained after they saved the world?

Still in the future for my character, but an important question nonetheless, since if she survives and keeps her sanity she's going to be one of them.

leo1925 wrote:
2) Did pathfinder chronicle #44 (the one written by Koriah Azmeren and talked about the drows) get published?

I could use your help here -- where does this fit on the time line relative to Second Darkness?

leo1925 wrote:

2b) Did the winter council's attempt to bribe the pathfinder society to supress it succeeded?

2c) Do the people view it as a work of fiction or not?

Need to know the above to figure this out.

leo1925 wrote:
If from the above you get to a state of Golarion where the vast majority of people doesn't know what drow are then you are ok, most would take you for an elf who is a little weird(er), maybe even confuse with a Mwangi elf.

That's the idea for the start of the AP.

leo1925 wrote:

Now whether you would be hunted because you are drow would also be dependant on the above and on other things like:

1) Does the winter council still has power in Kyonin?

Presumably.

leo1925 wrote:
2) How many lantern bearers are there?

Could use some help with this too, but they can't be TOO numerous, or their secrecy will suffer.

leo1925 wrote:
2b) Their attitude is still shoot first ask questions later?

Presumably that's what they'd LIKE to do, but I figure they would be smart enough to know that going murder hobo in Alma (Andoran) would be a bad move that would likely blow their cover.

leo1925 wrote:
3) Where in Golarion would you adventure?

Riddleport, initially. The Winter Council/Lantern Bearers may have even manipulated events to send her there, thinking that this wretched hive of scum and villainy might finish their job for them, and if not, it deprives her of the protection of Andoran.

leo1925 wrote:
As you can see there are a lot of things that need answering and the matter is a complicated one, that's why it's imperative that you talk with your GM so that he can tell you if a drow PC can work or not.

That's the same purpose for which I am in this thread, preparing to be able to answer these questions for a future GM.


darth_gator wrote:
137ben wrote:
At the time Greyhawk and Faerun were developed, a majority of Americans were opposed to the idea of interracial marriage.
I don't know that the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage when Greyhawk and Faerun were developed. Late 1970s through the early 1980s? While I realize it wasn't nearly as widely accepted then as it is today, I find the claim that "the majority of Americans were opposed to [it]" to be an exaggeration.

According to Gallup, the majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage until 1983, when the number hit 50% percent. The majority did not approve until 1995. The statement was not exaggerated.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

In Golarion, an Elf can actually be so evil, that they turn into Drow.

This is, of course, rare.

Drow are the result of the briefly awakened conscience of Rovagug touching the minds of Elves, as their bodies were warped by eldritch radiation within the Caves of the Craven in the Darklands.

They are touched by the greatest evil god of destruction, and it's taint follows through each generation, mind, body, and spirit.

Drow are not evil, simply by choice, or cultural pressure, but rather it is a part of their being.

Well, if you are playing in Golarion, you have your answer. Can't so much say I like it, seeing as how I don't do always evil races in my homebrew setting. My drow have no inherent leanings either to good or evil, but I'm still working on what their culture should look like.


Tarinia Faynrik wrote:

Hmmm why does everyone talk like everyone knows who Drizzt is. I have no clue who Drizzt is or anything about him. So spouting someone is doing a Drizzt clone with no clue who he is to me seems more close minded on your part.

I think it's reasonable to assume people in D&D-based gaming have an idea who the character Drizzt Do'Urden is. It's part of D&D/PF cultural literacy. Hell, he's part of late 20th century American best sellers and fantasy cultural literacy. I would wager more people in D&D gaming know who the character is than don't. Playing a good-hearted, male drow with a pair of scimitars and professing to not know who Drizzt is would be met with some skepticism. It's like saying that a gunslinging smuggler in a souped-up junky freighter isn't based on Han Solo or an ex-Browncoat Firefly-owning smuggler isn't based on Mal Reynolds.

And I don't think it's close-minded to get on someone's case about making a clone character whether it's basing their character on a well-known one or whether they always make the same character for every campaign. It would drive me crazy to always have a Wolverine or Batman (even worse, Deadpool) character in every superhero game I run. I'll usually give a player one shot at it. After that, I'm telling them to plow a new field.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarinia Faynrik wrote:

Hmmm why does everyone talk like everyone knows who Drizzt is. I have no clue who Drizzt is or anything about him. So spouting someone is doing a Drizzt clone with no clue who he is to me seems more close minded on your part.

After all character even if drawn up the same way rolled the same way will never be the same in different campaines with different friends characters. For what truly makes a character a Character is their experiences.

So if you want to play a Drow or any character that might resemble something else or another character. Id say allow it to happen since in all honesty it will be different. You can never mimic fully what they are and if your trying too. Well youd be sorely disapointed.

Tho at this point with how much hate their is for this character. You might as well turn him into a diety.

I'm wasn't sure who Drizzt was either, but I played a good-aligned, exiled noble drow shortly after Queen of the Demonweb Pits came out. Must have been the late 70's or early 80's. From the comments posted here and a quick google search, it sounds like the creators of Drizzt cloned my character. :) I suppose it is good to know that if I ever decide to bring back my old character in a pathfinder game, I can expect people to accuse me of cloning a character who was invented nearly a decade after mine. Of course, my character concept was itself strongly influenced by Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone.

Pretty much every element of any character can be found in previous literature. As people get more experience, they usually get better at mixing elements into new combinations, but most players I know have made least one character taken from a favorite fantasy book. For beginners, this can really be useful because their familiarity with the character's personality leaves them free to focus on the unfamiliar mechanics of the game. And, as you said, circumstances will usually cause the character to diverge from its template soon enough.

But even for experienced players it can be fun to play a Conan, Grey Mouser, Perseus, or Merlin. And it can be fun to be in a group with a character like that. Instead of rolling your eyes and leaving the game, you could smile and dive into the roleplaying challenge that teaming up with a legendary character can be.


@Bill Dun

I also dont know who either of those characters are really. Then again i dont like Star wars. I also have no interest in Firefly. Tho i atleast know Han solo's name. Same with Drizzt i know his name too but i dont know the characters.

I'm just saying dont call someone something if you dont know if they really are that. At this point tho it seems that even if its not a clone if it relates to any character youve read or hate in anything you wont enjoy a person playing it. -shrugs- Tho i wont really know.

Ive also only been playing dnd/pathfinder for a short time. I think its 3 years now tho only one year was played with any consistency. So far tho the groups ive been in have killed my interest to alot of things.

@ Gisher.

Ive never played a character based off of anything. Each character i dont even have a set backstory or actual personality until i start playing it. I think its why i have a tendency to play Rogues or anything thats adaptable.

As i continue to play my characters develop in my mind. Tho i know not having a set back story or even real personality till i start playing probably is not that well accepted by alot of GMs. I just dont like to put something to my character until i know i will enjoy it. Its a waste of time and emotional investment to do so.

So far i have yet to have a character that ive based on anything or that has reminded anyone of anything. Well outside of i usually play a character who is rather sexual tho that is part of my personality. Its kind of hard to get away from. Then again i was a major free form rper before playing Pathfinder/Dnd.


Gisher wrote:
But even for experienced players it can be fun to play a Conan, Grey Mouser, Perseus, or Merlin. And it can be fun to be in a group with a character like that. Instead of rolling your eyes and leaving the game, you could smile and dive into the roleplaying challenge that teaming up with a legendary character can be.

Truer words have never been spoken.... well, maybe they have, but I gotta +1 this. I was savin' 'em for something awesome, but you deserve 'em. Here, have these Win Cookies.

.... Also, as Tarinia's fiance, I can attest she generally detests the sci-fi genre in film as a whole. She's fine with it in video games and TTRPGs, but I still haven't been able to get her to sit down and watch anything with me more sci-fi than superhero flicks (Incredibles, Avengers, etc). I think the only thing she watched was Tripping the Rift, and that was only 'cause of the humor involved.. Futurama as well, actually. Though, she does have a special dislike for Star Wars, and most Star Trek.

That said... Even as fun as it could be gaming with a clone of an awesome character... I can attest it gets tiring when someone's trying to recreate a character down to the tiniest variable. One of our last groups had a player who always, without fail, picked a character from an anime and tried to completely recreate it. His Mugen (Samurai Champloo) was... Atrocious. I think the only original thing I recall him doing was the Undine Druid of Gozreh for our "Elements of Danger" campaign (Theme: Aasimar, Tiefling, Ifrit, Sylph, Oread, and Undine for a party)... Fun as it is, it's not very fun when they start complaining and stressing over "Can I get sandals with metal on the bottom to block sword attacks?" and other such.


@UnArcaneElection
I am guessing that are going to play in Second Darkness and you want to play a drow PC, the thing is that i don't know a lot about Second Darkness, the things i know about Drow is from running Shattered Star and the research i did for running it so i can't really help you there.
I think that the pathfinder chronicle #44 was written during or shortly after Second Darkness and that PCs encounter Koriah Azmeren but i am not sure.
The winter council is still in power during Second Darkness.


leo1925 wrote:

@UnArcaneElection

I am guessing that are going to play in Second Darkness and you want to play a drow PC, the thing is that i don't know a lot about Second Darkness, the things i know about Drow is from running Shattered Star and the research i did for running it so i can't really help you there.
I think that the pathfinder chronicle #44 was written during or shortly after Second Darkness and that PCs encounter Koriah Azmeren but i am not sure.
The winter council is still in power during Second Darkness.

The drow are the villains in S.D. so it is quite impossible to play that race there. The PCs eventually run into situations where being drow = execution.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I find the whole Drizzt situation very ludicrous. There are thousands of other cliches and poeple play those too.

Quite right.

The drunk dwarf with an axe, the graceful elven archer, and the brooding loner ranger all come to mind.

I seem to recall them having a movie as well, unlike Drizzt. Who's really the overexposed cliche?

You're almost right.

Over looking one little fact though...

When Tolkien wrote that story... well... he invented those tropes at the same time. :D

Show one instance of any dwarf being drunk in Tolkien's works... I'll wait. Granted, the dwarves with Thorin are a bit buffoonish at times (but, slapstick is a common source of humor), but even in the Hobbit they never got drunk (I think the strongest wording that was used was "merry..." at a celebration, which doesn't automatically signify drunkenness). And axes? Norse myth.

Well, being "merry" is a term used by Tolkien alright. Tolkien, a man who thinks drinking two pints of bitter before the noon hour is "going light for Lent". :D

Gimli doesn't merely carry an axe. It's talked about at great length - both IC ("Ax of the Dwarves!"; "Alas! My axe is notched...") and as part of the OOC narative ("Gimli was wandering about, tapping the stone here and there with his axe").

So how about those "drunken elves?" Considering that elves are the only ones who explicitly get drunk (to the point of passing out, no less)...

Every member had a "signature weapon" in Lord of the Rings. Dwarves fight mainly with axes (although Thorin also uses a sword in The Hobbit), elves are shown mainly with bows and spears, humans use swords, hobbits use "long knives" (short swords).

Quark Blast wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Graceful elves didn't exist before Tolkien... Rriigghhtt....
So name one that precedes The Hobbit.

You mean any of the Tuatha De Dannan (Celtic myth), who dwell in Tir na nOg ("the Land of the Young")? Possibly also the sidhe (Irish/Scottish myth) and the alvor (Swedish myth). You mean in literature, not the myth that inspired Tolkien? The King of Elfland's Daughter (1924) by Lord Dunsany predates The Hobbit (1937) by over ten years.

Quark Blast wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
And brooding loners never appeared in stories before Tolkien either...
So name me a "ranger" who is a brooding loner from the literature prior to LotR.

You mean like Nathaniel ("Natty") Bumpo from James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales (of which The Last of the Mohicans is the most well known), published between 1823 and 1841?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Bruunwald wrote:
The short and quick answer is that guys have been playing non-evil Drow in home campaigns since the game began, and as long as his GM is okay with it, really ANY backstory is just fine.

Well, since the 1st Ed AD&D Unearthed Arcana (or, at the earliest, the Fiend Folio)...

Considering that drow didn't exist as such until G3 The Hall of the Fire Giant King.


Scythia wrote:
... Would you have an equal issue with a dwarf who shaves? "Not all dwarves are bearded, I'm the one dwarf with a smooth face, and I'm here to show everyone that dwarves have chins."

Wait, wait! Let's not bring in the Dwarves of Eberron to this discussion please. ;)

bald-faced dwarves... <shudder>


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Loads of... stuff

Hey, I answered your questions. Get grumpy if you like.

The fact is that Gimli's "signature weapon" was an axe. Like none before him and like many after.

Other elves in Tolkien may have gotten drunk and passed out (like the jailer in The Hobbit) but that doesn't change the fact that, by far, the most famous elves did not - not Elrond, not Legolas, not Arwen, not Galadriel,...

As far as "graceful elves", you've named none that I can see in your post. All your citations, "Tuatha De Dannan... Tir na nOg... The King of Elfland's Daughter", tell me nothing about Hyper-DEX Elves using bows to shoot BEBGs - that is the trope under discussion after all.

Nor do I see a connection between a romance novel, depicting (in part) the doings of a scout for the British set during the Seven Years' War, to have any but the most incidental relationships to Tolkien's High Fantasy Faery Tale. "Natty" is no "Strider".

And more importantly, "Natty" has had zero impact on the Brooding Ranger trope. A character can be claimed as a precedent, but that does not mean he was an exemplar or template for subsequent characters.


I'd say to not explain your exact origin. Just say that almost a century ago 5 drow babies were abandoned in front of a monastery in the dead of night. You were all raised in seclusion by a kind and wise old dwarf but he has recently passed away and you now want to leave the monastery and seek out your past.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Which makes me question... What constitutes a Drizzt clone? Dual-scimitar wielding drow? A drow ranger? A dark and broody drow loner? A drow that has even just 1 scimitar? A drow with a thing for cats perhaps? Or a drow with a human lover, or dwarf friend?

There's a LOT to Drizzt. Parsing bits and pieces of him out to crow the whole "DRIZZT CLONE CLICHE!" BS does little to encourage people to enjoy a race they find interesting. One or a few shared aspects with a fictitious character not a Drizzt Clone make.

This was more directed at everyone who's shouted drizzt clone at me before I even got past the word 'drow'. Aberrant-blooded drow sorcerer? A Drizzle clone? WTF?

For me it's the "I, rare supreme exception to the standard, despite both biological nature and societal pressure to do otherwise, escaped my evil society and became good, and now fight to prove we're not all that evil," storyline. Most of the ideas given here as the drow raised in a monastery don't necessarily cry out Drizzt clone to me...but I do know a lot of people would see it that way, just because it's a good drow.

This is something I'd consider a serious Drizzt clone, even though it's not even a drow. Read through the thread and the guy even admits the player always plays Drizzt clones.

Personally, I have more problem with the idea of a race that is biologically destined to be evil. I would find it far more absurd to say that a race cannot produce individuals who are not evil. That is a far more lazy concept than wanting to be a person who defies the expectations of their culture. People do that in the real world all the time.

Would you have an equal issue with a dwarf who shaves? "Not all dwarves are bearded, I'm the one dwarf with a smooth face, and I'm here to show everyone that dwarves have chins."

I wouldn't, but the world might. If normally the onlly reason a dwarf goes beardless is because he's in shameful exile from his clan, Most people familliar with dwarves are going to assume that kind of background from any smooth-chined dwarf they meet. Especially if the world is one where female dwarves are bearded as well.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
The drow are the villains in S.D. so it is quite impossible to play that race there. The PCs eventually run into situations where being drow = execution.

The first doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem. The second might be. It depends upon just how nasty the surface Elves want to be. We already know that the Winter Council/Lantern Bearers are nasty, but they're not even close to 100% of the surface Elves (can't be, or they'd have blown their secrecy by now).

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Drow Elves and alignment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.