| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of why lawful, gruff Dwarven fighters aren't viewed as "gimli clones" while chaotic good drows are viewed as "drizzt clones" mainly because Gimli was supposed to be a somewhat typical dwarf (more powerful than the average, but mentally and socially a typical dwarf), so copying him a hundred times results in a bunch of dwarves that are pretty much how we typically view dwarves.
Meanwhile, Drizzt was made to be the opposite of the drow - a lawful good little goody two-shoes at war with the world. Creating a hundred of him results in a group of drow that are diametrically opposed to what is established of drow.
Part of the very character for Drizzt is that he's unique (or very nearly unique), while part of the very character for Gimli is that he's one in a long line of proud dwarves. So when we see characters that are very heavily inspired by Drizzt's story, it feels hollow, like a big part of the character is missing. It doesn't matter so much for us that they might still be unique within that specific setting, because in our cultural consciousness they are not.
So, if you wanna play a drow character and not make them feel like a clone, make them neutral or chaotic neutral with some evil traits, that they keep in check for the sake of party dynamics (both in-world and out-of-world). Because if we see a hundred grim-but-not-evil drow, they might still feel unusual, but not _weird_.
The thread has move on a little bit, but I wanted to go back a visit th Medieval History with Magic vs Tolkien a little bit. While I can appreciate and understand the difference, and I have a better understanding of both human nature and history today...
I started DMing when I was around 14. I had a vague sense what I wanted to create in a fantasy world with Tolkien like world as my only guide, but I had no idea how to craft world or smoothly integrate players random off the wall ideas into that world. I had no idea what verisimilitude or setting coherency meant only a vague idea that some level of realism was important. I absolutely would have denied players things in the name of realism, historical accuracy, or it doesn't fit.
That was over twenty years ago. I am much better at setting building, and with that comes the ability to better integrate random and wacky player ideas into my setting. As a player, I am better able to take a DM's setting and find a way to make my character a part of the setting.
I run into very few experienced DMs who don't work with players to integrate ideas into the setting, but I has seen a lot of inexperienced DMs struggle with it. "Historical Accuracy" is just the easiest reason for an inexperienced DM to fall back on.
Also concepts of how dwarves are is relatively old in literature, whereas drow are a D&D invented concept, so the only source ever made to Drow are the Drizzt books, so how can average player think of a drow in any other way? If you want to play a heroic drow, Drizzt is the model.
|
Dark elves have popped up before, but Drow are a very specific take on dark elves with many novel elements, so it's fair to call them an original creation (as much as anything is).
Why shouldn't the nastier parts of human nature be included in a fantasy series?
Absolutely no reason.
But the series is telling a story about human nature, not history. And while its message about human nature may be informed by history, it's not bound by history.
Arguing about whether the amount of brutality in GoT precisely matches that in history is missing my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly. Dark Elves are a facet of Norse/Germanic Myth.
What's funny is that they're pretty well blurred with Dwarves in the Mythos.
Scandinavian dark elves were exactly like D&D duergar (and nothing like D&D elves) - they looked like evil (not black) dwarves that could shapechange its size to human, and it could do some illusion magic. I read a lot of mythology and folklore.
There's a story of a shepherd lost at night in a snow storm in the mountains, finds an abandoned hut to hide from storm with sheep packed in close, inside is an ugly dour dwarf around a large campfire. Dwarf never says a word, but stares menacingly at shepherd. Next to fire is pile of wood. As fire dies down dwarf grabs log, breaks over knee and tosses in fire. As fire later dies down again, dwarf stares menacingly. Shepherd does nothing, fire dies, then morning comes. Dwarf not there, and turns out fire never real, no pile of logs, but where pile logs would be, is a cliffs edge. Had shepherd tried to get log, he'd have fallen over the cliff... (a Scandinavian dark elf tale.)
Any time someone argues that X shouldn't be in a game because it would not fit the time period, I immediately agree with them, and tell them that all magic will be removed as well, for the same reason.
That usually shuts them up.
GM chooses what fits in his game, doesn't matter how he reaches that decision.
Players choose whether or not to play, that's it.
Oh, didn't say, hut was an illusion as well. Only the sheep kept close kept shepherd from freezing to death.
Scandinavians considered dark elves evil, I'm sure there are more evil tales out there, but that's the only one I remember...
I think "guest rules" were in play to the Scandinavian point of view in story. If one is a guest, they can expect certain rules followed, including their safety. Since dark elf plan was to trick guest into his death, that was breaking a sacrosanct guest rule - thus evil indeed.
Comparitively, Game of Thrones, Red Wedding incident is also breach of "guest rules", which was an important and accepted rule system throughout Northern Europe.
IIRC...The Drow owe more inspiration to the Black Martians from the Barsoom stories than they do actual mythology.
IIRC...The Drow owe more inspiration to the Black Martians from the Barsoom stories than they do actual mythology.
Never read Burroughs' Martian books, so I couldn't say.
Did most of my classical reading as a kid, as a teenager on up, I preferred to research fairy tales, legends and mythology from actual historic cultures, rather than modern fantasy. I read LotR in 8th grade, as well as most other fantasy books then. At 15 forward, I more or less stopped reading general fantasy. I love folklore from all cultures - read a ton of that. Also at 15 I was introduced to D&D.
I like the Game of Thrones show on HBO. I think they could probably ease of the rape a little though it doesn't really bother me other than the fact that it almost transitions from pathos to bathos with a sense of "Who gets raped tonight?" (to the tune of "Which Ragu tonight?") There's actually been quite a lot of sexual violence against men in GoT as well, and while I find some of it pretty icky I accept it too as an unpleasant part of the story.
Anyhow, I think there are a few slightly different ideas at work with the various assertions that people should avoid using the "historical accuracy fallacy":
#1 - Stand up and take full responsibility for any unpleasant or limiting element you include in your campaign world, story, character, etc
#1a - As #1 so I can guilt trip you into allowing what I want since there's no "real" non-fallacy reason not to (at least beyond your own "greedy" whims)
#1b - As #1 so I can launch a blistering counterattack on why you shouldn't have made it that way (and or why you're a bad person)
Considering that #1 requires taking on more blame than using a possibly fallacious excuse I can imagine that many folks would be reluctant to submit to it and expose themselves to the dangers of options 1a and 1b. Should more people do so? Maybe they should. When will they do so? Probably not soon...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of why lawful, gruff Dwarven fighters aren't viewed as "gimli clones" while chaotic good drows are viewed as "drizzt clones" mainly because Gimli was supposed to be a somewhat typical dwarf (more powerful than the average, but mentally and socially a typical dwarf), so copying him a hundred times results in a bunch of dwarves that are pretty much how we typically view dwarves.
Meanwhile, Drizzt was made to be the opposite of the drow - a lawful good little goody two-shoes at war with the world. Creating a hundred of him results in a group of drow that are diametrically opposed to what is established of drow.Part of the very character for Drizzt is that he's unique (or very nearly unique), while part of the very character for Gimli is that he's one in a long line of proud dwarves. So when we see characters that are very heavily inspired by Drizzt's story, it feels hollow, like a big part of the character is missing. It doesn't matter so much for us that they might still be unique within that specific setting, because in our cultural consciousness they are not.
So, if you wanna play a drow character and not make them feel like a clone, make them neutral or chaotic neutral with some evil traits, that they keep in check for the sake of party dynamics (both in-world and out-of-world). Because if we see a hundred grim-but-not-evil drow, they might still feel unusual, but not _weird_.
If you studied D&D lore and particulair FORGOTTEN REALMS lore you would actually see he is not quite as rare as people seem to think he is... there is a whole sub-set of drow who live on the surface, are chaotic good, and worship a moon goddesss that is directly opposed to Lolth named Eilistraee. Her whole faith is made up of surface drow who either converted after being exiled from the drow cities and found the light (literally) or from generationally surface drow.
Arguing about whether the amount of brutality in GoT precisely matches that in history is missing my point.
I don't think it does. If you set GOT as the realistic level for brutality the question isn't why are you telling a brutal story but why does anyone (or almost everyone) tell something else? You don't need a reason to stick to reality you need a reason to diverge from it. Its why we don't see a lot of worlds where people are left handed or women are stronger than men or most of the world is uninterested in sex or....
Yeah, but 90% of those drow are curvy lady priestess-mages, and the high priestess of the church is a Chosen of Mystra, too!
And Ealistraee is the daughter of Lolth and Corellon, so there's a good reason why she's the CG alternative to her mother.
Alas, they murdered Ealistraee off in the cleansing of the drow pantheon, along with her brother and all the other drow deities except Lolth in the transition to 4E. Total chutz.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but 90% of those drow are curvy lady priestess-mages, and the high priestess of the church is a Chosen of Mystra, too!
And Ealistraee is the daughter of Lolth and Corellon, so there's a good reason why she's the CG alternative to her mother.
Alas, they murdered Ealistraee off in the cleansing of the drow pantheon, along with her brother and all the other drow deities except Lolth in the transition to 4E. Total chutz.
==Aelryinth
I was speaking more about the whole "CG drow guy who was fighting against the prejudices of his race blah blah blah"
Technically there was a lot of Surface drow they just hid really well.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need a reason to stick to reality you need a reason to diverge from it.
No, you don't. It's fiction.
Your world needs to be internally consistent, for it to be good or even comprehensible, but there's zero reason it has to be consistent with the real world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need a reason to stick to reality you need a reason to diverge from it.No, you don't. It's fiction.
Your world needs to be internally consistent, for it to be good or even comprehensible, but there's zero reason it has to be consistent with the real world.
This. So much this.
Remember as a whole, people don't actually care about history. If they did, maybe we wouldn't repeat it so often. And they care even less about historical accuracy in their entertainment.
People do however care about fun especially in their entertainment. So go with what is fun.
You don't need a reason to stick to reality you need a reason to diverge from it.No, you don't. It's fiction.
Your world needs to be internally consistent, for it to be good or even comprehensible, but there's zero reason it has to be consistent with the real world.
Because it is amazingly difficult to maintain internal consistency when you're making things up the further away you get from reality the harder it becomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then there is Discworld...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is amazingly difficult to maintain internal consistency when you're making things up the further away you get from reality the harder it becomes.You don't need a reason to stick to reality you need a reason to diverge from it.No, you don't. It's fiction.
Your world needs to be internally consistent, for it to be good or even comprehensible, but there's zero reason it has to be consistent with the real world.
That's not the same as needing to justify any diversion from reality. That's just about picking where you enjoy diverging and spending your energy and creativity there.
I don't need to justify having unicorns in my world if I decide to write a story about unicorns.
I don't need to justify having unicorns in my world if I decide to write a story about unicorns.
*headscratch* That you've decided to write a story about unicorns is the justification for it.
Is grass still green, Does gravity still work, does life require water, oxygen.... 10,000 other factors that are going to be a given in the story that don't change because they don't need to change. If you give that much thought to changing it its probably for a reason.
I don't need to justify having unicorns in my world if I decide to write a story about unicorns.
*headscratch* That you've decided to write a story about unicorns is the justification for it.
Is grass still green, Does gravity still work, does life require water, oxygen.... 10,000 other factors that are going to be a given in the story that don't change because they don't need to change. If you give that much thought to changing it its probably for a reason.
That's stretching the term "justification" pretty thin, though. And that's not how people who demand "justification" for changing historical details are generally using the term.
That's stretching the term "justification" pretty thin, though. And that's not how people who demand "justification" for changing historical details are generally using the term.
Give a reason for. Explain. Rationalize. Support validate...I can't think of a better reason for a change than the stories entire raison d'etre and I don't know how else they could be using it unless they're trying to obliquely say "don't do it". A story about unicorns has the existance of unicorns 0th'd lawed in and everything else is going to have to shift around that. (how much shifting being relative to the properties of said unicorns)
Good question: you should have asked that to Gygax. Or maybe ask Greenwood, he might know. Gygax went against centuries of folkloric tradition by making a fantasy species called 'drow' which bare no resembles whatsoever to the previous drow of folklore.
Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?
"Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax stated that "Drow are mentioned in Keightley's The Fairy Mythology, as I recall (it might have been The Secret Commonwealth--neither book is before me, and it is not all that important anyway), and as Dark Elves of evil nature, they served as an ideal basis for the creation of a unique new mythos designed especially for the AD&D game."[9] The form "drow" can be found in neither work.[10] Gygax later stated that he took the term from a "listing in the Funk & Wagnall's Unexpurgated Dictionary, and no other source at all. "I wanted a most unusual race as the main power in the Underdark, so used the reference to 'dark elves' from the dictionary to create the Drow."[11]"
In other words, Gygax found a word and devised a brand new race out of it. Just like he did with having some weird little plastic toy 'dinosaurs" (two of which looked nothing like any real dino) and devising the Bulette and the Rust Monster. Just like Tolkien took the word "Orc" (and devised a new race from that. ("Orc" is an Old English word that pretty much just means "monster, "orcneas' was used in Beowulf, with uncertain translation).
Now "dark elf" and svartálfar and/or Dökkálfar are completely different. However, even those have only a rare mention outside the Eddas, and even there exactly what they are supposed to be is rather confusing. As kyrt-ryder and gamer-printer pointed out they are rather like dwarves or better yet duegar.
|
Because it is amazingly difficult to maintain internal consistency when you're making things up the further away you get from reality the harder it becomes.
That's no reason to stay close to reality. It just means you have to be prepared for the work you will put in, and if you are not willing to do the work, accept the results or abandon the idea.
Because it is amazingly difficult to maintain internal consistency when you're making things up the further away you get from reality the harder it becomes.That's no reason to stay close to reality. It just means you have to be prepared for the work you will put in, and if you are not willing to do the work, accept the results or abandon the idea.
Or just stay closer to reality and put your effort into the parts of the story you think are important. EVERY author does this to some extent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just stay closer to reality and put your effort into the parts of the story you think are important. EVERY author does this to some extent.Because it is amazingly difficult to maintain internal consistency when you're making things up the further away you get from reality the harder it becomes.That's no reason to stay close to reality. It just means you have to be prepared for the work you will put in, and if you are not willing to do the work, accept the results or abandon the idea.
Authors do that for stories sure. But Pathfinder is a game. And you know what the most important part of the game is? The players. So historical accuracy can and should fold in the face of player fun.
|
|
Or just stay closer to reality and put your effort into the parts of the story you think are important. EVERY author does this to some extent.
I did say 'abandon the idea'.
The point remains that in fiction, there is no imperative to cleave to reality. You just have to be willing to have an explanation for why things are different.
Authors do that for stories sure. But Pathfinder is a game. And you know what the most important part of the game is? The players. So historical accuracy can and should fold in the face of player fun.
It should stretch for player fun. But too much of what some people want to include can ruin it for other players. Guns are kind of pushing it for me. Guns that are effectively six shooters and henry repeating rifles in practice more than push it. Someone else might think that a 67 camaro driving around absolom would be cool .. but the people that want to play a fantasy game have some say in the setting.
Its a balancing act, not an either or. If something is time appropriate is definitely A heavy consideration to give.
Or just stay closer to reality and put your effort into the parts of the story you think are important. EVERY author does this to some extent.I did say 'abandon the idea'.
The point remains that in fiction, there is no imperative to cleave to reality. You just have to be willing to have an explanation for why things are different.
Ok, and when is taking up word count, page space, readers attention and world building notes worth doing that? Just because? Or only when it serves some purpose in telling the story or describing the setting. That means if you're deviating from it you're probably justifying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Authors do that for stories sure. But Pathfinder is a game. And you know what the most important part of the game is? The players. So historical accuracy can and should fold in the face of player fun.
It should stretch for player fun. But too much of what some people want to include can ruin it for other players. Guns are kind of pushing it for me. Guns that are effectively six shooters and henry repeating rifles in practice more than push it. Someone else might think that a 67 camaro driving around absolom would be cool .. but the people that want to play a fantasy game have some say in the setting.
Its a balancing act, not an either or. If something is time appropriate is definitely A heavy consideration to give.
If other people are bothered by another player's concept the problem lies with the people that are bothered. They have their own characters to make how they want.
If other people are bothered by another player's concept the problem lies with the people that are bothered..
No. It does not. While I'm more than willing to give an individual wide latitude for innuendo,references, wink wink nudge nudge, and badly filed off series numbers it is entirely possible to make an annoying character. its entirely possible to make a character where any dm would be justified in saying "No". Its entirely possible that someone IS ruining other peoples play
If you're trying to play a nuclear physicist from chicago in skull and shackles the DM is more than justified in telling you no. (probably with it stamped on the side of the core rule book)Its a collaborative, cooperative game. That means SOME bending towards the other people at the table at least.
If you studied D&D lore and particulair FORGOTTEN REALMS lore you would actually see he is not quite as rare as people seem to think he is... there is a whole sub-set of drow who live on the surface, are chaotic good, and worship a moon goddesss that is directly opposed to Lolth named Eilistraee. Her whole faith is made up of surface drow who either converted after being exiled from the drow cities and found the light (literally) or from generationally surface drow.
Yes, I know they exist, but in the larger context of things they're still a small fringe group both in Forgotten Realms and even more so in our cultural consciousness of drow (as it's one minor group in one setting, among dozens), and most of them aren't underdark-born drow gone to war against their race. Just like forgotten realms has groups of goodly orc and goblin followers of Meriadar, or risen demons, or fallen angels - an Orc Paladin will still feel like exceptions in a way a surly dwarf with a large beard doesn't. And there's nothing wrong with playing the exception - but if some fictional work included specifically an Orc Paladin of Meriadar and loads of people started playing the very same thing, the characters would likely get called clones.
Actually I think they are a good example of this, because you'll see far less claims of a CG Drow of the Dark Dancer being a drizzt-clone, than an LG Drow good two-shoes born in the underdark, at least if playing in Faerun. I think this is because of two things; one, as you say, the Eilistraean drow are an established group, and two, they aren't nearly as much depicted as the opposite of drow the way Drizzt is; Eilistraee is an unpredictable and chaotic deity, much like Lolth, and she doesn't spend much time actually fighting Dark Elves, just caring for those Drow that leave the underdark.
If other people are bothered by another player's concept the problem lies with the people that are bothered..No. It does not. While I'm more than willing to give an individual wide latitude for innuendo,references, wink wink nudge nudge, and badly filed off series numbers it is entirely possible to make an annoying character. its entirely possible to make a character where any dm would be justified in saying "No". Its entirely possible that someone IS ruining other peoples play
If you're trying to play a nuclear physicist from chicago in skull and shackles the DM is more than justified in telling you no. (probably with it stamped on the side of the core rule book)Its a collaborative, cooperative game. That means SOME bending towards the other people at the table at least.
Again, if it's ruining their fun, that's their fault. If someone doesn't like another person's character, the problem is them. If the group doesn't like another person's character, the problem is the group. Nuclear Physicist from Chicago makes perfect sense in Skulls and Shackles given that the real world is an actual place that exists in the Golarion multiverse. Give them levels in Alchemist and enjoy.
If other people are bothered by another player's concept the problem lies with the people that are bothered. They have their own characters to make how they want.
Authors do that for stories sure. But Pathfinder is a game. And you know what the most important part of the game is? The players. So historical accuracy can and should fold in the face of player fun.
It should stretch for player fun. But too much of what some people want to include can ruin it for other players. Guns are kind of pushing it for me. Guns that are effectively six shooters and henry repeating rifles in practice more than push it. Someone else might think that a 67 camaro driving around absolom would be cool .. but the people that want to play a fantasy game have some say in the setting.
Its a balancing act, not an either or. If something is time appropriate is definitely A heavy consideration to give.
Ehh, to a degree I agree, but there is a limit, and while it's after "drow ranger" it's before "winged pony hitler and a bowtie". Exactly where the line is I don't know and don't think it's possible to find something even nearing a consensus, but the tone of your post sound dismissive like it's a simple black and white binary when it's a big scale of gray.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if it's ruining their fun, that's their fault. If someone doesn't like another person's character, the problem is them. If the group doesn't like another person's character, the problem is the group.
1 person tells you you're a horse, they're a jerk.
2 people tell you you're a horse its a conspiracy.10 people tell you you're a horse then its time to look into buying a saddle.
Not every character is going to fit every game. The ideas you're spouting about blaming everyone else for what one person is doing are sheer nonsense with no support.
If other people are bothered by another player's concept the problem lies with the people that are bothered. They have their own characters to make how they want.If, theoretically, player A at my table made his/her character a Teletubbyfolk illegitimate love child between Ameiko and some unknown aberration, and I was bothered by it (I am), and then some other person told me, "Voideternal, your being bothered is your own problem. Player A can make his/her own character how he/she wants," then I can't help but feel something is wrong.
Uh it is your problem. You should let them play what they want just as you should play what you want. Why would you even be bothered something like that?
Ehh, to a degree I agree, but there is a limit, and while it's after "drow ranger" it's before "winged pony hitler and a bowtie". Exactly where the line is I don't know and don't think it's possible to find something even nearing a consensus, but the tone of your post sound dismissive like it's a simple black and white binary when it's a big scale of gray.
There is a line, but is has nothing to do with the character itself.
The character's story should be appropriate for the "rating" of the table. Don't bring a character with R rated themes to a PG-13 campaign. Thus while "Winged Pony with a bowtie" is always ok, "Winged Pony Hitler with a bowtie" might not be. Not because it's a Winged Pony with a bowtie, but because it's Hitler. And you know whose not cool? Hitler.
Don't be a jerk. But that's a player issue not a character issue. I don't care if Winged Pony with a Bowtie wants to make puns or end every sentence with ...zam (I have done this it was glorious) that's great. If Winged Pony with a Bowtie wants to steal from the party or abandon the party, then that's a player issue that needs dealt with. Again, not a Winged Pony with a bowtie issue.
Finally, play the character you wants means "within the rules". You don't get to a play a level 20 Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist, when the starting level is 1. You also don't get to be a Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist who has selected two incompatible archetypes, etc.
Other then that it really is black and white. And none of the shading actually involves the character itself.
1 person tells you you're a horse, they're a jerk.
2 people tell you you're a horse its a conspiracy.
10 people tell you you're a horse then its time to look into buying a saddle.Not every character is going to fit every game. The ideas you're spouting about blaming everyone else for what one person is doing are sheer nonsense with no support.
Or more likely;
There are 10 people that are jerks. More people does not equal more accurate.
How about don't bring a silly character to serious game? Or a serious character to a silly game, for that matter, though they can play straight man.
Matching the character to the game is important.
From another point of view, even if your right, it leads to the same conclusion - If everyone else in the game doesn't think your winged pony with a bowtie fits that may mean you're a jerk or a it may mean they all are. Either way, you're not going to keep playing with them.
If they can't take a Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist seriously, but they can take a Dragon seriously, the problem lies with them. Both of those things are equally not real. Next your going to tell me I can't play as an Awakened Gorilla Shaman. Go on, I dare you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since there is no "previous drow of folklore" and Gygax and Greenwood made up the Drow out of whole cloth, then why not?
What are you talking about? Ben even linked information about the previous drow of folklore. Gygax and Greenwood did make up the drow themselves, but their were creatures called Drow already in folklore/myth, and the D&D drow are a deviation from that form of drow.