Discussion - Rebranding of Drow


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't really agree with the color theory thing, I mean it has influences, but shape and texture apply just as much to an image. then on top of that as you start drawing more and more obviously recognizable things they take precedence.

a knife will be just as scary to someone afraid of knives whether it's blue or red. humans like patterns and will use them more often than not to come to a conclusion, not a single factoid.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still not sure of one thing. If you want your drow to be darker-of-skin can't you just handwave it? If you wanted pink drow.. handwave it. If you wanted green drow.. handwave it. If the drow is pictured differently in the books and descriptions in a way you don't like... that you can ignore.. what does it matter?


FrostFox wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
If it's not necessary then don't include it, but the decision has been made that being evil changes elves. Why would it change them so they don't look evil? What is the point of marking them out at all if it's not impactful? They can pass off as Arctic or Cavern elves. Hell, seems even easier for them to spy and raid.

You're still relying on the idea that darkness is inherently evil, and therefore the new drow "don't look evil." Why is it important for the moral position of a person to be easily distinguishable by the color of their skin? To me that seems like an excuse to be prejudiced in-game while still retaining the moral high ground, which among many other problems results in much less nuanced stories.

Frankly, I would be even happier if drow weren't a separate ancestry at all, just a particular group of elves who happened to have a mostly evil society. In my opinion that would result in a significantly more interesting setting. However, changing drow skin color in order to avoid the racist implications of their existence is still a step in the right direction.

So then why have Evil be the trigger that changes them? I just prefer the aesthetic of darker skinned drow of more charcoal/obsidian varieties or even from PF1e (most of the choose-able Avatars for the messageboard are pretty good). It's not a personal moral position, but it's made in the setting that evil elves change, thus what they change into is likely to be recognizably evil, any assertions to the opposite are my opinion. The core is Drow were put into the game because they're popular, and now it's problematic. They're -still- changing because they're evil, and they can still theoretically be marked out because of it so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

And again, I've proposed alternatives that are more palatable. Marked by their demon-lords or deities, alternate colors, being fashionable to flesh-warp your skin, darklands emanations changing them, etc.

Again, I would prefer that there not be any major physical differences between drow and other elves at all, because I don't like the idea that evil people can be distinguished from good ones at a glance.

More important is the idea that when drow had darker skin they were "recognizably evil," and now that they have lighter skin they aren't. What makes that different from real-world racism? Do you assume that Black human characters are villainous because they're "recognizably evil?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm still not sure of one thing. If you want your drow to be darker-of-skin can't you just handwave it? If you wanted pink drow.. handwave it. If you wanted green drow.. handwave it. If the drow is pictured differently in the books and descriptions in a way you don't like... that you can ignore.. what does it matter?

that's what i'd do if i ever played drow. I'd prefer a drow at least that i was playing to have darker ash tones with red and white highlights.

but i really don't care what paizo is doing with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm still not sure of one thing. If you want your drow to be darker-of-skin can't you just handwave it? If you wanted pink drow.. handwave it. If you wanted green drow.. handwave it. If the drow is pictured differently in the books and descriptions in a way you don't like... that you can ignore.. what does it matter?

I think it has to do with Society play, as there are cannon descriptions of races for society characters. In my home games I twist things to my and my players liking, but you can't do that in the society.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm still not sure of one thing. If you want your drow to be darker-of-skin can't you just handwave it? If you wanted pink drow.. handwave it. If you wanted green drow.. handwave it. If the drow is pictured differently in the books and descriptions in a way you don't like... that you can ignore.. what does it matter?

I like being within Canon. I can also advocate without harming anyone?

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

Again, I would prefer that there not be any major physical differences between drow and other elves at all, because I don't like the idea that evil people can be distinguished from good ones at a glance.

More important is the idea that when drow had darker skin they were "recognizably evil," and now that they have lighter skin they aren't. What makes that different from real-world racism? Do you assume that Black human characters are villainous because they're "recognizably evil?"

I think you're trying to paint me as racist but that's not really the case. Even if they were a unique variety of elves born that way, I'd still favor having them be charcoal/obsidian because I like that aesthetic on elves. I liked Deep Imaskari from Forgotten Realms too and they weren't even evil. I like Duergar. I don't think black humans are inherently more threatening or evil. Pale skin with black hair also typical denotes evil and untrustworthy (Grima Wormtongue, Count Dracula). Even if they were Good aligned, and if elves had a variety that became charcoal/obsidian skinned for Good deeds, I would still like that because I like the aesthetic of those sort of elves. Mordant Spire elves are pretty neat, I like wood elves. I've always favored Arctic and Aquatic elves over traditional human-looking elves. Hell, I don't terribly mind baby blue elves if they were anything other than Drow or if I had an alternative, but now I have no option for Charcoal/Obsidian elves except to handwave it and that feels dissatisfying.

I know I probably seem all over the place, but simply there is no longer an option for the type of Ancestry I liked to play without being non-canon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OOhh.... Red, White, & Blue Drow.

Bandw2 wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm still not sure of one thing. If you want your drow to be darker-of-skin can't you just handwave it? If you wanted pink drow.. handwave it. If you wanted green drow.. handwave it. If the drow is pictured differently in the books and descriptions in a way you don't like... that you can ignore.. what does it matter?

that's what i'd do if i ever played drow. I'd prefer a drow at least that i was playing to have darker ash tones with red and white highlights.

but i really don't care what paizo is doing with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't do Society play. But I am pretty sure if you said in your description was that you had darker skin tones... I don't think the GM would object. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

I think it has to do with Society play, as there are cannon descriptions of races for society characters. In my home games I twist things to my and my players liking, but you can't do that in the society.


FrostFox wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

Again, I would prefer that there not be any major physical differences between drow and other elves at all, because I don't like the idea that evil people can be distinguished from good ones at a glance.

More important is the idea that when drow had darker skin they were "recognizably evil," and now that they have lighter skin they aren't. What makes that different from real-world racism? Do you assume that Black human characters are villainous because they're "recognizably evil?"

I think you're trying to paint me as racist but that's not really the case. Even if they were a unique variety of elves born that way, I'd still favor having them be charcoal/obsidian because I like that aesthetic on elves. I liked Deep Imaskari from Forgotten Realms too and they weren't even evil. I like Duergar. I don't think black humans are inherently more threatening or evil. Pale skin with black hair also typical denotes evil and untrustworthy (Grima Wormtongue, Count Dracula). Even if they were Good aligned, and if elves had a variety that became charcoal/obsidian skinned for Good deeds, I would still like that because I like the aesthetic of those sort of elves. Mordant Spire elves are pretty neat, I like wood elves. I've always favored Arctic and Aquatic elves over traditional human-looking elves. Hell, I don't terribly mind baby blue elves if they were anything other than Drow or if I had an alternative, but now I have no option for Charcoal/Obsidian elves except to handwave it and that feels dissatisfying.

I know I probably seem all over the place, but simply there is no longer an option for the type of Ancestry I liked to play without being non-canon.

Well, wanting the option of a particular aesthetic for elves is certainly understandable. I just think it's problematic when that aesthetic is so overwhelmingly associated with evil, considering all the prejudice based on dark skin that exists in the real world.

I suppose one potential course of action for Paizo that might have addressed both our concerns would have been to retcon the backstory and society of the drow so they weren't just "the elves that became evil," while maintaining their old appearance. That would have plenty of other drawbacks though.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, because you're spitting on the continuity of the setting. I don't care that you don't like it being easy to recognize a race as evil on sight, that works fine for your home games and home settings, but Paizo has, from day one, maintained that elves who become evil, or evil enough, get transformed into drow by the elven deities. I personally like a setting that maintains continuity, which is why I was against the inclusion of goblins as a playable race when the kobolds have actually made strides to be accepted in the Inner Sea, when the goblins have not done near as much to be accepted.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
but Paizo has, from day one, maintained that elves who become evil, or evil enough, get transformed into drow by the elven deities.

That's not how it works at all.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Maintaining continuity in the setting is important to us as well... but we don't want it to be a static setting either. There needs to be movement and change in the setting as we go along—and we're doing that in the way we're canonizing Adventure Paths into the setting's recent history. But it also needs to be able to absorb philosophical changes, or changes we want to make to correct errors we made before. In much the same way we need to be able to issue errata for rules that were mistakes, we need to be able to change world lore choices that were mistakes. Hopefully we don't have to do EITHER often... but they've happened before and will again. Especially as we, the creators of the setting, grow and change as well.

FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—hence we put it into the Bestiary but never did in 1st edition. If, as might happen, the future swings back into the "Brontosaurus is not a real thing" again, in a theoretical 3rd edition book, we might go back to having brachiosaurus and diplodocus in the game and never use the word "brontosaurus" at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

If you think it's reasonable to allow a range of hues when making a player character - please - by all means - voice your support, or conversely - say you support monocolor drow - that's fine also - but pointing at what 'was' when there was an intentional change to the 'was' is unhelpful. It's even more unhelpful to suggest people just run what they want - in a thread trying to provide feedback before the ancestry is officially published.

Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So you make the goblins, who have continued to be, in paizo's own words, "insane, dangerous parasites", accepted, while kobolds who have actually striven to become accepted are left as low-level cannon fodder. Yeah, that's moving the setting forward.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:


Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.

I think the point was for someone to complain that Paizo changed something despite the other 20 posters in the thread all saying some combination of A) it's to avoid the inherent racism in the original design and/or B) why does it matter, just pretend they're black at your table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kelseus wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.

I think the point was for someone to complain that Paizo changed something despite the other 20 posters in the thread all saying some combination of A) it's to avoid the inherent racism in the original design and/or B) why does it matter, just pretend they're black at your table.

This is not a constructive post, nor accurate.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

The range of colors was blue and purple.

Lavender comes in blue and purple.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it's my *strong* preference that the darkest skinned elves live in really sunny places (in equatorial or tropical climates) and spend a lot of time outdoors there. Elves canonically adapt themselves to their environment oddly quickly, so developing melanin (or something comparable) as a response to "being in the sun a lot" should be a slam dunk. I mean, we have Elves who grew *gills*.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Agreed,black isn't a good color for evolution. I could see milky white or chalky white due to lack of melanin, or stone grey to better blend into the stones.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—

Totally off topic, but I'd missed this news and hearing it made me unreasonably happy. So thanks for that. :)


While elves and dark elves in my setting already look drastically different, I was honestly pretty happy when I saw the bestiary drow.

Because they reminded me of the starfinder ones which, I just thought looked really cool.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Maintaining continuity in the setting is important to us as well... but we don't want it to be a static setting either. There needs to be movement and change in the setting as we go along—and we're doing that in the way we're canonizing Adventure Paths into the setting's recent history. But it also needs to be able to absorb philosophical changes, or changes we want to make to correct errors we made before. In much the same way we need to be able to issue errata for rules that were mistakes, we need to be able to change world lore choices that were mistakes. Hopefully we don't have to do EITHER often... but they've happened before and will again. Especially as we, the creators of the setting, grow and change as well.

FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—hence we put it into the Bestiary but never did in 1st edition. If, as might happen, the future swings back into the "Brontosaurus is not a real thing" again, in a theoretical 3rd edition book, we might go back to having brachiosaurus and diplodocus in the game and never use the word "brontosaurus" at all.

So dinosaur feathers are going to be thing, right?

*crossing fingers*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
So you make the goblins, who have continued to be, in paizo's own words, "insane, dangerous parasites", accepted, while kobolds who have actually striven to become accepted are left as low-level cannon fodder. Yeah, that's moving the setting forward.

They’re both in the bestiary as low-level cannon-fodder. They’re both going to be playable ancestries in a “we generally expect tables to be using this” book.

Anyway, the drow tweak is a change some folks are happy with. It’s not everyone, but it’s at least accomplishing that. I’m glad this will make it easier to have dark-skinned elves without confusion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

That is the second thing yeah. Cave creatures are way more likely to be pale, so the "demons and evil turned elves into black skinned elves" again sounds really unfortunate. At least with blue its not comparable to anything from real life(besides silver poisoning)

To avoid that particular thing, drow should always have had that charcoal colored skin and not have their skin color change as result of demonic/darklands radiation/eeeeevil, but both in D&D and Pathfinder that would involve heavily retconning drow's origins

"Really unfortunate"? The Drow and the Darklands come straight from the Svartalfar and Dokkalfar of Norse Mythology. "Svartalf" literally means "Black elf", and Dokkalfar "Dark Elf". The Dokkalfar are described as being "Blacker than pitch". They were described as having a dualistic relationship with light elves.

Confusingly, Svartalfar are also what Dwarves originate from, even though there's no indication that Svartalfar are shorter than anyone else in Norse mythology.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

“I don't think anyone in the history of the existence of Drow, since their mention in 1977, has ever equated them with real life skin-tones or people.”

You would be wrong.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

So dinosaur feathers are going to be thing, right?

*crossing fingers*

The raptors in the P2 bestiary have feathers


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Elves have human skin color ranges. Drow have bluish/purple color ranges. Elves spontaneously into drow if they're evil enough, so all drow are descended from elves in ancient times. What if a drow's skin color corresponds to how light or dark their elven ancestors are? Baby blue and lilac drow transformed or descended from pale elves, while dark blue and dusky purple drow came from dark-skinned elves. So basically, elves don't turn dark when they become drow....they turn blue/purple, but remain just as pale or dark as they were before.

Also, the unfortunate implication here isn't JUST that light = good/dark = bad. The idea that the drow are literally a separate race of evil elf is unfortunate in and of itself. While in Forgotten Realms drow are evil because of culture and Lolth's direct meddling, in Golarion, elves being able to TRANSFORM into drow through evil suggests that the evil is something in a drow's nature, unlike the cultural evil of Chelish diabolists or even orcs. There's explicitly a CG tribe of Sarenrae-worshipping orcs in the Holds of Belkzen, while we see no drow equivalent.

I don't really have an issue with the color of drow in this edition. I'd rather see the Dark Fate be given a bit of a rewrite, since drow are the ONLY demonically influence group that's written to be "genetically" evil. Tieflings can be any alignment regardless of their fiendish ancestry, after all. Perhaps it's commonly BELIEVED that evil is what transforms elves into drow, but the reality can be vastly different. Maybe it's an ancestral pact that some elven families made with demon lords that allows them to claim any descendant at will, and they simply tend to choose the evil ones because it's more convenient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogliacci wrote:

Elves have human skin color ranges. Drow have bluish/purple color ranges. Elves spontaneously into drow if they're evil enough, so all drow are descended from elves in ancient times. What if a drow's skin color corresponds to how light or dark their elven ancestors are? Baby blue and lilac drow transformed or descended from pale elves, while dark blue and dusky purple drow came from dark-skinned elves. So basically, elves don't turn dark when they become drow....they turn blue/purple, but remain just as pale or dark as they were before.

Also, the unfortunate implication here isn't JUST that light = good/dark = bad. The idea that the drow are literally a separate race of evil elf is unfortunate in and of itself. While in Forgotten Realms drow are evil because of culture and Lolth's direct meddling, in Golarion, elves being able to TRANSFORM into drow through evil suggests that the evil is something in a drow's nature, unlike the cultural evil of Chelish diabolists or even orcs. There's explicitly a CG tribe of Sarenrae-worshipping orcs in the Holds of Belkzen, while we see no drow equivalent.

I don't really have an issue with the color of drow in this edition. I'd rather see the Dark Fate be given a bit of a rewrite, since drow are the ONLY demonically influence group that's written to be "genetically" evil. Tieflings can be any alignment regardless of their fiendish ancestry, after all. Perhaps it's commonly BELIEVED that evil is what transforms elves into drow, but the reality can be vastly different. Maybe it's an ancestral pact that some elven families made with demon lords that allows them to claim any descendant at will, and they simply tend to choose the evil ones because it's more convenient.

I tend to envisage it as drow are basically elves spontaneously turning into tieflings via their soul or whatever adapting to evil energies in the same way an elf might adapt to the cold or jungle over the course of decades or centuries.

Those physical traits carry onwards genetically. The spiritual traits do not.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

I tend to envisage it as drow are basically elves spontaneously turning into tieflings via their soul or whatever adapting to evil energies in the same way an elf might adapt to the cold or jungle over the course of decades or centuries.

Those physical traits carry onwards genetically. The spiritual traits do not.

This is basically canonically correct.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Or perhaps the Change is enacted because the elves are literally, as a race, a battle in proxy between celestials and demons, being created by both, with a recessive gene that the descent to evil activates. A little tinkering to give them more demonic powers, and drow can basically become a demonic sorcerer bloodline writ large. From there, the drow can continue as evil or redeem themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Agreed,black isn't a good color for evolution. I could see milky white or chalky white due to lack of melanin, or stone grey to better blend into the stones.

not necessarily, they might have adapted black skin to blend in. for most animals pigmentation evolution was lead by camouflage, and due to Drow society, sneakier elves could have won the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a fan of obsidian black drow for thematic-aesthetic reasons. Though I think a highly saturated purple, blue, or red, or bleached white might work too -- anything to evoke night, poison, or death (whether it's blood or bones). Without Lloth who usually looks like a black widow spider, drow have less of a connection to the color black specifically anyway.

I'm of the opinion that shadow = evil and light = good is not "unfortunate implications" but rather good thematic, archetypal stuff that resonates with most humans -- who are day-dwelling creatures prone to fear the hidden threats in the night. You don't have to have every instance of light be good and shadow be evil, but it is a good default that can then be played with.

No matter what, I think we can all agree though that the "literally just the darker end of natural human skin-tone" drow that sometimes(?) existed back in the AD&D 1e days are the weakest design choice (mostly for "unfortunate implications," but also because of how mundane it looks). To the point that it makes me sad that it's the default for dark elves in anime.

But overall, it's all whatever; I mean, in my head, kobolds will always look more like how they do in the Order of the Stick than in any official Pathfinder or D&D art just because that was my first introduction to them. It'll be the same for drow for me too: obsidian black with silver hair and brightly saturated eyes, with the occasional bleached-bone white drow or other variety.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

The range of colors was blue and purple.

Lavender comes in blue and purple.

That is not true now - nor was it true in PF1. I've quoted this before in this thread - "Drow skin ranges from coal black to a dusky purple." - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 102.

Going to the pantone color guide - black to purple includes alot of grey, blue, pink, etc.

Elves are: "The coloration of elves as a whole varies wildly, and is much more diverse than that of human populations. However, as their coloration often matches their surroundings," - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 20

The bold is my own - and gives weight to the consideration that the environment colored the drow and not the 'transformation'.


It was stated in another thread by someone at Paizo that there is a range of colors. Only the ones you know about are all lavender and lilac. So.. by definition.. that is canon.

Ckorik wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

If you think it's reasonable to allow a range of hues when making a player character - please - by all means - voice your support, or conversely - say you support monocolor drow - that's fine also - but pointing at what 'was' when there was an intentional change to the 'was' is unhelpful. It's even more unhelpful to suggest people just run what they want - in a thread trying to provide feedback before the ancestry is officially published.

Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.


Ckorik wrote:

That is not true now - nor was it true in PF1. I've quoted this before in this thread - "Drow skin ranges from coal black to a dusky purple." - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 102.

Going to the pantone color guide - black to purple includes alot of grey, blue, pink, etc.

Elves are: "The coloration of elves as a whole varies wildly, and is much more diverse than that of human populations. However, as their coloration often matches their surroundings," - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 20

The bold is my own - and gives weight to the consideration that the environment colored the drow and not the 'transformation'.

Here's the thing: this is Paizo's game. You can whine and moan as much as you want about how they're retconning half the bestiary or half the CRB if you think that's what they've done. What you don't get to do is say "Drow are not X". You can say "Drow were not X" and that could be a correct statement. You could even say "In my game Drow are not X" and that would also be true. But Paizo, and only Paizo, has control over what the official lore says at any given moment. And they do not have to explain themselves if they want to change it tomorrow.

Now Paizo has explained the change. They didn't like the way Drow looked in 1st edition and have used the edition change to change that. Now they're trying to appease everyone by being all wishy washy about it and saying "Oh there's a range. Drow can be dark purple, but we're not using that as the default colour anymore" but ultimately it doesn't matter what they claim is theoretically true. All that seems to matter to people in this thread is:
1) How are drow portrayed in future artwork; and
2) What does the official lore in the official Pathfinder 2e books say.

Until we get lots of artwork about drow we have no way of knowing whether Paizo really is committed to portraying the full spectrum of drow colour ranges, or if they've thrown that out there in an attempt to pacify people in an uproar over the change. And given how rarely drow were features in Pathfinder 1e, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting a definitive answer anytime soon.

You can either accept what Paizo has done. Or you can reject it. What you can't do is say "Paizo is wrong! Golarion Drow are <blah>." Because at the end of the day only Paizo gets to say Drow are or aren't in their official products.

I personally like traditional D&D drow. I do find Paizo's efforts at lessening how much D&D is in their products annoying (and I'm pleased to see they are by no means doing it consistently). But I've said my piece on the subject and moved on. I'd advise others to do the same. Otherwise Paizo will lock this thread sooner or later.


Ckorik wrote:
Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.

There is providing feedback and then there are:

1) Making declarative statements as to what drow currently are or aren't in the Golarion setting.
2) Arguing back and forth with people who disagree with you.

If your intent is to provide feedback that can be done without engaging in either (1) or (2).

I personally provided my feedback and then moved on. I've only re-entered the thread to suggest other people do the same. Having done that, I am now going to withdraw from the thread again so I can avoid arguing back and forth with people who disagree with me and try to leave this thread as a place where people genuinely can provide their feedback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—
Totally off topic, but I'd missed this news and hearing it made me unreasonably happy. So thanks for that. :)

"Puts on Paleontologist Hat" This has recently been proposed but I should mention it's still controversial, and a lot of folks think that the listed differences between Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are probably not sufficient to support a split. It's kind of like reverse of the Torosaurus-Triceratops thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—
Totally off topic, but I'd missed this news and hearing it made me unreasonably happy. So thanks for that. :)
"Puts on Paleontologist Hat" This has recently been proposed but I should mention it's still controversial, and a lot of folks think that the listed differences between Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are probably not sufficient to support a split. It's kind of like reverse of the Torosaurus-Triceratops thing.

Brontosaurusus exist in my game! Even if Pathfinder 3e uses Apatosaurus instead of Brontosaurus my game will always know them as Brontosaurus!

Also in my game dinosaurs dont have feathers! (Yes, that means I have to swap out the artwork for one dinosaur in Pathfinder 2e's bestiary). Take that real world!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my game T-Rexes are fat poofy chickens. I don't know why you'd want them to be anything else

Dark Archive

John Lynch 106 wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
FOR EXAMPLE: When we did 1st edition, the brontosaurus was regarded as an error when scientists mixed up the head and body of a set of fossils. Since then, that error has swung back the other way and now brontosaurus is regarded as a dinosaur species again—
Totally off topic, but I'd missed this news and hearing it made me unreasonably happy. So thanks for that. :)
"Puts on Paleontologist Hat" This has recently been proposed but I should mention it's still controversial, and a lot of folks think that the listed differences between Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are probably not sufficient to support a split. It's kind of like reverse of the Torosaurus-Triceratops thing.

Brontosaurusus exist in my game! Even if Pathfinder 3e uses Apatosaurus instead of Brontosaurus my game will always know them as Brontosaurus!

Also in my game dinosaurs dont have feathers! (Yes, that means I have to swap out the artwork for one dinosaur in Pathfinder 2e's bestiary). Take that real world!

Okay, so I think its completely acceptable to like D&D drow as aesthetic thing, but non feathered dinosaurs go too far! :D

(Okay, yeah, I'm joking here. I do actually prefer feathered dinosaurs to non feathered ones though, mostly because I like to remind everyone about terror of the birds)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Here's the thing: this is Paizo's game.

No one is disputing this - this is a feedback thread for future content - if you can't understand that please stop - this isn't a b!!++ thread.

Quote:
You can whine and moan as much as you want about how they're retconning

I'm not moaning about retconning at all - perhaps you meant to respond to someone else - even if so - comport yourself accordingly.

Quote:


Now Paizo has explained the change. They didn't like the way Drow looked in 1st edition and have used the edition change to change that.

Don't have an issue with that.

Quote:


Now they're trying to appease everyone by being all wishy washy about it and saying "Oh there's a range. Drow can be dark purple, but we're not using that as the default colour anymore"

This has Not been said.

Quote:
You can either accept what Paizo has done. Or you can reject it. What you can't do is say "Paizo is wrong! Golarion Drow are <blah>." Because at the end of the day only Paizo gets to say Drow are or aren't in their official products.

Or you can provide feedback and correct the numerous people who keep making statements out of thin air with no facts behind them. Like inventing quotes about range of colors - heck the entire post you quoted was to point out that PF1 did have a range of colors (contrary to what the previous poster had said) - Please re-read the thread you quoted and the previous posters quote to achieve that comprehension.

Quote:
I personally like traditional D&D drow.

Good for you - I don't - I like Paizo's better and wish they would have done away with the entire 'torture demon death' vibe entirely - especially the matriarchy which was way more a "Forgotten Realms" invention than Good Drow. That isn't what this thread is about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you dont see how my post applies to you then feel free to disregard it.

Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:

The range of colors was blue and purple.

Lavender comes in blue and purple.

That is not true now

I think the applicability is clear. As I said before you can Express your opinion without making declarative statements as to how things are.

I dont think I can contribute positively to this thread any further so I'll leave you all to it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Regarding the matriarchy of the drow, that's a holdover from when drow were more religiously devoted to spiders, female spiders being generally larger. It also began in Greyhawk, not Forgotten Realms. It should change, though, mostly because drow should be an Equal Opportunity Evil.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

The range of colors was blue and purple.

Lavender comes in blue and purple.

That is not true now - nor was it true in PF1. I've quoted this before in this thread - "Drow skin ranges from coal black to a dusky purple." - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 102.

Going to the pantone color guide - black to purple includes alot of grey, blue, pink, etc.

Elves are: "The coloration of elves as a whole varies wildly, and is much more diverse than that of human populations. However, as their coloration often matches their surroundings," - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 20

The bold is my own - and gives weight to the consideration that the environment colored the drow and not the 'transformation'.

1) Advanced Race Guide was world neutral with plenty of nebulous information. Like:

2) Dhampir being unable to breed and not being an actual race.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
In my game T-Rexes are fat poofy chickens. I don't know why you'd want them to be anything else

Fear the orb


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

1) Advanced Race Guide was world neutral with plenty of nebulous information. Like:

2) Dhampir being unable to breed and not being an actual race.

"Drow have dark skin, ranging from black to a hazy purple hue. Most drow have white or silver hair and white or red eyes, but other colors are not unheard of" - PF1 Bestiary pg 114.

The only PF books that describe the drow - are in agreement - other books (like second darkness) are officially not pathfinder.

Black->Purple includes reds and pinks - grey and lots of shades.

"Elves who dwell in a region for long find themselves physically adapting to match their surroundings, most noticeably taking on coloration reflecting the local environment" - PF1 Core - pg 22.

I've never had anyone ever suggest before that the Advance Race Guide wasn't cannon - but after checking - I find that the information matches other sources 100%. Are you just assuming things?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:
The only PF books that describe the drow - are in agreement - other books (like second darkness) are officially not pathfinder.
No no no, you don't get to exclude it just because it was using 3.5's rules. It's more accurate if anything since it's set on Golarion, where Bestiary 1 and the ARG are world neutral.
Quote:
I've never had anyone ever suggest before that the Advance Race Guide wasn't cannon - but after checking - I find that the information matches other sources 100%. Are you just assuming things?

Paizo didn't drop the world neutral stance till Bestiary 6 and Planar Adventures. The ARG was written under a world neutral mindset and thus has conflicting info in places, such as the aforementioned state of Dhampirs.

As for actual "canon" have you ever seen Paizo illustrate a black Drow in Golarion?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
In my game T-Rexes are fat poofy chickens. I don't know why you'd want them to be anything else
Fear the orb

Hmm?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The All-Seeing Orb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
In my game T-Rexes are fat poofy chickens. I don't know why you'd want them to be anything else
Fear the orb
Hmm?

I can't unsee you as a giant floof rex now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

That is not true now - nor was it true in PF1. I've quoted this before in this thread - "Drow skin ranges from coal black to a dusky purple." - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 102.

Going to the pantone color guide - black to purple includes alot of grey, blue, pink, etc.

Elves are: "The coloration of elves as a whole varies wildly, and is much more diverse than that of human populations. However, as their coloration often matches their surroundings," - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 20

The bold is my own - and gives weight to the consideration that the environment colored the drow and not the 'transformation'.

Here's the thing: this is Paizo's game. You can whine and moan as much as you want about how they're retconning half the bestiary or half the CRB if you think that's what they've done. What you don't get to do is say "Drow are not X". You can say "Drow were not X" and that could be a correct statement. You could even say "In my game Drow are not X" and that would also be true. But Paizo, and only Paizo, has control over what the official lore says at any given moment. And they do not have to explain themselves if they want to change it tomorrow.

Now Paizo has explained the change. They didn't like the way Drow looked in 1st edition and have used the edition change to change that. Now they're trying to appease everyone by being all wishy washy about it and saying "Oh there's a range. Drow can be dark purple, but we're not using that as the default colour anymore" but ultimately it doesn't matter what they claim is theoretically true. All that seems to matter to people in this thread is:
1) How are drow portrayed in future artwork; and
2) What does the official lore in the official Pathfinder 2e books say.

Until we get lots of artwork about drow we have no way of knowing whether Paizo really is committed to portraying the full spectrum of drow colour ranges, or if they've thrown that out there in an attempt to pacify people in an uproar over the change....

Your post is incredibly unhelpful and downright condescending. I have been upfront since the beginning that I don't even expect there to be any change, simply providing feedback as to remain silent would seem to me an unsatisfying prospect. I can at least sleep content in having expressed myself on the point.

The main fact of the matter is, Drow were put into PF1e because it is a selling point. The Underdark and Drow have been popular additions since the beginning, hence why Drow/Dark Elves are basically in every WotC and PF and even other settings (Elder Scrolls) since their conception (and even present in Norse Mythology), in various forms (most with a cohesive appearance). I feel like the change is a feel-good motion, as there are other races/places/etc that didn't change to be more Politically Correct (Duergar, Katapesh is a Neutral city despite 25% of the population being slaves, complete with drug [opium] dens). I would like to see compromise in the form of wider range of acceptable, canon coloration and considering a lot of them are Chaotic and perhaps that Chaotic nature can manifest in variable appearance I don't feel that it's unreasonable. Do I expect to change opinions? Not really. The decision has already been made.

But if you take Dragons, make them smaller, feathered, take away their breath weapons, etc...at what point are they no longer dragons and instead are Cockatrice or Wyverns (an extreme point, to be sure, but still valid I feel). If Drow are problematic, remove them entirely or completely revise the lore to remove the portions that are unpalatable or give better explanation.

John Lynch 2016 wrote:
Until we get lots of artwork about drow we have no way of knowing whether Paizo really is committed to portraying the full spectrum of drow colour ranges, or if they've thrown that out there in an attempt to pacify people in an uproar over the change....

This is absolutely true. Hence why a lot of people in this thread are trying to come to positions of agreement and proposing compromise in the form of wider range of coloration, and why I even created it in the first place in the hopes that future works can take it into consideration. I've bought every Drow specific fantasy book I can get my hands on, from Forgotten Realms' Underdark, Drow of the Underdark, Heroes of the Darklands, Into the Darklands, Monster Codex, etc because I like them.

Oh, and looking into it a bit more it appears that, at least mentioned in Second Darkness which is probably more non-canon at this point, the original origin of Drow was that the Elves who took shelter in the Darklands during Earthfall were affected by a combination of Rovagug briefly awakening and Darklands Radiation so it was originally more environmental than Alignment based.

101 to 150 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Discussion - Rebranding of Drow All Messageboards