| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand the sentiment, and being unable to just accept "you can do it differently " as an answer, because everything Paizo puts out for the race in question, official art, face cards, miniatures, and pawns, all will look that one specific way. Yes, I can get a miniature and paint it any way I like, but I also like using the paizo miniatures because they are usually beautifully done.
The other reason is, as has been said, conformity of experience.
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?
Another point, maybe Drow shouldn't be impacted by Light Blindness. Light is inherently bad to them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?
Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.
That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.
If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.
That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.
If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Except it's not for the Duergar who are all black/ashen, and all evil. Drow didn't even have real-life skin tones previously. It's not tied to melanin levels as it is in real life. Black humans aren't inherently or perceived as evil. And there are other problematic areas that aren't touched, so it's a shallow change.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it's not for the Duergar who are all black/ashen, and all evil. Drow didn't even have real-life skin tones previously. It's not tied to melanin levels as it is in real life. Black humans aren't inherently or perceived as evil. And there are other problematic areas that aren't touched, so it's a shallow change.Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.
That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.
If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
You've been missing the point and continuing to argue with every single post anyone else makes for 5 pages now, so I don't expect that anything I say will get through to you.
Duergar are depicted as gray in the Bestiary, and have always been gray in Paizo products as far as I am aware.
Pure black is not a real life skin tone but it was used in blackface depictions - literally white people painting themselves pure black to mock black slaves. I shouldn't have to explain why this should be avoided.
The presence or absence of other problematic elements in the setting has no bearing on this singular change. Paizo chose to remove this problematic element. Perhaps they will remove others later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it's not for the Duergar who are all black/ashen, and all evil. Drow didn't even have real-life skin tones previously. It's not tied to melanin levels as it is in real life. Black humans aren't inherently or perceived as evil. And there are other problematic areas that aren't touched, so it's a shallow change.Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.
That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.
If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
You've been missing the point and continuing to argue with every single post anyone else makes for 5 pages now, so I don't expect that anything I say will get through to you.
Duergar are depicted as gray in the Bestiary, and have always been gray in Paizo products as far as I am aware.
Pure black is not a real life skin tone but it was used in blackface depictions - literally white people painting themselves pure black to mock black slaves. I shouldn't have to explain why this should be avoided.
The presence or absence of other problematic elements in the setting has no bearing on this singular change. Paizo chose to remove this problematic element. Perhaps they will remove others later on.
You're the one that's missing the point. Nobody is even arguing that they need to be pure black or only black.
If Duergar aren't a problem then Drow weren't a problem, as thus far they have never been portrayed (in Pathfinder) as being pure black, or even using a realistic black skin-tone. You're making a point that nobody is arguing.
Existing problematic components can't be addressed anymore. They are on paper in 2e. It would have to be a new edition to address such things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, baseline is that drow in Golarion are evil. They're all evil. Irredeemably evil. Not even sorry about it.That is not the baseline, even Second Darkness had non-Evil Drow.
I was basing this mainly on a sidebar from James about people wanting to run around playing non-evil drow, because they just read a novel and now they all want to be a scimitar wielding drow ranger.
He basically said nope. Drow are evil. Don't even try it.
I tried to find it just now, but apparently I'm missing one of the six PDFs from my onedrive. So I could be misremembering. But it seems like that was the basic idea.
It may have been more of a statement about it being problematic for them to try playing drow in a campaign where drow are the villains.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, baseline is that drow in Golarion are evil. They're all evil. Irredeemably evil. Not even sorry about it.That is not the baseline, even Second Darkness had non-Evil Drow.I was basing this mainly on a sidebar from James about people wanting to run around playing non-evil drow, because they just read a novel and now they all want to be a scimitar wielding drow ranger.
He basically said nope. Drow are evil. Don't even try it.
I tried to find it just now, but apparently I'm missing one of the six PDFs from my onedrive. So I could be misremembering. But it seems like that was the basic idea.
It may have been more of a statement about it being problematic for them to try playing drow in a campaign where drow are the villains.
On the upside, we can now be a scimitar wielding smurf. I'm making that my canon now. Where is a good spot for absurdly large shroom houses?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.
|
However, baseline is that drow in Golarion are evil. They're all evil. Irredeemably evil. Not even sorry about it.That is not the baseline, even Second Darkness had non-Evil Drow.I was basing this mainly on a sidebar from James about people wanting to run around playing non-evil drow, because they just read a novel and now they all want to be a scimitar wielding drow ranger.
He basically said nope. Drow are evil. Don't even try it.
I tried to find it just now, but apparently I'm missing one of the six PDFs from my onedrive. So I could be misremembering. But it seems like that was the basic idea.
It may have been more of a statement about it being problematic for them to try playing drow in a campaign where drow are the villains.
The sidebar in question is from Second Darkness, and it’s the latter while also wanting to downplay Drizzt. The very same sidebar talks about Drow hunting down Good Drow so it proves non-evil Drow exists as well.
|
|
With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
It wouldn’t matter if all Drow were currently good, the original impetus was they were evil so their skin changed as part of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
Google Lavender.
They range through all different shades of blue and purple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats why I rather have a revamp on the alignment system in general. Basically pick traits that form your personality and roleplay around it. Instead of Evil or Good. Would solve several problems and add more options for both NPCs and PCs.
It is, unfortunately, built into the system. Alignment is Energy. Evil isn't just relative, it is absolute. Not for free-willed races, but for Outsiders that are literally made from that energy, and planes which are likewise made from that energy, it can't quite work. If your character is powerful enough and performs enough Objectively evil acts, they will give off evil that can be detected using spells unmistakably.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.
I should hope so, and part of the reason for creation of this thread to advocate for variation (which should be built into the description of the Species/Variety in its first introduction. They aren't described as being of various shades of Lavender or Blue, they are just Lavender in the Bestiary.
"The hues of their eyes became sinister red or bleached white, and their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable."
And both depictions are the same flesh tone. Although I think it's too close to how an Arctic Elf could be perceived, so not so instantly recognizable but we don't have any art for Arctic elves.
I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.I should hope so, and part of the reason for creation of this thread to advocate for variation (which should be built into the description of the Species/Variety in its first introduction. They aren't described as being of various shades of Lavender or Blue, they are just Lavender in the Bestiary.
"The hues of their eyes became sinister red or bleached white, and their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable."
And both depictions are the same flesh tone. Although I think it's too close to how an Arctic Elf could be perceived, so not so instantly recognizable but we don't have any art for Arctic elves.
We do, actually. Here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do, actually. Here.I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.I should hope so, and part of the reason for creation of this thread to advocate for variation (which should be built into the description of the Species/Variety in its first introduction. They aren't described as being of various shades of Lavender or Blue, they are just Lavender in the Bestiary.
"The hues of their eyes became sinister red or bleached white, and their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable."
And both depictions are the same flesh tone. Although I think it's too close to how an Arctic Elf could be perceived, so not so instantly recognizable but we don't have any art for Arctic elves.
Then we do have art for Lilac and Light Blue (doesn't quite seem dark enough for Lavender but that's a matter of perception so I can be wrong on that point). I'm still not a fan but variety is what I desire.
Edit: It might be constructive of me to provide examples of the Pathfinder Drow Art that I do like, so I will do so at next opportunity. Maybe also an album of drow art in general as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Duergar being grey is more a metaphorical commentary on "a life of dedication to toil and drudgery has sapped all the color out of life". It's not that they just have skin, like other people's skin, but it's a different color- it's that they should have no warm tones in their complexion at all. It should not be obvious that they have blood until you cut them.
It's like the Curse of Greyface, but it's literal because this is a fantasy game.
But Duergar should probably come in the full range of greyscale.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I have always had a preference for cave-dwelling but otherwise still "normal" creatures to have believable traits assigned to them - such as lacking melanin so their hair and skin are quite pale or "strange looking" in comparison to creatures that dwell in sunlight, or the coloration that they take being a kind of camouflage.
In the case of elves, however, since 1st edition AD&D, the gold and grey elves who lived high in the mountains and got lots of sunlight were pale skinned, bright eyed and had blonde or white hair, while the grugach or 'wild' elves who lived deep in the forest canopy were 'nut-brown' in color, with dark hair and eyes (and the drow, obviously, had the darkest skin of all), while the sea/aquatic elves were blue or green. (The 'in between elves,' high elves and wood elves, even seemed to follow this trend, with the high elves being paler, but not as pale as the grey elves, and the wood elves being darker, but not as dark as the grugach or drow.)
Since the game's inception, elves skin coloration hasn't been determined by melanin, but by bleaching in sunlight, or darkening in darkened areas, or even turning blue or green, if living underwater.
That's explicitly the case in Golarion (at least as of 1st edition).
TLDR; Elves aren't cave crickets, they don't follow the same rules. It's been that way since the '70s.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The further we can get from the concept that dark=evil and light=good the better IMO.Not in my opinion. Hideous and dark things being evil and bright beautiful things being good is a long standing staple of fantasy. Sure there should be exceptions (otherwise the storytelling aspects of roleplay would get really boring after a time), but to throw it all out seems to me like it wouldn't even be fantasy anymore.I guess the thing is that there's a disconnect between "dark places" (which may be scary) and "things that live in dark places" which often pallid with translucent skin and some of them glow.
That expectation of "light = good" and "dark = bad" is only really interesting to me if I'm going to subvert it.
You can't subvert it if it's no longer the norm, and that strikes me as boring too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal preference is that a dark gray skin tone looks cooler than a blue one, but whatever man. Paizo drow have been a desaturated purple-blue since the Second Darkness adventure path.
https://www.camelotgamestore.com/nopc/content/images/thumbs/0001135_pathfin der-adventure-path-second-darkness_550.jpeg
I mean, if you want dark grey drow in your game for aesthetic reasons, go for it. Unless you plan to publish or film something set on Golarion and need Paizo's endorsement, their canonical appearance isn't that critical.
I think the newer pale blue drow look less cool than desaturated purple. https://i.imgur.com/z7DpU0M.png
But I'll deal.
---
Heck, if you really want to remain canonical but also have gray drow, just say that y'know, there are different ethnicities of drow. The ones in Zirnakaynin are blue. The ones in Delvingulf get more, like, radiation off the Dying Sea, and so their skin is darker to protect them. Boom. Done.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In hindsight, I feel like if Paizo had been 'woke' (by 2019 standards) back in 2008, they could have just upended the whole cliche.
Starfall happened, and some elves fled through gates to another world to be safe. The ones who stayed behind wanted to protect the world, and they fled underground. As naturally happens with elves, they go on vacation and change skin tones dramatically, so they went gray, the better to hide. But they weren't evil.
They saw the impact was awakening ancient forces from deep underground so they worked to hold them back to give the surface time to recover. Over time, great warriors sealed away some of these ancient evils, but drow societies still fear that some among them have been tempted by the powers of Rovagug.
Then you could have mostly neutral drow with a tradition of saving the damned world from a couple Spawn of Rovagug or something, but with a city or scattered regions in the darklands with bad ones. Just make sure the first interaction most gamers have with drow are with neutral people.
The drow would still mostly avoid the surface because the light is uncomforatble, but when an army of elves from Castrovel invade, the drow would come to help the surface folk fight back their long-forgotten brothers.
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.
Google Lavender.
They range through all different shades of blue and purple.
Didn't JJ specifically say Lilac?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes!
Moar non-evil Duergar!
To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.
As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.
But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.
Non-evil Spriggan while we are at it!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be pretty pleased with more non-evil or good Duergar, with a heavy emphasis on super traditional subterranean dwarfiness.
I really like dwarves who are born and die without ever seeing the light of day, but nevertheless leading productive, even joyful lives. Long histories of their clans set in stone deep within the earth leaving an unbroken record of their line.
I'm supportive of what Paizo is doing with the ancestries with second edition and am only looking forward to all of the stuff they will come out with in the future.
What I really don't understand though is why people open new posts to try and continue a conversation when the previous one was locked for a reason.
Please try to keep things civil here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't JJ specifically say Lilac?
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.
Google Lavender.
They range through all different shades of blue and purple.
The Bestiary says lavender. Lilac also comes in blue and purple so it's a moot point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Bestiary says lavender. Lilac also comes in blue and purple so it's a moot point.Didn't JJ specifically say Lilac?
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.
Google Lavender.
They range through all different shades of blue and purple.
When I hear lavender or lilac I think of a shade of purple and not blue.
Maybe that's just me.
I would like the dark elves to be purplish lavenders and lilacs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Farmer John
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.
I'm still not sure why you seem to be aggressively ignoring JJ literally saying the opposite of that.
You also ignored Rysky saying that lavender comes in a variety of shades.
It's almost like you are ignoring any post that contradicts your outrage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.I'm still not sure why you seem to be aggressively ignoring JJ literally saying the opposite of that.
You also ignored Rysky saying that lavender comes in a variety of shades.
It's almost like you are ignoring any post that contradicts your outrage.
Don't forget! Color Theory is a capital "H" Hard Science and Objective Truth. You can't argue against it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very same sidebar talks about Drow hunting down Good Drow so it proves non-evil Drow exists as well.
That is a pretty slanted reading.
The sidebar starts : "Are there good drow? No."
That is a pretty solid baseline that flies in the face of "proves non-evil Drow exist". True, it does quite clearly leave Neutral in play, but you added the context of "hunting down Good Drow".
As to what the sidebar actually says:
"If a drow were to exhibit good behavior—inordinate kindness, cooperation, or empathy—the individual would be assumed to be either enchanted or ill. Attempts would be made to cure the individual (because a good tool should
never be thrown away), but if the condition persisted, there would be no choice but to enslave the obviously insane drow or turn him over the fleshwarpers to create a drider,as a warning to others."
That is not hunting down good drow. That is observing anything short of a consistent non-good behavior and finding it intolerable abberrent. "Hunting" implies that they are outside society and can be found, the text implies they are right there acting in socially unacceptable ways in front of Lloth and everybody. And that it is not a state of being, but likely an outside influence.
You can squint and tilt your head and read that paragraph as a loophole. But even with squinting it doesn't talk about "hunting good drow". And even with squinting,the entire sidebar still starts with "Are there good drow: No.", so anything that takes that bedrock starting foundation away and treats minor refinements under that declaration of truth as more important than the direct response is simply a misrepresentation.
If they have changed their perspective, then that is all them. No quibble here on their peragative to do so. But revisionism is just silly.
