Why was the drow's appearance changed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm not complaining, I actually like them better this way, just wondering? Also, am I the only one who thinks the drow in the pictures look more pale blue than lavender?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess is copyright infringement from Wizards of the Coast/D&D.

Canonically, might have had something to do with the Return of the Runelords AP.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Product identity, for sure.

Take another example, the creature previously known as the Ankheg. Now it's called an Ankhrav, and the art completely changed their appearance.

The only surprising thing is that the Drow are still called "Drow".


Wheldrake wrote:

Product identity, for sure.

Take another example, the creature previously known as the Ankheg. Now it's called an Ankhrav, and the art completely changed their appearance.

The only surprising thing is that the Drow are still called "Drow".

Maybe they never trademarked the name for some reason. Not every made-up word in every fictional thing is trademarked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Product identity, for sure.

Take another example, the creature previously known as the Ankheg. Now it's called an Ankhrav, and the art completely changed their appearance.

The only surprising thing is that the Drow are still called "Drow".

Maybe they never trademarked the name for some reason. Not every made-up word in every fictional thing is trademarked.

I don't think the term Drow is something that Wizards has copyright over, similar to how goblins or trolls or ogres, etc. aren't, since these are universal terms to describe a general appearance of a type of mythical creature. In short, the term might be too generalized/widespread for Wizards to have copyright over it, but the physical depictions certainly are.


21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The term "drow" for "dark elves" is freely available via the Open Gaming License and the Revised System Reference Document. I think the change is more to get away from the "dark skin equals evil" trope which isn't really appropriate these days anymore.


Only a few creatures were not included in the 3.0 OGL. Umber hulk, mind flayer, beholder, and displacer beast, right off the top of my head.
So Paizo can use drow, ankhegs, and just about anything else.
I think what the issue is, is they are wanting to pull away from the shadow of depending on the 3rd edition OGL.
PF2 is already two steps away. 3.5 to PF1 to PF2.
With them saying ankhev and naming the demons other names (in addition to their old names), I'm thinking that in 10 years in PF3 they'll do away with the old names altogether and truly be their own rules set.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
With them saying ankhev and naming the demons other names (in addition to their old names), I'm thinking that in 10 years in PF3 they'll do away with the old names altogether and truly be their own rules set.

That is already true in every way that matters with PF2. No need to yearn for PF3 already. <g>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
That is already true in every way that matters with PF2. No need to yearn for PF3 already. <g>

Haha. I look forward to many years of PF2!


They haven't really changed though. If you go back to the P1 Monster Codex, all the Drow art is lavender to light blue. If you even go back as far as Second Darkness, which is a 3.5 AP, they are more of a dark blue or purple than black.

I'm sure it's also a practical reason as well, since it's easier draw detail on a lighter background than a dark one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

37 people marked this as a favorite.

We standardized their color to the new look in order to step away from the frankly gross element that evil drow = black drow. No thanks. Not only is this not appropriate these days... it was NEVER appropriate.

That said, adjusting their skintone to a pale purple color also sets our drow apart from those from D&D's drow.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:


I think what the issue is, is they are wanting to pull away from the shadow of depending on the 3rd edition OGL.
PF2 is already two steps away. 3.5 to PF1 to PF2.
With them saying ankhev and naming the demons other names (in addition to their old names), I'm thinking that in 10 years in PF3 they'll do away with the old names altogether and truly be their own rules set.

The OGL also only covers use for RPG products. Any products further afield (card games like the ACG, novels, comics, etc.) can't use them at all. Thus it makes sense for Paizo to change names to build consistency across their wider product set and world-building tools.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
We standardized their color to the new look in order to step away from the frankly gross element that evil drow = black drow. No thanks. Not only is this not appropriate these days... it was NEVER appropriate.

Paizo's open-minded and considerate views of all types of people as, well, people (in game worlds as well as real life and in their own company) is one of the #1 things that had kept me coming back since the days of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Silver Crusade

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

Only a few creatures were not included in the 3.0 OGL. Umber hulk, mind flayer, beholder, and displacer beast, right off the top of my head.

So Paizo can use drow, ankhegs, and just about anything else.
I think what the issue is, is they are wanting to pull away from the shadow of depending on the 3rd edition OGL.
PF2 is already two steps away. 3.5 to PF1 to PF2.
With them saying ankhev and naming the demons other names (in addition to their old names), I'm thinking that in 10 years in PF3 they'll do away with the old names altogether and truly be their own rules set.

What about the Gith creatures:

"The githyanki are a fictional humanoid race in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game. They are cousins to the githzerai. In the Dark Sun setting, they are simply called gith."

I have never seen them mentioned in any Paizo product. Am I correct in assuming they are in the above list?


You are - Githyanki (and Githzerai, for that matter), are considered Product Identity of Wizards of the Coast, and were not included in the OGL.


Beholders are some of the baddest baddies ever to be beholded. I wonder what a PF2 beholder would look like, if one were statted out.


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

We standardized their color to the new look in order to step away from the frankly gross element that evil drow = black drow. No thanks. Not only is this not appropriate these days... it was NEVER appropriate.

That said, adjusting their skintone to a pale purple color also sets our drow apart from those from D&D's drow.

Black skin works well for frightening creatures in the dark, just from a visual element things that are harder to see elicit a greater fear response.

But I 100% agree with your decision from a social perspective :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the lavender. I wonder what color skin aquatic elves have in PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always liked the variance in skin tones for drow in pathfinder products. From various shades of gray to shades of purple, to the bluish ones in the bestiary. It avoids the dark=evil bit, but still offers variety.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even back in the day, art for drow was all over the place. Some were flat black, some were glossy black, some were dark blue, some were straight-up brown (yikes) in one Dragon or Dungeon magazine article/adventure. I'm cool with some variation on that. And with elves, in general, being darker or lighter or greener or whatever in accordance to their surroundings, with those living in brightly lit areas having brighter / lighter colorations, and those in more shadowy areas, being darker. (And those under the sea with blue or green skin/hair.) That's always been cool, the notion that elves are kind of different than expected, and not 'paler because they live underground' or 'more tan if they live in the sun' like a cave frog or whatever.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Black skin works well for frightening creatures in the dark, just from a visual element things that are harder to see elicit a greater fear response.

IRL, animals that spend all of their time in caves or underground tend to be pale white or orange though. Things that live in the dark don't waste energy developing pigmentation, because nothing can see it.

But the reason they are the color they are is "because magic" anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Black skin works well for frightening creatures in the dark, just from a visual element things that are harder to see elicit a greater fear response.

IRL, animals that spend all of their time in caves or underground tend to be pale white or orange though. Things that live in the dark don't waste energy developing pigmentation, because nothing can see it.

But the reason they are the color they are is "because magic" anyway.

I am not talking about natural mechanics, I am talking about what makes for a frightning creature in the dark for humans and our light sources, and darker skintones (ideally mottled dark fur) innately makes something harder to see with our weak eyes so the brain starts making up weird shapes and triggering the amygdala more. :)

This isn't an argument of why to do it by nature, but rather why dark skin can be cool from a atmosphere standpoint with description. I can do a lot less when describing light blue skin ;) (thankfully it is my game and I can describe whatever I want :) )


Set wrote:
Even back in the day, art for drow was all over the place. Some were flat black, some were glossy black, some were dark blue, some were straight-up brown (yikes) in one Dragon or Dungeon magazine article/adventure.

I would guess that the brown dark elves come down to a failure to communicate between artist and art director, particularly if it happened back when drow were a relatively new thing. I mean, without any previous knowledge of drow the natural response to the art direction "elf with black skin" would be to paint it as a black, i e brown, human with elven features.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Beholders are some of the baddest baddies ever to be beholded. I wonder what a PF2 beholder would look like, if one were statted out.

Back in the day, Ari Marmell made a short monster book with monsters meant to approximate the non-OGL iconic monsters, called "Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy". Those could likely be converted to Pathfinder - it's not as if Paizo has shied away from using other OGL sources in their works.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Beholders are some of the baddest baddies ever to be beholded. I wonder what a PF2 beholder would look like, if one were statted out.
Back in the day, Ari Marmell made a short monster book with monsters meant to approximate the non-OGL iconic monsters, called "Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy". Those could likely be converted to Pathfinder - it's not as if Paizo has shied away from using other OGL sources in their works.

The legal department of Wizards of the Coast thinks it's a great idea.


Gorbacz wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Beholders are some of the baddest baddies ever to be beholded. I wonder what a PF2 beholder would look like, if one were statted out.
Back in the day, Ari Marmell made a short monster book with monsters meant to approximate the non-OGL iconic monsters, called "Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy". Those could likely be converted to Pathfinder - it's not as if Paizo has shied away from using other OGL sources in their works.
The legal department of Wizards of the Coast thinks it's a great idea.

I mean, videogames have filed the serial numbers off beholders and used them without incurring the wrath of the WotC lawyer brigade and Zweihander managed to survive Games Workshop's lawyers while filing off far more than a few monsters.

Not saying its a fantastic idea in general, but it's probably doable as long as the creative folks aren't dumb enough to keep the names and shuffle around a few details.

Silver Crusade

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

It's not about what creative folks do, it's about what's the ROI from the lawsuit for WotC. Protracted battles against video game industry money, frequently in one of those weird "damages awarded must be directly related to actual damages" Yurpeen/Japanese jurisdictions? Shoddy. Forcing your direct competitor to pony up 1 million USD in legal fees on American soil? Tempting.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Also, Pathfinder and Golarion has carved out its own flavor, and we don't need beholders or mind flayers in it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't miss beholders but I actually like the mindflayer design

*shrug* still enogu awesome original monsters


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

We standardized their color to the new look in order to step away from the frankly gross element that evil drow = black drow. No thanks. Not only is this not appropriate these days... it was NEVER appropriate.

That said, adjusting their skintone to a pale purple color also sets our drow apart from those from D&D's drow.

I totally get this. From a business perspective, it makes total sense not to offend a sizable portion of your customer base and to make the game more accessible and welcoming to all types of players. It's a move I fully support. Lord knows we can always use more players and GMs out there. As a professional graphic designer, I also understand the importance of having a clear identity that differs from your competitors. I applaud your efforts and hope that, in the long run, it brings you and your company a great deal of success.

In my games, however, drow will always have obsidian skin. It just makes them seem more menacing to my players (which, is neither abhorrent nor in any way racist). That is what I want out of my drow NPCs. For them to be intelligent, diabolical beings that come out of the dark depths to make highly organized strikes (wrecking someone's day) before disappearing back into the shadows.

Anyone who has an issue with that because they think it is an intentional reflection on real life people probably shouldn't be roleplaying in the first place; being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality is pretty important for having a healthy game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
We standardized their color to the new look in order to step away from the frankly gross element that evil drow = black drow. No thanks. Not only is this not appropriate these days... it was NEVER appropriate.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment, I think the "it was NEVER appropriate" mentality does more harm than good in the long run.

There's always an undercurrent of "we have it right now" when we frown on the past. And that's not true. In 30 years our kids and grandkids will look at our attitudes and roll their eyeballs.

I am proud of the way Paizo handles things now, but I'm sure future generations will find something to complain about, and I think the "we're so enlightened now, people in the past should have known better" thinking feeds into an underestimation of where we need to go in the future.

If you need a concrete example, I'll point to the use of the language "Common." I get why it's there and I don't think it should be an issue. But in 30 years if English isn't the predominant language in the world, future generations will scoff at it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like acknowledging "the ways things were done in the past are bad, and it's not like they suddenly became bad we just didn't notice it before" is healthy and reasonable.

Don't worry about not being able to do the best you can do, and don't worry about "the best you can do" not being perfect. Paizo has screwed stuff up before thematically (e.g. Folca) and when you do that you apologize, make it clear you know how you screwed up, and you make it right as best you can.

If nothing else making Drow lilac or blue is going to make for a lot less uncomfortable cosplay at conventions.


Ravingdork wrote:
Anyone who has an issue with that because they think it is an intentional reflection on real life people probably shouldn't be roleplaying in the first place; being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality is pretty important for having a healthy game.

Wait... there's a difference between fantasy and reality? Are you sure about that?


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like acknowledging "the ways things were done in the past are bad, and it's not like they suddenly became bad we just didn't notice it before" is healthy and reasonable.

It can be, but I've also seen it used as a platform to excuse unnecessary attacks on innocent people. Social justice used responsibly is good, but it should be used as a tool, not a weapon with which to make your perceived enemies look abominable.

Drow were evil before they were black. They're evil despite being black. There are adventures with white drow who are still evil. There are whole adventure series about black drow who oppose evil.

Never in the entire history of drow lore has a drow's alignment been dictated by their skin color, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue. Anyone who truly believes that drow are evil because they are black (or that, that was ever the intention of the authors) brought the issue with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like acknowledging "the ways things were done in the past are bad, and it's not like they suddenly became bad we just didn't notice it before" is healthy and reasonable.

It can be, but I've also seen it used as a platform to excuse unnecessary attacks on innocent people. Social justice used responsibly is good, but it should be used as a tool, not a weapon with which to make your perceived enemies look abominable.

Drow were evil before they were black. They're evil despite being black. There are adventures with white drow who are still evil. There are whole adventure series about black drow who oppose evil.

Never in the entire history of drow lore has a drow's alignment been dictated by their skin color, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue. Anyone who truly believes that drow are evil because they are black (or that, that was ever the intention of the authors) brought the issue with them.

This. I'm willing to wager that not one person has ever looked at the drow, saw dark-skinned evil humanoids, and from that day on been convinced that dark-skinned person = bad.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sandal Fury wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like acknowledging "the ways things were done in the past are bad, and it's not like they suddenly became bad we just didn't notice it before" is healthy and reasonable.

It can be, but I've also seen it used as a platform to excuse unnecessary attacks on innocent people. Social justice used responsibly is good, but it should be used as a tool, not a weapon with which to make your perceived enemies look abominable.

Drow were evil before they were black. They're evil despite being black. There are adventures with white drow who are still evil. There are whole adventure series about black drow who oppose evil.

Never in the entire history of drow lore has a drow's alignment been dictated by their skin color, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue. Anyone who truly believes that drow are evil because they are black (or that, that was ever the intention of the authors) brought the issue with them.

This. I'm willing to wager that not one person has ever looked at the drow, saw dark-skinned evil humanoids, and from that day on been convinced that dark-skinned person = bad.

Tolkien was stupid enough to model orcs after "barbarian Mongol hordes, ever a threat to the pastoral, refined West" so it's not far to imagine that people with less education would make less elaborate mental shortcuts.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like acknowledging "the ways things were done in the past are bad, and it's not like they suddenly became bad we just didn't notice it before" is healthy and reasonable.

It can be, but I've also seen it used as a platform to excuse unnecessary attacks on innocent people. Social justice used responsibly is good, but it should be used as a tool, not a weapon with which to make your perceived enemies look abominable.

Drow were evil before they were black. They're evil despite being black. There are adventures with white drow who are still evil. There are whole adventure series about black drow who oppose evil.

Never in the entire history of drow lore has a drow's alignment been dictated by their skin color, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue. Anyone who truly believes that drow are evil because they are black (or that, that was ever the intention of the authors) brought the issue with them.

It’s always been an issue.

The Drow’s history was “they’re black elves and they’re evil”. That was it. That was their thing.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
The Drow’s history was “they’re black elves and they’re evil”. That was it. That was their thing.

No, their history was that they were evil, followed a demon god, were cast out of elven society, and were cursed.

Drow weren't evil because they were black. Never have been.

Racism is an issue, and no matter how much someone might want it to be, this isn't it.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.

The chicken or the egg doesn't actually matter here at all. There's simply no point in reinforcing the trope, consciously or unconsciously. Good riddance.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Drow’s history was “they’re black elves and they’re evil”. That was it. That was their thing.

No, their history was that they were evil, followed a demon god, were cast out of elven society, and were cursed.

Drow weren't evil because they were black. Never have been.

Racism is an issue, and no matter how much someone might want it to be, this isn't it.

Way to overlook the issue.

”All the black elves are evil.”

“Elves that are evil turn black.”

Whether Forgotten Realms or Golarion, both of that is racist as f@&$.

Grand Lodge

Has anyone actually used the term "Black Elves" for the Drow? I don't think I've ever heard that. I'm used to them being called "Dark Elves".

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, am happy that Paizo decided to change drow elves. In my first games, two separate occasions, of D&D and Pathfinder, I described my characters as dark-skinned , and the initial reaction was that I couldn’t play them because “black elves are evil.” Despite the GM allowing it, everyone always treated my character as a criminal, as someone to always look out for and watch carefully. I just like elves, but I also have more melanin than most people I play with and want to be represented without being ostracized. So I want to thank Paizo for the changes they’ve made to elves as well as the change in world view for almost all sentient races.

Also, I disagree that obsidian skin makes a creature appear more diabolical. I think human figures taken to the extreme are more terrifying or just putting red eyes on anything. Personally, I think pale green elves with red, snake-like eyes would be the most terrifying type of drow, especially if they have longer fingers and arms and walk crouched, like an elder scrolls falmer.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Racism's not about what's in your heart or your mind. Racism's in how your actions perpetuate or entrench a system of racial inequality and injustice.

It's irresponsible for a game company in 2020 to give a plausible justification ("I'm just cosplaying as a drow") for someone to show up to a convention in literal blackface.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Racism's not about what's in your heart or your mind.

It, um... it literally is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The argument of drow as a caricature is a pretty strained reach and it leaves me wondering about this thread.

But as it's been established it's not like the dark elves had a very consistent design to begin with and making adjustments to them helps Paizo cement their own product identity, which I think is important for the company long term. It's a good change.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Racism's not about what's in your heart or your mind.
It, um... it literally is.

No. This creates a standard where it's impossible to substantiate whether anything is actually racist because people's private thoughts and feelings are private. This way we spend endless time arguing about inaccessible facts and no time doing anything productive. This is a common bad faith attempt to deflect accusations of malfeasance- "you don't know what's in my heart."

So this definition also does not address the actual harms of racism in any shape, way, or form. So pragmatically it's best to ignore what's in people's private thoughts, and instead focus on whether people's actions hinder the cause of racial justice or further the cause of racial justice. There's no such thing as "not a racist", you are either a racist or an anti-racist.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Racism's not about what's in your heart or your mind. Racism's in how your actions perpetuate or entrench a system of racial inequality and injustice.

It's irresponsible for a game company in 2020 to give a plausible justification ("I'm just cosplaying as a drow") for someone to show up to a convention in literal blackface.

You sound like a huge spoilsport. Someone paints themselves head to toe in gonna be impressed. I hate facepaint.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The symbolism of "light is good and dark is bad" is not, by any stretch of the imagination new.

It's also not "a thing that is true to life" or "a thing that is worth repeating uncritically for tradition's sake."

My preference has always been that Drow are "dark elves" because they live in dark places, but their skin is pale like cave salamanders or other creatures that live in the dark. The dark-skinned elves should be ones who live in the desert or spend a lot of time sailing, IMO.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Why was the drow's appearance changed? All Messageboards