Enough is enough: Let's do something about Driizzt do'Urden

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For some reason I don't really mind when a player makes a Drow Ranger with duel wielding scimitars. I don't really see it as being any different than what everyone else does.

Drizzt is a hell of a lot more than a drow ranger dual-wielding scimitars. He has many character traits, giving him strong flavor. Alas, strong flavor can be strong bad flavor.

Being a good-aligned drow is difficult enough. They're rare. They have to escape their cities. This means they have to be badass. And then live on the surface, where nearly everyone hates and fears them? A drow wizard with lame physical stats, but who is good-aligned and lives on the surface, is more similar to Drizzt than an underground dwelling dual-wielding evil drow ranger.

Let's see, we have:

1. The dwarf with the Scottish accent. I actually do hate this character and it really gets under my skin when I hear a player roleplay his dwarf like this. I feel sorry for Scottish D&D players. I assume that they always have to play Dwarves unless they put on an accent of their own.

Heh. It's only one character trait though. It's when they're all the same it's a problem.

2. The mage with a bad attitude. Why does Drizzt get all the flak, but when a guy makes a Raistlin clone, nobody cares? Is it because it's easier to disguise it as being a Raisltin clone?

Raistlin has a lot of character traits. It's pretty hard to play a Raistlin clone. In fact, it's probably nearly impossible without a lot of DM assistance and house rules.

3. The fat cook adventurer. Any variation of a PC fighting with pots & pans, or fighting with a pot on his head, or fighting with a large mouth bass (yes I've heard this one before) is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure it's fun for just a silly short run game, but to do this as a serious PC in a serious long term game would really get on my nerves.

Never seen this. Lucky me?

4. The Bard PC that flirts with everything that moves. Again, nobody ever complains about this stereotypical PC. I'm sure way more of these PCs exist than Drizzt clones exist.

Only one character trait, and pretty much the only character class in most DnD editions with 1: Charisma. 2: Not seen as straight-laced, unlike paladins and most clerics. 3: Social skills. Note that sorcerers are lacking in the last department. The sorcerer just might have more luck than the ranger with a Charisma score of 8 though...

5. The arcane caster that wears a robe (or even a pointy hat). Why do they have to wear a robe? Wouldn't it be easier to cast spells in a shirt and some pants? Hell, my wife's sorceress wears shorts. I was surprised to hear that when she told me. I never thought of a PC wearing shorts before.

Mmmm... sorcereress shorts. I don't know what's up with the robe. Way too distracted to think of a decent reply.

6. The Halfling that rides around on an animals back. I actually like this concept, but still, it's probably no less common than a Drizzt clone.

Because no one has ever ridden an animal into war before, or even for long-distance travel. A halfling is too small for a horse, they might as well ride a large dog. Or a small dinosaur. DnD makes mounts suck quite a bit, in fact, and it's only a character trait if all of a sudden everyone is playing halflings as "friends to all animals".

7. The dumb Half-Orc. They are half orc. They still have another half. How come they always gotta take on the dumb half? What if the human parent was a scientific genius?

Well, you get -2 to Int (in 3.x), and until the warlord class came out*, half-orcs pretty much sucked at most Int-using classes. Rogue was about the only one they could do well. (Incidentally, there was a pretty intelligent half-orc rogue in Order of the Stick.) It's about as stereotypical as a gnome wizard with low Strength...

*I don't count Dragonlance 3e's noble class, or pretty much any martial leader-type class until Book of Nine Sword's White Raven whatever concept.

8. The completely out of place monstrous PC. If played right, this could be pretty interesting. But it's rarely ever played right. This PC is no different than a Human when they enter into a town. NPCs never seem to mind some freak of nature walking into their tavern. The militia never rounds up the abomination and burn him alive. And the adventuring party never seems to mind having this guy with them, "He's a half-fiendish Ogre that wields a gargantuan bastard sword; so what?"

Tell that to the DM who had the whole town guard throw my thri-kreen PC out of town. (Especially after I scared a homeless guy to death. Being psychic, my character actually could have killed him by staring at him, but didn't on the grounds that he wasn't evil. This was Palladium, by the way.)

9. The Gnome Illusionist. If it's a Gnome, he has to be an Illusionist. This is probably as frequent as the Drizzt clone.

Not only have I never seen this, but pretty much everyone I know who plays DnD hates gnomes due to the lame stereotypes assigned to them. Like this one!

10. Which do you see more often, a Drow Ranger with duel scimitars, or an Elven Ranger with a bow?

The latter, because drow are freaking rare on the surface. Also, that's not even a character trait. Legolas clones are only common because Legolas is so vanilla, and also because elves have good Dexterity without any kind of speed penalty. (Same with Gimli clones; it's mechanically sound, and it's barely a personality trait.) You don't see Aragorn clones more often because Aragorn has an actual personality and is also using a non-standard build. Legolas and Gimli clones have to make their own independent personalities (or not...).

 

[FireLance]

Back in the 2e days, I kindasorta played a Drizzt parody named Grizzt Go'getem. He was a drow that dual-wielded scimitars and was amoral, mercenary and ruthless. He spoke like a pirate for no discerable reason other than I felt like speaking like a pirate on the day.

He was also not actually a real drow. He was the persona adopted by my elf fighter/magic user/thief infiltrator (sort of an elven spy) when he needed to associate with the less savory elements of society.

 

[humble minion]

In defence of Drizzt...

Drizzt Do'Urden is the reason I became interested in fantasy, and is the reason I play D&D. I picked up The Crystal Shard from the library aged about 15, out of curiosity one time when I was sick, and I've never looked back. Drizzt is why I'm on this website, and is the reason I've spent huge amounts of money and time on D&D over the past 20-odd years.

No, it isn't great literature. No, Salvatore is not a particularly good writer from a stylistic or technical sense, nor does he do intricate characterisation or subtlety in plotting. None of that matters.

At least when the 'formative' Drizzt books where being written, TSR novels were explicitly targeted at the young adult market, 13-18. And they do the job, beautifully. A lot of action, a misunderstood hero who feels outside of things, a gruff and well-meaning but slightly stupid father-figure, a recurring antihero ... it hits all the teen geek boy buttons, and it hits them dead on. For me, there was just enough multifacetedness in Crystal Shard - the hints of a wider world, Errtu, the Crystal Shard itself and so on, to make me read more, to awaken the love of fantasy in general.

I bet i'm not the only one.

For what it's worth, I've never seen a Drizzt-clone in-game, though that may have been due to the fact I didn't find a regular group until we were all in our mid-twenties and might have grown up past that stage a bit. I did, i'm sure, create a couple of never-to-be-played stoic dual-wielder ranger PCs when messing around with scrap paper in my mid teens, but seriously, who didn't? For everyone who despises Drizzt and all he represents - what were YOUR characters like as a 15 year old? Were they literary, subtle, nuanced and interesting, or were they Conan ripoffs, or Gandalf ripoffs, or whatever?

I used to have a complete set of Salvatore books (up to a point, I stopped keeping up about three trilogies ago), but I recently gave them away during a big bout of spring cleaning. Because they AREN'T good literature, and if I read them now after a decade or so of Mieville and Guy Gavriel Kay and Stephen Erikson and George R R Martin I would only make myself miserable and mess up a memory that is precious to me. But to someone younger they ARE evocative, and inspiring, and hopefully some kid will find them in the charity bookshop and, like me, discover a wider world, to get a creepy thrill as Drizzt summons Errtu from Akar Kessel's side in the Crystal Shard, or shake their heads in reluctant admiration as Artemis Entreri sics the Calimport mob on Drizzt when his mask of disguise slips, or feel that Luke-vs-Vader anticipation when Dantrag Baenre stands in the way of Drizzt's escape from Menzoberranzan.

Being overenthusiastic and underoriginal is teenage trait, not a Drizzt trait. Don't blame the books for the excesses of their fans, and don't blame teenagers for being teenagers. The annoying kids bringing angsty duel-wielding drow to the table today are the solid, reliable, mature, creative interesting players and GMs of next decade. I know, because that was me.

 

[Oryan77]

He has many character traits, giving him strong flavor. Alas, strong flavor can be strong bad flavor.

I think you give too much credit to players who play a good aligned Drow Ranger wielding 2 scimitars. The guys you've seen playing a Drizzt clone must be superb roleplayers.

I really doubt all these players are roleplaying him with the same personality traits as Drizzt because, well, they are probably roleplaying him the same way they'd roleplay any other ranger character. And if the DM is on top of his game and likes to throw good Drow out of town, the player probably will play the PC no different than he'd play any other "shunned" character.

If that isn't true (and I probably am wrong, seeing as how you actually took the time to figure out a way to tell me I'm wrong on all 10 of my examples), and it's more than just the PCs fighting style & race, then I assume I can post up stats for a Good aligned Drow 2-handed fighting Ranger and nobody will accuse it of being a Drow clone? Cause I mean, it's about how I roleplay him also, right? They don't know that I plan to roleplay him as a foul mouthed womanizing ladies man with a gambling problem. So why on earth would they accuse me of playing a Drizzt clone? Obviously I'm not.

People keep nit-picking my 10 examples that really aren't all that serious to begin with (I spent what, 10 minutes typing that up with no real thought behind it). I understand the need for gamers to tell each other they are wrong all the time (it happens every day here). But you guys don't need to bring up all this "Drizzt has more traits than your examples" hooplah if you simply want to tell me I'm wrong. First, Drizzt's personality traits have zero to do with people calling a guys PC a Drizzt clone. And second, most likely I'm wrong anyway. It's not a big accomplishment to prove me wrong.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Duh, how could I forget Gwenhwyfar? Which is in fact the Welsh spelling, btw. Thank you, Encyclopedia of Mythology!


Oh, I see. Do cloners at least tone down the melodrama? Or do Drizzt clone players have to constantly spotlight their character's angst? I'm not even going to ask about lesbian stripper ninjas.

The LSN describes a character concept that combines a) a super-powerful martial-arts character with b) playing a female character as a guy and c) being powerless to stop hinting at the sexual exploits and orientation of said character. "I'd totally do my character1111!!!" is something i never want to hear again as a DM.

Oh, and the RPG.net Lexicon explains it much better:

"Sometimes, Drowlesbianstripperninja. describes the classic character most male gamers (and many female gamers) have created at some point in their gaming lives, usually when they were about 15. The Lesbianstripperninja has certain key elements to her, namely, she always tempts men with her semi-nudity but never puts out (because the teenaged male player would be uncomfortable roleplaying sex with his friends' characters), but does put out with female NPCs (because the teenaged male player thinks lesbians are t3h h4wt!!!); she is extremely stealthy, deadly, and agile; and is invariably scantily clad. Typically she will be East Asian in appearance, but often a Drow Elf. See also Ninja."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I really doubt all these players are roleplaying him with the same personality traits as Drizzt because, well, they are probably roleplaying him the same way they'd roleplay any other ranger character.

Being a ranger is about skill, not attitude. A big game hunter who slaughters exotic creatures and just takes their heads is very different from a cold and callous bounty hunter and very different from a hunter warrior from an ancient tradition who teaches people not to waste animal bits... they're all very different, but they can all use the ranger class. (One of many reasons I've hated most ranger classes over the year; why the hell would nature give spells to the first guy?)

I guess I'm saying, I don't know what you mean by "roleplay any other ranger character". Drizzt is hardly even a ranger. If he never ran into Montolio (was that his name?) he'd just be a light fighter (a concept admittedly not really present in core rules of any DnD version).

If that isn't true (and I probably am wrong, seeing as how you actually took the time to figure out a way to tell me I'm wrong on all 10 of my examples), and it's more than just the PCs fighting style & race, then I assume I can post up stats for a Good aligned Drow 2-handed fighting Ranger and nobody will accuse it of being a Drow clone?

Can you take away the good-aligned? That's part of the RP. A big part, considered drow society's structure. I don't think anyone here has accused the drow blademaster (a monster in the 4e MM1) of being a Drizzt clone, even though he fights pretty much just like Drizzt (light fighter, dual-wielder, drow) as he's not good-aligned and is a generic vanilla monster anyway. (Also, the two blades aren't the same size. I dunno, that kind of minor detail might be relevant to some people.)

Cause I mean, it's about how I roleplay him also, right? They don't know that I plan to roleplay him as a foul mouthed womanizing ladies man with a gambling problem. So why on earth would they accuse me of playing a Drizzt clone? Obviously I'm not.

Still good aligned? On the surface? Shunned? I can't say Drizzt was a deep character (as you've pointed out) but he's still not just a drow ranger with two swords.

First, Drizzt's personality traits have zero to do with people calling a guys PC a Drizzt clone.

Then why do people keep bringing up the good alignment? I don't think Drizzt clones are a big deal in an evil campaign... of course, I don't think the word "clone" would be appropriate.

 

[Darrin Drader]

The only Drizzt clone I've had in any of my games was about 20 years ago, before it really became fashionable to do it, and though he dual-wielded, Flem was as evil as any drow. Personally, I'm all for letting players play the character they want. I have no problem with someone who was influenced by Salvatore's books. I was influenced by Salvatore's books. Salvatore is a good guy, and his books have brought a lot of people into D&D. We should encourage that. Players will get bored of ripping off a famous author's characters and strike out on their own soon enough anyway.

 

[True_Blue]

I've never had a problem letting my players play what they want. If a player sees Legolas on tv and wants to make a PC that models him, great, thats a cool concept. If someone reads a Salvatore book and wants to make a drow scimitar wielder, thats great too, very cool concept. If someone wants to play a barbarian like Conan after watching or reading about him, awesome again!

It comes off like you guys are so bitter about seeing these things before that you "just wont allow it". Because *you* have seen it before, and *you* are tired of it, these players shouldn't be able to play it. Thats actually horrible in my opinion, no offense. You literally limit character choices for someone else because *you* are bored with the concept? That just isn't any kind of logic that I follow.

When my group gets together and we talk about what characters they want to make up, it doesn't even come into the conversation what I think is lame or really cool. They go through the books or character builder and build a character they would love to play and get all excited about.

Some of the responses here kind of re-enforce my beliefs that I am very protective of who I play with and who to game with overall. Limiting other people on character choices just because they are bored with the concept or think its stupid, without any mechanical reason, is just kind of being a d**k in my opinion. To each their own game though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I can honestly say I don't remember ever having barred a PC due to non-campaign reasons, sometimes I've wanted to: its not about the concept, but the way it gets played.

The closest I ever came was with a good buddy of mine. I've been gaming with him since 1984 or so, and 85% of his PCs are Wizards. Their spell lists- up until 4Ed- have been virtually interchangeable. He plays them virtually identically.

At one point, I just got fed up with this, and almost forced him to play something else, but I decided against it for 2 reasons:

1) There is something to be said for someone who can play a role in a completely expected way- he's reliable; he won't make many mistakes. He's easy to plot for as a DM.

2) Never once has anyone in our groups complained that they couldn't play a Wizard because he was. IOW, nobody who has wanted to play a Wizard has ever felt they couldn't because he was.

I suspect, though, with some of these stereotypes, they're not getting barred for being boring, but for someone creating disharmony within the group because of them.

In the same group as the above player, we have another one who always plays some kind of ranger/sniper variant. We always let him because everything else he tries ends in disaster: in one campaign, his attempts at playing a "Face" type PC nearly got that PC killed on multiple occasions, which often led to the party getting shot at as well.

Were he to ask to repeat that experiment, I'm sure the vote would be 9-1 against.

 

[fireinthedust]

I don't really feel like arguing with someone about it because I already know I'm a moron for liking Drizzt and FR.

I didn't mean to argue. More debate. Also, keep in mind you argued with the OP, that Drizzt clones aren't bad. As someone who loves cliche characters, and has made *awful* Drizzt clones... and I just wanted to defend the particular cliches.

Frankly: you forgot the character whose entire family was killed by X, then decided to go fight Gotham mobsters, err, monsters(!)

I'm also not as intelligent as people that prefer the more adult authors since I actually enjoy reading Salvatore's writing. Obviously guys like Robert Jordan & Tolkien are better to read because they spend more time explaining the design on a woman's blouse & the detail of a bush and less time on childish stuff like Salvatore does.

Hey, don't say that. There are some great non-adult authors, Tolkien among them. Good books have layers, social commentary, or something the author is desperate to say. I get that from Drizzt's diary entries, but there are just so many inconsistencies. Drizzt is too perfect, too untouchable. He talks like a super-goodguy, but when he needs to be "badass" he has this inner rage. Conveniently. He always makes the right decisions, whatever.

I have almost all the RA Salvatore books, and read them all back in the day. It's just that I tried going into the more recent Thousand Orcs books, and they just didn't have the same umph as the earliest ones (the best of which, IMHO, were the earliest ones).

And Robert Jordan is okay, but I wouldn't put him up with Tolkien. I like his stuff, too, but it petered out at the end. Just saying. Also, Dune ripoff. Fun for several books, but then *nothing* happens for 1000 pages+.

You're right, he is jut another build. I would argue that the Dwarf-with-an-axe is just as much a cliche, build-wise. It's just that you can write about any dwarf in any story like that. There's only the one drizzt.

It's like a Canadian hero with claws and a healing factor = Wolverine.