D&D General The Gygaxian Origins of Drow and Some Thought on their Depiction As Villians

[Fenris-77]

Torog!

That would work pefectly! The Drow are his Raiders and Hunter-Killers. It began in order to spread the Hive, raiding the surface for slaves and material for his ... experiments, but Torog has finally divined how to absorb a sentient creature and produce a duplicate that has at least some of its memories and can mimic it most successfully.

 

[Staffan]

So let's step into the middle ground. Where is are the other matriarchies?

The only other example I can think off off-hand is at best semi-matriarchal: the city-state of Nibenay in Dark Sun.

The Ruler of Nibenay is Nibenay, the Shadow King - so at the top, there's a dude. But the ones actually running the government are, much like in other Dark Sun city-states, a cadre of civic priests called Templars. In Nibenay, these are all women and technically the brides of Nibenay.

Other than Nibenay, Dark Sun books mentioned that Athas pretty much didn't have traditional gender roles, because the world was too harsh to tolerate such nonsense. But that makes it (in theory) egalitarian, not matriarchal.

 

[Voadam]

D&D has always been neat for filling in the blanks, cultures and leadership and social mores are generally undefined. You can have default egalitarianism, you can have models of aspects of reality, and fantastic models that strike you. Greyhawk could be completely egalitarian other than skewing male in the heads of state in the 1980 gazetteer. It could be medieval social roles throughout. Drow seemed an experiment in fantastical culture creation with accretions over time by multiple authors in addition to the blending that there source was.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

More sexist. But Sexist against men isn't the point of a Matriarchy.

I am, to put it mildly, having an extremely hard time wrapping my mind around a claim that a social structure defined by assigning the positions of power to one sex only does not constitute sexism. If that is not the claim you intend to make, please clarify.

To the second point, Drow society should not be representative of all matriarchal societies, but it is de facto representing them by being the only one.

To the third point, you are right, this isn't about positive representation of women, it is about positive representation of a form of society that is different from the norm. Egalitarian societies where both genders are equally in charge are of course better, but since we have so many patriarchies (quite possibly everything except Drow) but historically we have seen Matriarchal societies, I don't see any reason why not to have a positive representation of them.

I mean, we have positive and negative monarchies, positive and negative republics, positive and negative theocracies, positive and negative patriarchies...

And only negative matriarchies.

So, why not make a positive one?

I'd argue that even the "positive" patriarchies are only positive until a female character runs up against the restrictions they have imposed. After that, they're... not necessarily bad from a game perspective, because this generates conflict and hence narrative, but certainly antagonistic.

You're right, though, in that there could certainly be matriarchal societies that are less psychotic than the drow. My question is how the presence or absence of these other societies affects how we evaluate the drow. Let's imagine that 6E promotes the abeils (lawful neutral bee-people) to a core rulebook playable race as a non-psycho matriarchy. Does that counterbalance the drow's matriarchy and make it look better? Even if it is itself unchanged? In other words: is the problem intrinsic to the depiction of the drow or extrinsic?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I mean, I guess that separates you from me. I'm someone who won't even say "Merry Christmas" to a stranger, because for all I know they're Jewish. If I did it probably wouldn't offend them anyway, but why say it when "Happy Holidays," captures the same well wishes?

And if they are Christian, you just offended them. But...that's ok, is it?

That was the point that @dnd4vr was trying to make; it is an exercise in futility to 'walk on eggshells because of the off chance you might say something that offends someone'...because it can go all different sorts of ways. "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays"....or "Happy Halloween" vs "Happy Saturnalia"...or...or...or.

I think that was his point. I'm 100% behind his reasoning, for the record. The only time I find myself "walking on eggshells" is when I'm not protected by the Constitutional Amendments and/or Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I'm a dual citizen of American/Canadian; born in US, also attained Canadian Citizenship). Which basically means anytime I'm "online at certain sites" (like Youtube, or if I was on twitter...which I'm not, never have been, and never plan to be, etc), so...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Charlaquin]

And if they are Christian, you just offended them. But...that's ok, is it?

A Christian who gets offended by being wished happy holidays is upset that their religion isn’t being treated as default. Changing one’s behavior to avoid offending Christians in this manner inherently denies all non-Christians the same recognition of their culture and traditions. In other words, the Christian wants special treatment - specifically, for their religion to be treated as default.

That was the point that @dnd4vr was trying to make; it is an exercise in futility to 'walk on eggshells because of the off chance you might say something that offends someone'...because it can go all different sorts of ways. "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays"....or "Happy Halloween" vs "Happy Saturnalia"...or...or...or.

No, the point they were making was “if [minority group] uses [derogatory term for members of said minority group], they shouldn’t get upset when other people do.” The walking on eggshells comment was an evasion, inconsistent with the initial complaint.

I think that was his point. I'm 100% behind his reasoning, for the record. The only time I find myself "walking on eggshells" is when I'm not protected by the Constitutional Amendments and/or Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I'm a dual citizen of American/Canadian; born in US, also attained Canadian Citizenship). Which basically means anytime I'm "online at certain sites" (like Youtube, or if I was on twitter...which I'm not, never have been, and never plan to be, etc), so...yeah.

You don’t lose those protections online. Those protections are specifically against legal consequences for your speech. You won’t get arrested or sued for anything you say on those sites, provided what you say isn’t defamatory or likely to incite immediate violence. There is no legal protection against the social consequences of one’s speech.

 

[Imaculata]

A Christian who gets offended by being wished happy holidays is upset that their religion isn’t being treated as default. Changing one’s behavior to avoid offending Christians in this manner inherently denies all non-Christians the same recognition of their culture and traditions. In other words, the Christian wants special treatment - specifically, for their religion to be treated as default.

This might be a good moment to remind everyone about the forum's rules regarding the discussion of politics and religion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're right, though, in that there could certainly be matriarchal societies that are less psychotic than the drow. My question is how the presence or absence of these other societies affects how we evaluate the drow. Let's imagine that 6E promotes the abeils (lawful neutral bee-people) to a core rulebook playable race as a non-psycho matriarchy. Does that counterbalance the drow's matriarchy and make it look better? Even if it is itself unchanged? In other words: is the problem intrinsic to the depiction of the drow or extrinsic?

Answering this first, I don't see why it has to be either/or. There is a part of the problem that is intrinsic to classical drow depictions, and part that is extrinsically focused on DnD. The Abeils would help solve the Extrinsic part.

I am, to put it mildly, having an extremely hard time wrapping my mind around a claim that a social structure defined by assigning the positions of power to one sex only does not constitute sexism. If that is not the claim you intend to make, please clarify.

I'd argue that even the "positive" patriarchies are only positive until a female character runs up against the restrictions they have imposed. After that, they're... not necessarily bad from a game perspective, because this generates conflict and hence narrative, but certainly antagonistic.

Okay, I'm seeing the confusion and I'm not sure how to explain the nuance my brain is giving this.

Our world is essentially a Patriarchy in ever way and has been for centuries. It isn't unusual to see a man in charge of whatever, and even if everyone has equal rights/pay/ect it will still take time for us to transition to a new normal.

The key I think is the word "restrictions" even if we removed all restrictions right now, we would still live in a Patriarchy. The restrictions prevent change, but they do not make the patriarchy exist.

So, I'm imagining literally just flipping the script of who is in charge. Not by restricting men, or by saying "men can't do X" but by it simply not being the norm. Not by repressing men, who resent this status quo and would just rise up and be in charge if it weren't for the women, but by it being just a normal thing in this society that the women are in charge.

I acknowledge it is a very very fine line, but the point of fact is, that this is exactly what we do with most patriarchal societies in DnD. De Facto, the men are in charge, the men are making decisions, the men are the soldiers, the men are the doctors, the men are the merchants. The women only show up as a counterpoint, to be unusual. I just wonder about running the mirror inverse of that.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Hiya!



And if they are Christian, you just offended them. But...that's ok, is it?

That was the point that @dnd4vr was trying to make; it is an exercise in futility to 'walk on eggshells because of the off chance you might say something that offends someone'...because it can go all different sorts of ways. "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays"....or "Happy Halloween" vs "Happy Saturnalia"...or...or...or.

I think that was his point. I'm 100% behind his reasoning, for the record. The only time I find myself "walking on eggshells" is when I'm not protected by the Constitutional Amendments and/or Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I'm a dual citizen of American/Canadian; born in US, also attained Canadian Citizenship). Which basically means anytime I'm "online at certain sites" (like Youtube, or if I was on twitter...which I'm not, never have been, and never plan to be, etc), so...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

If someone is a Christian who is offended by "Happy Holidays," then they're beyond help.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't agree. You've made this claim before, but it's wholly unconvincing to me, because D&D literally only ever specifies when something is a matriarchy, never when it's a patriarchy, even when it is obviously a patriarchy. If you have a society, and every leader we hear about is male, and they have only male combatants, and so on, it's pretty obvious, I would argue, that that's a patriarchy.

I'm currently writing a setting - and it has (based on a real world example) a functional matriarchy where most of the characters you meet are male. Only women are allowed to own land within the society and although a lot of the other roles are officially open to men there are some fairly low glass ceilings. This means that a comparative lot of men head out to adventure to try to prove their worth because they just don't have opportunities - and a surprising number of semi-successful male adventurers of the sort that survived their adventures but caroused their loot away retire there to be trophy husbands as in a land where men are considered only good at the four fs (fighting, feasting, feuding, and ...), that's basically the skillset of the type of adventurer who doesn't save their loot.

I'm not sure whether to claim that the setting has drow or not. Dark elves under their armour and warpaint look no different from any other sort of elves, and they are known as dark elves because of the pitch black sails on their slave ships (which use spider-venom to knock people out and keep them unconscious). The elves completely disavow all knowledge of them and claim that the slavers are their enemies. It's known that dark elf ships normally sail under elf colours - but it is deliberately unclear in the setting (and thus up to the GM) whether the dark elves are sea elves, whether they are sea elf corsairs, whether they are enemies of the sea elves and trying to both take advantage of and ruin the reputation of the sea elves, or whether there's some sort of relationship by which the dark elves are actively allowed to use sea elf colours, either through intimidation or bribery.