D&D General RA Salvatore Wants To Correct Drizzt’s Racist Tropes

In an interview with Polygon, the author talks about how the drow are currently being redefined in D&D, and how he wants to be part of that process.

”But on the other hand, if the drow are being portrayed as evil, that’s a trope that has to go away, be buried under the deepest pit, and never brought out again. I was unaware of that. I admit it. I was oblivious.

Drow are now split into (at least) three types — the familiar Udadrow of Menzoberranzan, the arctic-themed Aevendrow, and the jungle-themed Lorendrow. Salvatore's new novel, Starlight Enclave, helps to expand the drows' role in the narrative.

D&D’s Drizzt books were built on racist tropes. R.A. Salvatore wants to change that

‘If the drow are being portrayed as evil, that’s a trope that has to go away’

www.polygon.com

In 2020 WotC made a public statement about how they would be treating drow and orcs going forward -- "Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. "

Commitment to Diversity | Dungeons & Dragons

D&D continues to be made as diverse as possible with the reminder that only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome obstacles.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Steampunkette]

You're avoiding my point: how does anything about the Drow impact real life unless a given person decides that a fantasy species is so important that it should? Race relations are real; the Drow are not, and if someone can't tell the difference, they've got bigger problems than whatever happens in Salvatore's formulaic books.

Why aren't we raging about depictions of Hobbits as a people who typically eat a lot and drink too much...won't that make people think that short people are gluttons?

How about depictions of giants in fairytales? Won't those negative stereotypes make people think that tall people are going to eat them?

Fantasy and reality: life's better when you know the difference.

I'm not avoiding your point, Lyle. I answered with my intention. That you don't "Get It" is not really relevant.

Trying to create a Strawman position that people "Think" drow are african americans when they're totally just imaginary elves, hur hur hur, is infantilizing. Continuing to create -further- arguments to ridiculousness about Hobbits and Giants is similarly fallacious and pointless.

Like seriously, Lyle. If you want to -actually- discuss this? Keep the Strawmen and Personal Attacks and Arguments to Absurdity in your mind rather than your fingertips. Because you're -very- clearly not coming into this with any sort of intent to have a reasonable discussion. Just dismissive and derisive rhetoric.

 

[John R Davis]

Really don't like that novel cover. Drizzt doesn't look at all elven, looks way to human.

 

[Alzrius]

Really don't like that novel cover. Drizzt doesn't look at all elven, looks way to human.

I thought that was Artemis Entreri, myself.

 

[wellis]

Really don't like that novel cover. Drizzt doesn't look at all elven, looks way to human.

Is it the cover where he looks like an old man?

Also, thinking on pale dark elves being evil, does that potentially then mess with albinos, if we keep the white hair?

 

[Umbran]

I'm quite sure this is rooted in the fact that us humans, as diurnal animals, instinctively associate dark with "evil" and light with "good".

Do you think, back in their own folklore, the natives of the African continent associate a dark skin color with evil, and a light skin color with good on a regular basis? When, as has been shown, jet-black skin is a natural tone there?

 

[whimsychris123]

I'm a little middle of the fence here.

When the argument is framed as drow are or aren't racist, people will miss complexity. As there is no objective evidence (scientifically evaluated) that I know of that the fiction of drow perpetuates racial inequality, the argument will always go back and forth between "Drow are racist"/"Drow aren't racists" based on your beliefs and which side of the argument you think you stand.

It's based on your perception.

For me, drow have always been based on black widows. Thus the ebony skin and the matriarchal society. I am reluctant to give them up mostly because I think they are just...cool.

At the same time, D&D in the past has often perpetuated straight, white male viewpoints.

You see the white male gaze through and through. You see it in the bikini armor, the "American native" portrayed as white (a la Dragonlance), the mostly male leadership, and the fact that for years, the only people of color portrayed in D&D were black-skinned drow.

Women were sex objects. Men were dominant. White was the default.

If the roleplaying world wants to diversify (as it should), white players should be less "if you want to play in my space, you have to play by my rules," but instead allow equal contribution and welcome new perspectives.

And some of those perspectives are going to take issue that the only dark-skinned race is inherently evil.

I understand this. I accept it. I embrace it.

Drow are going to need to change.

Since I see drow as based on black widows, I can just open them up to reflect all spiders. Spiders come in many different shapes and colors, and they vary as far as their lethality. The drow can be the same. They can have different skin tones. They can have different attitudes and represent different levels of danger. And I still get to keep the "spider" trope and drow can still be cool.

I let go of the bikini armor for better, more complex and more interesting female characters, and now I have mostly female players. Tables with majority female players were a rare thing even ten years ago.

I can let go of an evil black-skinned race if it means welcoming more diversity to my table.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ehhhhhh...

"If you'd been a -white- man who grew up in the 60s it -might- not have been obvious to you" would be a better thing to write, there.

True, and this is more growing he has to do. But, I do think we should acknowledge the growth he has done while encouraging him to continue to grow.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm quite sure this is rooted in the fact that us humans, as diurnal animals, instinctively associate dark with "evil" and light with "good". We depend on light to pretty much everything in our lives, while darkness is scary, unknown and hides predators. You don't have to be a genius to understand that this association predates even language itself.

Noooooooooooooope. It does not. Has -nothing- to do with that.

Humans started out black. All humans. That's not up for debate. Diurnal Black African Humans moved outward to other regions and different pigmentations became more or less useful based on relative distance from the equator. Plus, y'know, Sexual selection.

There's nothing in our biology that makes black skin and white skin, not just the absence of light creating darkness but specifically and explicitly black skin, "Evil" to us.

Hell. Romans didn't have prejudices against black people for the most part. Oh, they hated -everyone- who wasn't Roman. Called 'em Barbarians 'cause their language was "Bar bar bar bar bar" to the Romans. But once an area became part of Rome? Once a person became Roman? Skin tone didn't matter. Not even a white.

Black = Bad came out of wars against the Moors and the Crusades. It was at that point in time people started equating darkness of skin with wickedness or cruelty. When certain texts started getting translated from Latin to English and German it got so much worse. And then eventually the Slave Trade solidified the dehumanization of black peoples.

And why should we be shackled by our prejudices, even those built into our biology? We have the privilege of being sapient animals with the capacity for complex thought. Let's not squander that.

We shouldn't. But also they aren't there. And we mustn't give legitimacy to the idea that they are.

 

[Steampunkette]

True, and this is more growing he has to do. But, I do think we should acknowledge the growth he has done while encouraging him to continue to grow.

Which I acknowledged in a later post, yes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'll just add this. I think people are being disingenuous to have this discussion while refusing to acknowledge how for centuries, we have real life example after example of ethnic groups being ascribed negative stereotypes based on skin color. That's important. Arguably, the most important, because it's because of those that we can draw direct comparisons to why D&D depicting all dark skinned humanoids as inherently evil is a problem. D&D doesn't exist in a vacuum. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that those associations back in the 70s-90s were made not intentionally, but because they were ingrained stereotypes we all heard growing up and were subconscious associations. But that also doesn't make it OK. We know better now. So to refuse to even acknowledge this history when making a counter argument as to why it's not a big deal is not honest debate to me. There is no way you (general you) don't know about how these pejorative stereotypes based on skin color have been used in the past, and if by some reason you didn't, you do now. Cuz I just told you.

So when you have 500 years of depictions associating dark skin color with "bad", and then see all or almost all dark skinned races in D&D = "bad", you can't sit there and say D&D is just pretend so nothing else matters. D&D was drawn from those real life associations, intentionally or not. That's more than just caveman associations of light = good and dark = bad. It's centuries of pejorative associations with dark skinned people.