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]

I'm still not sure if you guys are all on the same page here. Just read the latest reply by Unbran.

He was refuting your evolutionary psychology pseudoscience statement, Nefermandias. As I did.

Humans being diurnal has nothing to do with Blackness as Wickedness and Whiteness as Goodness. That is all 100% Cultural. (And fairly recent, all things considered, only the past few hundred years)

That doesn't retroactively make our statements "Drow are meant to represent African Americans, expressly, and are a racist depiction thereof!"

It just means you threw out a bad ad hoc hypothesis and it got shot down with real world questions and information.

 

[whimsychris123]

If we are concerned that having a dark-skimmed imaginary race in our fantasy game leads to real life racism, we are basically proving that the "D&D is a satanic influence" people in the 80s were right.

We are? Not following your logic on that one.

Either people can separate fantasy from reality, in which case this argument is irrelevant, or people can't.

We can. We can also separate fantasy from reality while acknowledging that the way things are portrayed in ads, movies, fiction, and roleplaying games can affect our perception of the real world.

 

[Libertad]

If we are concerned that having a dark-skimmed imaginary race in our fantasy game leads to real life racism, we are basically proving that the "D&D is a satanic influence" people in the 80s were right.

Either people can separate fantasy from reality, in which case this argument is irrelevant, or people can't.

And if they can't, we might want to address the whole "murder other sapients and loot their corpses for shiny trinkets and power!" issue before we start worrying about the underground spider fetishists.

Not a good analogy; the figureheads who spearheaded the Satanic Panic were the same people who argued that Jim Crow segregation was a mandate from God. They didn't really pay attention to racist elements in D&D at the time likely because they agreed on some level with the portrayals.

Also it was discussed in another thread, but Gary Gygax (and his son Ernie) was racist against Native Americans. In a discussion on alignment he quoted a genocidal US officer arguing in favor of killing Native noncombatants, to argue that killing prisoners of war was a good thing.

The founder of D&D compared Native Americans to war criminals. By quoting someone who wanted to kill all Native Americans.


He'd later go on to say that killing "humanoid non-combatants" is something Lawful Good people would do.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I like how Critical Role has subverted the take on the drow that the Forgotten Realms used for so long.

• Drow pre-existed Lolth's influence.
• Drow went into the Underdark during a global Calamity where the gods warred against each other. During said war Lolth got taken-out first and stayed impaled on the side of a cliff for who knows how long.
• Once the evil gods, including Lolth, had been banished, some drow remained in the Underdark as her followers and some rejected her and returned to the surface (this latter group effectively was in the Underdark for a very short time).
• The drow who rejected Lolth and returned to the surface are flourishing and creating a nation of beings who have also rejected the evil entities who used them as minions during the Calamity. Lolthite drow society, meanwhile, has been falling apart to the point that many drow are fleeing for the surface, willingly turning themselves into driders so they can survive independently in the Underdark, or turning their allegiance to Tharizdun.
• There are some drow Lolth followers on the surface, but so few that most are led by a drow follower of Lolth but largely made-up of non-drow converts to Lolth's service.

So, basically, Lolth herself is the problem, and in the setting of Exandria she's essentially an incompetent goddess who is consistently losing followers either due to them rejecting her or those who stay loyal dying-off because of the horribly impractical society she encouraged.

 

[lyle.spade]

Xenomorphs aren’t people, they’re an extremely unsubtle rape allegory.

Aren't they, though? Dracula, too. Yet...crickets in response to all the vampire shows and books that, really, play off that creepy rape vibe.

But to your point, the Drow do have something important in common with the xenomorphs: they're both fictional.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know how I know this repeated argument of "It's just pretend, none of it matters, you can play whatever you want!" is a bad argument?

Because if that were true, then if when D&D came out all the art depicted gay black people and not white European male heroes with scantily clad women, none of these same people making that argument would have played it to begin with.

Representation matters. Real life associations matter. Don't take my word for it, there have been actual studies about this.

 

[Nefermandias]

He was refuting your evolutionary psychology pseudoscience statement, Nefermandias. As I did.

Humans being diurnal has nothing to do with Blackness as Wickedness and Whiteness as Goodness. That is all 100% Cultural. (And fairly recent, all things considered, only the past few hundred years)

That doesn't retroactively make our statements "Drow are meant to represent African Americans, expressly, and are a racist depiction thereof!"

It just means you threw out a bad ad hoc hypothesis and it got shot down with real world questions and information.

Are you going to at least show me a few examples of cultures that associate light with "evil" and darkness with "good". Because honestly, I find it quite baffling your claim that this is 100% cultural and not rooted in the fact that we are completely blind in the absence of light.

 

[Weiley31]

But to your point, the Drow do have something important in common with the xenomorphs: they're both fictional.

They are also matriarchal.

 

[wellis]

But if you don't want the first 40 years of depictions to be used, then that seems to infer that change is in fact OK, and thus no one should be upset by Salvatore's comment.

Because I'm tired of people saying stuff like "the drow wear bikini armor" and pull out an image created 30-50 years ago instead of a modern 2010-2021 image of them, for example.

Like why can't they use a modern image if they're so still full of bikini armor?

 

[Steampunkette]

Please explain what you mean when you say "I answered with my intention." And if you are going to mention logical fallacies as a means of demonstrating that I am wrong, or that my argument is weak, please explain how you see those things at work in my responses instead of just stating them. It is not enough to throw out the name of a fallacy...you need to show that I've committed it.

Your post of clear and obvious strawmen arguments, infantilizing arguments, arguments to ridiculousness, and so forth stands on it's own.

And as you continue to crow your "We need to agree Drow aren't real" across the thread to continue your argument to ridiculousness and try to present people discussing this matter in good faith as people incapable of recognizing the difference between Reality and Fiction...

Gonna have to just recognize you're a Sea Lion, on this one, Lyle. Especially as you -demand- I walk you through your fallacious arguments.

I wasn't talking about skin color at all. That's my whole point. I said we have a tendency to associate darkness with bad things because darkness really IS a bad thing. Especially when it hides things that could easily eat you.
Pretty much every single culture that have ever existed agrees that light = good.

And ever since about the 1500s Western culture has decided to apply that to Skin Tone.

Pretending like it's some Biological Necessity to do so, which is what your post did in the context of a thread talking about Drow being Dark Skin=Evil and it's allegorical connotations and societal impact...