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

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Put simply? It's what the writers -wish- reality was. A Core Facet of the Fantasy.

Clearly Good Heroes. Clearly Bad Villains. A Moral Structure that is Ordained from Above and -actually- means something, rather than the wild mixture of different moralities and ideals we have in our world smashed over each other like breakfast pulsed in a Blender.

People crave the ability to be Heroes or Villains, by and large, to either uphold societal order or tear it down because it gives us a strong narrative conceit in relation to the media that we have consumed throughout our lives. Most of which begin and end as Morality Plays in our youth that become more and more complex as we grow older.

But the reason most of our Media is a series of morality plays is because the writers of Books and Movies and TV Shows also want clearly defined Good Things and Bad Things to provide a strong structure, and the protagonist/antagonist nature of storytelling that relies on conflict gives us an amazing basis for that.

It's why the Jedi are Good, but often problematic, and the Sith are Evil, and also -always- problematic. Why the Dark Lord Sauron must be opposed. Why Paul Atreides joins the Fremen to fight against his own wicked people.

Because no fantasy is more relevant to human experience than a clear line between good and evil. From the moment we could tell stories I would wager that was a core component.

That's why I prefer Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. I still have Good and Evil as alignments, but don't put as much important on them and usually have a mostly Good character have some Evil qualities and a mostly Evil character have some Good qualities.

For example, one NPC is a Neutral Good cleric who follows the goddess of redemption and is an extreme pacifist. She believes that her goddess would let her know if someone was beyond redemption and had to be killed, and so far her non-violence has allowed her to gain the last remnant of a pack of gnolls who worshipped Yeenoghu as a friend and helper, turning him on the path to Good. She has also provided aid to a small community of goblins who are mostly Good or Neutral.

While accompanying the PCs, she once averted a fight using Calm Emotions to escape. Another time she refused to defend herself against a humanoid enemy that had grappled her, even when near death; the PCs killed her attacker and saved her, but unknown to the party it somewhat soured her impression of them. Who are they to choose who lives and dies? Couldn't they at least have knocked the attacker unconscious instead of killing them?

However, she's since been tempted by a very powerful Neutral Evil wizard with an item that bonds the attuned to another creature and forces that creature to gradually change to match the user's own alignment. As a follower of the goddess of redemption the NPC cleric is wondering if using such an item would be for the greater Good, or if using it would make her Evil herself. She's used Calm Emotions in the past to manipulate some evil characters into not fighting her, so she's already temporarily altered someone's mental state for the "greater good". Is magically making an Evil person Good itself Good, or would using such an item be an Evil act? Whether or not to accept the offer has begun to preoccupy her thoughts quite a bit; she prays to her goddess for an answer, but none has come. The wizard (who themself makes extensive use of enchantment magic to manipulate minds and memories) is honestly just curious what would happen if the cleric used this old artifact he found and if her nature and beliefs would permit her to do such a thing.

 

[Geoff Thirlwell]

I thought the Drow were the corrupt, evil elves. I don’t see the need to make Drow sub-races to try and avoid any imagined correlations with real world cultures. Blaming their inherent evil culture on Lloth is enough to justify an evil culture. A similar link with Orcs to Gruumsh makes them what they are

 

[MGibster]

Regardless of how any of us might feel about how drow, orcs, or other races were portrayed in past editions of D&D, I think we all need to accept that things change. While I'm not bothered in the least about how orcs were portrayed, and am only mildly bothered by the implications of the drow and can see where people are coming from with their objetions, I'm not particularly bothered by changing things so that races aren't always evil. The fact of the matter is what was acceptable to a large portion of D&D's audience in 1981 is no longer acceptable to a large portion D&D's audience in 2021. The fact of the matter is that D&D is ever changing and adapting to meet the needs of its players. AD&D was a good game in 1985 and D&D is a good game in 2021.

"Ancient spirits of evil! Transform this decayed form to D&D, the Ever-Living!" -- D&D (Citation needed.)

 

[Xethreau]

You're completely right, of course. Im curious: how do you address the inherently Manichaean nature of (most) of the worlds people play D&D in? Literal good and evil exist in a physical sense as archons and devils, and can be touched and interacted with.

I mean the question in good faith; it's something I've thought about and never been able to come to a satisfying answer on.

I play it the Eberron way, which Dragon Age also does very well:

Such entities may be understood as Good or Evil, but that perspective is influenced by political history and allegiance. Most entities, tragically, see themselves as being the height of virtue.

The core of good fiction and good fantasy isn't deception, its truth--and Mani's dualistic insight does not describe the world honestly to my eyes.

 

[jasper]

Question, Will R. A. write a whopping good book which makes me want to go back and read occasionally like I do Weber, McCaffery, and some my other books?
Question Will the kindle version cost $9.99 or less? If so I will buy it.
Question. Will a correct number of books sold (not sent to book stores) be available?
Question. Will jasper have more questions?

 

[Xethreau]

I thought the Drow were the corrupt, evil elves. I don’t see the need to make Drow sub-races to try and avoid any imagined correlations with real world cultures. Blaming their inherent evil culture on Lloth is enough to justify an evil culture. A similar link with Orcs to Gruumsh makes them what they are

Evil isn't who you are. Evil is what you do.

 

[Steampunkette]

That's why I prefer Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. I still have Good and Evil as alignments, but don't put as much important on them and usually have a mostly Good character have some Evil qualities and a mostly Evil character have some Good qualities.

For example, one NPC is a Neutral Good cleric who follows the goddess of redemption and is an extreme pacifist. She believes that her goddess would let her know if someone was beyond redemption and had to be killed, and so far her non-violence has allowed her to gain the last remnant of a pack of gnolls who worshipped Yeenoghu as a friend and helper, turning him on the path to Good. She has also provided aid to a small community of goblins who are mostly Good or Neutral.

While accompanying the PCs, she once averted a fight using Calm Emotions to escape. Another time she refused to defend herself against a humanoid enemy that had grappled her, even when near death; the PCs killed her attacker and saved her, but unknown to the party it somewhat soured her impression of them. Who are they to choose who lives and dies? Couldn't they at least have knocked the attacker unconscious instead of killing them?

However, she's since been tempted by a very powerful Neutral Evil wizard with an item that bonds the attuned to another creature and forces that creature to gradually change to match the user's own alignment. As a follower of the goddess of redemption the NPC cleric is wondering if using such an item would be for the greater Good, or if using it would make her Evil herself. She's used Calm Emotions in the past to manipulate some evil characters into not fighting her, so she's already temporarily altered someone's mental state for the "greater good". Is magically making an Evil person Good itself Good, or would using such an item be an Evil act? Whether or not to accept the offer has begun to preoccupy her thoughts quite a bit; she prays to her goddess for an answer, but none has come. The wizard (who themself makes extensive use of enchantment magic to manipulate minds and memories) is honestly just curious what would happen if the cleric used this old artifact he found and if her nature and beliefs would permit her to do such a thing.

See... you're talking about how you prefer Law/Chaos/Neutrality and then tell a story -all about- good and evil. Outside of saying she's Neutral Good and helped a Good and Neutral party there's never a mention of Chaos or Law in your story.

And even if there were, and you were telling a story about chaos and law, you'd be telling the story of how one of them is antagonistic 'cause that's just the nature of narrative conflict, thus making one "Bad" and one "Good".

This is what I mean by "More complex morality plays".

 

[Hussar]

White skinned people doesn't even exist in most black cultures folklore and religions.
Also, you guys have to make up your minds if that's about African people or not.

Swimming upthread a few pages.

You are 100% absolutely right. We have made up our minds. It's about African people. That's pretty self-evident and it's those who want to derail the conversation away from resolving the problems and into endless nit-picking about if there is a problem or not that are mistaken. It is about African people. Full stop. We've already moved past that determination. It's only a handful of people whose arguments completely fall apart if they accept this as fact that are still arguing about whether or not this is about racism and bigotry.

 

[Aaron L]

Inhuman monsters are not human ethnicites.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay... I'm glad he thinks it should be buried in the deepest pit and never shown again.

But he WROTE about Menzoberranzan. About the Drow. For DECADES. And he was "Oblivious" to the fact that they were presented as an evil race?

Oblivious to the allegorical dark skin=evil and women in power=evil I -might- accept he didn't really think too hard on. But not knowing they were "Portrayed as Evil"?

Don't buy that for a heartbeat.

People can have changes of mind and suddenly realize that what they've been doing for a chunk of their life was actually wrong. Not everyone is perfect from the get-go, after all. I don't know if that's what happened with Salvatore, but it can happen.

And with drow, I think that it's possible that a person could think that drow are actually hexcode #000000 black, not human black-which-is-actually-brown, and therefore isn't the same thing and not realize that it's still very problematic. And likewise, they could think that it's OK to have an evil nonhuman matriarchy , thinking it's no worse than showing an evil nonhuman patriarchy, without realizing that it's really, really suspicious that basically every matriarchy in D&D is evil. Again, I have no idea if this is what went through Salvatore's mind. But it's possible.