Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
In another thread, there was some excellent commentary on the origins of Drow, but since it tended to get lost in the overall conversation about Orcs, I wanted to post this thread to discuss the origins and (possibly) the future of Drow. I will try to keep my own speculation to a minimum. I'm also going to h/t @Doug McCrae for some excellent sourcing in the other thread.
A. Chronology of the Appearance of Drow until Codification
1977: Monster Manual
1978: G3, D1, D2, D3
1980: Deities & Demigods, Q1
1981: Fiend Folio (First Codification in a Rulebook)
The very first appearance of the Drow is in the Monster Manual, and all that is written is the following:
Drow: The "Black Elves," or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users.
That's it. It is, in effect, a teaser for the later appearance in G3. As such, the first true description of the Drow occurs in G3. It's a fairly thorough writeup!
B. On the Origin of Drow
If anyone is unfamiliar with the origins of Drow, I highly recommend the following article-
www.dungeoneersguildgames.com
Seriously, it is a short and great read. The reason I find it persuasive is that it avoids the most common fallacy that I see that many people fall into; attempting to "single source" the Drow. Far too often, you will see someone attempt to claim that X is "the source" for the Drow, and if you just read it, saw it, experienced it, etc., you would know that. Of course, what "X" is varies from person to person, and it is rare for something to be traced to a single, dispositive source as inspiration. We stand on the shoulders of giants, not a single, convenient and identifiable giant.
The Drow (and their associated religion, cities, cultures, and so on), like a lot Gygaxian creations, are from multiple sources.
But wait, what did Gygax himself say? Well, here's the thing; Gygax is not always the most reliable narrator of things, not even his own life. Here on this website, he said the following in 2007:
The thing is, we know that this is incorrect, because it is contradicted by .... Gygax himself. In November, 1979, much closer to the creation of the Drow, he wrote the following about the Drow:
The reason I bring up the first part is that we now see a plausible path to the creation of the Drow. The Incomplete Enchanter by de Camp and Pratt that Gygax is referring to contains the story/novella The Roaring Trumpet; and that novella is the obvious inspiration for the G series. Notably, just like in the G series, the protagonist encounters dark elves with "licorice" skin when he is in Surt's (Snurre!) volcano fortress. Suddenly, the connections, the borrowings, seem obvious. It is not a straight lifting, but it is ... a strong adaptation. We see that Gygax was creating a "unique new mythos designed especially for AD&D" by taking bits and parts of other sources that he had read in the past; a lot of Anderson, and Moorcock, and Burroughs, as he tended to do, with bits and pieces of Vance and Merritt and St. Clair.
Gygax, if nothing else, was a consummate DJ and remixer of myth.
C. Structural Issues
But wait, there's more. If you go to the original article I brought up, I would point out footnote 10. "The description of Erelhi-Cinlu as a pit of vice and decay reminds me of the state of many cities in the 1970s, such as New York. Possibly, American urban decay may have also influenced Gygax?"
The reason I bring this up is because anytime there is a fictional depiction that is made, it reflects the mindset of the times and person who made it. This is something that is both banal and profound, but is lurking beneath many conversations that we have; a typical example would be, "Well, X was just typically racist for their time, while Y was more racist than their time." (Y, by the way, is always HP Lovecraft.)
In the footnoted example, it is hard to overstate the ways in which urban decay and violence was assumed in the late 70s; such a structural issue would likely be reflected in the depiction of cities even if the author was not consciously making a point about it.
The reason I bring this up is because if you look at a lot of early depictions of Drow, you see the same problematic issues. Many illustrations of male Drow have them with short curly hair, even though that is not in the written descriptions. The female Drow are considered not attractive, but "strangely attractive," and the image of the priestess of Lolth in Deities and Demigods, well, that just speaks for itself doesn't it?
So on the one hand, I don't think that the original conception of evil elves as written is necessarily racist- other than the troubling sense of "color coding" villains. Nor is it misogynistic; after all, a quick read of other modules, such as B2, shows that the default for evil humanoids was a patriarchal society*, so .... progress?
*In B2, there is a disturbing amount of women and children that need killing.
But there are obviously structural issues with presenting a black, female-led, evil race of decadent, violent, slaving (!) characters. More than I care to unpack critically. Which leads to ....
D. Critical Examination
Someone in the other thread said that the issue isn't so much the use of these tropes, but the uncritical use of these tropes. I think that's about right. There is a lot going on with the Drow; there's the issue of representation (black=evil). There's the issue of the most matriarchal society in D&D being the most prominent villains. There's the issue of, how should I put this, whips and chains and slaves and pain, oh my, that has always been lurking in the background (.... c'mon, the foreground) with the Drow. There's the problem with how Drow have been depicted in art, from the notoriously bad Keith Parkison painting to the occasionally "off" Drizzt covers.
Not to mention the growing love of cosplay, and the problematic issues of cosplay with Drow.
These are difficult conversations, and they tend to be papered over by proxy arguments over "Drizzt Fanboyism." On the one hand, I understand that Drow have traditionally been, as Gygax put it, part of the unique new mythos of AD&D, a wonderful and flavorful creation of a villain that has resonated deep within the psyche of gamers for years, such that people today still argue about keeping them as their original villains, or using them because to "play against type" is so attractive (if not ... ahem ... strangely so). The Drow are one of the most enduring creations of D&D.
On the other hand, "black skin = bad" is a trope we cannot abide by (especially in light of the other, light-skinned elves, being good), and WoTC's move to sever this trope should be welcome.
A. Chronology of the Appearance of Drow until Codification
1977: Monster Manual
1978: G3, D1, D2, D3
1980: Deities & Demigods, Q1
1981: Fiend Folio (First Codification in a Rulebook)
The very first appearance of the Drow is in the Monster Manual, and all that is written is the following:
Drow: The "Black Elves," or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users.
That's it. It is, in effect, a teaser for the later appearance in G3. As such, the first true description of the Drow occurs in G3. It's a fairly thorough writeup!
B. On the Origin of Drow
If anyone is unfamiliar with the origins of Drow, I highly recommend the following article-
Origins of the Drow in Dungeons & Dragons
This article explores the original sources that inspired one of the game's greatest antiheroes.
www.dungeoneersguildgames.com
Seriously, it is a short and great read. The reason I find it persuasive is that it avoids the most common fallacy that I see that many people fall into; attempting to "single source" the Drow. Far too often, you will see someone attempt to claim that X is "the source" for the Drow, and if you just read it, saw it, experienced it, etc., you would know that. Of course, what "X" is varies from person to person, and it is rare for something to be traced to a single, dispositive source as inspiration. We stand on the shoulders of giants, not a single, convenient and identifiable giant.
The Drow (and their associated religion, cities, cultures, and so on), like a lot Gygaxian creations, are from multiple sources.
But wait, what did Gygax himself say? Well, here's the thing; Gygax is not always the most reliable narrator of things, not even his own life. Here on this website, he said the following in 2007:
The thing is, we know that this is incorrect, because it is contradicted by .... Gygax himself. In November, 1979, much closer to the creation of the Drow, he wrote the following about the Drow:
Dragon 31.
The reason I bring up the first part is that we now see a plausible path to the creation of the Drow. The Incomplete Enchanter by de Camp and Pratt that Gygax is referring to contains the story/novella The Roaring Trumpet; and that novella is the obvious inspiration for the G series. Notably, just like in the G series, the protagonist encounters dark elves with "licorice" skin when he is in Surt's (Snurre!) volcano fortress. Suddenly, the connections, the borrowings, seem obvious. It is not a straight lifting, but it is ... a strong adaptation. We see that Gygax was creating a "unique new mythos designed especially for AD&D" by taking bits and parts of other sources that he had read in the past; a lot of Anderson, and Moorcock, and Burroughs, as he tended to do, with bits and pieces of Vance and Merritt and St. Clair.
Gygax, if nothing else, was a consummate DJ and remixer of myth.
C. Structural Issues
But wait, there's more. If you go to the original article I brought up, I would point out footnote 10. "The description of Erelhi-Cinlu as a pit of vice and decay reminds me of the state of many cities in the 1970s, such as New York. Possibly, American urban decay may have also influenced Gygax?"
The reason I bring this up is because anytime there is a fictional depiction that is made, it reflects the mindset of the times and person who made it. This is something that is both banal and profound, but is lurking beneath many conversations that we have; a typical example would be, "Well, X was just typically racist for their time, while Y was more racist than their time." (Y, by the way, is always HP Lovecraft.)
In the footnoted example, it is hard to overstate the ways in which urban decay and violence was assumed in the late 70s; such a structural issue would likely be reflected in the depiction of cities even if the author was not consciously making a point about it.
The reason I bring this up is because if you look at a lot of early depictions of Drow, you see the same problematic issues. Many illustrations of male Drow have them with short curly hair, even though that is not in the written descriptions. The female Drow are considered not attractive, but "strangely attractive," and the image of the priestess of Lolth in Deities and Demigods, well, that just speaks for itself doesn't it?
So on the one hand, I don't think that the original conception of evil elves as written is necessarily racist- other than the troubling sense of "color coding" villains. Nor is it misogynistic; after all, a quick read of other modules, such as B2, shows that the default for evil humanoids was a patriarchal society*, so .... progress?
*In B2, there is a disturbing amount of women and children that need killing.
But there are obviously structural issues with presenting a black, female-led, evil race of decadent, violent, slaving (!) characters. More than I care to unpack critically. Which leads to ....
D. Critical Examination
Someone in the other thread said that the issue isn't so much the use of these tropes, but the uncritical use of these tropes. I think that's about right. There is a lot going on with the Drow; there's the issue of representation (black=evil). There's the issue of the most matriarchal society in D&D being the most prominent villains. There's the issue of, how should I put this, whips and chains and slaves and pain, oh my, that has always been lurking in the background (.... c'mon, the foreground) with the Drow. There's the problem with how Drow have been depicted in art, from the notoriously bad Keith Parkison painting to the occasionally "off" Drizzt covers.
Not to mention the growing love of cosplay, and the problematic issues of cosplay with Drow.
These are difficult conversations, and they tend to be papered over by proxy arguments over "Drizzt Fanboyism." On the one hand, I understand that Drow have traditionally been, as Gygax put it, part of the unique new mythos of AD&D, a wonderful and flavorful creation of a villain that has resonated deep within the psyche of gamers for years, such that people today still argue about keeping them as their original villains, or using them because to "play against type" is so attractive (if not ... ahem ... strangely so). The Drow are one of the most enduring creations of D&D.
On the other hand, "black skin = bad" is a trope we cannot abide by (especially in light of the other, light-skinned elves, being good), and WoTC's move to sever this trope should be welcome.
