D&D 5E Do you think they will go back to driders being a curse instead of a blessing?

[Hussar]

The specific legend of Lolth's origin as the goddess Araushnee within the Seldarine (aka the Elven pantheon) originated in FR, but that material was subsequently merged with Greyhawk sourced lore and combined in later sources. 3e overtly treated the FR and Greyhawk lore as pertaining to the same goddess, and for instance 2007's Drow of the Underdark assumes Lolth as originating as a fallen Seldarine goddess who subsequently...

So in other words they rewrote and contradicted earlier material.
[MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] you've argued at great lengths that they should never contradict established material. Why is it okay to do so now?

See, the way you feel about 4e lore is the way I largely feel about the 2e changed that were made and then extended into 3e.

Why does the lore from one edition get preference?

 

[Shemeska]

So in other words they rewrote and contradicted earlier material.
[MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] you've argued at great lengths that they should never contradict established material. Why is it okay to do so now?

See, the way you feel about 4e lore is the way I largely feel about the 2e changed that were made and then extended into 3e.

Why does the lore from one edition get preference?

No, in other words they merged lore from the two worlds that were part of the same metasetting and were talking about the same goddess. Plus, the 1e lore on Lolth isn't exactly in any way as in depth as the 2e and subsequent lore.

I see no contradiction in the 2e/3e Lolth origin mythos and her status in 1e, neither it seems did the authors of multiple other books in 2e and 3e.

 

[CM]

Here's a relevant passage from the 3e "Drow of the Underdark"

In recent years, however, this attitude has begun to shift, particularly within the current generation of up-and-coming drow. Breaking free of the shackles of tradition, and seeking advantages their forebears would never consider, these drow have taken stock of drider abilities. Their transformation might have been a punishment from lolth, but it also grants them substantial physical and mystical power. Is it possible that while Lolth was castigating an individual, she was also granting a favor to the community as a whole? That a drow who proved too weak on his own could be a workable tool for other drow strong enough to seize and wield it?

These drow have made overtures to the exiled driders, offering them an opportunity to belong once again. Obviously, they cannot regain their prior status and can never be considered the equal of true drow, but they can fill the roles of favored servants and agents, with powers and privileges greater than other non-drow in the community. The driders, of course, are greatly suspicious of this sudden shift in attitude, but a few have taken the drow up on the offer--and found it, in many cases, preferable to eking out a lone and savage existence in the wilds of the Underdark. Should this pattern continue, members of the younger generation of drow might find themselves at the head of sizable bands of driders, eagerly champing at the bit for a chance at revenge against the entrenched drow power structure that drove them out.​

I think one not-insignificant motivator for turning driders into a blessing rather than a curse was that, as a cursed freak, their novelty seems kind of wasted--you wouldn't see driders mixing with drow. Driders in a drow warband on the other hand makes things more interesting from a visual and tactical perspective, and 4e was big on visuals.

The reason I like the quote above is it's a compromise. Driderism is still a curse, but it gives a reason to see those cool drider miniatures out on the table since they're no longer necessarily societal outcasts. The individual's failure is still a benefit to the community.

 

[SkidAce]

The term of "the Seldarine" to refer to the Elven pantheon isn't FR-specific. The first use of the term (that I'm aware of) is in the non-campaign-specific 2E book Monster Mythology.

Yes, I recall this also. I believe its sitting around here in a box.

But regardless, I just gave my opinion on driders. I really don't see anything to be concerned about. Some established lore I use, some I don't.

I tell my players that. And we play on.

 

[Sunseeker]

To a home game? No, probably no difference at all. But to anyone looking to get published Dungeon, or wanting to buy or produce sourcebooks related to Lolth or Driders? Huge difference. As soon as you enshrine setting specific flavour in the core books, you cannot contradict it in later material.

I mean, good grief, look at the hue and cry when they did a few experiments to try to rebuild things like slaad or modrons. And that stuff wasn't even in the bloody core.

I gotta say, if you're running "official" material, you're running it because you think WOTC made a good thing and you like it. That's it. There is no other reason to run official material at home. If you're playing in some kind of sanctioned play, then you're not really the DM, WOTC is. They decide what the game does or does not include, and you play it because you will earn something from doing so (and it is also, hopefully fun).

At home, with no WOTC oversight and you being the be-all, end-all decider of what is or isn't in your game, get to choose how you include Lolth, if at all. I run numerous games where Drow don't exist and many others where they are simply "dark elves" and even then they may not be evil at all, but simply another variety of elf who happen to be dark blue/gray/black instead of pale/golden/silvery.

No matter how much we don't like it, there is going to be some "baggage" in Core. It's unavoidable. Short of making "Core" a dictionary of rules with no fluff, flavor or attempting to re-create everything from the past as though it were something unique and new (which will just come across as forced and will seem to have baggage anyway), and I don't think anyone wants either of those things. D&D is some 40 years old. Think of anything that's 40 or more years old. Car manufacturers have baggage, people have baggage, after 40 years, it's unavoidable.

At the end of the day, you're going to have to retool something out of the box. I doubt anyone is going to like everything. One of those "can't please everyone" sorts of situations. And as long as your game is not being run by WOTC, then you as the DM have the freedom to do so, and you should, because someone will at some point, in some game, and eventually it will be you.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I played through 30 levels of 4th Edition and was unaware of this - and I was even more unaware it was a criticism of 4e.

Ditto. I guess some people just can't help making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[Hussar]

Some baggage? Sure no problem. Carved in stone, thou must take this as holy writ never to be changed? Not so much.

 

[Sunseeker]

Some baggage? Sure no problem. Carved in stone, thou must take this as holy writ never to be changed? Not so much.

As long as you are the DM, or the DM is willing to take suggestions from the group you are part of, NOTHING is written in stone. If WOTC is running the game, expect it to the written in stone. Outside of sanctioned play, all material, from "official" setting guides to published adventures is at the mercy of the DM/group. I really don't believe that there is any part of any edition of D&D that I consider so immutable that it cannot be altered if needed/wanted.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The term of "the Seldarine" to refer to the Elven pantheon isn't FR-specific. The first use of the term (that I'm aware of) is in the non-campaign-specific 2E book Monster Mythology.

I'm too lazy to dig out my Dragon Annuals, but I thought the term was originally used in the Gods of the Elves article by Roger Moore.

 

[Hussar]

As long as you are the DM, or the DM is willing to take suggestions from the group you are part of, NOTHING is written in stone. If WOTC is running the game, expect it to the written in stone. Outside of sanctioned play, all material, from "official" setting guides to published adventures is at the mercy of the DM/group. I really don't believe that there is any part of any edition of D&D that I consider so immutable that it cannot be altered if needed/wanted.

Sure, I can change it. But, you missed my bigger point. If you want to write anything for Dungeon, or Dragon, for example, you will have to follow this canon. You will never be able to buy a product that doesn't follow this canon, which, for me, means I simply will not buy any product based on this lore. I never did before either since the lore does not interest me in the slightest.

I mean, for me, Lolth and whatnot belongs in the GDQ original series of modules. The lore that is being talked about here contradicts those modules, which means it's largely useless for me. The fact that it in no way interests me doesn't help either. To me, changing the lore means they might gain me as a customer. But, because any changes are verboten, I simply won't buy the products.

Then again, I'm in a minority here, I think, since Drow and whatnot material is very popular. They do have to go with what sells.

I just find it frustrating.