Duergar: I'm shocked - a flavour change I really like!

[Celebrim]

I find this change to be the opposite of shocking.

I keep returning to my 'conversion' of Orc and Pie for 4E from months ago.

In 4E the Orc is to be replaced by a fiendish demon baker and his host of demonic minions. Because, you know, that's cooler.

 

[broghammerj]

Great more devil infused creatures! This seems very unoriginal. So unoriginal it's about as unexciting as evil version of the core race with the same stats. Do Duergar really need revamping? Why not come up with entirely new races to stock the MM? Wouldn't the veterans prefer something totally new anyway? Now if I run a game with Duergar I have to contend with players complaining that these aren't "real" Duergar. Create some new subterranean devil race that no one has ever seen.

 

[Mighty Veil]

A demonlord also makes a more viable longterm BBEG .

Yes. And with deities said to be killable in 4e...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Weaksauce all around. Can there not be an evil race without outsider tampering? Arent there just cultures that are generally s? If dwarves were former giant slaves, why not just make the duergar the clan that was left behind, the last to be freed, and who turned their backs on their fellow dwarves who they feel abandoned them? No supernatural explanation needed for a group of insular greedy folks other than they were screwed over by fate and their fellow beardies. I'm really viewing this as unnecessary, particularly coupled with the whole tiefling fluff.

Derro and duergar are 12 gallons of awesome crammed in a 10 gallon hat. Why futz with what works?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If memory serves, derro are the insane offspring of dwarves and humans. Or at least thus was their origin; I suspect they now breed true (unlike the Darksun muls, who, though human-dwarf hybrids, are sterile).

I really liked their Greyhawk fluff, as a genetic experiment/servitor race by the scarlet brotherhood.

 

[Glyfair]

I don't really remember the last time I saw an original explanation for why some D&D race or nation was almost entirely evil - it's always the same stuff: Children of an evil god, corrupted by outsiders, exiled for their sins and forced to live someplace that made them twisted and vengeful, ruled by necromancers...

I don't remember the last time I saw something totally original in an RPG. As the quote says "there is nothing new under the sun." Everything that's done someone will be able to point out something that was similar.

I've stopped looking for "new." Nine times out of ten when something tries to be "original" it ends up being just a mess as they try not to trod on any ground laid before. Instead I look for good. Something done well is what I want. It might not be what I want, and I might not use it, but I appreciate the quality (for example, Pathfinder is a current RPG example at this time for me) and effort.

Is "change for changes sake" a worry? Why care about something I really can only guess at. If it works, I don't care whether they are changing it just because they want to. If it doesn't work, I don't really care whether there is a solid reason for the change, try something else.

Is this quality? I don't have enough information at this time. It does hold potential, though.

 

[Orius]

Doesn't really do it for me. IMC, I'd already made duergar a sort of downtrodden, lower class of dwarves who resent the higher classes and revolted. They kind of come off as commie dwarves.

Maybe the devil-tainting explains the various duergar powers better, but it's kind of a flavor I'm not interested in.

 

[Gloombunny]

Weaksauce all around. Can there not be an evil race without outsider tampering? Arent there just cultures that are generally s? If dwarves were former giant slaves, why not just make the duergar the clan that was left behind, the last to be freed, and who turned their backs on their fellow dwarves who they feel abandoned them? No supernatural explanation needed for a group of insular greedy folks other than they were screwed over by fate and their fellow beardies. I'm really viewing this as unnecessary, particularly coupled with the whole tiefling fluff.

Why would they be a different race, going with your background? Wouldn't they just be a particularly xenophobic dwarven culture?

 

[ivocaliban]

Funny thing actually, I've always thought they were like that... corrupted by devils or demons after digging too deep for greed.

Same here. The Drow were fallen CE elves who dabbled with demons; Duergar were fallen LE dwarves who dealt with devils. They're pretty much the yin to the yang of their above ground counterparts. The flaws of the respective races run amuck (Hubris for the Elves/Drow; Greed for the Dwarves/Duergar).

The two main things that differentiate Drow and Duergar:

1) Their cultural heritage
2) Their opposite positions on the Law-Chaos axis


Of course, this all changed with 3e as Drow became NE, but that didn't change how I viewed the two races.

Anyway, this concept doesn't seem all the new and exciting to me, but I do like it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Let's see where I'd take the Duergar, if I had my druthers...

KM, you rock.

Where's that Adversary/Ally/Anybody format from? I know I've seen it before ...

I like the idea though that the Duergar you describe really are "just Dwarves, with cultural differences." I like the idea that "good" Hill or Mountain Dwarf can become a Duergar if he succumbs to the darker half of the Dwarven spirit. There are so many better stories you can tell if their nature is driven not by a defect in their genes, but in their souls.

The stealth, enlarge and invis can be explained with just a little multi-classing. They need to take levels in wizard anyway, as part of their craftsmanship. There's more than steel in Duergar blades.