D&D 5E New Drow cultures coming in Starlight Enclave, the Lorendrow and the Aevendrow

[Zardnaar]

Heh be funny if 6 is radically different, flops/underperforms and 7E is a return to "ye olde D&D".

Every odd numbered D&D after 1E has been marketed as a return to form.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh no, we're not talking about alignment. We can't have "evil" cultures. Slave holding cultures? No. Warmongering cultures? No. Expansionist cultures? Nope. Demon worshipping theocratic cultures?

This is a complete misrepresentation. You can still have cultures which support things we find abhorrent. You simply remove the convenient "Evil" label, which is really a synonym for "Other", not "Wrong".

This completely solves the problem of "are people who live in a dictatorship evil?". Because there IS NO EVIL. It doesn't make what they do right, it makes them people who act as they do for reasons too complex to simply be labelled "Good" or "Evil".

And to pick up on one of your examples, why do you think a "demon worshipping theocratic culture" is wrong? Shouldn't people be free to worship whoever they please? Or is your objection to theocracy in general? If so, what makes it any worse than democracy (i.e. government by the best liars)?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh no, we're not talking about alignment. We can't have "evil" cultures. Slave holding cultures?

Can't have clave holding cultures?

Have you met the Underdark? 'Slaver' is pretty much the only crayon in the freaking region's art box.

Not only that, but since mid-3e, 'liberated slave' is also a near-prerequisite for being a player race.

How can you possibly say slaver-states 'aren't allowed' when it's basically the majority economic system of the default setting?

 

[Galandris]

The new Critical Role setting book, Tal'Dorei Reborn, is being published by their own company, Darrington Press.

Tal'Dorei has goblins suffering a Curse of Strife by which Bane speaks in their minds and prod them toward Neutral Evil, while Orcs are cursed by Gruumsh and are all merciless killers to the point that people don't even believe in legends about good orcs. I am not sure customers nowadays would tolerate entertainment of this nature. Critical Role success was in 2017, things were different back then. Given the changes initiated by WotC, I don't see them going this way.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Tal'Dorei has goblins suffering a Curse of Strife by which Bane speaks in their minds and prod them toward Neutral Evil, while Orcs are cursed by Gruumsh and are all merciless killer to the point that people don't even believe in legends about good orcs. I am not sure people nowadays would tolerate entertainment of this nature.

The former is still true as of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (though means for goblins to either have never been affected by the Curse of Strife or to be freed from it are presented), but in that book the latter is retconned as being false, but still believed by many (orc and otherwise).

Here's a few excerpts from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount

For long years, orcs were feared as mindless abominations, drawn to slaughter like moths to a flame. Stories tell of how the blood of the Ruiner flows in the veins of all orcs, driving them to commit acts of terrible violence and anger.

Orcs and half-orcs do feel a certain pull toward violence and anger. But the simple truth is that there is no curse of ruin. No supernatural power drives orcs to kill. Rather, they are simply victims of the same selfish, violent impulses that corrupt all mortal beings.

Orcs are now renowned as some of the Dwendalian Empire's most accomplished soldiers, though many folk still fear the ancient legends of the curse of ruin. Half-orcs are proud of their heritage, though many are wary of the wrathful curse that supposedly drives them to violence. Other half-orcs reject the idea that they are destined for violence, and rely on faith, meditation, and friendship to live peaceful lives.

The city of Othe has a significant half-orc population. The city has long attracted orcs and half-orcs who believe that the curse of ruin has caused them to lash out at those they love.

Most orcs in Xhorhas have human or drow blood. In the culture of the Xhorhasian nomads, the union of orcs and goblinkin is strictly taboo, for the clans' elders fear the uncontrolled madness of a soul afflicted by both Gruumsh's curse of ruin and Bane's curse of strife.

The last one is particularly interesting, as the book clearly states that the Curse of Ruin does not exist, while the Curse of Strife does (though goblinkin born within the proximity of a Luxon Beacon are never affected by it, and the Vinewreathed Enclave are goblinkin worshipers of the goddess of nature who make it their mission to free goblins from the Curse of Strife). The recently concluded Exandria Unlimited also included a new locale that had peaceful goblin citizens, though a large society of goblinkin who follow Bane live to the south of them.

One of the authors of Tal'Dorei Reborn, James Haeck, has also intimated that the upcoming book will do a lot to change how orcs and goblins are described.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

All that said, one of the heroes of first season of Critical Role, Scanlan Shorthalt, had "goblins killed my family" as part of his background. In the very first episode of the show Scanlan expresses multiple times that he hates goblins. Late in the first episode, even after Matt Mercer explains that the goblins the party are facing seem to be terrified and trying to flee from something else, Scanlan tells fellow party member Grog to "kill them anyway." In the second campaign the same player, Sam Riegal, plays a goblin named Nott, but she is eventually revealed to have once been a halfling who was drowned by murderous goblins while her family escaped, reincarnated by a hag as a goblin herself to serve the goblin tribe as a torturer's assistant.

So the same player had his first character's background as "my family was killed by evil goblins", and the second character's background as "I was killed by evil goblins while saving my family, was reincarnated as one, and was forced to do evil things in their tribe".

 

[Remathilis]

This is a complete misrepresentation. You can still have cultures which support things we find abhorrent. You simply remove the convenient "Evil" label, which is really a synonym for "Other", not "Wrong".

This completely solves the problem of "are people who live in a dictatorship evil?". Because there IS NO EVIL. It doesn't make what they do right, it makes them people who act as they do for reasons too complex to simply be labelled "Good" or "Evil".

And to pick up on one of your examples, why do you think a "demon worshipping theocratic culture" is wrong? Shouldn't people be free to worship whoever they please? Or is your objection to theocracy in general? If so, what makes it any worse than democracy (i.e. government by the best liars)?

No, evil is a synonym for evil. As in "this culture engages or condones one or more things that most people consider abhorrent. What people here apparently no longer accept is that a large group of people would engage in such actions willingly, which to me flies in the face of plenty of historical evidence. How many people accepted Nazism even if they weren't part of the party? How many joined the KKK or picnicked to watch lynchings? How many today defend police brutality? How many have joined cults and allowed the abuse done by thier leader?

To go to the example you picked out: the demon worshipping theocratic culture is bad because THEY WORSHIP DEMONS. This isn't modern Church of Satan which is a pisstake at other religions, they are active in serving the literal embodiment of evil and spreading misery and destruction. Is that not evil, or are we back to "demons aren't evil either" territory?

The point of fantasy is explore things that couldn't happen. Maybe a culture in reality can't be made of a majority of demon worshipping slavers, but reality doesn't allow a dragon to fly and breathe fire either. And as a game, a certain level of abstraction is needed keep the hundreds of sentient beings separate. I don't like the fact you can't have a Mordor, a Thay, a Galactic Empire, a Menzoberranzan or other "this is a bad place" locations. I guess the villagers of Barovia are going to start Occupy Castle Ravenloft soon.

I was willing to accept the "not all drow are evil" , but I'm not accepting the "actually, very few drow are evil" either. At that point, dump the drow entirely and just allow black/grey/purple as a standard elf skin color choice and be done with it.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

To go to the example you picked out: the demon worshipping theocratic culture is bad because THEY WORSHIP DEMONS. This isn't modern Church of Satan which is a pisstake at other religions, they are active in serving the literal embodiment of evil and spreading misery and destruction. Is that not evil, or are we back to "demons aren't evil either" territory?

In the real world, many religions were demonized by Christians as being the work of demons. The reason that devils in D&D are often horned and sometimes have goat-like legs is itself due to the demonization of the goat-like god Pan. This demonization of non-Christian religions in our history is probably a reason why some people find it uncomfortable in fantasy, even if in D&D and other games and media actual, for real demons and evil gods that command atrocities exist.

That said, at least one of these demonized religions also commonly practiced human sacrifice to appease their gods, believing these sacrifices were necessary to preserve the world itself (though the scale of this practice and who the sacrificial victims were seems to be still contested). To be fair, the people demonizing this religion also believed in one in which the chief deity was said to have previously both personally committed and commanded of its followers genocide, as well as to reject foreign cultural influences as evil, which led to centuries of evil acts by its followers in the form of holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversion, etc. Of course, these guys would argue that what they were doing was necessary to keep people from being tricked by evil forces into damnation.

 

[Remathilis]

In the real world, many religions were demonized by Christians as being the work of demons. The reason that devils in D&D are often horned and sometimes have goat-like legs is itself due to the demonization of the goat-like god Pan. This demonization of non-Christian religions in our history is probably a reason why some people find it uncomfortable in fantasy, even if in D&D and other games and media actual, for real demons and evil gods that command atrocities exist.

So now we're heading back to 2e with tanar'ri and baatezu? Or maybe back to BECMI where they're are no outer-planar beings at all?

This has veered wildly from the topic of new Drow cultures, so I'll concede that drow can now longer be evil and demons are misunderstood and go upon my day.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So now we're heading back to 2e with tanar'ri and baatezu? Or maybe back to BECMI where they're are no outer-planar beings at all?

I don't believe I've seen many people advocating for that, so no.

My point is more along the lines that once two-dimensional evil is considered unacceptable for fantasy one is led towards the real world's many complicated and confusing shades of grey, where many people can do evil things in large scale for reasons they believe to be good due to religious or philosophical reasons. I'm not necessarily opposed to this and enjoy using some shades of gray (for example, would a devil-worshiping Lawful Evil civilization in the Underdark that fights hordes of demons and aberrations be for the greater good?), but it does make things more complicated for everyone.

 

[Galandris]

To go to the example you picked out: the demon worshipping theocratic culture is bad because THEY WORSHIP DEMONS. This isn't modern Church of Satan which is a pisstake at other religions, they are active in serving the literal embodiment of evil and spreading misery and destruction. Is that not evil, or are we back to "demons aren't evil either" territory?

I think it's close, but not really that. In real life, people having a stance in religion are often accused of holding evil beliefs (Christan by pagans during the Roman Empire, then Pagans by Christians during the same Roman Empire, Catholics by Protestants and the other way round, Atheists nowadays in countries were a religious orientation is mandatory/socially expected, Muslims nowadays by association with Al-Qaeda terrorists and non-Muslim by said Al-Qaeda terrorists). If you create a setting were it is true and justified to hunt and kill people on the basis of their religious beliefs, because, in setting, they have really chosen to worship an evil entity seeking to make everyone miserable, for example the God of Violent Murder, you create a setting were one of the most common source of prejudice on real earth is true and justified. Some people no longer want that. You could say they are justified, in setting, to do that, but some don't wan't to even consider an in-setting argument and a strong distanciation between entertainment and real-life endorsing of a belief. (Unless I am mistaken, on this very board there is a member that is offended by the Wall of the Faithless and the fact that it is objectively right to be theist in FR, because he was discriminated against on the basis of his atheism: it's easy to see why he wouldn't want to play in the FR).

Same with racism: Black People are the subject of real-world racism, so if in your setting, you have a black-skinned race that is evil, either because they are genetically evil, but even if they are just part of your regular Nazi society, to the point that it is justified to kill them based on their skin color (hey, look, a dark elf, he's probably supporting Menzoberranzan, no need to ask him, let's kill him), it is distasteful to some. Because you justified killing people based on skin color (even if the color you chose was red or blue or something equally fantastic). Which is wrong in real life, and this make it wrong in all their entertainment, because they choose not to draw the limit at this level.

Having "most X" supporters of an evil society doesn't solve the problem in this case, because "Most X are bad people, except John, my X friend, which is fine" is a very common defense used by racist to "prove" that they are not racists. "Most Menzoberranzan are bad apples" is very much like "Most Mexicans/Germans/Americans/Iraqi/any other nationality are bad apples": not a line of thought some would want in their entertainment. And I am not saying that anyone having a setting where most people support a morally reprehensible regime is morally at fault himself, I am just describing that not everyone draws the line of acceptability at a different point.

Edit: to clarify that the Mexicans were just an example, not that there are similarity between drow culture and mexican culture.

Everyone draws a limit. I haven't seen James Bond movies being criticized because the hero break the speed limit during chase scenes, while smoking and drinking heroes have gone the way of the dodo in Hollywood. Sometimes the limit is difficult to establish: should the need to protect children from porn really necessitate the removing of a teacher's Facebook account mentionning Gustave Courbet's L'origine du Monde? Both sides of the Atlantic ruled differently on this question. The goal of any company is to improve its market share and try to provide entertainment compatible with the limit of most customers, alienating the less potential people, not making moral choices by itself.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Having "most X" supporters of an evil society doesn't solve the problem in this case, because "Most X are bad people, except John, my X friend, which is fine" is a very common defense used by racist to "prove" that they are not racists. "Most Menzoberranzan are bad apples" is very much like "Most Mexicans are bad apples": not a line of thought some would want in their entertainment.

Why are they being likened to Mexicans here, though? The Lolthites and their culture are a slaving oppressor class with a devotion to their oppressive god in their homelands rather than the marginalized. If anything the Lolthite drow are more akin to white supremacists.

 

[Alzrius]

Or maybe back to BECMI where they're are no outer-planar beings at all?

That's an oversimplification; if you look at the "Fiends, Lesser" entry on page 108 of Book One: Codex of the Immortals of Wrath of the Immortals (affiliate link), they're quite clearly the classic demons/tanar'ri of AD&D under different names (as the illustration makes clear):

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, evil is a synonym for evil. As in "this culture engages or condones one or more things that most people consider abhorrent.

No evil is "I don't approve of this". Like "women leaving the home and getting jobs is evil". It changes with time and culture.

What people here apparently no longer accept is that a large group of people would engage in such actions willingly, which to me flies in the face of plenty of historical evidence.

My fairly recent ancestors (about 2-3 generations back) benefited from the British Empire and the transatlantic slave trade. I think it would be arrogant in the extreme for me to claim to be a superior being because I do not approve of those things. Never mind being justified in killing them in the event that I time-travelled into the past.

How many people accepted Nazism even if they weren't part of the party? How many joined the KKK or picnicked to watch lynchings? How many today defend police brutality? How many have joined cults and allowed the abuse done by thier leader?

Lots: and they are JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.

To go to the example you picked out: the demon worshipping theocratic culture is bad because THEY WORSHIP DEMONS.

God, demon, what does it matter what they call the imaginary being they worship?

This isn't modern Church of Satan which is a pisstake at other religions, they are active in serving the literal embodiment of evil and spreading misery and destruction. Is that not evil, or are we back to "demons aren't evil either" territory?

Then what they are doing wrong is "spreading misery and destruction", who they worship and how they are governed is irrelevant.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

God, demon, what does it matter what they call the imaginary being they worship?

Then what they are doing wrong is "spreading misery and destruction", who they worship and how they are governed is irrelevant.

I'm assuming you don't use the default lore on demons such as Orcus and Demogorgon and such.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm assuming you don't use the default lore on demons such as Orcus and Demogorgon and such.

If it's not 5e it's not canon.

 

[Alzrius]

If it's not 5e it's not canon.

I thought Out of the Abyss took care of that?

 

[Remathilis]

I'm assuming you don't use the default lore on demons such as Orcus and Demogorgon and such.

I'm assuming they don't believe that the "demon" section in the Monster Manual is real. Apparently, they all disappeared, along with Gods and other outer planar beings while I wasn't looking.

 

[Remathilis]

Because you justified killing people based on skin color (even if the color you chose was red or blue or something equally fantastic). Which is wrong in real life, and this make it wrong in all their entertainment, because they choose not to draw the limit at this level.

KILLING in real life is wrong, legally except in self-defense and arguably morally in all cases. However, the game is predicated on engaging foes in combat, which makes your typical PC no better than the monsters they face. The game itself (and indeed, many games from war games RPGs to modern video games) only function with the justification that violence against the opposing side is warraned and necessary.

In all honesty, your typical adventuring party are a mercenary group operating outside international law and engaging in war crimes.

 

[Demetrios1453]

That's an oversimplification; if you look at the "Fiends, Lesser" entry on page 108 of Book One: Codex of the Immortals of Wrath of the Immortals (affiliate link), they're quite clearly the classic demons/tanar'ri of AD&D under different names (as the illustration makes clear):

LOL while all the rest of them are trying to look tough, that hezrou (or whatever it was called in the book in question) looks like a 5-year-old in his school picture...