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

[lkj]

Yes, I know, #notalldrow. The fact that exceptions exist to the general rule that drow are evil didn’t fix the problems with drow before the addition of Lorendrow and Aevendrow, it doesn’t fix it now.

I thought the problem was the idea that an entire race is inherently evil. There are obviously multiple ways to solve that-- e.g., a) alter existing lore about drow society to make that society more nuanced or b) create other drow societies that implicitly show that drow are not inherently evil.

I don't have a strong opinion about which approach is better. (I would probably prefer more nuanced drow society as I think it would be more interesting, but I also see the value in keeping some of the scariest villains in D&D as villainous as possible). But I think either approach does in fact fix the main problem that WotC was identifying-- representing an entire people as inherently evil or lesser in a way that is reminiscent of the way real world racism has treated some peoples in the past. Putting the 'evil' in the culture (via an evil goddess) rather than in the people themselves.

I suspect you are referring to other issues that hadn't occurred to me. So I'm curious.

AD

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I like the idea that there was a secret Drow group all this time, even if they were hidden away from the rest of the Realms.

I agree, small enclaves under the glacier of Sossal, isolated by their warring against the demonbinders of Narfell, or hidden groups of drows in the jungles of Samarach, caught between the creeping zombie hordes of Chuult and the Loviatar-worshipping drow theocracy of Dembrath is a pretty fun concept that give some space for players who love the drows but dont feel like playing a possessed murderer.

 

[Charlaquin]

I thought the problem was the idea that an entire race is inherently evil. There are obviously multiple ways to solve that-- e.g., a) alter existing lore about drow society to make that society more nuanced or b) create other drow societies that implicitly show that drow are not inherently evil.

I don't have a strong opinion about which approach is better. (I would probably prefer more nuanced drow society as I think it would be more interesting, but I also see the value in keeping some of the scariest villains in D&D as villainous as possible). But I think either approach does in fact fix the main problem that WotC was identifying-- representing an entire people as inherently evil or lesser in a way that is reminiscent of the way real world racism has treated some peoples in the past. Putting the 'evil' in the culture (via an evil goddess) rather than in the people themselves.

I suspect you are referring to other issues that hadn't occurred to me. So I'm curious.

AD

The problem with approach 2 is, Lorendrow and Aevendrow... aren’t drow. I mean, sure, they put “drow” in the name, but that doesn’t make them meaningfully different than any other non-(Unu)drow subrace. They’ve just left the always-evil elf subrace completely unchanged and created two new elf subraces that happen to share four of the same letters in their names. As if we didn’t have enough elf subraces already.

 

[lkj]

The problem with approach 2 is, Lorendrow and Aevendrow... aren’t drow. I mean, sure, they put “drow” in the name, but that doesn’t make them meaningfully different than any other non-(Unu)drow subrace. They’ve just left the always-evil elf subrace completely unchanged and created two new elf subraces that happen to share four of the same letters in their names. As if we didn’t have enough elf subraces already.

I see what you are saying. But I do think it will depend on how they present them. It wouldn't be that hard to make them substantively the same with features that swap out based on cultural heritage. It would also be quite easy to write the lore in a way that made it clear these are all of the same lineage but with different cultural histories. In the end, I think it's how they do the lore that would matter more than the mechanical interpretation of that lore.

AD

 

[Charlaquin]

I see what you are saying. But I do think it will depend on how they present them. It wouldn't be that hard to make them substantively the same with features that swap out based on cultural heritage. It would also be quite easy to write the lore in a way that made it clear these are all of the same lineage but with different cultural histories. In the end, I think it's how they do the lore that would matter more than the mechanical interpretation of that lore.

AD

Fair enough, I guess.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I like the idea that there was a secret Drow group all this time, even if they were hidden away from the rest of the Realms.

2 secret groups.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The problem with approach 2 is, Lorendrow and Aevendrow... aren’t drow. I mean, sure, they put “drow” in the name, but that doesn’t make them meaningfully different than any other non-(Unu)drow subrace. They’ve just left the always-evil elf subrace completely unchanged and created two new elf subraces that happen to share four of the same letters in their names. As if we didn’t have enough elf subraces already.

There is no always evil Drow, Drow have free will.

And complaining about how many Elven races there are in D&D has been going on for decades, its waste of energy, I except that new Elven subraces will crop up now and then.

At least its not just Elves now, 5e has tons of subraces, especially for Tiefling, heck evennTieflinngs and Aasimar have subraces now.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is no always evil Drow, Drow have free will.

Again, I’m aware #notalldrow. Exceptions that prove the rule don’t solve the problem of them being an inherently evil race - if they did, this “fix” wouldn’t even be necessary.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Well part of that is in 1st edition they WERE different subraces - Silvanesti (Gray Elves), Qualinesti (High Elves), but 5E has merged grey elves and high elves (at least mechanically).

True day - I believe it held true in 2e as well, but I'm too lazy to check - but the 5e situation being what it is creates some interesting wrinkles in the patterns.

 

[Dire Bare]

So instead of making drow culture more varied, they’re making more elf subraces? :/

Isn't that what substitutes for cultures in 5e? I realize this is all in flux with lineages and such, but was basically my understanding: subrace = different culture

Confused @Charlaquin. Subraces are cultures. We are getting two new subraces, we are getting two new drow cultures. We are not getting subraces instead of cultures, as they are one and the same. Granted, the language and structure of D&D races is problematic, but adding these two new drow cultures pushes us forward, not backwards.

Well yeah, which is part of the problem with how D&D presents races. So now instead of all drow being evil, they’re called Unudrow, and there are two new subraces of elves that also have drow in their name. Oh, and all Unudrow are still evil. That isn’t even kicking the can down the road, it’s just pointing at a pair of rocks down the road and saying “those are cans too!”

Look, I get it. Some D&D fans really don’t like change, and WotC is trying their best to look like they’re addressing problems with D&D without upsetting those people. But that isn’t going to cut it here. Race in D&D is not a problem that can be fixed without making real changes to established lore.

Yes, I know, #notalldrow. The fact that exceptions exist to the general rule that drow are evil didn’t fix the problems with drow before the addition of Lorendrow and Aevendrow, it doesn’t fix it now.

You keep replying with "Yes, #notalldrow" . . . which is dismissive of @Henadic Theologian's point . . . but we're not just talking Drizzt and a small handful of other drow, the "good drow". Menzoberranzan drow culture, the udadrow, is still problematic, but has been gaining depth and nuance for decades. The "War of the Spider Queen" novel series did a good job of telling the stories of not-evil (and not-good) drow struggling to survive in a broken society. I would certainly love if WotC tried to bring this more front-and-center for 5th Edition and make it more explicitly obvious, but there has been work done on this front.

You're right that these two new groups shift the "evil" from race/species to culture, which is still problematic, but an improvement (IMO). Well, an improvement depending on how well it's done, we'll see. I think the addition of these new drow cultures sounds fun and interesting, and helps broaden the drow race. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

There are already various drow enclaves scattered throughout the Realms who are not "Lolthsworn" . . . but are still depicted as sinister and evil, just a different flavor of sinister and evil. These two new cultures broaden that a bit.

Do udadrow, lorendrow, and aevendrow roll off the tongue well? I'm not feeling it with the names so far, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. Do these new drow cultures fix all of the problems with the drow race in D&D? Nope. Do they have to fix all of the problems to be an interesting and worthy addition to the lore? Nope (IMO). Can we have a more nuanced Menzo drow culture AND some new hidden drow cultures out there in the Realms? Sure! That's what I'd like to see!