D&D 5E Tasha's Drow Art and the Future of Their Depictions in D&D

[Laurefindel]

Fun fact: I know this was meant to target the Drows specifically, but if you read about the Crown Wars in FR, being evil pricks is mostly what the entire elven race is all about.

I mean, having so much civil wars in a short time that your entire species is on the brink of annihilations, worshipping a mercurial god who punishes those who disagree with its vision (which tends to change radically pretty quickly) and need the 3 main goddesses of its pantheon to merge into a single being to please it (I know, its a little more complicated than that, but still).

In perspective, the orcs look like the good guys

Indeed!

 

[Necrozius]

I like the old mustachioed Drow. Reminds me of Celts or Gauls.

And imagine if they were more like Romulans as a society, with a caste of "Reman" like sub type that look like the subterranean creatures in the Descent movies or those creatures in the Elder Scrolls.

Ooh and the Drow could all have chameleon or octopi-like skin that can change color. Hence becoming "black" when they want to hide in the dark of the Underdark. Or light up when they want to be noticed (or to draw in potential victims). You know, like deep sea creatures.

* runs off to write up a campaign setting *

 

[Scott Christian]

A bold step into the late 1980's.

I too wish they abandoned the inherently evil deal and engaged in better worldbuilding, but dropping the literal 'coal black' drow skin is a good thing.

I am always curious to hear this, the inherently evil, not skin tone.

I find it hard to understand, unless one applies very specific modern day connections to societal infrastructure, information dissemination, etc. that people have a hard time with this.

Here are some specific examples:

• A culture can feel empowered to own slaves
• A culture can worship something that leads to morally repugnant outcomes
• A culture can believe their "race" is better than others
• A culture can subjugate a class of people or group of people within its own culture
• A culture can apply different rules for genders which leads to unfair outcomes

Note, I am not saying that everyone wants to see this in their D&D game. Many don't, and that is fine. But, to insist that an entire culture before the age of cameras and information dissemination; one with closed and secretive borders that harbors suspicion of all outsiders that are believed to be below them can't be primarily evil, or at least commit evil acts daily seems a stretch.

All of history is full of societies that have done these things. I imagine with a spider goddess actually showing up from time to time, it might even be more prevalent. Morals and norms change with each generation. And each time they do, the next generation asks: "How did those people do that?" It's normal. A hundred years from now they may look back at people eating bacon and pig farms and just think we were all monsters, not different than serial killers.

The point is, closed societies can do atrocious things. It doesn't mean they don't care about their child or worry when their father gets sick. It doesn't mean they can't have a pet cat or dog and enjoy the love it gives. It doesn't mean they are monsters all the time. It also doesn't mean there isn't a small branch that opposes one of their atrocities. But, it does mean they see their amoral act as normal, where outsiders may not.

I don't know. I just feel like people sometimes sequester the individual as being archetypical of a society, when in fact, it is anything but. Norms, morals, and mores exist, and they should exist in fantasy worldbuilding too. If people just want an individual or a branch different, then they can write them in, no problem.

 

[Azzy]

I am always curious to hear this, the inherently evil, not skin tone.

I find it hard to understand, unless one applies very specific modern day connections to societal infrastructure, information dissemination, etc. that people have a hard time with this.

Here are some specific examples:

• A culture can feel empowered to own slaves
• A culture can worship something that leads to morally repugnant outcomes
• A culture can believe their "race" is better than others
• A culture can subjugate a class of people or group of people within its own culture
• A culture can apply different rules for genders which leads to unfair outcomes

Note, I am not saying that everyone wants to see this in their D&D game. Many don't, and that is fine. But, to insist that an entire culture before the age of cameras and information dissemination; one with closed and secretive borders that harbors suspicion of all outsiders that are believed to be below them can't be primarily evil, or at least commit evil acts daily seems a stretch.

All of history is full of societies that have done these things. I imagine with a spider goddess actually showing up from time to time, it might even be more prevalent. Morals and norms change with each generation. And each time they do, the next generation asks: "How did those people do that?" It's normal. A hundred years from now they may look back at people eating bacon and pig farms and just think we were all monsters, not different than serial killers.

The point is, closed societies can do atrocious things. It doesn't mean they don't care about their child or worry when their father gets sick. It doesn't mean they can't have a pet cat or dog and enjoy the love it gives. It doesn't mean they are monsters all the time. It also doesn't mean there isn't a small branch that opposes one of their atrocities. But, it does mean they see their amoral act as normal, where outsiders may not.

I don't know. I just feel like people sometimes sequester the individual as being archetypical of a society, when in fact, it is anything but. Norms, morals, and mores exist, and they should exist in fantasy worldbuilding too. If people just want an individual or a branch different, then they can write them in, no problem.

But none of this is an argument for a race being inherently evil. Sure, a culture that worships demons likely produces evil indivuals more than anything else—but that's the culture that's inherently evil, not the race. If the same race comes from a culture that worships a god of peace, love, and justice, they'd produce more goodly individuals than not.

At least theoretically (most real world cultures practice religions that espouse goodliness, but those same cultures are always a mixed bag of morally good and bad individuals—so individuals will more likely run that gamut of the moral spectrum regardless of whether their culture is "good" or "evil").

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am always curious to hear this, the inherently evil, not skin tone.

I find it hard to understand, unless one applies very specific modern day connections to societal infrastructure, information dissemination, etc. that people have a hard time with this.

Here are some specific examples:

• A culture can feel empowered to own slaves
• A culture can worship something that leads to morally repugnant outcomes
• A culture can believe their "race" is better than others
• A culture can subjugate a class of people or group of people within its own culture
• A culture can apply different rules for genders which leads to unfair outcomes

Note, I am not saying that everyone wants to see this in their D&D game. Many don't, and that is fine. But, to insist that an entire culture before the age of cameras and information dissemination; one with closed and secretive borders that harbors suspicion of all outsiders that are believed to be below them can't be primarily evil, or at least commit evil acts daily seems a stretch.

All of history is full of societies that have done these things. I imagine with a spider goddess actually showing up from time to time, it might even be more prevalent. Morals and norms change with each generation. And each time they do, the next generation asks: "How did those people do that?" It's normal. A hundred years from now they may look back at people eating bacon and pig farms and just think we were all monsters, not different than serial killers.

The point is, closed societies can do atrocious things. It doesn't mean they don't care about their child or worry when their father gets sick. It doesn't mean they can't have a pet cat or dog and enjoy the love it gives. It doesn't mean they are monsters all the time. It also doesn't mean there isn't a small branch that opposes one of their atrocities. But, it does mean they see their amoral act as normal, where outsiders may not.

I don't know. I just feel like people sometimes sequester the individual as being archetypical of a society, when in fact, it is anything but. Norms, morals, and mores exist, and they should exist in fantasy worldbuilding too. If people just want an individual or a branch different, then they can write them in, no problem.

The thing is, most historical real life human cultures are guilty of all or most of the things you mention, yet we generally do not label all pre-modern human societies as 'evil.' Such childish and cartoony labels really serve no other purpose than dumb down the discourse.

And yes, I certainly would have favoured making the drow believable and ideologically diverse people instead of just whitewashing them and still leaving the offensive connection of morality and appearance. You can still tell the 'bad elves' apart from the 'good elves' by the colour of their skin, and that the colour now is grey instead of black really isn't a massive improvement.

 

[Oofta]

I have a reclusive group of gray elves loosely based on the Grayhawk elves of the same name. However, they don't really follow the elven gods, but instead base their lives on logic and reason. Basically they're Vulcans, except with silvery white hair.

I had introduced them long ago, and decided to add some more lore. So when I think Vulcans, I also think Romulans. The fantasy elf version of Romulans? Drow of course. So my gray elves are now a splinter group of drow that reject Lollth but still feel her influence to a degree, hence the focus on logic, reason, control of emotions. Also explains the silvery white hair.

The skin color? Gray elves are quite pale, especially compared to some other elven groups. So the black (probably dark gray in future depictions) skin of drow is now two-fold. First, camouflage vs darkvision, but also a reaction to the radiation of the underdark*. Spend enough time aboveground (Lollth doesn't have as much influence there so true believers won't live there) and the protective pigments slowly fade away and the hair becomes slightly less bleached so it gains it's silvery tones.

Some drow still break away from the influence of Lollth and join the gray elves, while some gray elves reject logic and reason and want to return to the underdark. The grey skin color being in part because of the radiation of the underdark also explains duergar and svirfneblin coloration.

*The underdark in my campaign world is really Svartleheim, a different world that is primarily accessed from portals deep underground.

 

[Alzrius]

But none of this is an argument for a race being inherently evil.

I haven't read the entire thread, but notwithstanding the use of shorthand (i.e. saying that most drow are evil without specifying why), is anyone arguing for that? Because non-evil drow have been around for decades. The Forgotten Realms have Drizzt Do'Urden, Liriel Baenre, and the religion of Eilistraee. Greyhawk has Tysiln San, the Chaotic Neutral drow from WG12 Vale of the Mage (affiliate link). Eberron has non-evil drow as a matter of course, or so I'm given to understand. So the whole "they're culturally evil, rather than racially evil" thing seems like a non-issue.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I haven't read the entire thread, but notwithstanding the use of shorthand (i.e. saying that most drow are evil without specifying why), is anyone arguing for that? Because non-evil drow have been around for decades. The Forgotten Realms have Drizzt Do'Urden, Liriel Baenre, and the religion of Eilistraee. Greyhawk has Tysiln San, the Chaotic Neutral drow from WG12 Vale of the Mage (affiliate link). Eberron has non-evil drow as a matter of course, or so I'm given to understand. So the whole "they're culturally evil, rather than racially evil" thing seems like a non-issue.

IIRC the choice to play a Drow PC (outcast/other backstory) has been available since Unearthed Arcana, 1985, though I could be mistaken.

 

[billd91]

The thing is, most historical real life human cultures are guilty of all or most of the things you mention, yet we generally do not label all pre-modern human societies as 'evil.' Such childish and cartoony labels really serve no other purpose than dumb down the discourse.

Except we kinda do. All the time on the internet, and not within the context of gaming at all, just within the context of social movements and values.
And within the context of gaming, particularly alignment, I’ve seen debates on other boards where this literally comes up.

 

[Scott Christian]

But none of this is an argument for a race being inherently evil. Sure, a culture that worships demons likely produces evil indivuals more than anything else—but that's the culture that's inherently evil, not the race. If the same race comes from a culture that worships a god of peace, love, and justice, they'd produce more goodly individuals than not.

At least theoretically (most real world cultures practice religions that espouse goodliness, but those same cultures are always a mixed bag of morally good and bad individuals—so individuals will more likely run that gamut of the moral spectrum regardless of whether their culture is "good" or "evil").

And this is kind of my point. You choose to play a fantasy game that has an entire chapter (one of the first in fact that players read) describing race and culture in combination with one another. You choose to to play a fantasy game where thousands of pages of lore have been written about this one group, and their wrongdoings. And as others have pointed out, a lot of lore exists of outliers and other members of said group that exist elsewhere that are not amoral. You choose to play a game that has an alignment system.
And that is the part I do not understand. People are upset by drow being portrayed as evil, wanting the individual approach to trump the cultural approach. Yet, that is not how morals exist, especially when creating a fantasy society. And people are upset about the race being evil, yet they choose to play a system that makes character creation focus on race and many tables focus on alignment.

The thing is, most historical real life human cultures are guilty of all or most of the things you mention, yet we generally do not label all pre-modern human societies as 'evil.' Such childish and cartoony labels really serve no other purpose than dumb down the discourse.

And yes, I certainly would have favoured making the drow believable and ideologically diverse people instead of just whitewashing them and still leaving the offensive connection of morality and appearance. You can still tell the 'bad elves' apart from the 'good elves' by the colour of their skin, and that the colour now is grey instead of black really isn't massive improvement.

I agree with you about skin tone. I do not agree with you about culture. If you could turn back time, and make every race embedded with all the skin tones of the human race, where every society of dwarves had heterogenous mixes of skin color, and all drow had the same mix, and all elves had the same mix, etc. would the drow that live in Menzoberranzan still be an issue? Are you opposed to all orcs in Middle Earth being evil?
Making people ideological diverse is fine. But for the sake of culture and what a society considers moral and amoral, it is a group census. And that group census chooses what is right and wrong. And some of the things they choose may be evil, especially in a fantasy world where a spider demon goddess grants incredible powers to her followers.
Like I said, the skin tone is, and always has been ridiculous. It should have been corrected in the second it started. But to insist a culture can't be labelled evil because of the things they do seems to dumb down the discourse much more than a label ever could. It is to deny morality exists within a culture.