The Shadar-kai are NEVER going to be the next drow

I like the Shadar-Kai and have used 'em in my 3.5 games. I generally picture them as angsty, obsessed with morbid art, and spiteful. The one quotes a lot of Baudelaire when he talks. The other sounds like Sylvia Plath.

I think the WotC article highlights a good way to portray them--violent, irritatingly goth/emo, and just morally ambiguous enough to make them acceptable allies of convenience.

JoeGKushner said:
But in order to make them useful, as well as things like the Ethergaunt and other neat races from the Fiend Folio, they have to do something in some type of mega adventure that is good and is looked at as a shared experience much like the old drow adventurers were. They need novels and other support. Some game talk isn't going to do it. They need "faces".

And this, of course, will prompt some to lament that WotC is "force feeding" us the Shadar-Kai."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If they want to get anywhere, they need a new name. Shadar-kai is so "bad" fantasy. I think the only thing worse is if there was an apostrophe in there.
 

Woas said:
If they want to get anywhere, they need a new name. Shadar-kai is so "bad" fantasy. I think the only thing worse is if there was an apostrophe in there.
Come up with a good compound word for the them, and they will be 100 % fit for 4E. ;)

Maybe... Gloompeople? Shadowmen? Gothchick? Fellpeople? Ravenman?
Or how about something German-derivated? Dunkelmenschen. Düsterschatten. Nekrophile. Schwarzseher. Nachtmensch. Todesboten. Hadeswesen. Halbtote.

Mustrum "Bringing bad fantasy names to games nearby since spring 2008!" Ridcully
 
Last edited:

Stoat said:
I like the Shadar-Kai and have used 'em in my 3.5 games. I generally picture them as angsty, obsessed with morbid art, and spiteful. The one quotes a lot of Baudelaire when he talks. The other sounds like Sylvia Plath.

So Shadar-kai are goth and because they are goth they are evil? Wow, I'd never expect WoTC to take that sort of mindset..


I think the WotC article highlights a good way to portray them--violent, irritatingly goth/emo, and just morally ambiguous enough to make them acceptable allies of convenience."

Sorry, but I don't see goth/emo mixing well with violent. Considering that they wield spiked chains, I'd say "metal" would be the right subcultural reference for their civilization. That why you don't over use that very trite "woe is me, I'm misunderstood and everyone wants to kill me" cliche that people like to toss onto certain character types and character races.
 

I don't think it's fair to say WotC is force-feeding us Shadar-Kai by putting one article up on their website and including them in a book. Do you also believe they are force-feeding us the Formorian as we also have an article about them?

I will be using the Shadar-Kai, as I think the art we've seen so far is awesome, as is the fluff behind the race.
 

Whisperfoot said:
Absolutely nothing. However, in determining which monsters to choose to populate settings and drop into adventures, they really should look to see what the fans are interested in. Cool monsters tend to rise to the surface because people demand to see them again. Uncool monsters are usually just forgotten. Now a Dragon article about a race happened because somebody thought that the race was interesting enough to do an article on them and made a pitch, which was accepted (assuming that this isn't one of those articles that originated from within Wizards and I haven't checked who the author is).

So yes, this is fundamentally a good thing. What isn't cool is when D&D starts getting overly polluted by a few monsters that one guy thinks are cool and everybody else hates because that one guy happens to work in WotC R&D. I don't think this is that situation. I just don't see the great appeal of the Shadar-Kai.
I'd disagree. I think the best artists DON'T give the fans what the fans THINK they want. The best artists, whether game designers, movie-makers, musicians, novelists, or what-have-you, give you something you never knew you wanted, but all of a sudden you MUST have!!! Of course, this is a hard, hard thing to pull off successfully, and giving the fans what they THINK they want is a whole lot easier.

I'm not saying the Shadar-Kai fit into that category (can't roll sixes all the time), but the original introduction of the Drow certainly did. Are the Shadar-Kai the new Drow? I doubt it WotC intends them to be, and I doubt they will become so. But . . . so what?
 



Umbran said:
Well, let me ask you a question first - one article and "used a few more times" is enough exposture to think of it as a full-fledged force-feeding campaign? To me, that sounds like an unsupported jump. I mean, I hang out here all the time, and I don't know anything about these guys.

How force-fed can they be if people active on a major site devoted to the game haven't heard of them?

Umbran - You are over reacting and targeting the wrong person. If you go through Joe's post he never mentions forcefeeding. The term that seems to be getting people fired up. He mentions WOTC have upped the races exposure with 4e. I get that impression also.

If the Shadar-Kai are in a cool adventure I can see them becoming the next drow.
 

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
WotC talked about designing races with "traction" before. They did it with the drow, a bit less successfully with the githyanki... and it looks to me the shadar-kai aren't going to pull it off.

Drow created by E Gary Gygax, Githyanki created by Charles Stross. WoTC have never created a cool villain race AFAIK.
 

Remove ads

Top