Are drow inherently evil? And other D&D racial restrictions that have been loosened over the years

[Norfleet]

Drow should always be evil.

Anyone saying different should be raped by driders.

I wouldn't say "always", really. I mean, if you're in the kind of circus troupe that an adventuring party is, you're a weirdo deviant not necessarily in line with the values of your culture anyway, because NO part of normal human culture includes "being a murderhobo" as a normal, legitimate occupation. If anything, murderhoboism is MORE compatible with Drow culture than Human culture. That said, unless the individual was raised by wolves (a condition that cannot be ruled out since you ARE a circus freak) a Drow should normally be the product of Drow culture. That culture includes, among other things, an acceptance of casual violence. No matter how much they, personally, wish to reduce their involvement in casual violence, it's still ingrained into their upbringing. Also, if they've become a murderhobo, it's clear they haven't exactly turned away from that and become a pacifist monk.

 

[Jasede]

Unfortunately your player isn't likely to handle such a fringe exception right. Nine times out of ten it's going to be a (possibly latent) danger hair or a woman.

I've seen some players portray non-evil monstrous races well but it's been one in a thousand. It just isn't worth it. And once you allow it once, more will want to play more exotic shit that they can't play right.

 

[Jasede]

The older I get the more I think you need to restrict players to humans only and the core demihumans, as well as Good and possibly Neutral. CN is already a red flag.

This sounds really restricting but I just found parties that conform to this much more interesting and fun. A good player will make two LG human fighters be very different and yet compelling. A bad one needs to be a CN Kenku Paladin...

Oh, and most people can't handle playing a Paladin either. They're supposed to be exceptional individuals. Big shoes to fill there.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

FOR2 Drow of the Underdark was released in 1991, compatible with AD&D 2nd edition. There is no "first edition" version of it, and it was written by Ed Greenwood for the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. Just as the Forgotten Realms was a replacement for Greyhawk as the standard AD&D campaign setting, so the Salvatore/Greenwood version of the drow was a replacement for Gygax's drow. In both cases, a decidely inferior version.

 

[Norfleet]

Unfortunately your player isn't likely to handle such a fringe exception right. Nine times out of ten it's going to be a (possibly latent) danger hair or a woman.

I've seen some players portray non-evil monstrous races well but it's been one in a thousand. It just isn't worth it. And once you allow it once, more will want to play more exotic shit that they can't play right.

The thing is, they don't even have to be "non-evil", just non-stupid. A character could be an entirely otherwise mainstream Drow of Drowish culture, which means, presumably, they don't actually see anything morally wrong with the occasional murder and baby-eating, but at the same time, not be an 80 IQ moron that doesn't recognize that his current position as a political exile in a foreign land means he has to at least nominally conform to the cultural expectations of his current environment and therefore, he can't actually eat any human babies right now, at least not while any humans might see this. Thus you can have a character who has not actually changed his outlook (he is still culturally Drow and therefore still "evil" by the standards of human society) become a murderhobo adventurer, because, honestly, being a murderhobo suits him better than it actually suits humans (Drow cultures as we know it don't find murderhoboism unacceptable in any way).

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D? The acceptability of the people you're murdering, basically. Murder a member of the approved culture (humans, "good aligned" naer-humans) = evil, murder a member of a disapproved culture (goblins, orcs) = good or neutral. All a guy has to do to fit in is disguise himself to not attract immediate alarm and not commit any acts deemed socially unacceptable in plain sight. Good? Evil? These are just words, whose only actual meanings come from the gods making calls on them. Paladins are "good" because they behave in a manner approved by their gods, who deem themselves "good" and uphold cultural values we term as "good". D&D's objective morality is only objective insofar as it defined by the gods and powers of the setting.

Any "monster" character is essentially playable as long as he is not a moron: Manichean dichotomies of good and evil are not required. You can be an ogre and still believe in the acceptability of eating people, and still fit into murderhoboing society (which is itself already a fringe outcast community) as long as you're smart enough to refrain from eating any townspeople. If you occasionally eat an evil henchman when nobody sees you? Eh, whatever.

 

[Nortar]

Unfortunately your player isn't likely to handle such a fringe exception right. Nine times out of ten it's going to be a (possibly latent) danger hair or a woman.

I've seen some players portray non-evil monstrous races well but it's been one in a thousand. It just isn't worth it. And once you allow it once, more will want to play more exotic shit that they can't play right.

The thing is, they don't even have to be "non-evil", just non-stupid. A character could be an entirely otherwise mainstream Drow of Drowish culture, which means, presumably, they don't actually see anything morally wrong with the occasional murder and baby-eating, but at the same time, not be an 80 IQ moron that doesn't recognize that his current position as a political exile in a foreign land means he has to at least nominally conform to the cultural expectations of his current environment and therefore, he can't actually eat any human babies right now, at least not while any humans might see this. Thus you can have a character who has not actually changed his outlook (he is still culturally Drow and therefore still "evil" by the standards of human society) become a murderhobo adventurer, because, honestly, being a murderhobo suits him better than it actually suits humans (Drow cultures as we know it don't find murderhoboism unacceptable in any way).

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D? The acceptability of the people you're murdering, basically. Murder a member of the approved culture (humans, "good aligned" naer-humans) = evil, murder a member of a disapproved culture (goblins, orcs) = good or neutral. All a guy has to do to fit in is disguise himself to not attract immediate alarm and not commit any acts deemed socially unacceptable in plain sight. Good? Evil? These are just words, whose only actual meanings come from the gods making calls on them. Paladins are "good" because they behave in a manner approved by their gods, who deem themselves "good" and uphold cultural values we term as "good". D&D's objective morality is only objective insofar as it defined by the gods and powers of the setting.

Any "monster" character is essentially playable as long as he is not a moron

Not unless your characters exist in a societal vacuum.

Will you let a bulging hulk with "Pedo for Life" tattooed on his forehead to your little kid birthday party, just coz the guy does not rape children right at this moment? Who the fuck cares if he does not ever. The mark on his face is all the reason needed to never let him anywhere near your child just in case.

That's why you find Viconia about to be burned at stake for being a drow, not wined and dined for being an exotic pretty girl.

 

[BruceVC]

Unfortunately your player isn't likely to handle such a fringe exception right. Nine times out of ten it's going to be a (possibly latent) danger hair or a woman.

I've seen some players portray non-evil monstrous races well but it's been one in a thousand. It just isn't worth it. And once you allow it once, more will want to play more exotic shit that they can't play right.

The thing is, they don't even have to be "non-evil", just non-stupid. A character could be an entirely otherwise mainstream Drow of Drowish culture, which means, presumably, they don't actually see anything morally wrong with the occasional murder and baby-eating, but at the same time, not be an 80 IQ moron that doesn't recognize that his current position as a political exile in a foreign land means he has to at least nominally conform to the cultural expectations of his current environment and therefore, he can't actually eat any human babies right now, at least not while any humans might see this. Thus you can have a character who has not actually changed his outlook (he is still culturally Drow and therefore still "evil" by the standards of human society) become a murderhobo adventurer, because, honestly, being a murderhobo suits him better than it actually suits humans (Drow cultures as we know it don't find murderhoboism unacceptable in any way).

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D? The acceptability of the people you're murdering, basically. Murder a member of the approved culture (humans, "good aligned" naer-humans) = evil, murder a member of a disapproved culture (goblins, orcs) = good or neutral. All a guy has to do to fit in is disguise himself to not attract immediate alarm and not commit any acts deemed socially unacceptable in plain sight. Good? Evil? These are just words, whose only actual meanings come from the gods making calls on them. Paladins are "good" because they behave in a manner approved by their gods, who deem themselves "good" and uphold cultural values we term as "good". D&D's objective morality is only objective insofar as it defined by the gods and powers of the setting.

Any "monster" character is essentially playable as long as he is not a moron

Not unless your characters exist in a societal vacuum.

Will you let a bulging hulk with "Pedo for Life" tattooed on his forehead to your little kid birthday party, just coz the guy does not rape children right at this moment? Who the fuck cares if he does not ever. The mark on his face is all the reason needed to never let him anywhere near your child just in case.

That's why you find Viconia about to be burned at stake for being a drow, not wined and dined for being an exotic pretty girl.

I remember that moment and it appalled me, how could anyone want to burn at the stake such a beautiful and virtuous women like Viconia? (at least trying to be virtuous )

My liberal, degenerate code is always opposed to people being burned at the stake unless they heretics like in the Czech RPG Inquisitor which was justice for people who had aligned with demonic and malevolent forces ....thens its okay

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Yeah I'd let Viconia sit on my face.

lights cigarette

 

[Karwelas]

There is reasonable explanation as to why shit worked in AD&D and in Basic, a very simple one at that.

Despite bring fantasy stuff, sometimes even outlandish one - like Planescape, it held coherent inner logic of each setting and held it by the fucking horns so strongly that they did not allow sidestep bullshit, except FR and it's shitty novels.

Let us look at Planescape. Faction called Fated, the takers. Sigil's Tax force, a faction believing that only if you can take something and defend it against all others you deserve it. Sounds very much possessive. How can that work? First of, it isn't that boneheaded simple. Fated are very much specific faction, that believes that one entirely different level (ignoring faggotry of Faction War):

Fated Philosophy

The fundamental beliefs of the Fated are simple: What a person can claim, and defend against others, they deserve. No, not merely deserve: indeed, they're fated to hold it. It is an undeniable fact, for if it was not a fact, they would not be able to hold it in the first place, for how could any person defy fate? There is no such thing as an unfair multiverse: the multiverse is exactly as fair as it could be, it's merely the people that have the meaning of "fair" wrong. And so what a person wants — whether it be wealth, strength, a desired item, or even simply happiness — they must strive for with utmost focus, with total determination. They cannot let themselves waver from their goal for an instant, for doubt is merely the opportunity for another to pass you by. A person can certainly cooperate with others towards this, as some goals can of course be shared among many with no loss to any one, but they can just as easily be as ruthless as need be, should what they want be something to be held by one alone.

There is some nuance to this outlook, of course. At first, many see little difference between this and the "might makes right" philosophy of the tanar'ri. However, it's important to remember that their view does not merely apply to oneself, but to all. If you think yourself more deserving of an item, a title, or an accolade than another, then you must absolutely prove that. But if you fail, you must acknowledge that you were not truly deserving of it after all. It is not merely oneself who deserves what they can hold, but all, and failure is not to be denied nor is it to be ignored, but accepted and confronted. A Taker must be willing to know when they have been beaten, and must be willing to learn from the experience for future endeavors. In addition, fitting an organization with such strong Ysgardian ties, in Fated philosophy an achievement is not deserving unless it has been earned. A goal simply given to you has demonstrated nothing of how deserving you might be. Among the Fated, nothing is given to a person that hasn't shown themselves worthy, yes. But nothing is taken by a person who hasn't shown themselves worthy either. Finally, in general, the Fated believe that a person's business is their own if not a factor in your goals. It's not your place to judge the goals of another, especially if such goals are irrelevant to your own. Advise them, perhaps, if their efforts are not likely to pay off for reasons other than themselves, but in the end they must prove their own way.

As you can see, it follows certain logic, without leaps - the key to understanding the quality in old D&D is that it wasn't a fluid shit of a setting made to form in your shitty 5e simple concept that you can wipe off with any sort of rubber bought for 3 cents. It made you, both as GM and the player to acknowledge its inner logic and work around or WITH IT.

 

[Norfleet]

Will you let a bulging hulk with "Pedo for Life" tattooed on his forehead to your little kid birthday party, just coz the guy does not rape children right at this moment? Who the fuck cares if he does not ever. The mark on his face is all the reason needed to never let him anywhere near your child just in case.

That's why you find Viconia about to be burned at stake for being a drow, not wined and dined for being an exotic pretty girl.

This is why those people need to wear their masks, yes.

 

[mondblut]

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D?

You are "good" if "Protection from good" makes you reel. You are "evil" if a Holy Avenger expresses a need to be embedded into your skull. Nothing subjective there.

 

[Norfleet]

You are "good" if "Protection from good" makes you reel. You are "evil" if a Holy Avenger expresses a need to be embedded into your skull. Nothing subjective there.

And yet those are just arbitrary labels imposed by the the gods of the setting. So essentially, "Evil" is just whatever the gods of "Good" disapprove of, and vice versa. Curiously, this means there exists certain things that are uniformly disapproved by all sides: Protection from Good and Evil both block outside control. While they may be objective poles to us, they're ultimately ruled by subjective forces: The gods, which have defined these polarities. They could just as easily define these polarities in terms of Pirate and Ninja.

 

[mondblut]

And yet those are just arbitrary labels imposed by the the gods of the setting.

Um, afraid not.

The gods of any given setting are mere denizens like any other, and assigned the place of residence according to their alignment.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The thing is, they don't even have to be "non-evil", just non-stupid. A character could be an entirely otherwise mainstream Drow of Drowish culture, which means, presumably, they don't actually see anything morally wrong with the occasional murder and baby-eating, but at the same time, not be an 80 IQ moron that doesn't recognize that his current position as a political exile in a foreign land means he has to at least nominally conform to the cultural expectations of his current environment and therefore, he can't actually eat any human babies right now, at least not while any humans might see this. Thus you can have a character who has not actually changed his outlook (he is still culturally Drow and therefore still "evil" by the standards of human society) become a murderhobo adventurer, because, honestly, being a murderhobo suits him better than it actually suits humans (Drow cultures as we know it don't find murderhoboism unacceptable in any way).

The Drow aren't retards. See Gygax's description I posted on the last page.

Spoiler

Most NPC drow encountered are Chaotic Evil in the extreme. They are cruel, corrupt, and contemptuous of ‘‘lesser’’ races. All others exist to serve them in attaining their particular goal, primarily, and secondarily, the goals of the drow as a people. They have seen the benefits of banding together, and will not betray their people for a handful of coins, though they agree to help if it help advances their own schemes. Afterward, of course, their non-drow allies may be fed to the spiders while they laugh and applaud. Drow are always looking for their “angle,” and how they can benefit to the greatest degree in any particular situation.

They're not orcs. They're willing to do anything to anything, but they also have self-control and intelligence. They're willing to scheme and bide their time.

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D? The acceptability of the people you're murdering, basically. Murder a member of the approved culture (humans, "good aligned" naer-humans) = evil, murder a member of a disapproved culture (goblins, orcs) = good or neutral. All a guy has to do to fit in is disguise himself to not attract immediate alarm and not commit any acts deemed socially unacceptable in plain sight. Good? Evil? These are just words, whose only actual meanings come from the gods making calls on them. Paladins are "good" because they behave in a manner approved by their gods, who deem themselves "good" and uphold cultural values we term as "good". D&D's objective morality is only objective insofar as it defined by the gods and powers of the setting.

Kindly save your shades of gray bullshit for a setting without meticulously defined character alignments.

 

[JamesDixon]

And yet those are just arbitrary labels imposed by the the gods of the setting.

Um, afraid not.

The gods of any given setting are mere denizens like any other, and assigned the place of residence according to their alignment.

Here's a larger version from AD&D 1E Manual of the Planes bud.

 

[Camel]

Tha

The older I get the more I think you need to restrict players to humans only and the core demihumans, as well as Good and possibly Neutral. CN is already a red flag.

This sounds really restricting but I just found parties that conform to this much more interesting and fun. A good player will make two LG human fighters be very different and yet compelling. A bad one needs to be a CN Kenku Paladin...

Oh, and most people can't handle playing a Paladin either. They're supposed to be exceptional individuals. Big shoes to fill there.

Thank you, very interesting. What do you think about portrayal of paladins in CRPGs - Keldorn and Casavir?

 

[JamesDixon]

Because, really, what's the actual difference between "good" and "evil" in D&D?

Good is defined as people trying to help each other while being kind, benevolent, and the well being of everyone. That's further broken down into Law, Neutral, and Chaos. Law means strong laws and government that are for the betterment of the people. Neutral is slanted towards ensuring good prevails. Chaotic is independence and individuality.

Evil is selfishness that's it. Law means that they'll use the government to enrich themselves and to pursue their whims. Neutral is slanted towards their selfish desires. Chaotic view laws and governments as tools of the weak. This isn't to say that they can't use governments to enact a reign of terror since without such organization anarchy rules and is not self-sustaining.

That's the difference between the two.

 

[Alex]

As I see it, there are two options that can work well in D&D.

First, you can play the game as it is written and have alignments be a kind of "team", without much or any real thought as to actual morality. This can work well, but people playing should agree to basically avoid stuff that would lead to morality issues. The issue with going into a drow school and killing drow infants there isn't that it is evil in this system, or that it is a good deed in this system, but rather that it is beyond the scope of such system. Sure, if you happen to destroy a whole drow city, you probably managed to kill several of their infants in the process as well. But if the point is not brought up, it won't really matter in game. The alignment is just a side in the game-world, and not something to be addressed seriously during play. Changing alignments is possible, but it takes the highest sacrifice possible for players: experience points. This will make it still possible to change, should the player decide to, but make the option so annoying most people will refrain from using it.

The other option is to make morality of some kind actually matter in the game. But in this case you want to either decouple it from mechanical alignment or be prepared for endless discussions and alignment changes. The problem here is not that good and evil should be relative, but rather that people will be arguing endlessly about whether something is evil or not. Sure, the DM's word is supposed to be final and maybe you can get people to agree to not argue about this too much... but if morality is supposed to be an important part of the campaign, it will keep coming up. And if the DM has to keep changing the party's alignment because they did this or that, then the DM doesn't even have the benefit of being able to show his view as consequences of the PC's actions. The DM might hold that killing orc babies is a good thing, or that it is a bad thing. But even before the view of the DM might be seen in the game, you will need to change alignments all the time, and the mechanical aspects of the alignment will kick in. It is not something impossible to do, but I think you would want a more fine control over the morality aspects to play this kind of game.

 

[Volourn]

Viconia worships Shar. She isn't virtuous. Lmao FFS Shar is one of the most evil human gods in D&D.

God's are not 'forced' to live anywhere. They make their own homes where they damn well want but of course you aren't going to see a good God make their base in the Abyss for obvious fukkin reasons. The Dwarven gods who are mostly lawful tend to live apart while the elven gods while mostly chaotic tend to live close together - this suggests personality is more than just alignment.


I do agree that the idea of a good orc/drow or whatever is heavily abused. Drizzt, on his own, is fine. The copycats are often boring and lame and actually hurt Drizzt.

 

[Norfleet]

Kindly save your shades of gray bullshit for a setting without meticulously defined character alignments.

Well, of course the ailgnments are meticulously defined: They have specific factions (gods) which uphold them. But in the end, there are only specific clusters of cultural tenets which get a group plastered along this continuum. The culture cannot logically see itself as evil, because even if they all engage in a mutually agreed upon fashion of murder, torture, deceit, and soforth, their mutual acceptance of this heinous creedo creates and orderly and cooperative society, and it would be Bad to do otherwise. Thus "For the Evulz" is something reserved for things like demons.

 

[Alex]

Viconia worships Shar. She isn't virtuous. Lmao FFS Shar is one of the most evil human gods in D&D.

God's are not 'forced' to live anywhere. They make their own homes where they damn well want but of course you aren't going to see a good God make their base in the Abyss for obvious fukkin reasons. (snip...)

Which are...?

 

[JamesDixon]

Viconia worships Shar. She isn't virtuous. Lmao FFS Shar is one of the most evil human gods in D&D.

God's are not 'forced' to live anywhere. They make their own homes where they damn well want but of course you aren't going to see a good God make their base in the Abyss for obvious fukkin reasons. (snip...)

Which are...?

This is the first book that detailed the entire thing. It's AD&D 1E Manual of the Planes and covers all of the planes in D&D.

 

[Cryomancer]

Lets imagine a random chaotic evil demon. Lets suppose that I've casted DOMINATE MONSTER on him, he failed the save and after it, permanency. And ordered such creature to be lawful good. Is that creature good?

 

[JamesDixon]

Lets imagine a random chaotic evil demon. Lets suppose that I've casted DOMINATE MONSTER on him, he failed the save and after it, permanency. And ordered such creature to be lawful good. Is that creature good?

No, because it requires a willful act on their part to change their ways. It's a bit like trying to order a creature to kill itself. It won't because its built in survival mechanism kicks in.

 

[Cryomancer]

Lets imagine a random chaotic evil demon. Lets suppose that I've casted DOMINATE MONSTER on him, he failed the save and after it, permanency. And ordered such creature to be lawful good. Is that creature good?

No, because it requires a willful act on their part to change their ways. It's a bit like trying to order a creature to kill itself. It won't because its built in survival mechanism kicks in.

Yep. Good requires willful act and domination based spells have such limitations, you can't order someone to kill himself or order a vampire to stop drinking blood or a midnflayer to stop eating brains. I have heard that with undead is different, that you can cast control undead in a vampire and order him to walk in the sun and die but din't found a reliable information about it.