I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that this article was rated so poorly by its readers. Why was it rated so poorly? I thought it detailled very well many aspects of drow society and life, and also played with the common interpretation of drow, making them so irredemably perverted and evil-and proud of it-that it effectively nipped in the bud any possibility of a Greyhawk Drizzt Do'Urden or Eilistraee.
So, what were your thoughts on the article? _________________ <div align="left">Going to war without Keoland is like going to war without a pipe organ. They both make a lot of noise and they're both a lot of dead weight, so what's the point in taking them along? </div>
My favorite part was the origin myth. Tainted with the blood and excrement of Yurtrus in revenge for defeating Gruumsh. That was very nice. I also appreciated the bust on (intentional or not) of Drizzt. I hate that guy! Nice tie in with your "On the Goblins of the Flanaess: History, Culture and Nation" article by way of the proverb. The bit with the Elder Elemental God at the end was also enjoyable. I love the smell of irony.
I preferred the format you used in your previous "History, Culture and Nation" articles but also liked many of the things you did with this new format. Maybe if there were some way you could combine the two formats even if it did make the article longer. I know you did a list of the other drow vaults in a previous article so I know you didn't need to do that in this one but a link might have been nice. You've got previous works to reference so make use of them.
First and foremost, you rely too much on paraphrasing of monster manual entries. That might be fine for a rule book, but it is very poor when presented as simple discourse.
Second, you present everything in an overbearing in-character "voice." While such is often done, it also has a tendency to turn off anyone who doesn't agree with your views.
Third, the FR references add nothing, and tread the line of setting bashing.
Those are the major things. Minor quirks:
1. Spelling Lolth wrong.
2. An origin I radically different from the one I use.
3. There are canon-references to non-Evil Drow, and Driz'zt is a "freak" among FR drow.
I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that this article was rated so poorly by its readers. Why was it rated so poorly? I thought it detailled very well many aspects of drow society and life, and also played with the common interpretation of drow, making them so irredemably perverted and evil-and proud of it-that it effectively nipped in the bud any possibility of a Greyhawk Drizzt Do'Urden or Eilistraee.
So, what were your thoughts on the article?
Hey CSL,
I've been out for the Holiday and I just read the article. A couple of notes.
First, ignore the ratings. I'm convinced a substantial number of folks don't know if the scale goes up or down for good/bad. Honestly, I'm not sure.
Second, IMO, this is not a bad article at all. It is different, yes. But we aren't writing canon here. Different makes you think and is IMO good.
Third, the article is well written and interesting. I especially like the characterizations as they seem "real." This is one of the strengths of your writing IMO - your prose is "alive" and actively engages the reader.
Fourth, if there is any issue with the article, it may be that you touched the "third rail" of GHerdom - FR. Since Fate of Istus and likely before, FR is a hot button for some. IMO, however, the GH/FR connection is inevitable, like it or not. We've got FoI and the Wiz3 etc. I have no problem with your invoking FR but I can imagine you might have "lost" some readers right there.
I wouldn't use the article exactly as written but I think it a good read. Don't let'em get you down! _________________ GVD
I thought it was well written, in that I liked the character voice and little story touches. But the content I was less sanguine about. While there are some interesting points of your own in there (yurtrus), it struck me mainly as some standard material mixed with a big case of negative definitions: "We are not like *those* drow." A reasonable article can be built that way, but I felt that presenting that kind of material with an In Character voice was problematic.
It was set up such that the culture, behavior, and even some history (aka Drizzt) of the FR's Ilythiri drow were common knowledge to Eclavdra and her daughter. Given that there are significant differences in the presentation of Lolth and the drow themselves between the two settings, its difficult to see how that would actually work out.
Re: GVD's point about the rating system, why do we even have one? Aren't the comments sufficient unto the purpose any rating system might have? I can't really think of a positive function it serves and it occassionally leads to hard feelings like in this case. I seem to recall some other instances as well.
I thought it was well written, in that I liked the character voice and little story touches. But the content I was less sanguine about. While there are some interesting points of your own in there (yurtrus), it struck me mainly as some standard material mixed with a big case of negative definitions: "We are not like *those* drow." A reasonable article can be built that way, but I felt that presenting that kind of material with an In Character voice was problematic.
Well, I assumed Eclavdra might have travelled to other worlds, just as those human wizards one encounters in the Vault of Erelhei-Cinlu might have-where did they come from? How did they get there? There are so few 14th-16th level wizards out there-how and why were these guys going to Erelhei-Cinlu? I assumed that at least some of the creatures down there must have come from other worlds-planar travelling, which is of course very difficult to do even at the best of times.
I figured Eclavdra might travel to other worlds such as Toril-and unlike those people who come from Toril, Eclavdra doesn't find that many of her most powerful abilities and magical items fizzle out because the planet's magical ether can't sustain the. She might visit once or twice a century, but other than that, there's not much. Some of the visitors from those worlds might have told her stories as well.
As for the Drizzt Do'Urden thing, I want to be clear on one thing: I like Drizzt himself-Salvatore is among the very, very few role-playing fiction writers whose work doesn't stink to high heaven. What I hate are the multitude of angst-ridden oh-whoa-is-me-because-I'm-only-misunderstood imitation drow that followed in his wake. Liriel Baenre is only the most notorious example. Those drow are the equivalent of the really whiny emo kids who cry and moan about how the whole world is against them...and making everyone else want to give them a good smack upside the head in the process.
Even in Salavtore's writing, I got the distinct impression that the drow were almost infallible-able to find a way around any defense, able to defeat any opponent, and rarely, if ever, made even the slightest mistakes. No orc or goblin army could ever stand against a drow force, even if there were only a small number of them-the drow are just too formidable.
I myself undertook to reverse these trends, by having the drow get spanked in a particularly humiliating fashion by goblins in my History, Culture and Nation article on the jebline, with the goblin king slaying thirteen-count them-thirteen priestesses of Lolth in succession. Same thing goes for the surface elves too-Sehanine Moonbow can be just as petty, jealous, stupid, and thoughtless as any human god, as I showed in my articles on the elves. So much for the elves and their gods being all-knowing, all-wise, all-good, and completely infallible and always right. _________________ <div align="left">Going to war without Keoland is like going to war without a pipe organ. They both make a lot of noise and they're both a lot of dead weight, so what's the point in taking them along? </div>
I really loved the article.
As I DM a campaign with Drow Player Characters at the moment I gave this to my players as a background reading (not all players in my group knew the Drow well before)
The reference to Abeir Torils Drow is justified IMO as they both share their Patron Deity and as such a Drow Queen should be knowledgable about their cousins on other worlds.
CruelSummerLord, as one of the guys who gave the article a low rating, I want to explain why:
1) "Our hair is stark white, our skin pure black"
As soon as the Queen of the Drow decides to give her daughter a lecture, she morphs into Professor Pedantic, and drones on at length about the most obvious details. This dialogue does not seem at all plausible to me. Also, if the daughter does not already know such basic facts, it is obvious that not only has her tutor neglected his duties, but that the daughter is in fact retarded.
2) "We are purely evil, rotten, corrupt"
No one openly considers themselves evil. Hitler didn't, nor did Stalin. Just look at Saddam Hussein's trial defense for a good example of what I'm talking about. If you're Good, you admit to some flaws; but if you're truly Evil, you rationalize, deny, or present a justification for everything you do. (Of course, you might admit to minor or past flaws just to make yourself seem humble, honest, and self-correcting.) It's a human standard, admittedly, but its advantages are obvious and in no way diminishes the evil you're doing.
Thus a drow might say "It is only right that I betrayed her, because I deserve the fruits of outsmarting her, and the betrayal was a beautiful act of artistic merit."
Also, I see nothing wrong with having a few non-evil drow. Even D3 had its rakes in the city, dissatisfied young drow men who could see the downside of drow evil and IIRC tended towards Chaotic Neutral. A little complexity makes it more interesting, no?
Surface elves, being long-lived, would make good slaves for the drow so I don't think they'd always be killed on sight.
3) "the exploits of Drizzt Do’Urden"
There is little if any contact between FR and Greyhawk; surely in most GH campaigns, FR doesn't exist. Yet even the ignorant daughter is well acquainted with the tales of Drizzt? I think not.
4) "No drow of Oerth can walk the surface world and live"
Huh? I guess this is something specific to your campaign; certainly it's not the 3.5 MM standard. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... except that it shouldn't be labelled "On the Drow of the Flanaess" if it's specific to your homebrew version.
Or is Eclavdra ignorant on this point? That might be cool, but seems unlikely given her seemingly extensive knowledge.
5) "The Elder Elemental God we worship"
I wouldn't have minded more info on this guy, and on the lotus dust's use. Eclavdra seems confident that it's not Big T, but she's drugged-out and dependent on him, so that doesn't mean much. In any case, the EEG's religion seems in practice little different from Lolth's, and the society is still female dominated, so what's the point? Personally I like most of my drow to be Lolthites.
EDIT: I missed that her denial was probably meant to be ironic ignorance on her part. That does make it cooler. Still I wouldn't mind more info ...
I'm DMing an online (now solo) game set in the underdark with drow, not Greyhawk but fairly standard. I didn't get much out of the article to steal. The article is mostly stuff that anyone already familiar with drow would already know, plus some stuff that seems specific to your campaign, or that I disagree with.
Sorry if that all sounds negative! The ... uh ... rest of your article is pretty good ;)
CruelSummerLord, as one of the guys who gave the article a low rating, I want to explain why:
1) "Our hair is stark white, our skin pure black"
As soon as the Queen of the Drow decides to give her daughter a lecture, she morphs into Professor Pedantic, and drones on at length about the most obvious details. This dialogue does not seem at all plausible to me. Also, if the daughter does not already know such basic facts, it is obvious that not only has her tutor neglected his duties, but that the daughter is in fact retarded.
2) "We are purely evil, rotten, corrupt"
No one openly considers themselves evil. Hitler didn't, nor did Stalin. Just look at Saddam Hussein's trial defense for a good example of what I'm talking about. If you're Good, you admit to some flaws; but if you're truly Evil, you rationalize, deny, or present a justification for everything you do. (Of course, you might admit to minor or past flaws just to make yourself seem humble, honest, and self-correcting.) It's a human standard, admittedly, but its advantages are obvious and in no way diminishes the evil you're doing.
Thus a drow might say "It is only right that I betrayed her, because I deserve the fruits of outsmarting her, and the betrayal was a beautiful act of artistic merit."
Also, I see nothing wrong with having a few non-evil drow. Even D3 had its rakes in the city, dissatisfied young drow men who could see the downside of drow evil and IIRC tended towards Chaotic Neutral. A little complexity makes it more interesting, no?
Surface elves, being long-lived, would make good slaves for the drow so I don't think they'd always be killed on sight.
3) "the exploits of Drizzt Do’Urden"
There is little if any contact between FR and Greyhawk; surely in most GH campaigns, FR doesn't exist. Yet even the ignorant daughter is well acquainted with the tales of Drizzt? I think not.
4) "No drow of Oerth can walk the surface world and live"
Huh? I guess this is something specific to your campaign; certainly it's not the 3.5 MM standard. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... except that it shouldn't be labelled "On the Drow of the Flanaess" if it's specific to your homebrew version.
Or is Eclavdra ignorant on this point? That might be cool, but seems unlikely given her seemingly extensive knowledge.
5) "The Elder Elemental God we worship"
I wouldn't have minded more info on this guy, and on the lotus dust's use. Eclavdra seems confident that it's not Big T, but she's drugged-out and dependent on him, so that doesn't mean much. In any case, the EEG's religion seems in practice little different from Lolth's, and the society is still female dominated, so what's the point? Personally I like most of my drow to be Lolthites.
EDIT: I missed that her denial was probably meant to be ironic ignorance on her part. That does make it cooler. Still I wouldn't mind more info ...
I'm DMing an online (now solo) game set in the underdark with drow, not Greyhawk but fairly standard. I didn't get much out of the article to steal. The article is mostly stuff that anyone already familiar with drow would already know, plus some stuff that seems specific to your campaign, or that I disagree with.
Sorry if that all sounds negative! The ... uh ... rest of your article is pretty good ;)
I will address your criticisms each in turn:
1) The part about the physical descriptions of the drow is just ironic ignorance on the part of Eclavdra. Choulterina obviously knows such things-saying this is just black humor on Eclavdra's part.
2) The fact that the drow are pure evil, and know it and love it, is what sets them apart from other evil races. They know their twisted origins, and they revel in it. These are some of the unique traits I try to instil in the various races to put my own personal touch on things-like orcs naming their tribes after their deities' religious symbols, hobgoblins being masters of epic war poetry, or gnomes being creatures of paradox and contradiction.
3) I will admit to this: I am thoroughly sick of the whole angst-ridden oh-whoa-is-me Drizzt clones who whine more than a whole gang of emo teenagers, and this is my rebuttal. Eclavdra and Choulterina know about these things and merely laugh at them, seeing Drizzt as a figure of mockery. The idea that the drow of Toril could be so degenerate (as they see it) to allow good to flourish in their midst is laughable. Drow that are neutrally aligned, like the rebels in D3, are certainly possible, but no good-just-because-they're-good drow.
4) This site is called Canonfire. That means that authors don't have to follow canon if they don't want to, and can write whatever they want on any subject they please.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again: IT IS TRUER TO THE SPIRIT OF GREYHAWK TO USE "OFFICIAL" MATERIAL AND ADAPT IT TO YOUR OWN USE, THAN TO SLAVISHLY DEVOTE YOURSELF TO CANON AND LET IT DICTATE WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. ORIGINAL CREATIVITY AND INSPIRATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH.
5) Why are the Elder Elemental God and the Dark Lord two separate entities? Because I say so.
It's the same thing with GVDammerung: There's a crashed spaceship on Oerth because he says so. He can write whatever he want, and trample all over the work of Sean K. Reynolds as much as he likes, and be perfectly justified in doing so. Similarly. Samwise can declare that Keoland is the most powerful nation in the Flanaess, if not the world, and no one can contradict him. Gary Holian can say that Clement is still alive, and no one can second-guess him.
We are here to promote original ideas and creativity, not impose a uniform canon version of Oerth on hapless DMs and players. The DM is free to cherry-pick what he does and does not like for his own campaign-my articles, and arguably all the articles on this site, are there for exactly that purpose. I present my own version of Oerth, and everyone is at liberty to borrow what they like from it. If they don't find anything they can use, well...that's their own personal tastes.
As for the lotus dust, that's merely there to emphasize Eclavdra's debauchery. It's the same reason I have the hallucinations at the start-they're elements borrowed from the original modules: the EEG's temples were depicted that way, and the high priestess of the Fane of Lolth had lotus dust, poppy juice, and what basically amounts to magic mushrooms in her living quarters, which were decorated with all sorts of perverted and lewd artwork. Those are aspects of canon I liked, and incorporated into my own work.
Woah, relax there CSL. Probably shouldn't specifically solicit the dissenting opinions on your work if you are going to go all thunder and fury in rebuttal. You asked him to tell you why he rated the article so low. He's entitled to consider canonicity as a criterion in his evaluation, just you are not required to consider it in your writing. Frankly, I think rating articles at all is a useless exercise, but whatever.
Anyway, if you start screaming at folks in all caps, they'll just stop answering your questions.
Woah, relax there CSL. Probably shouldn't specifically solicit the dissenting opinions on your work if you are going to go all thunder and fury in rebuttal. You asked him to tell you why he rated the article so low. He's entitled to consider canonicity as a criterion in his evaluation, just you are not required to consider it in your writing. Frankly, I think rating articles at all is a useless exercise, but whatever.
Anyway, if you start screaming at folks in all caps, they'll just stop answering your questions.
My apologies. My intent was not to scream at Kinem, but merely to state what I feel. I did not intend to fly off the handle, but I lament what I see as an attempt by too many GH fans to strictly adhere to canon, rather than have fun with the process of creating, as I believe EGG originally intended by publishing the setting.
Again, kinem, I didn't direct this at you, but rather more as a statement of my frustrations.
Well, I agree with you there. I'm certainly not wedded to canon by an stretch of the imagination. But I don't begrudge others the right to rely on it heavily. DMs have to make up some stuff for their own campaigns always, but they can choose how much of the published stuff they use without it being any skin off other DMs' noses.
Well, I agree with you there. I'm certainly not wedded to canon by an stretch of the imagination. But I don't begrudge others the right to rely on it heavily. DMs have to make up some stuff for their own campaigns always, but they can choose how much of the published stuff they use without it being any skin off other DMs' noses.
Certainly not. I was just frustrated that people seemed to be judging various works based on how canonical or not they are. The criticisms on Eclavdra giving physical descriptions of the drow, and about how no one considers themselves evil, are certainly fair points. That's judging the work by its own merit, and something I have no problem with. The impression I got was that I was being called out for not toeing the canon line.
The reason I started this thread was mainly because I was curious as to why it had initially low ratings. I wanted to see if there were flaws with the article itself, or if it was poorly rated for deliberately breaking with canon in some areas. Again, mea culpea if I came out looking like I was suffering from sour grapes or being too anal about canon.
I wish that the Comments were made available again, but those damn spammers ruin it for the rest of us. Le sigh. _________________ <div align="left">Going to war without Keoland is like going to war without a pipe organ. They both make a lot of noise and they're both a lot of dead weight, so what's the point in taking them along? </div>
Certainly not. I was just frustrated that people seemed to be judging various works based on how canonical or not they are.
Actually the major criticisms seem to be on the structure of the article and not the canon content.
And they seem to focus on the same elements.
Any canon issues are secondary to the general presentation.
1) The physical descriptions may have been an attempt at humor, but I just picked the first and most obvious example of the pedanticness problem, so that makes little difference to my point.
As for the humor, it doesn't work. Exagerating one of your irritating speech habits to make it more irritating just isn't funny.
As for the extra info you may have hoped to impart to the reader, the article is badly in need of OOC footnotes to supplement Eclavdra's IC lecture.
2) Unique racial tendancies can be cool, but this one just doesn't make sense. It sucks. Scrap it and come up with something plausible and cool.
3) If it's whining that you're sick of, then come up with plausible good Drow that don't whine. Even "always evil" races have a few good individuals, and players like it that way. Playing good is more long-term fun than playing evil, and drow are a playable race.
4) I didn't say it had to be canonical, or even that it should be. What I DID say is that if it's NOT canonical, it should be clearly labelled as such, so people aren't mislead. So calling it "On the Drow of the Flanaess" is bad, but calling the same article "My Noncanonical Version of the Drow" would have been fine. Preferably, your footnotes should have made clear what is and what is not specific to your campaign.
5) Actually you didn't say so, at least not in the article. Eclavdra said that EEG is not Big T, but the reader is free to interpret that as her ignorance, and of course each DM can decide for himself.
The drugs might be interesting to develop. What are the game-mechanical and IC effects of the drugs? Is there some benefit to them other than (presumably) the user's pleasure?
For example, in my campaign, there are Dream Mushrooms in the underdark. These mushrooms, when eaten, cause a drow or elf to dream when meditating afterwards (or other races, when sleeping). These dreams are usually pleasureable but it is said that sometimes the dreams are prophetic visions from the gods. It wouldn't be too hard to come up for rules on what the chance of having a vision is. In any case, there are clear IC reasons why a drow might use Dream Mushrooms, and the DM can easily describe a memorable dream if a PC uses one; the PC won't know right away if it's meaningful or not.
CSL:
1) The physical descriptions may have been an attempt at humor, but I just picked the first and most obvious example of the pedanticness problem, so that makes little difference to my point.
To me this was cleary irony on the high priestess part and very in character.
Quote:
As for the humor, it doesn't work. Exagerating one of your irritating speech habits to make it more irritating just isn't funny.
huh? What are you referring to here?
Quote:
As for the extra info you may have hoped to impart to the reader, the article is badly in need of OOC footnotes to supplement Eclavdra's IC lecture.
Another nope from me. The article is very in character and it is good as is.
If I envision a cynical, drug using, poinon tongued High Priestress of the Drow ther words fit in very well.
Quote:
2) Unique racial tendancies can be cool, but this one just doesn't make sense. It sucks. Scrap it and come up with something plausible and cool.
This is your opinion.
I find it fitting the Drow as I see them. If you read the War of the Spider Queen novels you will find the Faerun Drow know very well about their chaotic nature and enjoy being evil.
Quote:
3) If it's whining that you're sick of, then come up with plausible good Drow that don't whine. Even "always evil" races have a few good individuals, and players like it that way. Playing good is more long-term fun than playing evil, and drow are a playable race.
Why is it so hard to accept 'Always Evil' as it is?
Even if there is one drow in a billion who survives long enough to develop into a 'good drow', this is no justification for the past flood of good Drizzt wannabes.
Any good Drow should be trated as the aberration she is, being hunted by her evil sisters.
Even for legendary Drizzt life was not easy as you can see in the Novels.
Finally, Drizzt is so well known, even to beings on the planes, it's perfectly reasonable a high ranking Drow on Greyhawk has heard that tale.
Quote:
4) I didn't say it had to be canonical, or even that it should be. What I DID say is that if it's NOT canonical, it should be clearly labelled as such, so people aren't mislead. So calling it "On the Drow of the Flanaess" is bad, but calling the same article "My Noncanonical Version of the Drow" would have been fine. Preferably, your footnotes should have made clear what is and what is not specific to your campaign.
Canon or not, there still is Rule #0.
To me anything is canon that I can find written by TSR or Wizards staff.
Anything created by authors here is an inpiration, I might consider in my campaign or not (and this even extend to rules and novels, too.)
Long post and exclusively my take on the article and not Canon at all.
Well it was an enjoyable article; I find the debate of good/evil drow, something of a IC mistake, granted although extermely rare a "good drow" is possible but since the article in from the drow perpective it makes no sense.
Even the most corrupt and decadent society doesn't see itself as Evil, rather any society develops rationale to justify its actions even if it fairly simplistic as "might is right". Given the refined intellect of the complex drow society, I would have enjoyed hearing the drow world view rather then a simplistic were bad mahaaaaa.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
She might visit once or twice a century, but other than that, there's not much. Some of the visitors from those worlds might have told her stories as well.
