What Drow Thread(s) Taught Me

[Calen]

About racism in general, at the current point in time discrimination and racism are lumped together in the western society.
With D&D I make a distinction between using negative stereotypes, discrimination and racism in my RP for some of my pc's.
The essence of racism is that the other race is not seen as an equal , no racist character would want to be treated equally to that race they consider inferior.

Just an example racism vs discrimination.

Comment from PC 1: Watch the halflings, one blink of an eye and they have their grubby hands in your pockets.
It's a comment a racist can make, though if anything this is stereotyping half lings in a discriminating manner.
A good aligned character may say this based on experience,the place he/she is from or simply because of a reputation.
An evil one might do this to take their advantage of something and a CN dwarf just does it because he wants a bar brawl.


Comment 2 Calen: Ey Watch the pikin hins, like all little critters 'hey steal.
In this case the racism is targeted at the fact that they are 'little',Calen also makes it clear he sees smaller humanoids as 'critters' thus inferior because of how they look.

The difference between the two is that A may be reasoned with, a view like doesn't easily shift but it is possible.
Some of these reputations are well earned , think of Thay or amn up to a lesser extend.
This can still lead towards hostile actions or characters not liking each other, though exceptions on the rule are possible.
For A it is possible to judge an individual differently or even shift his view , depending of the origin of this sort of thinking.

With B however it is a lot more difficult as this type of racism defies reasoning and logic.
By it's core the racist does not view you as an equal and does not want to , he does not need to justify it.
You look different thus you are lesser than me, your skin,ears,nose disgust me and this gives me/us the right to exploit you.
This type of racism can lead to laws being changed,enslaving or in the worst case a purge.Given this is not by default evil , think of elves or countries where there is indoctrination.Your character might view something as lesser and find it appropriate that the law is not equal ,but he is against seeing them suffer.


Hating evil creatures such as orcs,devils,drow because of their evil nature is not racism by itself.
Evil and good are objective in D&D and well known forces, which helps simplifying the game.
Thus a character attacking an orc or drow for them being what they are is nor evil nor racism by default, just as running away etc.
It's if anything it's a completely sane action to take in a D&D setting, much more than trying to speak to it.


Tieflings fall in between as some of them have an aura around them or just straight up look like the embodiment of evil.
When you look at the guidebook they are classified as LE.NE.CE and have lots of variety in terms of heritage, good tieflings are not unheard of either.
It's just that most fall into extremes and more often than not end up evil. They basically have to deal with all three forms of approach ranging from petty discrimination, a believe that they are evil by nature or just a random pc that finds them inferior based on heritage and appearance.

By it's core D&D is filled with violence,racism,xenophobia and a constant battle between good and evil.
When looking at this server people rather tune this down a bit and like to take liberties, which can often lead to some disagreements.Though in the end it's just a disagreement over a game and not a personal attack or slander how some one enjoys the game. I don't particularly find good drow trying to redeem their race, nice tieflings seeking acceptance or a NG grey orc druid bad RP or a boring characters. It's just the same as with drizzt to me, when there is too much of that it feels less like D&D.


How I see it is that the DM team makes the rules and as community we can discuss them and speak our mind, whenever the rules set will do the server good or not is in the end their responsibility and decision to make.

[Steve]

The tricky part, I think, is that the OOC rules were originally targeted at an IC issue... provided I'm following your distinction here. And those rules might even be creating IC issues. I'm a little fuzzy on that, because I didn't get a lot of sleep tonight, but as I see it, the only way SB's thread could be about OOC rules for IC issues is if either the rules were targeted at prior IC issues, or created new IC issues when they were implemented.

Hmm. Being that it was never really that hard to travel from the UD to the Surface, the whole "need a good RP reason to be there" gave DMs an easy means to port the UDer back to its Realm.

Then, when not enough DMs were around nor probably wanted to get involved in the complain fest that would result, the OOC mechanical block was put in, to just make it NO FUN for a UDer on the Surface, EXCEPT for and with an RP reason.

And isn't it working fine, now? Drow/Svirfs/UD spawning Planetouched are already on the Surface with RP purposes, with or without engaging in CvC. Or worse, griefing. Right?

So, if OOC mechanics (loot/XP blocking to dissuade Drow from coming up) were put in to address and IC issue (Drow being on the surface in unrealistic numbers...), and that is "bad," than how is it "good" that another OOC decree—no KOS of Drow in X area which is now considered "neutral"—is put IG?

You might as well call it a "nuetured" Area.

Anyway, the UD/Surface Issue is, as Shadow stated, just one of many examples were Players, rightfully, will have opinions on contested subjects, and often enough, are emotional about it (meaning, they care about it).

But here's the deal, for me personally, on these issues (which I said before many times): unless the Admins and DMs declare BGTSCC is going full Homebrew Forgotten Realms, I for one will keep debating for Canon Lore Setting, applied...and defended.

And, if anyone doesn't enjoy debates, then a) don't comment; b) don't read a thread to begin with! As is obvious to anyone paying attention, within this community, you have more and less exposed and learned Forgotten Realms players, which means, allowing for debate and at times argument, is a way to educate. There are other educational methods, sure, and those are also appreciated!

Lastly, what is unfortunate is how often in threads with active debates, accusations are let flown far too easily, and personally, at each other. Like, calling everyone that doesn't agree to be toxic, or causing a toxic environment. Or, to accuse a commenter of being "against ALL players or ideas of X..." absolutism, which is as well, most often, untrue and a far exaggeration of what someone actually wrote.

[DaloLorn]

With B however it is a lot more difficult as this type of racism defies reasoning and logic.
By it's core the racist does not view you as an equal and does not want to , he does not need to justify it.
You look different thus you are lesser than me, your skin,ears,nose disgust me and this gives me/us the right to exploit you.
This type of racism can lead to laws being changed,enslaving or in the worst case a purge.Given this is not by default evil , think of elves or countries where there is indoctrination.Your character might view something as lesser and find it appropriate that the law is not equal ,but he is against seeing them suffer.

Type B is harder to justify in an adventuring PC without some combination of hypocrisy, self-loathing, or hostility towards society. Consider that most adventurers are themselves noticeably "different" from the average person in behavior, appearance, or mindset.

I actually played a half-sun elf on Ravenloft who displayed type B racism against basically anything that breathed (or didn't breathe, being undead or whatever). I know that that sounds like something of an oxymoron at first, but the thing is, she hated non-elves for the same reasons a sun elf would find them objectionable, and she hated elves because they'd spent her whole life instilling an inferiority complex in the poor girl. She hadn't quite realized it by the time I shelved her, but she also hated herself the same way she hated her ancestors - she hated herself for not being elven enough, but at the same time, she hated herself for being too elven. And to cap it all off, as much as she hated dealing with any of them except her pixie familiar, she had conscience enough to feel bad about not helping keep them safe... to the point that I have occasionally felt comfortable with her starting alignment of Chaotic Good.

Fun stuff, though since it depended on growing up in Myth Drannor during the early post-Opening period, her mindset would not be easily replicated in a BG character.

Hating evil creatures such as orcs,devils,drow because of their evil nature is not racism by itself.
Evil and good are objective in D&D and well known forces, which helps simplifying the game.
Thus a character attacking an orc or drow for them being what they are is nor evil nor racism by default, just as running away etc.
It's if anything it's a completely sane action to take in a D&D setting, much more than trying to speak to it.

Aaactually... heh. It's a little more complicated than that, though you are correct in that most DMs will not think twice before accepting blind aggression against orcs/drow as compatible with a good alignment.

Orcs, drow, tieflings, etc., are usually evil, per the SRD. There are enough exceptions for them to be statistically significant, though not so many as to stop the evil ones from constituting a majority of the population. Devils and demons are the ones that are classified as always evil, though even here there is a teensy bit of wiggle room (Planescape: Torment, anyone?) for that one-in-a-billion good succubus or what have you.

Hating monstrous races is therefore classifiable as type A racism under your system (and/or maybe type B, depending on why the hater hates them), but it is not classifiable as non-racism.

So, if OOC mechanics (loot/XP blocking to dissuade Drow from coming up) were put in to address and IC issue (Drow being on the surface in unrealistic numbers...), and that is "bad," than how is it "good" that another OOC decree—no KOS of Drow in X area which is now considered "neutral"—is put IG?

In my opinion? It's not. But it's effectively loosening the restrictions in a way that might eventually lead to the removal of both OOC decrees later down the line.

Besides which, as has been stated on many occasions: There is a difference between "no KOS" - which I'm led to believe is a rule already upheld by most players - and "no conflict". I just recently got ambushed in a non-KOS context, and it was every bit as dangerous to my character as if I had been subject to a KOS ruling at the time. (... The matter is muddied somewhat by the fact that I was OOCly asked by my attacker if he could just open fire unannounced, but given his identity, I am confident that my decision would have been respected if I'd refused to allow it. In that scenario, it ended up akin to Ravenloft's PvP rules, where an attack required an IC reason and OOCly flagging yourself as hostile ahead of the attack, but not necessarily allowing an RP out.)

In a different non-KOS encounter I've had after my return from Ravenloft, two cold-blooded killers got into a fight, and there was every indication that a defeat may prove permanent. Once again, no KOS, just RP leading from A to B. (And just a little maneuvering room left from my side, in case Spidertomb ever changes his mind and decides he wants to bring Estro back from the dead.)

I do not believe that mandating some OOC civility or courtesy is a bad thing, or that such a mandate will immediately end all conflicts. On the contrary, I've found that the presence of such civility has greatly improved my PvP experiences, by minimizing OOC drama that would have irrevocably tainted the surrounding RP.

[mastajabba]

I think many forget somethings while playing evil races. It comes with baggage. Everyone wants the cool part of being part of a dark sinister race… until you want to make pals and then they go OMG I’m an individual.

The closest thing I can think of it is Nazis. Where all Nazis inherently evil, no, most just went along where they believed it or not. But they where still part of a wicked evil system. So while they might have been putting the jackboot to some minorities throat. They where part of that society and furthered that agenda.

All drow are part of that vile society. So it’s the educated guess that they are agents of such. Will there be exceptions to that site. But they will have to have a Drizzt like ledger of good deeds to just bring them to the point where people don’t try to kill you on spot.

Throw in that deceit and lies are some of the Drows go to tactics. You have a lot to overcome.

I personally have really enjoyed the few times Nigel and your character interacted because it causes conflict. Nigel might not like his eleven half and be more human than bougie elf. But Drow, Orcs and all evil races he hates. The more he has learned about your Drow’s past from reports and word of mouth the less he trusts her. So makes for a good RP.

That being said. I wouldn’t attack your character out right. I’d hostile you to change the tone of the RP a and amp up the danger. But that’s just build up. Given the game mechanics I would actually prefer to RP the fight myself. But that’s just preferences.

[Rhifox]

But here's the deal, for me personally, on these issues (which I said before many times): unless the Admins and DMs declare BGTSCC is going full Homebrew Forgotten Realms, I for one will keep debating for Canon Lore Setting, applied...and defended.

Well, what does the canon lore say, then? As of 2nd edition (1991), in Drow of the Underdark, which was specifically written for the Forgotten Realms setting by Ed Greenwood (rather than being one of the generic dnd sourcebooks on drow), 15% of drow are neutral/good (and one can expect most drow adventurers to be of this small number, so 'good' drow PCs isn't a problem at all), and there are occasional (and successful) drow merchants in Waterdeep, Calimshan, Chessenta, and Mulhorand. Ed Greenwood also writes in Elminster's Forgotten Realms (a system agnostic source) that peaceful individual/very small numbers of monster races (specifically orcs in this case) are looked on with suspicion in human communities, with larger groups being the ones most likely to be actually deemed a threat and attacked, and that races that would normally hate each other learning to respect and value individual members of groups they hate is not uncommon when those people work together regularly.

And both Vhaeraun and Eilistraee (more Vhaeraun than Eilistraee, actually) actively encourage their followers to form and build connections with the surface world. It is even a requirement of Vhaeraun priests to work to establish or support permanent drow settlements on the surface. Eilistraee priests meanwhile are required to once a year seek out surface elven communities and bring them game, kindness, and helping hands, and learn music and dance in return from them. Eilistraee herself has human, elven, and half-elven followers (especially around Silverymoon), and favors the Harpers.

If anything, the only lore breaking issue we have is how easy and quick it is to travel down through the Underdark to Sshamath, rather than anything to do with drow on the surface themselves; drow on the surface is way more appropriate than regular day trips up and down through the Underdark. Oh, and that Baldur's Gate on BGTSCC is a city of intolerance, when it is known as one of the most tolerant places in the Realms in pnp (this was the result of IC player actions, though, and is therefore completely valid. Our BG is different because of player choices, as DnD should be).





So, yeah. The lore supports exceptional drow (rare NPCs and PC adventurers) being found and able to conduct business on the surface. The lore also supports surfacers fearing, distrusting, and being hostile to drow. There should be room for both on BG, dictated by the RP of the characters (PC and NPC), rather than OOC rules. Also, IMO travel between the surface and UD is just too easy atm and the ogre cave entrance should be removed, or at the very least this 'path' needs to have its difficulty level adjusted. Characters who make the trek should have no (OOC) rules governing their stay, but that trek itself should be harsh.

(mind, I consider our pvp rules in general to also be OOC rules we could do without. KOS should IMO be the law of the land for everyone everywhere except where IC laws and IC guards exist to stop the violence).

[Ewe]

*Imagines Rhifox having walls covered with clip outs from source books thumb tacked up with all kinds of yarn between them finding the secrets of what Drow teach us.*

[mastajabba]

I don’t think anyone is saying there can’t be good drow. I think that said Drow would have to build up enough reputation to get past the stigma. Which to me seems to be the point with most Drow players wanting an automatic treat me as a regular pc instead of treat me a possible threat until I prove myself something else

[Planehopper]

Drow threads taught me that this community loves to argue and split itself, share selective lore sources, disagree about key/core views that shape IC behavior, and generally would rather be right than listen to one another.

Sounds like a great reason to open this up for more touch points, more interactions, and less oversight, right?

[Hoihe]

(mind, I consider our pvp rules in general to also be OOC rules we could do without. KOS should IMO be the law of the land for everyone everywhere except where IC laws and IC guards exist to stop the violence).

Without proper PvP rules, griefing I can guarantee to occur.

Targetted griefing too.

It happened even with PvP rules, but at least these allow punishing such. Although, such punishments do not tend to stick and a number who threatened people with such, or even pulled it off, have since been unbanned.

Without? Well - it's not hard to skirt "Open PvP" rules. Arelith forums have a number of posts talking exactly about the issue where players mastered skirting "RP reason for PvP", that they can get away with constantly logging in to harrass players until they quit since it's technically "IC."

All removing PvP rules would do would permit bullies to drive players of characters they do not like off the server. Provided their targets aren't idiots who refuse to concede even if for the sole reason of refusing to permit victory and glee.

[DaloLorn]

Which to me seems to be the point with most Drow players wanting an automatic treat me as a regular pc instead of treat me a possible threat until I prove myself something else

Not me!

(mind, I consider our pvp rules in general to also be OOC rules we could do without. KOS should IMO be the law of the land for everyone everywhere except where IC laws and IC guards exist to stop the violence).

Without proper PvP rules, griefing I can guarantee to occur.

Targetted griefing too.

It happened even with PvP rules, but at least these allow punishing such. Although, such punishments do not tend to stick and a number who threatened people with such, or even pulled it off, have since been unbanned.

Without? Well - it's not hard to skirt "Open PvP" rules. Arelith forums have a number of posts talking exactly about the issue where players mastered skirting "RP reason for PvP", that they can get away with constantly logging in to harrass players until they quit since it's technically "IC."

All removing PvP rules would do would permit bullies to drive players of characters they do not like off the server. Provided their targets aren't idiots who refuse to concede even if for the sole reason of refusing to permit victory and glee.

Now that you're here, I'm curious... what's your verdict on these rules?

[Hoihe]

Which to me seems to be the point with most Drow players wanting an automatic treat me as a regular pc instead of treat me a possible threat until I prove myself something else

Not me!

(mind, I consider our pvp rules in general to also be OOC rules we could do without. KOS should IMO be the law of the land for everyone everywhere except where IC laws and IC guards exist to stop the violence).

Without proper PvP rules, griefing I can guarantee to occur.

Targetted griefing too.

It happened even with PvP rules, but at least these allow punishing such. Although, such punishments do not tend to stick and a number who threatened people with such, or even pulled it off, have since been unbanned.

Without? Well - it's not hard to skirt "Open PvP" rules. Arelith forums have a number of posts talking exactly about the issue where players mastered skirting "RP reason for PvP", that they can get away with constantly logging in to harrass players until they quit since it's technically "IC."

All removing PvP rules would do would permit bullies to drive players of characters they do not like off the server. Provided their targets aren't idiots who refuse to concede even if for the sole reason of refusing to permit victory and glee.

Now that you're here, I'm curious... what's your verdict on these rules?

Not a fan. It tries to prevent what Arelith forums complain of, but I doubt it succeeds. Simply being a member of a faction causes issues here and then there is how it treats player corpses.

OOC consent should be required, and what happens to the victim should be exclusively the purview of said victim.

[mastajabba]

Personally I don’t PVP on sight. I am a RP first kinda char. I would actually prefer a old school texted backed by dice rolls RP for PVP. But I do think that it’s necessary to build that expectation of danger.

There are a lot of players that want to RP like they are demigod bad asses but are afraid of stepping into PvP and that makes bad RP. Concequences to actions are always needed to humble players.

Every time I made a Grey Orc or Drow PC I had the realization that I will be targeted for who I play and I am okay with that it comes with playing the bad guy.

[Rhifox]

There are a lot of players that want to RP like they are demigod bad asses but are afraid of stepping into PvP and that makes bad RP. Concequences to actions are always needed to humble players.

Every time I made a Grey Orc or Drow PC I had the realization that I will be targeted for who I play and I am okay with that it comes with playing the bad guy.

Exactly.

When am I going to get my witch hunt, Nigel?!

[mastajabba]

OOC consent should be required, and what happens to the victim should be exclusively the purview of said victim.

That’s ridiculous then you get players who talk shit IC and hide behind the PVP Consent rules.

Everything in life has consequences and not being held accountable to said actions breaks RP and it’s meh as F

[mastajabba]

There are a lot of players that want to RP like they are demigod bad asses but are afraid of stepping into PvP and that makes bad RP. Concequences to actions are always needed to humble players.

Every time I made a Grey Orc or Drow PC I had the realization that I will be targeted for who I play and I am okay with that it comes with playing the bad guy.

Exactly.

When am I going to get my witch hunt, Nigel?!

I don’t even know she’s a witch lol he thinks she’s that Nice Barkeep lady that worked at the Lyre.