The original 1977 D&D 1E Monster Manual spoke in vague terms like "it is believed" or "rumor has it" about drow, while qualifying that nobody living had actually experienced a drow meeting in 1E. After that, the lore really only ever said that the 10-15 drow that PCs met at a time on particular campaigns were evil, without speaking about the race/species as a whole. Many people filled in that blank. Some refrained, though. They praised the first drow modules, but they asked for more details about where those isolated drow patrol groups ended. They knew that the monster manual and the modules were not the end-all, be-all. The publisher, TSR, responded by saying that they already had a full schedule of other modules lined up and none of those focused on drow again, so inquirers would need to be patient. But it doesn't seem that they were patient. Most assumed the existing lore said it all. Some of those who didn't made up their own lore by playing it out in their home campaigns. And then in 1985, the Unearthed Arcana reference book came out and said that gamers could indeed play drow if they wanted, and they were not limited to evil moral alignments, either. Canon said that drow could be good or neutral, too! And then in 1987, Bob Salvatore took that blurb and began exploring the hell out of it in the Forgotten Realms setting, with what is now called "The Legend of Drizzt". People who have rejected his recent additions to drow lore just haven't been paying attention ever since 1987--or '77. Bob has said elsewhere that he regrets that the D&D overlords didn't do enough to clarify all of this from the beginning, because some nasty accusations about racial prejudices and stereotypes have been lodged at D&D over the drow and other types of fantasy lifeforms in the IP, largely due to the prevailing assumption that essentially all drow are bad. That assumption was allowed to linger for decades. He undermined it in his books, sure, but the notion was not officially, definitively, overwhelmingly put to rest. However, I believe the truth was already hinted at with the mystical "rumor has it" lingo in the very beginning, and then blazingly broadcasted with the UA blurb a few years later. So the fact that many people nevertheless persisted with their false assumption is not the fault of D&D or Salvatore. That's on those other guys.
Пікірлер: 1
The original 1977 D&D 1E Monster Manual spoke in vague terms like "it is believed" or "rumor has it" about drow, while qualifying that nobody living had actually experienced a drow meeting in 1E. After that, the lore really only ever said that the 10-15 drow that PCs met at a time on particular campaigns were evil, without speaking about the race/species as a whole. Many people filled in that blank. Some refrained, though. They praised the first drow modules, but they asked for more details about where those isolated drow patrol groups ended. They knew that the monster manual and the modules were not the end-all, be-all. The publisher, TSR, responded by saying that they already had a full schedule of other modules lined up and none of those focused on drow again, so inquirers would need to be patient. But it doesn't seem that they were patient. Most assumed the existing lore said it all. Some of those who didn't made up their own lore by playing it out in their home campaigns. And then in 1985, the Unearthed Arcana reference book came out and said that gamers could indeed play drow if they wanted, and they were not limited to evil moral alignments, either. Canon said that drow could be good or neutral, too! And then in 1987, Bob Salvatore took that blurb and began exploring the hell out of it in the Forgotten Realms setting, with what is now called "The Legend of Drizzt". People who have rejected his recent additions to drow lore just haven't been paying attention ever since 1987--or '77. Bob has said elsewhere that he regrets that the D&D overlords didn't do enough to clarify all of this from the beginning, because some nasty accusations about racial prejudices and stereotypes have been lodged at D&D over the drow and other types of fantasy lifeforms in the IP, largely due to the prevailing assumption that essentially all drow are bad. That assumption was allowed to linger for decades. He undermined it in his books, sure, but the notion was not officially, definitively, overwhelmingly put to rest. However, I believe the truth was already hinted at with the mystical "rumor has it" lingo in the very beginning, and then blazingly broadcasted with the UA blurb a few years later. So the fact that many people nevertheless persisted with their false assumption is not the fault of D&D or Salvatore. That's on those other guys.