Today's Unearthed Arcana.

[Regitnui]

I believe everyone else is talking about this:

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/d...ew_duergar.pdf

I apologise wholeheartedly for the sidetracking of the thread. It's my fault.

[DivisibleByZero]

I apologise wholeheartedly for the sidetracking of the thread. It's my fault.

*raises hand*

I helped. Because I like to be helpful.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This sidebar lies by omission, slathering a big pile of racist, evil and sociopathy over the relatively even and neutral portrayal in the main text while saying Drizzt is pretty much the only good drow you can build your character on. It goes on to describe your character for you: that entire last paragraph tells a complete newbie that if they want to be a drow, they must be on some level prejudiced against everyone else they'll ever meet, and everyone else will dislike you just for being a drow. True for some people in the real world, but hardly escapist high fantasy.

And this would be absolutely true unless the DM makes adjustments to the default setting. If you are a drow and your name isn't Drizzt, people are going to assume you're a terrible person and you probably still grew up underground surrounded by your literally racist and evil race.

Like people keep saying, you can be an exception but that doesn't automatically make people see you as one.

The information on the side is very important as roleplaying is half the game and those are traits that are considered next to universal for a Drow, PC or no. It's very clear that your PC fights against those tendencies (if you want them to) but growing up in that sort of environment, and having others know what the vast majority of your race is like makes it a difficult endeavor.

Hardcore Racism is also a staple of High Fantasy, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a fantasy setting that doesn't have at least one "big bad evil race that nobody likes"

[Hesh]

I don't know, I'm kinda with him on this one.

Not saying he's wrong. Just to chill.

[Tetrasodium]

Okay so what would you have? All drow be written up as unaligned? Maybe you want Undead to be unaligned too, since there are a bunch of examples of neutral and good undead in settings? What about gnolls, I saw a gnoll that wasn't evil once, so I guess we have to make them unaligned too. While we're at it, CoS has a non-good angel in it, I guess we can't call them Good anymore!

funny how in earlier editions where alignment was codified as black and white absolutes there were less problems with this sort of thing... Perhaps that was because the tone was different in writeups and they didn't use the core books as an excuse to ship their favorite mary sues into everything like they did with the drow writeup in the 5e phb24. They have been getting better in more recent books, but they breakdown & quite frankly say a lot of worrying backsliding type stuff like the idea of putting drizzt's lolth in as a warlock patron, claims like "eberron is part of the shared d&d multiverse" that people in this thread have so adeptly shown to be basically bs, or "mindflayers ruled the entire multiverse in the past including darksun & eberron".

[Regitnui]

And this would be absolutely true unless the DM makes adjustments to the default setting. If you are a drow and your name isn't Drizzt, people are going to assume you're a terrible person and you probably still grew up underground surrounded by your literally racist and evil race.

Like people keep saying, you can be an exception but that doesn't automatically make people see you as one.

The information on the side is very important as roleplaying is half the game and those are traits that are considered next to universal for a Drow, PC or no. It's very clear that your PC fights against those tendencies (if you want them to) but growing up in that sort of environment, and having others know what the vast majority of your race is like makes it a difficult endeavor.

Yes, but how does the main text not already cover that satisfactorily that the sidebar needed to be added in with an extra helping of "this is how your character thinks" and "Drizzt is so great"? The main text explicitly says the drow "followed Lolth down the path to evil and corruption". Unnecessary sidebar is unnecessary.

Hardcore Racism is also a staple of High Fantasy, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a fantasy setting that doesn't have at least one "big bad evil race that nobody likes"

D&D has about six. They're all in the Monster Manual. Along with the Evil drow, which I do not have any objection to in itself. It's the sidebar and one-note characterisation being forced on players I object to.

[Unoriginal]

Chill out bro.

I've tried to chill out.

I've tried to play it cool.

I've tried to not make mountains out of snowflakes.

But those arguments keep snowballing, thread after thread.

So no, no more Mister Ice Guy.

I'm criticizing that sidebar. I'm saying it's wrong, by established D&D lore.

No.

You're calling it a lie.

You're calling Mearls, and Crawford, and everyone who was involved in the writing of this book a liar

And you're insulting everyone who disagree with you on this subject by saying they believe a lie.

The emphasis is mine, but this sidebar is the real problem. I'm no expert, so anyone's welcome to correct me, but wasn't there a whole movement of Eilistrae worshippers trying to reconcile themselves and their kin (in that order) with the other elven subraces before Drizzt stuck his head out of a hole in the ground? Therefore, Drizzt isn't a "model for the few drow who follow in his footsteps". Eiliestrae's worshippers, and I will emphasize this sidebar is talking about FR, not generic D&D5e, are an entirely separate and legitimate origin story for Good or Neutral drow characters.

This sidebar lies by omission

No.

At worse, it'd just mean that Eilistrae got retconned

slathering a big pile of racist, evil and sociopathy over the relatively even and neutral portrayal in the main text while saying Drizzt is pretty much the only good drow you can build your character on. It goes on to describe your character for you: that entire last paragraph tells a complete newbie that if they want to be a drow, they must be on some level prejudiced against everyone else they'll ever meet, and everyone else will dislike you just for being a drow. True for some people in the real world, but hardly escapist high fantasy.

And? That's the default they went for.

It's maybe not what you like, and it may be placing too much importance on one over-hyped character, but it's the choice they went with, and it's just as legitimate as anything else.

Again, I am not saying anything against the Monster Manual portraying drow as evil. Duergar, goblins, orcs, vampires, werewolves, kobolds... All of them could be sympathetic to a player, but because they're in the Monster Manual, they're designated as villains for the purposes of the game.

The Monster Manual also contains Dogs, Commoners and Unicorns. I suppose it means they're designated as villains for the purpose of the game, too.

Next time I see a dairy farmer giving free puppies while ridding an unicorn, I'll know what to do.

The PHB should not tell a player what his character is like.

The PHB tells you what the usual Dwarf adventurer is like, and what the usual Dragonborn adventurer is like. Why would they not tell you what the usual Drow adventurer is like?

No other playable race gets such a condemnation in the PHB.

Most other playable species aren't known through multiple fictional settings to be in majority evil.

Maybe they should have put the Dark Elves in the Volo's instead of the PHB, but that's really not something to insult people over.

There's your "may not be suitable" disclaimer. The book does not need that sidebar, it does not need to tell newbies that the cool-looking picture of Drizzt that is the face of the elven race in 5e is the only sort of drow character you can make, because all the rest are horrible people who are in all-too-plentiful supply in the real world. That's my problem. Keep your Evil drow. I have no objection to them. I have an objection to the 5e devs thinking it's necessary to confine drow player characters to the Drizzt Archetype by RAW.

It's not bloody RAW, it's just flavor text saying "hey, most Drow are evil, someone growing up in that kind of society's probably not going to start their career without issues from their backstory and beloved by the surface folks."

But you cannot deny that it is said, and the horrible implications of what is said.

I deny what you said, and I deny that there are any horrible implications.

I just say that it's wrong to put a massive condemnation on a race the PHB has presented as playable in core books. They tell you half-truths to justify it. Default drow are Evil. Player characters aren't the default. Don't force them to be.

Good, they're not forcing anyone to be that.

claims like "eberron is part of the shared d&d multiverse" that people in this thread have so adeptly shown to be basically bs

Too bad for you, but this "claim" has been repeatedly confirmed by the authors.

[Regitnui]

Good, they're not forcing anyone to be that.

You've just spent the entire post telling me that I'm wrong and that WotC is unquestionably right on this. Therefore, they're putting outright, in-universe condemnation on every drow player character in every setting ever. Therefore, they're saying a drow player character will be treated in a certain way. They also say that there's one way that drow player characters deal with the condemnation and treatment they must be getting. But they're not forcing anything onto anyone.

[Hesh]

You've just spent the entire post telling me that I'm wrong and that WotC is unquestionably right on this. Therefore, they're putting outright, in-universe condemnation on every drow player character in every setting ever. Therefore, they're saying a drow player character will be treated in a certain way. They also say that there's one way that drow player characters deal with the condemnation and treatment they must be getting. But they're not forcing anything onto anyone.

He's correct. The in universe setting has Drow as being evil. If ypu chose another setting, like Rokugan, the player couldn't use a Drow.

What is your complaint?

[Millstone85]

I've tried to chill out.

I've tried to play it cool.

I've tried to not make mountains out of snowflakes.

But those arguments keep snowballing, thread after thread.

So no, no more Mister Ice Guy.

[Unoriginal]

You've just spent the entire post telling me that I'm wrong and that WotC is unquestionably right on this. Therefore, they're putting outright, in-universe condemnation on every drow player character in every setting ever. Therefore, they're saying a drow player character will be treated in a certain way. They also say that there's one way that drow player characters deal with the condemnation and treatment they must be getting. But they're not forcing anything onto anyone.

I've spent an entire post telling you that WotC wasn't forcing you anything.

All they do is establish defaults. They wrote down what Drow usually are like, then they wrote the default for the Drow adventurer typically are, as people who have grown up into a certain default society before being confronted to certain default issues.

You've spent several posts trying to imply that WotC tried to force Drow PCs to be evil, when there is nothing like that in the book.

[Regitnui]

He's correct. The in universe setting has Drow as being evil. If ypu chose another setting, like Rokugan, the player couldn't use a Drow.

What is your complaint?

That the sidebar puts a one-note characterisation on a core player race, something that isn't done elsewhere. Drow don't always exist in a setting (covered by the main text), and they're not nice people (covered by the main text). All the sidebar adds is unnecessary baggage. And a helping of "Drizzt is best character", but that's beside the point.

Putting the same one-note of "Hates the surface dwellers" on near-every sentient creature in the Underdark is also a little cliche to the point where we may as well leave it off the Duergar in MToF entirely. Roll 1d100 for specific reason you want to have all the surface dwellers conscripted/murdered/punished/pushed into mud to keep your feet clean, sure. But we know that Underdark races hate Surface races. It's like saying "elves hate dwarves" or "halflings are short".

I've spent an entire post telling you that WotC wasn't forcing you anything.

All they do is establish defaults. They wrote down what Drow usually are like, then they wrote the default for the Drow adventurer typically are, as people who have grown up into a certain default society before being confronted to certain default issues.

You've spent several posts trying to imply that WotC tried to force Drow PCs to be evil, when there is nothing like that in the book.

I've spent several posts trying to explain that it's all really just one note of "everybody hates you and this is how you will be treated if you play a drow, no exceptions". But they're clearly not forcing a restrictive characterisation on anyone.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, but how does the main text not already cover that satisfactorily that the sidebar needed to be added in with an extra helping of "this is how your character thinks" and "Drizzt is so great"? The main text explicitly says the drow "followed Lolth down the path to evil and corruption". Unnecessary sidebar is unnecessary. D&D has about six. They're all in the Monster Manual. Along with the Evil drow, which I do not have any objection to in itself. It's the sidebar and one-note characterisation being forced on players I object to.

The characterization is important because it's not directly covered in that main text you keep referencing. The sidebar is an in depth look at why they're considered evil. "they worship an evil god" isn't the same as "The evil god they worship condones murder and Familicide just to gain power and they believe other races to only be worthy as slaves"

The other races have similar characterizations*, though I assume they bother you less since they're mostly aligned to Good or Neutral.

Even Drizzt being mentioned is important because he shows that a Drow can become a good person but only great deeds are going to have people look at you in a positive light.

And just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with changing the way Drow are seen in your own setting, but arguing that them being characterized this way in the canon is lying to players is insane.

*Dwarves are slow to trust and value their clan name over just about everything else as well as being generally lawful barring a subrace distinction (hmm, this seems relevant somehow), Half Elves live in a state of flux between their elven and human heritage and often find comfort in neither, Halflings shouldn't reasonably be adventurers and a section of MToF has to be dedicated to explaining that away

[KorvinStarmast]

The main text explicitly says the drow "followed Lolth down the path to evil and corruption". Unnecessary sidebar is unnecessary.

Hmm, game design team thought it was necessary, even useful. They win, you lose, since they publish the game.

About the Drow: I read somewhere that G. Gygax got the idea for the drow from Edgar Rice Burroughs, with the idea of making a race with ebony black skin (one of the groups in the John Carter series of swords/sorcery/space-swords-sorcery). That and the astral travel idea seem to have filtered into the D&D game from that bit of pulp. Back in about 1979 we were playing a game of AD&D and one of my friends rolled up a fighter, and presented us with his painted miniature. Black skin. It seemed unusual, so I asked him about it. (We had a devil of a time getting realistic flesh tones, varying from pink, to orange to tans to deeper browns and reddish browns ... none of us what that good at painting. Goblins were easy. We used this olive green paint that we'd used to paint model tanks).
He reached up onto the bookshelf and pulled down one of the ERB Barsoom books. "This is where I got the idea" and off we went for the adventure.
When I first had a chance to fight versus Drow, a friend was running the first Drow module and I was quite taken by the description of the black skinned evil elves. never connected the two ideas (Barsoom) until years later.

[TheYell]

Well I was considering playing a half-elf with drow ancestry and this is perfect. I assumed he was going to overreact viciously to pernicious discrimination against all drow, and lo! that's what they want.

Not sure how I feel about that, but, I have a WOTC publication to show the DM.

[Unoriginal]

All the sidebar adds is unnecessary baggage. And a helping of "Drizzt is best character", but that's beside the point.

And that still doesn't make it a lie.

Putting the same one-note of "Hates the surface dwellers" on near-every sentient creature in the Underdark is also a little cliche to the point where we may as well leave it off the Duergar in MToF entirely. Roll 1d100 for specific reason you want to have all the surface dwellers conscripted/murdered/punished/pushed into mud to keep your feet clean, sure. But we know that Underdark races hate Surface races.

Goblinoids hate other species, evil Giants hate humanoids, orcs hate elves, Red Dragons hates everyone, etc.

Hate tends to walk hand-in-hand with conflict, and the bad guys generally aren't pacifists.


The reason why Dwarves and Duergars hate each other in 5e is actually pretty interesting, and far from one-note.

It's like saying "elves hate dwarves"

You mean, a trope that is not present in D&D 5e?

Mmmh, how do you call someone who makes false claims, again?

I've spent several posts trying to explain that it's all really just one note of "everybody hates you and this is how you will be treated if you play a drow, no exceptions"

You've spent several posts trying to tell us how badwrongfun it was if people who are threatened by the Drow or who have aware of their reputations are unfair and biased against the Drow who try to walk away from their society.

[Sigreid]

That the sidebar puts a one-note characterisation on a core player race, something that isn't done elsewhere. Drow don't always exist in a setting (covered by the main text), and they're not nice people (covered by the main text). All the sidebar adds is unnecessary baggage. And a helping of "Drizzt is best character", but that's beside the point.

Putting the same one-note of "Hates the surface dwellers" on near-every sentient creature in the Underdark is also a little cliche to the point where we may as well leave it off the Duergar in MToF entirely. Roll 1d100 for specific reason you want to have all the surface dwellers conscripted/murdered/punished/pushed into mud to keep your feet clean, sure. But we know that Underdark races hate Surface races. It's like saying "elves hate dwarves" or "halflings are short".



I've spent several posts trying to explain that it's all really just one note of "everybody hates you and this is how you will be treated if you play a drow, no exceptions". But they're clearly not forcing a restrictive characterisation on anyone.

Well, if the majority of your race is known or believed to be evil it's certainly true that a heroic member of that race has a longer road to travel to prove himself. And will have to do it again and again until his fame is enough to give him that benefit of the doubt.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well I was considering playing a half-elf with drow ancestry and this is perfect. I assumed he was going to overreact viciously to pernicious discrimination against all drow, and lo! that's what they want.

I like the idea of a half elf drow character, and like the effort (wasn't that in SCAG?) enough to consider playing a character who is one, but I have a real sticking point: why would a drow sully himself/herself by mating with a human? It strikes me as something a drow simply would not do, given their distaste for humans.

[Regitnui]

The characterization is important because it's not directly covered in that main text you keep referencing. The sidebar is an in depth look at why they're considered evil. "they worship an evil god" isn't the same as "The evil god they worship condones murder and Familicide just to gain power and they believe other races to only be worthy as slaves"

The other races have similar characterizations*, though I assume they bother you less since they're mostly aligned to Good or Neutral.

Even Drizzt being mentioned is important because he shows that a Drow can become a good person but only great deeds are going to have people look at you in a positive light.

*Dwarves are slow to trust and value their clan name over just about everything else as well as being generally lawful barring a subrace distinction (hmm, this seems relevant somehow), Half Elves live in a state of flux between their elven and human heritage and often find comfort in neither, Halflings shouldn't reasonably be adventurers and a section of MToF has to be dedicated to explaining that away

Dwarves are also told multiple reasons why they aren't the stereotype; you want treasure, your god called you, your clan has business you must fulfil... but point out to me where they say that dwarves are always LG. "Most dwarves are lawful," and "they tend towards good". Compare to drow; "universally reviled", "their society is depraved". Whose characterisation is more restrictive in play?

Halfings:

For them, adventuring is less a career than an opportunity or sometimes a necessity.

Half-elves (admittedly, taken from a sidebar):

Many half elves learn at an early age to get along with everyone, defusing hostility and finding common ground.

The drow are only really condemned but for Drizzt. Surely the sidebar could have mentioned something about other ways a drow can be different? "In the world of the Forgotten Realms, Drizzt Do'Urden, ranger of the North, has
proven his quality as a good-hearted defender of the weak and innocent. Other drow choose to follow Eilistraee, a goddess who embodies the soothing darkness of night and the soft light of the moon." The italics are my addition to the existing sidebar text, replacing a bit of waxing lyrical on how noble and wonderful Drizzt is.

Well, if the majority of your race is known or believed to be evil it's certainly true that a heroic member of that race has a longer road to travel to prove himself. And will have to do it again and again until his fame is enough to give him that benefit of the doubt.

See my proposal for a less one-note characterisation above. But I certainly agree that drow are essentially monster PCs. Like I said, I have no objection to them being Evil in the MM and in general. The explicit and confining nature of "this is precisely what happens to all drow at all times and on every plane who are player characters" makes me wonder why they even included them.

[Arkhios]

You've just spent the entire post telling me that I'm wrong and that WotC is unquestionably right on this. Therefore, they're putting outright, in-universe condemnation on every drow player character in every setting ever. Therefore, they're saying a drow player character will be treated in a certain way. They also say that there's one way that drow player characters deal with the condemnation and treatment they must be getting. But they're not forcing anything onto anyone.

Let's be honest, I think you may have a biased opinion about this.

Drow have always, ever since the 1st edition, when they were first introduced to this game (in 1977), been evil. Just because in 2000-something one Keith Baker decided to present an alternative fantasy world with lots of other alternatives for common fantasy tropes, and made the drow less evil than usual, it doesn't change the fact that drow, by default, are an evil subrace of elves. I'm not saying Keith Baker is wrong because he did this to his world. But that's just it. Eberron is just one world that stands out from the norm, because that's kind of its thing. To stand out as different.

There's absolutely nothing wrong in that sidebar regarding drow in PHB, either. There's nothing fundamentally wrong in introducing a playable race that is traditionally evil. So what? All alignments in the game are meant to be played. Nowhere in the rules is it established that every adventure ever had to be non-evil and that evil races shouldn't be playable. Evil is just as playable alignment as Good.

[Regitnui]

There's absolutely nothing wrong in that sidebar regarding drow in PHB, either. There's nothing fundamentally wrong in introducing a playable race that is traditionally evil. So what? All alignments in the game are meant to be played. Nowhere in the rules is it established that every adventure ever had to be non-evil and that evil races shouldn't be playable. Evil is just as playable alignment as Good.

Fair enough. Evil is playable. And I have no objection to Evil, Lolth-worshipping drow. My objection is, again, the whole flat character aspect. Every drow is (sidebar). Unless you're trying to be like Drizzt, then (sidebar).

[Scripten]

Nowhere in the rules is it established that every adventure ever had to be non-evil and that evil races shouldn't be playable. Evil is just as playable alignment as Good.

It's not even a requirement that Drow be Evil. Although the 5E books categorize creatures by alignment, the MM has plenty of examples of "exceptions" baked right into the fluff. For example, Storm Giants are categorized as Chaotic Good and yet have fluff stating that there is a possibility that Evil Storm Giants do exist.

[TheYell]

I like the idea of a half elf drow character, and like the effort (wasn't that in SCAG?) enough to consider playing a character who is one, but I have a real sticking point: why would a drow sully himself/herself by mating with a human? It strikes me as something a drow simply would not do, given their distaste for humans.

His backstory is supposed to be sort of mysterious. Why would his mom be raped by a drow? How could a pregnant female slave escape? On the surface it's a heroic tale of resistance and survival, but what if it was planned that way for a sinister reason?

Metagame: The author Robert A Heinlein once said "always let the editor alter your story, he'll like it better" and that's an opening for the DM to come up with a reason why these improbables actually happened, so that he'll allow the character. I might find out I was destined for something nasty later on, but until that day I can have my character to play as I see fit.

[Unoriginal]

I like the idea of a half elf drow character, and like the effort (wasn't that in SCAG?) enough to consider playing a character who is one, but I have a real sticking point: why would a drow sully himself/herself by mating with a human? It strikes me as something a drow simply would not do, given their distaste for humans.

Several explanations:

-The Drow who go to the surface are often attractive enough for all kind of human suitors, reputation or not, and Drow who go to the surface can either consider the humans to be worthy mates, or just go for it by lack of options.

-Slavers having kids with their slaves is, sadly, not something confined for the realm of fantasy. Considering them inferior rarely stopped slavers from raping captives.

-Drow sometime mates with Demons for power/to further their schemes, I doubt they'd be too disgusted with doing it with an humanoid for the same reasons.

[Regitnui]

It's not even a requirement that Drow be Evil. Although the 5E books categorize creatures by alignment, the MM has plenty of examples of "exceptions" baked right into the fluff. For example, Storm Giants are categorized as Chaotic Good and yet have fluff stating that there is a possibility that Evil Storm Giants do exist.

But the Player's Handbook seems bent on "proving" that all drow are Evil even if they're PCs, unless they're Drizzt. No mention of any other Neutral drow reasoning or excuse. And I know they exist.

[Sigreid]

But the Player's Handbook seems bent on "proving" that all drow are Evil even if they're PCs, unless they're Drizzt. No mention of any other Neutral drow reasoning or excuse. And I know they exist.

I think it's more "Don't assume you're going to have a big glowing sign floating over your head that says 'Relax, this one is totally 100% certified not evil.'"

[Arkhios]

It's not even a requirement that Drow be Evil. Although the 5E books categorize creatures by alignment, the MM has plenty of examples of "exceptions" baked right into the fluff. For example, Storm Giants are categorized as Chaotic Good and yet have fluff stating that there is a possibility that Evil Storm Giants do exist.

Indeed. It isn't a requirement. Monster Manual depicts the race as a whole, not on individual level. Player Characters are depicted on individual level, and while most of the drow tend towards evil, you can make a drow character with whatever alignment you damn please.

It's same as with Tieflings (and Aasimar, since they're kind of the polar opposites of each other). Even though their race as a whole tend towards evil (or good) alignments, on individual level they can be anything you want them to be.

I think it's more "Don't assume you're going to have a big glowing sign floating over your head that says 'Relax, this one is totally 100% certified not evil.'"

Agreed. It's part of the race's fantasy. Drow are shunned by other races due to their traditional bent towards evil. There's nothing wrong if a DM plays along with this standard. Just as it's more than fine for a DM to choose otherwise and alter these default assumptions for any given race. Heck, I could say that dwarves are all evil in my setting and the drow would be seen as the saviors of the world for Reasons.

[Regitnui]

I think it's more "Don't assume you're going to have a big glowing sign floating over your head that says 'Relax, this one is totally 100% certified not evil.'"

That could have been put across with less "drizzt is awesome" and maybe another mention of how non-Evil drow happen, and less blanket statement. Why wouldn't Evil-aligned societies or NPCs be OK with one drow wandering around? It'd be suspicious, sure, but that Evil-aligned bandit lord isn't going to react to in exactly the same way as the Good mayor.

Indeed. It isn't a requirement. Monster Manual depicts the race as a whole, not on individual level. Player Characters are depicted on individual level, and while most of the drow tend towards evil, you can make a drow character with whatever alignment you damn please.

It's same as with Tieflings (and Aasimar, since they're kind of the polar opposites of each other). Even though their race as a whole tend towards evil (or good) alignments, on individual level they can be anything you want them to be.

And tieflings get a fair amount of highlight on the fact that they look Evil and suspicious and nobody likes them, but they can be Good or nice. Drow PCs just get a blanket "you are this way because".

[Sigreid]

That could have been put across with less "drizzt is awesome" and maybe another mention of how non-Evil drow happen.

I am of the camp that believes they lean too much on their staple NPCs. I personally think they should murder Elminster and shred his soul.

[TheYell]

Regitnui, why not write to WOTC and see what they respond with?