Major problem with the Duergar

[Soft-Hands]

Look, I'm not gonna retread the tired old talking points about whether the game is/is not 'woke' and whether that is/is not good/bad or whatever, but I do want to mention something that's been bothering the crap out of me since launch...

Why do so many Duergar NPCs have hair?!

Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful to Larian for making them playable. They've always been one of if not my favourite race in almost every D&D setting they're in. And the amount of unique dialogue they get is great. But along with their ashen grey skin, the complete and utter lack of hair on their pates is possibly THE most defining feature of the Grey Dwarves' appearance. All of them, including the women and children, are universally bald. What few who can grow any kind of head hair can only muster up whispy strands behind their ears and along the edges of their scalp. It's been one of their most prominent characteristics and the first thing mentioned about their appearance since they were introduced way back in the 1970s! In fact, some of them couldn't even grow facial hair, either!

I can already hear all the snide comments before the usual suspects even start tapping away at their keyboards, but hear me out. No, having a bunch of Grey Dwarves with mullets and fauxhawks doesn't inherently change who or what the Duergar are, even if it looks silly. But it's a physical trait so obvious and ubiquitous that the devs would have had to make the conscious choice to give them hair, rather than just take it away. It'd be like 70% of elves having round ears, or a not insignificant number of halflings being average human height. It's not like hairstyle is the only means to differentiate NPCs from each other. And if it was only the player character it'd be a non-issue, or at least no more than any of the other ridiculous nonsensical options you can pick.

To me it just seems that if they deliberately chose to ignore something so surface level yet paradoxically important to at least one small aspect of the source material, what else was ignored or changed? Well, quite a lot, but that's a topic for another, less tongue-in-cheek post.

(Yeah yeah, I know. I am actually half-joking, but it does honestly irk me a bit.)

[Soft-Hands]

Mike Garrison a écrit :

I suspect you are falling victim to the "that's not the way it was when I first learned it" thing. So what? Was 2e somehow the one true "real" D&D? 3.5e? 5e?

I mean, even the whole Forgotten Realms was not originally part of D&D -- the original D&D universe was Gygax's Grayhawk world (although even back then he didn't try to insist that was D&D cannon).

I never implied that this or that edition is the edition and everything else is wrong. I obviously have my own personal favourite(s), but can recognise that they have more in common than not and can see the respective lineage of where each edition grew into the next (well, maybe not 4e, I think we can all agree that that one's debatable). The only people I see who regularly throw around that mindset are those who say anything prior to current year version of 5e doesn't count. Generally speaking those few who swear by anything after 1e AD&D shouldn't exist rarely frequent discussions about the currant state of anything D&D related, like this one here.

And look, I get that things can and will change over time. But there's a big difference between a natural progression and change purely for change's sake. Simply pointing out that things have changed in the past is not in and of itself a valid justification for more changes. My whole point in bringing up the Duergar hair thing is A) well it actually does bother me but I'm weird, but more importantly B) to highlight how a general loosening of definitions can often snowball into far larger, more ridiculous ones. At a certain point, things have changed so much and so often that they no longer resemble what they were, and if when pressed about how they could possibly still be the same thing the only reasoning is 'well things change all the time'; I'm sorry that's not a valid reason.

Raz a écrit :

I just watched a video the other night that explained how The Raven Queen retconed three different races, an entire dynamic with Correlion and Lloth, and mucked up the entire divine cosmology by her existence all because "players liked her from this game so we ported her into this one."

THIS right here is a perfect example of the kind of 'f*&$ it, why not' thinking that I'm whinging about. Thank you very much for sharing that.

[GrandMajora]

Soft-Hands a écrit :

In fact, some of them couldn't even grow facial hair, either!

Probably why they're outcasts from Dwarf society, and perpetually cranky.

[Soft-Hands]

GrandMajora a écrit :

Soft-Hands a écrit :

In fact, some of them couldn't even grow facial hair, either!

Probably why they're outcasts from Dwarf society, and perpetually cranky.

Precisely! What's a dwarf without a beard! Or a Grey Dwarf with a luxurious mane of hair, for that matter! If I was the latter or the former I'd be cruel and joyless, too!

... Well, that and the millennia of enslavement and psionic mutation at the hands of the Mind Flayers making them literally incapable of experiencing positive emotion, leaving them bitter, joyless husks trying to fill their spiritual and psychic emptiness with unfathomable cruelty and endless greed. But mostly it's the beard thing!

[jonnin]

all the races are a mess from the original concept art. If you look at the older D&D books the elf and half orcs are notably smaller than humans, the elf extra thin as well. Dwarves are too tall, etc. All these concepts have changed every which way over the years.

[GrandMajora]

jonnin a écrit :

all the races are a mess from the original concept art. If you look at the older D&D books the elf and half orcs are notably smaller than humans, the elf extra thin as well. Dwarves are too tall, etc. All these concepts have changed every which way over the years.

Not only are Elves supposed to be shorter than humans, but Drow are supposed to be shorter than your typical Elves.

And, somehow, Halflings are supposed to be shorter than Gnomes. Even though I instinctively think that it should be the other way around.

[Dimlhugion]

Soft-Hands a écrit :

That comment on the end was not 'amended an hour later', it was there from the start. The edit was just fixing spelling. And no, there was no 'refuting HARD'; we have different perspectives on this. He thinks only 5e matters, I think everything before matters. The most recent edition (whose quality is hardly uncontroversial) does not erase 40 years of established canon, or at least that's my view.

And last of all and most importantly, if you think three short paragraphs constitutes a college thesis... really? My God, no wonder North America's education system is in shambles.

Do you even KNOW how to use the internet? Literally, have you EVER used it?

http://www.americanroads.us/DandD/ADnD_1e_Monster_Manual_II.pdf

CTRL+F

duergar

On page 61. BEARD.

I got that from the link you were given in said first response, which you dismissed THREE TIMES OVER now, as "well I have a different opinion."

That's great, dude, really great. Your "different opinion" is incorrect. Deal with it.

[Raz]

As a different poster states; the races changed from what they were initially due to becoming playable. Just look at how Tieflings have evolved due to becoming a Playable race. They used to be as varied and potentially monstrous as the Demons from the Abyss but now they are streamlined for two reasons: 1) it makes it easier on DMs not having to keep track of hundreds of racial morphs and combinations for ONE race (a Tieflings with tiger legs, Raven sight, and wings would have completely different stats from one that hand lizard scales and demon claws that excrete acid), 2) makes it easier for people to conceptualize a look for their tiefling when they aren't all over the place (it's why Tieflings are preferred over Aasimar; Aasimar are not clearly defined like Tieflings).

Similar happened to other races. Elves no longer are short kings to match the look of Humans cause even though Elves where second most played class, almost no one played them compared to humans as the appearance was a big contributing factor despite getting things like 3m of movement on a wood elf.

The biggest driving factor of changes is making things more enjoyable for the players more than anything (these changes we are speaking on specifically). Pleasing the players equate money. I agree, they wholly need a lore master for the more egregious stuff so it better fits the narrative we have but things like appearance changing isn't that large of a problem when you know the why, in my opinion.

[jonnin]

^^ The reasons races were played or not also tied to their bonuses before all that was nerfed. Humans got an extra feat at level 1, back before feats were nerfed, and it was huge. The level 1 fighter human dip with 3 feats to kickstart almost any character build was powerful, compared to the elf that got... darkvision and weapon feats that the fighter also has and some skill bonuses like listen that were underutilized by most dm and so on. Dwarves got a few other weapons (at least one was exotic/racial, unlike elf) and darkvision and could fight like 2 or 3 specific monsters with a bonus to hit. You see where this is going? Everyone played human, or nearly, because that extra feat was worth any 5 weapon profs and darkvision and +2 to 4 random skills. Only a few races could compete, usually due to stat bonuses, like half orc with +2 str for a warrior type or +2 to whatever else your class needs. And this is after the horrid kickstart of the early early editions where the other races were locked into a single line of progression (every elf was the same, it was both your race and your class originally). No wonder humans were #1... it wasn't how they were drawn in the handbook.

[Dusk_Army]

Dimlhugion a écrit :

Soft-Hands a écrit :

That comment on the end was not 'amended an hour later', it was there from the start. The edit was just fixing spelling. And no, there was no 'refuting HARD'; we have different perspectives on this. He thinks only 5e matters, I think everything before matters. The most recent edition (whose quality is hardly uncontroversial) does not erase 40 years of established canon, or at least that's my view.

And last of all and most importantly, if you think three short paragraphs constitutes a college thesis... really? My God, no wonder North America's education system is in shambles.

Do you even KNOW how to use the internet? Literally, have you EVER used it?

http://www.americanroads.us/DandD/ADnD_1e_Monster_Manual_II.pdf

CTRL+F

duergar

On page 61. BEARD.

I got that from the link you were given in said first response, which you dismissed THREE TIMES OVER now, as "well I have a different opinion."

That's great, dude, really great. Your "different opinion" is incorrect. Deal with it.

....I don't know what you're on about, but no one was contesting the duergar having beards, but rather that they were supposed to be bald. Which that image on page 61 of a 1e monster manual shows: an angry looking dwarf with a beard and no hair on the top of his head.

I'll give you that the fluff text on them there says nothing about their phyiscal qualities (just leaving it at "evil dwarves"), but it isn't exactly a perfect refutation of the OP's point either.

Also, re Tieflings: those changes were made by WotC to sell miniatures as much as any other reason. Can't make a standardized product from a creature with a d100 table of randomized features.

[Raz]

Dusk_Army a écrit :

....I don't know what you're on about, but no one was contesting the duergar having beards, but rather that they were supposed to be bald. Which that image on page 61 of a 1e monster manual shows: an angry looking dwarf with a beard and no hair on the top of his head.

And the image of the 2e Duergar in the second link I posted shows one of the male Duergar having a full head of hair.

[alanc9]

Soft-Hands a écrit :

alanc9 a écrit :

So, Larian should have followed your personal canon instead of WotC's?

Sounds legit

So 40+ years of of established lore by the original creators and those who respected their vision counts as my own personal canon now?

Hey, if you want to ignore everything past 1e, be my guest. But why would Larian follow suit?

[nguren]

All my D&D lore knowledge comes from editions 1-3, and there is a lot of jarring- that's not right moments in this game. I have no idea if it's new stuff that was changed under hasbro or by Larian, but the list of stuff they got "wrong" is extensive.

But this is an M rated D&D game. With its excessively horny characters, and heavy trauma/abuse themes, it feels like an internet fanfic, not cannon D&D, so I don't really mind all the differences. It's already so far off D&D brand (which is E for everyone) that it's easy to just shrug and ignore it.

[Mike Garrison]

Soft-Hands a écrit :

Mike Garrison a écrit :

I suspect you are falling victim to the "that's not the way it was when I first learned it" thing. So what? Was 2e somehow the one true "real" D&D? 3.5e? 5e?

I mean, even the whole Forgotten Realms was not originally part of D&D -- the original D&D universe was Gygax's Grayhawk world (although even back then he didn't try to insist that was D&D cannon).

I never implied that this or that edition is the edition and everything else is wrong.

Of course you did. You *still* continue to insist that duergar should have no hair, and that anything other than that is someone "changing the lore" or whatever. You certainly are trying to imply that one version of "the lore" is the correct version.

[Dimlhugion]

Dusk_Army a écrit :

no one was contesting the duergar having beards

Orly?

Soft-Hands a écrit :

In fact, some of them couldn't even grow facial hair, either!

Soft-Hands a écrit :

4e gave them beard-quills for some reason

I'm sorry, what were you lying?

[Mike Garrison]

You know, it occurs to me that one of the duergar in Grymforge is actually carrying a bottle of hair-growing tonic. Perhaps this was Larian's way of nodding to the idea that sometimes in the past the lore has been that duergar are bald. (Well, that and also that the default hair choice for a male duergar in the character creator is bald.)