The Muys the Merrier

[erasmuys]

Slaves are expensive and replacing them with ones that won't slit your throat in your sleep is tricky.

A good slave is well worth being treated as was as a horse or dog might.

While crualty for its own sake is fashionable and even fun, you can't build a society on it. Even Drow.

Of course, that's just my $0.02.

Yeah, people didn't like the way I played Sabbat in WoD either.

[Mikayla]

I am not trying to be mean, I am simply trying to help you set your expectations realistically. As I mentioned, we in the Underdark are pretty good roll-players, and that means if you play a slave you will get treated like a slave - and thats not a "fun" thing. As for your comment regarding how a society cannot be based on cruelty, well, drow "society" is an oxymoron in the first place if you apply logic - the drow are chaotic evil or neutral at best, and are best described as sociopaths. You cannot, by definition, build a society out of sociopaths. Drow society works not because there is a true, inherent logic to it, but because the authors of the game say it works. Their mechanism is the drow goddess, Lolth, who makes things work the way she wants them. Accordingly, the drow in Faerun can and have "built" a society based (in part) upon cruelty for fun. No, its makes no logical sense, but thats the world TSR and later WotC created - so thats the world we play in.

If you look in the source material, you will see the drow not only engage in heinous acts of cruelty for no other reason than fun, they also have enormous amounts of slaves, many of whom are armed. How is this possible? Its not clear; magical conditioning is likely (repeated use of charm spells, dominate spells, etc) also pay offs, coercion, who knows. As a slave, however, you are not likely to be well treated nor are you likely to get to adventure much. I strongly recommend that you avoid this course - its yours to choose if you wish naturally, but I do not think it will be the source of entertainment you are hoping for. In the NU, its much better to be a part of that society - starting as a duergar, drow or even svirfneblin will give you more opportunities to role-play.

If you "choose" to become a slave in the underdark (and one would wonder why any character would so choose) then I think you have to temper your expectations accordingly. It may not turn out as you plan - in a novel, there is but one protagonist but in ALFA, there are hundreds and they each have their own story, their own views, their own agendas. As a result, not every PC gets a complete, coherent, movie-like story line. Most deaths in ALFA are anti-climactic when viewed in comparison to the life of the character.

[erasmuys]

Ok, not to argue a point that I really don't have much of my life invested in, but I can't resist.

I have wasted too much of my life debating with people whether a paladin would demand we not kill the bugbears attacking us, but hold them for trial... because he's "lawful good". Chaotic evil people can still perform acts you and I would call good, they just do it out self-interest. Alignment is a game mechanic, not a role-playing guide.

As for how the Drow survive as a civilization? Probably a combination of Loth's intervention, fear, lots of slaves (and other foriengers to focus their cruelty on) and frankly... exceptions. There are probably enough non-sociopathic drow to keep society from simply being chaos.

To me the key to surviving in drow society is like living in some sort of wacked hyper-capitalism. Basically, you need information. Alot of it. You need to know at all time how you can be worth more to your enemies alive than dead and how to avoid making new enemies before you've delt with the old ones.

Consider. Sociopaths stop at stop lights. Why? Because it's in their best interests to do so. A drow who sees someone they don't like in an otherwise empty tunnel, doesn't kill that person without thinking about the enemies it might make, the valuable information they might get to torture out of the person and even more so, whether the person could best them in a fight.

I have all too often played with people who wanted to write sociopaths so they could be impulsive. They want to justify doing anything the player wants to do instead of considering the character's real motivation for doing so.

I don't buy the "it works because canon says it does". Or else they are nothing but a force of nature and not really anything that can be role-played at all (since they are utterly inhuman and unrelatable). Again I point to my issue with the portrayal of the Sabbat in WoD. They don't hold to the Masquerade. However, they must live secret lives none-the-less because if a pack of Sabbat did run wild in down town Dallas, the world would know.

[darrenhfx]

The good thng about ALFA is that you get to try out many different character concepts. Can't hurt to try it out, eh?

[Mikayla]

I see; so what you are saying is that because we do not play the drow in a way that is conducive to your slave-concept, then we are not role-playing? That seems to be the thrust of your argument here; either we accomodate your desires and expectations or we are not adequate role-players. That is a very self-centered view. All I have given you is a warning - in reply you have basically stated that if things do not go your way (ie we treat your slave as you expect) then we are sub-standard role-players. This is simply not an appropriate presumption nor is it a particularly constructive attitude - ALFA exists for all ALFAns, not just you and your PC.

More over, your condemnation and presumptions about our role-play without ever having experienced it is not well taken. You seem to presume we that because I have warned you about playing a slave in the Underdark that we in the underdark are running about like adolescent power-gamers PKing everything we see - which could not be further from the truth.

So, I have tried to warn you but it seems you are not listening - instead of simply taking the warning for what it is you are trying to tell us how we should role-play our PCs - and that is both arrogant and pointless. We are good role-players - we have been doing this for a long time and doing it successfully.

As for this:

I don't buy the "it works because canon says it does". Or else they are nothing but a force of nature and not really anything that can be role-played at all (since they are utterly inhuman and unrelatable). Again I point to my issue with the portrayal of the Sabbat in WoD. They don't hold to the Masquerade. However, they must live secret lives none-the-less because if a pack of Sabbat did run wild in down town Dallas, the world would know.

Well, all I can say is that you must not have read much canon material on drow or given it much thought if you have - the "it works because Canon says it does" does not obviate role-playing at all - lets look at the most basic level. Menzoberranzan is a city of tens of thousands of individuals miles underground, but that is a physical impossibility. The deepest mines in the world in South Africa are about that deep and require the most amazing, expensive air conditioning units made to operate. Not only that, at two-miles deep, you get periodic "rock bursts" from the pressure. In short, a city of 20,000 could not exist two miles below ground (or 5 miles as in the case of Ched Nasad) - so why does it work, because Canon says it does. Same reason dragons can fly, wizards can cast spells, etc.

As for your Sabbat comparison - that is a whole different kettle of pirannah.

Anyway, come to the underdark if you wish - but do not hold your breath hoping things will go as you think they should; things will go as they go.

[erasmuys]

I'll admit to baiting you a bit Mik.

I'm sure there are as many theories behind role-playing as there are people who've taken the time to be DM. Maybe part of role-playing is this (and other) debates.

While I never directly impuned your role-playing, as I wasn't really interested in something personal; still I must admit that I intended you to see my remarks as directed toward benig judgmental of your interpretation.

I doubt you, or a convention full of such drow would ever convince me that your theories are either canonical or preferable in any troupe I'd want to participate in. But then sometimes I fail Groucho Marx's test:

"I wouldn't want to be apart of any group that would have people like me as members."

You claim as evidence oodles of fun in the underdark as we speak... that's fine but as useful as me claiming that you can't be having fun there. Seeing as we have little common ground for experience and as we have every reason to believe we wouldn't enjoy gaming together, then there's no real reason to put our claims to the test.

To put a point, your fun and my fun ain't the same thing, so there's no point in trying to "prove" any of this.

In so far as you find my "slave story" a poor test, that's sort of the point. The fact that you find it such is a demonstration that your interpretation of your own character is shallow. Instead of thinking about posibilities, you thought of the limitations of your situation. To me, that's the most natural distinction between you and I. I am quite sure that you'll find this preposterous. That's also fine. I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.

I'm an opinionated, surly, boisterous person who likes to hear his own lips flap about as much as he likes hearing the sound of a d20 falling across a kitchen table.

By the by, as for all the suspended disbelief stuff... even in an effort to suspend disbelief there are rules. By in large, "powerful" stuff needs to be "rare" stuff. Huge caverns need geological formations, magic often requires alchemical formulae, Cathedrals need buttresses, heck even the random monster encounter tables from the 1st Ed DMs guide suggests that particular monsters might live in a related eco system.

You would be surprised to find a blue dragon in a swamp where a green might be more appropriate. Even fantasy life has rules. You've decided you like yours, just because I come along with my bag of holding(tm) full of criticisms doens't mean squat.