Talk:Drow

Lolth was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 April 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Drow. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dungeons & Dragons High‑importance This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as requiring comments on its talk page. This article has been marked as needing its references improved. Please rewrite according to the citation guidelines. The references department may be able to help. D&D to-do: edit history watch purge view Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Merge : Various articles Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More... Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

The origins of the "Drow" preceed Dungeons & Dragons, probably by hundreds of years. Not only do we have the "Trow" of the Scottish Orkney Isle in folklore, but also the "Drow" of Shetland Isle. It is probably also related to the terms "Dokkaelfar" (Norse, meaning "Dark Elf", as opposed to "Svartaelfar" which means "Black Elf") and "Du-Sith" (Gaelic, meaning "Black Elf").

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1970) states that: "Drow, n., [scot.] A tiny elf which lived in caves and forged magick metal work."

So there's a reference to the Drow three years prior to the publication of Dungeons & Dragons and seven years prior to the inclusion of "the Drow" in that particular role-playing game.

I've heard rumors that TSR/Wizards/Hasbro/Whatever it is this month owns a copyright on the Drow and that Gary Gygax claimed they were his own intellectual property. However, the above should indicate that the Drow are not the sole domain of Dungeons & Dragons, that they are no living person's (or company's) intellectual property, and that any copyright on this matter is invalid.

In any event, the Drow are most certainly NOT just "a species of elf in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game", and should probably not have been introduced as such.

---

Please sign your comments. Also, this information should probably only be on the talk page and not the main article, since it isnt in encyclopedic form. I agree with you, however, that the drow should not be referred to as simply a D&D race if there is evidence that the concept existed before D&D; however, you need to present this information in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the article. DryGrain 19:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Well, the evidence (reference) is above. Perhaps a Drow (Historical) page or sub-section would be best? Or a listing for the word "Drow" and "Dokkaelfar" on the Dark Elf page, alongside "Trow" and "Svartaelfar"? --209.206.169.229 10:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually, screw this. I actually followed the link labelled [2] that claims to have a solid source for the claim that Gary G invented everything except the basic dark elf concept.

First of all, it says "Teutonic folklore included both light elves (good) and dark elves (evil). The word "drow" is of Scottish origin, an alternative form of "trow", which is a cognate for "troll". Trow/drow was used to refer to a wide variety of evil sprites. Except for the basic concept of "dark elves", everything else about drow was apparently invented by TSR's writers. "

First of all, it points to a geocities webpage wich has a list compiled by someone called Aardy R. DeVarque, wich means he himself didn't necessarily do any research. He just compiled it.

Secondly, it provides no real sources of it's own, just a bibliography.

Thirdly, if the wording was "Except for the basic concept of "dark elves" everything else about the Dungeons & Dragons race drow, was invented by TSR'writers (Gary Gygax among others)" I wouldn't have a problem with it necessarily.

As it stands now, the latter part of the paragraph attributes the word drow, what appears to be, exclusively to the DnD universe, wich obviously is wrong. The former part of the paragraph even supports that it's wrong by saying it's of scottish origin and not invented by Gary Gygax/TSR. As such I feel it's necessary to point out that YES, TSR/Bla bla invented everything else about THEIR species of dark elf called drow. Not necessarily being the only kind of drow, or they having any special right to the word.

I'm going to go ahead and do the word changes and put this page under watch.

Annoying username (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that in folklore words that mean different types of elves, fairies, etc. are ambiguous and interchangable, before D&D when the names and stats of supernatural creatures were formally catagorized. Whether it's trow or drow in folklore, what the article should stress is that the concept of the drow is very losely based on the name alone and that Gary Gygax created the exact concepts of Drow in the Underdark, not just dark elves with no particular background. Sp4i6 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this include an explanation of the pronunciation of drow? (In the D&D games, it is like brow, rather than like crow, but I am not certain of the original word.)

Done :) ··gracefool |☺ 10:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That pronunciation doesn't help much. What is "aʊ"? → JarlaxleArtemis 01:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't got the correct software installed to see it; it appears to those that do as an upside-down horse shoe shape—the International Phonetic Alphabet symbol for that sound. -Erolos 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some strange reason, I can see the symbol in the article but not on this talk page. What I meant, though, was that I don't know what the symbol means. I assume it stands for the "ow" sound as in "cow." I'm not sure, though. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know it myself and I couldn't immediately find somewhere that didn't explain the alphabet's pronounciations in non-linguistic terms, but from what is written in International Phonetic Alphabet for English I'd say it is an "ow" sound. -Erolos 13:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As we are discussing about the Drow of the Dungeons & Dragons Setting, I like to refer to an official, written statement of the D&D authors: At page 9 of the "A Grand Tour of the Realms"-booklet (2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set) it is stated: "Dark elves, also called Drow (pronounced to rhyme with now or how)..." Thus I assume that D:rou (which ryhmes with "now"). Grimmblut 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time D&D author Frank Mentzer wrote an article called "Ay pronunseeAYshun gyd" in Dragon #93 which has it pronounced both ways. However, in my experience, the pronunciation that rhymes with "now" seems to be more accepted.--Robbstrd 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "correct" pronunciation of Drow is taken from Page 9 of A Grand Tour of the Realms (2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set) where it states, "Dark elves, also called Drow (pronounced to rhyme with now or how)..."

It lists both, simply because people were pronoucing it both rhyming with throw and now, before those books probably came out, or they never just read it. I'd prefer to keep it now, after reading several threads, websites, etc, on the matter. People wouldn't have kept changing it to 'rhyming with throw' if they hadn't heard it several times, no? Google the debate on it, you'll find several. Disinclination 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is all well & good, but not official. Both pronunciations should remain until WotC releases an offical statement, though I suppose one could place something like "pronounced drow (now), or (rarely) drow (throw)" could be worked in.--Robbstrd 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte by Jan de Vries (a widely used standard work on Germanic paganism) and on p. 356 in volume II, he mentions that the draugr "lives on in the Shetland Isles as drow or trow". So it would appear that the drow was originally a kind of undead. See also trow. --Salleman 06:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a kind of undead, dumbass. It's a creature somewhat related to the Scandinavian troll, and in Celtic mythology, drow are a type of Fomorian.

There has been a little revert war involving JarlaxleArtemis and Robbstrd (I made the initial revert). Firstly, Robbstrd, Jarlaxle didn't insult anything. Secondly, I think he has a point — a Wikiproject better have a good reason to override general practice in the rest of Wikipedia. However, when I actually look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games, I see:

For articles on role-playing games, we recommend the following layout:

Title is a genre [[role-playing game]], designed by designer and published by current publisher.

The project's example article also follows this. So, as far as I can see, both general practice and especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games opposes Robbstrd's reverts. ··gracefool |☺ 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the MoS suggests making the title the subject of the first sentence, but says nothing about the exact spot that subject should appear in.

According to the MoS, "In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, subject is..." is most definately correct.

And it seems that the opposition to Robbstrd's version is based directly on a misinterpretation of the MoS. -- Ec5618 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MoS, both ways are fine. Robbstrd's version is not more correct. The original way is by far the most popular throughout Wikipedia. If we are going to follow the Wikiproject standard, we should put the title first. ··gracefool |☺ 04:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbstrd has now pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Style, which was recently added and has not reached consensus - again, not valid a basis for reverts. ··gracefool |☺ 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the WikiProject Role-playing games isn't authoritative. But since it suggests this formatting, and since it is not 'wrong', since many articles don't follow convention entirely, and since arguments have been given for starting acticles on fictional worlds in this way, I would suggest you come up with a better reason for reverting. Valid basis for reversion indeed. -- Ec5618 07:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games suggests the opposite. ··gracefool |☺ 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested there that we should follow the guidance of the 'guide to writing better articles' and the MoS. Neither of those pages states that the subject of the article should be towards the beginning of the first sentence.

Percy Snoodle had argued in favour of putting the subject near the front of the sentence, based on his assumption that these pages advocated doing so. I'm afraid he was wrong. I'm not sure how you can deduce from the discussion in the style subpage that WikiProject Role-playing games suggest doing so. -- Ec5618 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely quoting Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games (see start of discussion). In any case, this needs to be discussed as a whole at that WikiProject, rather than on separate articles like this. ··gracefool |☺ 12:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following. The first post was mine. Other editors agreed with my sentiment, Percy Snoodle disagreed based on a faulty assumption, and then you disagreed. In any case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games does not suggest the opposite. -- Ec5618 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here through random article and added some links. However, I noticed that you have "The creation of the fictional drow..." and "...the Drow are recast...". So which is correct, capital or not? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drow" should only be capitalized at the beginning of sentences, or when referring to the Drow language. For nearly all other purposes, "drow" should be used. Robbstrd 18:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "drow" should also be capitalized when part of a title, such as "Vault of the Drow."Robbstrd 18:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for this page to include a list of novels in which the drow play a major role? The only ones I know of are the Salvatore's Drizzt books and War of the Spider Queen, as well as Elaine Cunningham's Windwalker trilogy. Are there any others?

That's probably it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make a much needed correction. Drow may be a Scots word, and not a Gaelic one as there is no "w" in Gaelic. I think a much closer translation might be Dreàgh/Dreàdh if it was Gaelic. This in turn might sound similar to "cow." If anything it is most likely Orkney in origin but it don't believe they use a "w" either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.96.236 (talk • contribs) .

I've seen somewhere that the etymology of "drow" is that it indeed comes from the "drow"/"trow" in Orkney, but that this in turn comes from the Norse "draugr" (a type of undead) and not from "troll". Does anyone know anything more about this? - Gustav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.200.42 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen drow spelled drowe before; does anyone know which is correct? Why are there two different spellings, where did they come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.0.32.190 (talk • contribs) .

I've never seen it spelled "drowe" before, at least not in the context of the dark elves. You may have seen a misprint.--Robbstrd 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not authoritative, but I recall chatting with a guy who took part in a LARP called Labyrinth or something like that. I believe he was referring to the dark elves of that LARP as "drowe". At the time, it struck me as just using fancy spelling to be different, as in "magick", "vampyre", or "Ærth." Self-edit: The LARP was called Labyrinthe. StaffanBaloo 09:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a way to be 'fancy'. Since this is the section on D&D, we should probably go by what the books say. Disinclination 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can settle this: In the D&D rulebooks, racial and creature names are not considered proper nouns (just like we don't capitalize "dog" or "cow", the inhabitants of such worlds do not capitalize "elf" or "troll"). One should follow the same rule of thumb that the rulebooks do.

I removed the passage "The dunmer are the elder scrolls version of the drow" as this is wrong. Appart from being elves and having dark sking, the dunmer share nothing with the Drow.

The drow, as they appear in fantasy fiction and games, were created by Gary Gygax, and appeared in the 1979 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons module, Hall of the Fire Giant King and They made their first statistical appearance in G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King (later G1-2-3 Against the Giants) (1978) by Gary Gygax.

These two sentences appear to be repeating one another.

They were first mentioned in the Dungeons & Dragons game in the 1st Edition 1977 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual under "Elf." and The first D&D manual that the drow appeared in was the original Fiend Folio.

These two sentences appear to be contradictory. If they appeared in the Monster Manual, then Fiend Folio cannot be their first appearance in a manual. I presume the author intended to say Fiend Folio was the first time they had a fully fleshed out entry, as they were probably not much more than a footnote in the Monster Manual's elf entry. Should this be changed to reflect this?

(147.10.140.186 03:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There should be written, that Drows have no beard in Dungeons & Dragons and that they can have beard in Everquest. If it is true. I have draw an image of Drow. But he has got beard and there are conventionalized snakes. Should I upload the image? And for what article? Maybe it is an half-elf or especially half-Drow, because of his dusky grey skin according to information but I have no information about beard. There are no images of such old half-drows or Drows. I have found only one image of half-elf with beard [1]. --Snek01 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's an official D&D stance on drow, or even elven, facial hair, so I don't see a need to address it in this article.--Robbstrd 01:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is. Drow of the Underdark says that roughly 1 in 10 male drow are capable of growing facial hair. --84.66.21.81 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we integrate this section into the reference section?--Robbstrd 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, by what authority can we say that, "Their society, as a whole, is completely nonviable." Skiguy330 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Drow of the Underdark. Essentially, they murder each other so often that they should really have murdered themselves out of existance ages ago. Only the spider queen prevents the drow society collapsing in on itself. --84.66.21.81 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plot & Poison Guidebook to Drow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in 3rd edition that I have noticed. They merely have daylight blindness in 3.5e and 3e. --84.66.21.81 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drow weapons and armor don't melt in sunlight, they just lose their sharpness and magical properties, because they were made of adamantine, not to be confused with adamantium, a metal in the Marvel universe. "Adamantine was often used by drow elves of the Underdark, and their adamantine weapons were usually swords that were magically enhanced. Their magical strength and sharpness faded if brought into contact with direct sunlight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.83.69.243 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of "Ascendancy Of The Last" by Lisa Smedman, Lolth is pretty much the only drow deity that currently exists. Eilistraee and her followers destroyed Vhaeraun and Selvetarm, Kiaransalee's name was wiped from the memory of her followers, effectively destroying her, as well. Ghaunadaur is more or less out of commission, as he has been trapped in an extraplanar infinite maze. Finally, Eilistraee herself was killed by a servant of Lolth.

Also, just prior to her destruction, certain followers of Eilistraee worked a form of High Magic that cleansed a "demonic taint" from a subset of drow. Specifically, these were drow "redeemed" by Eilistraee and drow who were descended from Miyeritar. 4th Edition will likely clarify this, but this subset is now consider to be "dark elves" and not "drow." Also, the final events of Ascendancy Of The Last demonstrated that Corellon Larethian is reconciled to these dark elves, and that Lolth has no dominion over them.ChipEverwood (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to echo this. The LP novel series reveals that the "turn to the demons" act of the dark elves (one shouldn't mix the pre- and post-Descent dark elves up with the term drow, actually) was taken because of the looming destruction of the Ilythiiri at the hands of the Vyshaan of Aryvandaar. Only then Lolth was taken up as patroness and Wendonai came to lead the dark elves back into the driving seat of that conflict. One should not forget, despite all the "savagery" of the Ilythiiri later on, that the Vyshaan spell-destroyed the whole Realm of Miyeritar and smashed the Western Realms apart when creating Evermeet (The Sundering) - killing thousands of dark elves and elves alike. In essence, in a war, some moral boundaries are lost easily enough and if someone then suddenly remembers them, you cannot just blame one half of the coin. Anyways, some adjustments to the Drow in the FR article need to be made. (Ynnis (a.k.a. Zanan), July 5th 09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynnis (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the FR section again. All the drow deities have returned with the Sundering. Nothing is known about the dark elves (it's almost as if those novels have been retconned, since they were completely ignored--not a single word on what happened in them was published), they don't appear anywhere and don't receive any mention. The exact events leading to the return of the Dark Seldarine aren't clear, it is only known that they are alive again, due to Ao's action during the Sundering (as per the latest FR setting book, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide). In particular, Eilistraee and Vhaeraun are now no longer enemies, having reached a deep reciprocal understanding and even friendship. Both of them are currently, personally manifesting to their people, in order to let their return be known. In Death Masks, by Ed Greenwood, it is said that Eilistraee in particular has been repeatedly seen dancing, and speaking to mortals, in person (she even appeared dancing under the walls of Waterdeep), and there are a few passages that make it clear that her (drow) followers are rebuilding her faith (for example, they are trying to rebuild a temple in Waterdeep). Ed Greenwood has also offered his explanation to Eilistraee's and Vhaeraun's return, and new alliance, here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19841&whichpage=22#476639 --Irennan (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! :)

This article has been selected for possible inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 DVD release. If there is anything you can do to help this article (fact check for sources and citations, check grammar and spelling, providing creator commentaries, finding useful quotes in interviews and product reviews, detailing publication history, rewriting in-universe text to out-of-universe text, and general cleanup here and there) now would be the time!

Also, if you'd like to nominate more articles to be selected for this project, or just wish to discuss the release in general, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think step #1, aside from finding refs, is to move the in-universe text into the publication history. Thus, you'd have "In the Monster Manual, drow are first described as...", "In the GDQ series, drow are described as...", "In the Fiend Folio, drow are said to be...", "In Unearthed Arcana, drow are presented as a player character race, which allows them to...", etc.

Then, we could get into their role in the novels, both Gygax's and Greenwood's, and how the drow societies are presented there, and all that. It was these depictions (particularly Greenwood's) that set the stage, taking them from being just a race in some

For 2E, we can expand the MC2 entry, reprinted in Monstrous Manual, which greatly expanded the in-game info for drow; Drow of the Underdark and Complete Book of Elves did more of the same.

For 3E and 4E, not sure how much we need to say there, other than noting changes and such. Much of what I originally put into the publication history is essentially dross; it may not need to be removed, but it could probably stand to be reorganized.

By moving the in-universe info into the publication history (all a part of my long ago plan), we can remove or at least sharply reduce the in-universe sections, while retaining all the important info. Also, we give the info a timeline, showing where certain concepts were introduced or when things were altered. All the D&D fictional element articles should be written this way, and one day they eventually will be, but it will take some work. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on this. I have the MM, FF, and UA handy so I will do something about those. I also have a lot of the 2E and 3E books in question and can get to them if no one else can do it sooner. I have most of the original modules as well, but I will have to do some digging for them. Anyone else can feel free to beat me to it. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's late so I'm going to bed, but I got a start. I'll likely revisit FF and UA after we get some info from the GDQ modules in there. :) Probably not tomorrow, but hopefully soon I will come back to working on this one. BOZ (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one last note! The modules were easier to find than I figured... I have all of the original modules except for Q1, and any of the combinations or the supermodule. All in due time, as I say, unless someone beats me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I think that we can really make this work. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went through G1-G3 and dug out all the most important stuff worth mentioning. If anyone else has these modules and wants to double-check, feel free. I'll go through D1-D3 next as I have some time. As mentioned above, I do not possess Q1 or any of the combination modules. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on reorging is that we should merge a bunch of the sections. Just prosify the various facts about each edition and put them in one PH, maybe broken up by whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I was thinking - so then, so far so good? Or did you mean something else? BOZ (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far! I hope to add in more info on reception, drow abilities and use in gameplay, etc., in the near future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done describing the drow as they appear in the 1st edition. Like I said, I have everything except Q1, so if you want me to go back and see if I can describe anything in greater detail, just let me know. Likewise, I probably (somewhat intentionally) overdetailed some things from the module series, so that should be trimmed back a bit. Maybe if we could streamline the description of the actual plot some more to get just the pertinent details on the early depictions of the drow? I don't want to lose the module plot altogether, as it was what drove the introduction of these foes.

I'll get to work on the 2E section sometime in the near future. I have every book currently mentioned in that section, and more (like the Menzoberranzan boxed set) so I can add some details that were not previously included (or elaborated on) in the 1E material. BOZ (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can merge the whole of the Ecology section into the 1E section, if you give me a little time to work it out. Any concept not fully described in the 1E section should get a note when and where it was introduced (which is why the Novels section becomes important), for example, "this book adds the concept of drow liking fuzzy slippers". BOZ (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Sorry about the delays on my end... that seems to be happening with most everything on wiki. There's just too much to do! :) Anyway, I think that I should be able to put quite a bit of work into the sections on 3rd edition and the OGL sometime this week. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. :) The pub history now contains most of the information otherwise presented in the Ecology and Abilities sections. I suspect much of the Society section comes from the novels, so it would be good if we can find someone who can build that part from scratch. Most of the novels involved are mentioned in other places in the article, which ought to be merged into this section; in fact, I think I'll get started on that now. BOZ (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to track some of these down:

• "Children Of the Spider Goddess", Eric Oppen, Dragon #129 (p 20)
• "Entering the Drider's Web", C.E. Misso, Dragon #129 (p 30)
• "If You Need Help -- Ask the Drow!", Greenwood & Schend, Dragon #176 (p 16)

I dug out my 2E Drow of the Underdark to have a look at it, but it's late and I didn't make it past the dedication page. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) BOZ (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rethinking my approach. While I really like the way the publication history section is looking so far, it is getting ridiculously bloated. I have some free time, so in a little while I'm going to start separating the actual descriptions of the drow back out into a separate section. Let me know what you think after I do it; I can always revert if it's not so great. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got it there. :) Would do more, but I'm getting sleepy. ;) I want to keep the description section in publication order as well, because that avoids the "but now in the current edition they're like this, not like that!" tendency to replace information with the most current thing. Stating what is found source by source keeps perspective of what came when; how many drow fans even know that the drow were that well detailed already in 1978? :) All the fundamentals of what makes a drow a drow were there over 30 years ago, thanks to Gary Gygax (and how many drow fans think that Greenwood or Salvatore created the drow and gave them their most notable aspects?) BOZ (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the source book "Races of Renown. Plot and Poison: A Guidebook to the Drow" there is a more detailed Drow pantheon, with the Spider Queen (a former destiny goddess) instead of Lolth at the head, and eight demigods known as the Claws serving under her. Do these deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumorifox (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in a separate section, since this does not affect the WotC canon. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair, putting a separate section for "unoffical" information like that in Races of Renown, Pathfinder, Tome of Horrors, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there a special area that has to go with then? Like campaign settings, or open game content? Kumorifox (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Open gaming" (in the publication history) might work. Otherwise, I'd create a similarly named section to put it in. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution, if it's kept in an out-of-universe perspective. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound a little stupid, but how is it best kept in an out-of-universe aspect? Once I know, I can add some info, seeing as I have the book. Thanks! Kumorifox (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep the information brief, and introduce it with something like "In Green Ronin Publishing's Plot and Poison: A Guidebook to the Drow, the..." –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, yes. I don't have the book myself, but for example you could say "In Green Ronin Publishing's Plot and Poison: A Guidebook to the Drow, the Such-and-Such prestige class is introduced, as well as 12 new spells for a drow wizard, with new options for player characters such as..." 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if a proper citation would be needed to the claim that the 3.5 'Drow of the Underdark' was inspired by presence the Green Ronin 'Plot and Poison' as I would assume that the book is merely an update of the 2nd ed. book of the same name. 87.113.23.105 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would need a citation for that. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting effort into this very detailed article about something that does not exist. Society owes you a debt. 188.26.49.8 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another satisfied customer! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vhaeraun is linked several times, but it is just a redirection back to Drow. In case anyone wonders why my intended edit is going to remove all those links. Cryptarch (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drow (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526192047/http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/getent4.php?plen=11075&startset=44442733&query=TROW&fhit=trowe&dregion=entry&dtext=snd to http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/getent4.php?plen=11075&startset=44442733&query=TROW&fhit=trowe&dregion=entry&dtext=snd#fhit
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]