Why the drow race bugs me as a concept.
When we think of the drow we think of the evil black skined race of elves with extremely acute senses that were forced into the lightless Underdark by their surface cousins. They are nasty, evil, and extremely deadly to anyone who gets in their way. Admittedly, they are very badass!
Well, as cool a concept as the drow are I still have this nagging feeling of disappointment in the back of my head because if they were real they would not be the same thing described above. Here is why:
In the real world, any creature that has evolved to live in a lightless environment, like a subterranean river in a cave system, invariably loses all the pigment in their body and becomes blind while the other senses are heightened. So unlike the drow who gained extra pigment in their skin and became black skined; real cave dwellers are completely white or colorless. And unlike the drow who gained an extremely acute sense of sight; real cave dwellers would be blind.
Real world cave dwellers look more like this cave fish:
Or like this cave crayfish:
So if the drow actually existed in the real world they would probably look more like this:
(I know I just added insult to injury by using HoMM5 as an example. Feel free to hate me.)
So as cool of a concept as the drow are and as much as I wish their backstory lined up with real world science, I have to take them down on this because it just doesn't work that way. Now I know it is just a fantasy world and the facts there need not and should not line up with reality for the story to be great. I would never change the drow from what they are had I the power. However that does not change the fact that the drow would never have become what we know them to be if they were in the real world and, unfortunately, I am disappointed by this fact every time I think about them. Sorry for spoiling the drow for everyone, but they aren't real.
Well, as cool a concept as the drow are I still have this nagging feeling of disappointment in the back of my head because if they were real they would not be the same thing described above. Here is why:
In the real world, any creature that has evolved to live in a lightless environment, like a subterranean river in a cave system, invariably loses all the pigment in their body and becomes blind while the other senses are heightened. So unlike the drow who gained extra pigment in their skin and became black skined; real cave dwellers are completely white or colorless. And unlike the drow who gained an extremely acute sense of sight; real cave dwellers would be blind.
Real world cave dwellers look more like this cave fish:
Or like this cave crayfish:
So if the drow actually existed in the real world they would probably look more like this:
(I know I just added insult to injury by using HoMM5 as an example. Feel free to hate me.)
So as cool of a concept as the drow are and as much as I wish their backstory lined up with real world science, I have to take them down on this because it just doesn't work that way. Now I know it is just a fantasy world and the facts there need not and should not line up with reality for the story to be great. I would never change the drow from what they are had I the power. However that does not change the fact that the drow would never have become what we know them to be if they were in the real world and, unfortunately, I am disappointed by this fact every time I think about them. Sorry for spoiling the drow for everyone, but they aren't real.
10
Comments
I DEMAND A REFUND
You are totally right, but I don't think many people would care one way or the other. However (I'm not sure about the lore) the idea that a Drow's skin hue comes from melanin levels may or may not be true.
Also from what I recall from RA Salvatore, they don't live in total blackness, having glowing stalagmites in most of their caverns. Catti-Brie wasn't totally handicapped when they were in the Underdark.
Of course fantasy and race like drow don't have to be inherently racist. Even if their creation could basically be "dark = evil!" the concept is popular because they are so interesting! We can accept it as it is without reading too much into it and even better, as we go forward be more aware and creative with concepts we make.
Think about movies too! There's so much stuff that used to happen in action movies that just didn't make sense, but the more technology has progressed the more people have thought about the logistics of explosions and effects, I personally think we demand much more coherence in story too. That is definitely a good thing
Lol it just made me think of the last Batman movie ... there was so much in there that just didn't make sense.
They wouldn't necessarily "lose" their pigment... this is actually a myth. It's not like white people are pale because they live in caves. Melanin level (to the extent that it can be adjusted by environmental factors) is actually more determined by diet (you need tyrosine. Ever hear about how if you eat more greens or carrots its good for your skin? Totally true). Lack of sunlight would just make them paler in comparison to if they were exposed to sun. This could actually explain the blue-ness of their skin
Nor are melanin levels really a factor in natural selection in the past millennia (how many people do you know who have died of sunburn or melanomas?). It doesn't give any In fact melanin deficiency would (in most cases) be more dangerous because it would lead to Parkinson's Disease.
The real issue is that Drow would have Osteomalacia due to Vitamin D deficiency (produced by sunlight hitting skin, though can be gotten through a very specific diet), which means they would have extremely brittle bones that would break under little pressure.
.... now that I think about it, that would account for their negative constitution modifier
Skin color was one of the first major changes after hair reduction for humans in evolution from the more "simians" as Edwin would say. Now its only a factor in perceived physical beauty (Caucasians get tans to be darker, Southeast Asians and Africans try to be lighter and Latinas are perfectly beautiful goddesses that everyone wants to emulate)
Other than that I don't really know, lol. We're all the same species (spoiler alert) so people are more alike functionally, and we've walked on two feet for a long time. I don't do research, but I know for sure eye and hair color really don't matter selectively and are actually linked to melanin levels as well (Europeans have more varied hair and eye colors compared to most regions, whereas blue and green eyes are rare elsewhere and you don't find many natural blondes in say, Southeast Asia)
Typical evolutionary pressures (stronger, faster, smarter), don't really apply so much on advanced creatures capable of organising a society, because the weaker ones are protected sufficiently to allow them to reproduce at more or less the same extent as genetically fitter members of the species.
That said, given the vicious violence of Drow culture I experienced in Ust Natha, maybe my point is null and void... lol The thing is, in a world full of magic and fantasy, we got to suspend belief in science and logic at times, otherwise, nothing makes sense.
In terms of human evolution, it has been many thousands of years since our ancestors played by the same rules as other animals. The natural world is incredibly harsh and heartless. In the wild, a lion simply never approaches the age equivalent to a human being over 50. Cancer is only a problem as a disease because people are living beyond the age when a general decline in physical fitness would kill off other animals. Various physical weaknesses, such as poor aerobic fitness and short-sightedness in my case, would have got me killed well before I had a chance to procreate and have children carrying my genetic defects into the next generation.
Thus for humans, the most notable changes have to do with immunity to infections (which is why the isolated American Indians were decimated by diseases upon first contact with Europeans.) and food. In relatively recent evolution, humans have grown much taller thanks to growing abundance of food. It is really striking looking at the records of the Grand Army of Napoleon, and comparing them with average height of Frenchmen now.
...now my head hurts. The length of time isn't as significant as the advancement of their society, for the reasons that Heindrich mentioned. If we can build a home with air conditioning and heat, temperature (barring very extreme changes) will no longer be a major driving factor for evolution.
The Drow are basically at the top of the food chain due to their intelligence and guile (much like we are superior to lions though they would destroy us in a naked fight). Therefore they would need stronger evolutionary forces to drive them forward, regardless of the amount of time, than say half-orcs.
Now its turned into a biomedical seminar.
EDIT: Or I guess plants or fungi.
Not to be picky, but this is not entirely true. Of course intellectual capability has a strong bearing on how far we get in our human society. (Though I'd say not necessarily any more on physical attractiveness, which is a good estimate of genetic fitness) It does not however have much correlation to reproductive success, which is the main driver for evolutionary change.
I have yet to successfully get laid by impressing a girl with my knowledge of biology or politics, the two subjects I have a bit of a passion for and sometimes get carried away ranting about. In fact, it usually has the opposite effect on girls.
Anyways, the trend in most countries is that as people become more educated and well-off, (arguably a correlation there with intelligence), they have less children, and the poor and uneducated tend to have larger families.
a. there is a HUGE difference between "getting laid" and reproducing (especially with modern technology)
b. a lot of what you may think is a matter of physical attractiveness when it comes to "getting laid" is often equally a matter of charisma, which is an intellectual trait. Similarly, grooming is an essential factor in physical attractiveness. A lot of what is perceived as genetic fitness comes from the way someone presents themselves, from the way they dress, to their diet, to their exercise habits. These are often planned extensively.
I used the 'getting laid' thing as a humorous example, but I guess it kinda detracted from my main point, which is that reproductive success has little to do with intellectual capability and life success (measured in economic terms). Most humans, if they wish to, can (and do) find partners and raise children with whatever genetic strengths and weaknesses of their parents.
For example, I might be an idiot with a two-digit IQ, but if I was a lecherous and irresponsible douche who tries to have as much unprotected sex as possible with any woman who'd have me, I might die young from an STD, but I'd also be far more 'reproductively successful' than I am now, as somebody who is very conservative and selective about his partners, let alone a woman to potentially raise children with.
ps: @Tresset
Sorry for derailing your topic! In my defence, evolutionary biology and history/politics are my only two passions that might trigger a rant. lol
a. Donald Trump and Hugh Heffner
b. You are conflating "getting laid" with "reproductive success". There is a huge difference between getting someone to agree to have a one-night-stand with you and reproduce, which is mainly highlighted by: Today with birth control and abortion, unwanted pregnancies are actually quite low worldwide. Yet putting that aside, being a "lecherous and irresponsible douche who tries to have as much unprotected sex as possible" would significantly lower the number of "women who'd have me" as in agree to have *unprotected* sex with you.
I know the whole "nice guys finish last, woe is me" line of thinking is very popular these days, but it is not necessarily true. It is true that more aggressive men might get laid more (which is NOT the same as being a lecherous and irresponsible douche, though many like to think that). Reproduction however is a whole different thing. Most women I know insist on using a condom or take the pill, so agreeing to sleep with the theoretical douche is different from agreeing to carry and care for his child. The availability of abortion is another factor that makes the theoretical douche (this is sounding like a south park episode
Regardless, what you just described as something that would increase your reproductive success is, though I don't agree with it entirely, a MENTAL characteristic, not a physical one. It may not be the most complex endeavor, but there is more to getting laid than going up to every girl you see and saying "herp derp lets make sex now". It does require a level of charm, no matter how crass we may find it.
So more aggressive/confident/successful men are more reproductively fit, not lecherous douches with double digit IQs... Kevin Federline being the exception.
So. Much. Win.
I need to get better at this debating business. I guess this is why I am not actually a politician... I over-elaborate and say things that leave me open to attack
Anyway the core of my arguement is these 2 points:
1) Biological evolution is driven by sexual reproduction. Genes which enhance their chances of being passed on into the next generation are the most successful genes, which propagate in the gene-pool through natural selection. Most of these genes are beneficial to the host organism, since survival typically enhances the organism's chances of reproduction. The peacock's tail and other sexual dimorphic attributes are significant examples of where a gene's success is in fact detrimental to the host organism itself. (A huge tail requires a lot of excess energy to grow, and it hinders flight, making the peacock more vulnerable to predators).
I highly recommend "The Selfish Gene" to those who maybe interested in the subject. It is a great book that explains evolution in relatively simple terms, and also introduced the concept of Memes, which has since gone mainstream.
2) 'Intellectual fitness' is not the primary driver of reproductive success in human society. Thanks to an abundance of resources, a largely benign environment and culturally established norms of monogamous familial units, most people are able to find a partner and raise a family if they wish to, and thus there is not much of a pre-requisite level of intellectual capability required for humans to reproduce, and hence little evolutionary pressure for selection of genes that enhance intellectual capability. Furthermore, if you regard 'life-success' as a measure of economic success, there is arguably a negative correlation between life success and reproductive success.
The fact is, there is not much evolutionary pressure for humans in almost any attribute that we would normally regard as evolutionarily beneficial (stronger, faster, smarter). Our environment is (thankfully) much less harsh and more forgiving than the natural world. Natural selection only removes the least viable genes from the human gene pool (severe genetic disorders that result in death or serious illness before reproductive fertility) and if there are genes that somehow increase the urge for procreation and raising children, those would be the ones that would be positively selected by human evolution.