Originally Posted by Leucrotta
Drow and goblins as evil by nature being the 'old approach' should come with an asterisk next to it IMO, as it evolved in 3rd edition and was present through 4th and 5th. I got to look at the 3rd edition style guide and from what I remember of it, the powers that be were pretty contemptuous of the idea of 'good orcs' etc then (despite being a thing that existed prior) And of course the novel series you refer to spacehamster95, was basically concepted as a way to cut out the diversity in drow culture as it was viewed as off brand for the drow and diluted the 'RA Salvatore' drow. In 4th iirc Chris Perkins had all references to good drow and Eilistraee/Vhaeraun possibly coming back removed from the Menzoberranzan sourcebook. The current 5e drow and goblins is very much a product of WoTC seeing the 'old school' drow orcs, goblins etc and deciding that complex nuanced cultures didn't sell well enough with their target audience and giving them the axe for the better part of three editions, then going back again when the wind changed.

So I'm not so sure Larian is using 'old school' drow. My impression is that BG III development very much happened in a transitioning period in regards to the drow lore. Recall the large retcon dump for drow lore that happened as sort of a tie in with the latest Salvatore book and the awful Dark Alliance reboot. Some of the blurbs sounded very familiar to what we have in BGIII. A lot of it's language- the whole 'lolthsworn-drow come from Menzoberranzan' thing, Lolth being described as a 'cult'. They are holding to the art shift that happened partway into 5e where drow are now always portrayed as grey-skinned in art, and the idea of allegiance to Lolth affecting your physical appearance which is relatively new as well(eye color in BG, weird tattoo things in Dark Alliance). Right now they are portrayed in-game in a more or less familiar way, but will that hold as we reach Baldur's Gate, as we meet non-absolute, and/or non-Lolth worshipping drow? Vhaeraun mentioned earlier is pretty much the exact opposite of his portrayal prior to him getting axed in 3rd. I can imagine stuff like that would be a bit jarring for vets to see if Larian explored it more in depth, same with if they decide to devote more time and dialogue to explaining the eye thing.

I think there's some cause for legitimate concern that the drow will feel weird and incongruous depending on how Larian handles things. This could go for a lot of things. Imagine in Haer'Dalis shows up in a cameo, but he looks like a 5e Tiefling. 5e is a different beast than 2nd or third. Right now we are still just romping around fighting monsters in the wilderness, so we are insulated somewhat from the developments and retcons over the intervening editions.

Drows being evil by nature is not a third edition thing. You can trace it back to Advanced DnD, from their very inception. If you look at old art from that period depicting the Drows, you can see that they manifest a lot of the anxieties of the 70-80ies (POC, violent matriarchal society, etc).