Succubi should be: A) Chaotic Evil Demons B) Lawful Evil De

>>51557559
Depends on the setting.

>>51557559
They should be Lawful Hot

>>51557559
D) Convertible to good aligned waifus

>>51557584
get a fucking angle

D) Orbitting my dick

>>51557559
D) Flexible, if you know what I mean

File: 1485144102508.jpg (67KB, 288x750px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 288x750px

D) is for my dick

Depends on the setting.
>>51557607
That is an angle.

File: Cavria.png (57KB, 1500x2100px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1500x2100px

>>51557559
E) Posted on the wiki.


https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Story:Holy_Opposites

warning: Someone else. says the upload is not done.

>>51557559
Succubi should be succubi.

Voted Any Evil.

t. alignment hater

>>51557607
>>51557666
Good morning Sergeant Angle.

My own take on them is actually in a sort of alignment with the Sundering material from Candlekeep: they started out lawful evil, but shifted en masse to chaotic evil during the end of the Blood War for no reason they've ever cared to share with their surprised Erinyes clademates and Asmodeus.

>>51557607
> get a fucking angle

I'd love to, as long as she's acute.

>>51557919

Oh! When did you start?

File: doctor_hue.gif (2MB, 280x242px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x242px

>>51557939

E. Well-illustrated but rarely used in-game.

File: 325de3d3eeda8709b77026aec8060135.png (366KB, 600x958px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 600x958px

>>51557559
Yes

>>51557559
>no "Depends on the setting" option
One. Job.

>>51558402
>I can't be arsed to think

>>51557559
It depends on what you want succubi to DO in your games.

Chaotic Evil Demon if you want them to be homewreckers without a purpose. They're just there to ruin lives, they have little or no overarching goal, but their chaotic ways makes them difficulty to predict or track down. After all, how do you stop a flawless shapeshifter armed to the teeth with magic who is literally hell-bent on causing mayhem?

Lawful Evil Devil if their antics are serving a greater cause, like a succubus who seduces her way to a high position so she can rule through a puppet and establish cults or pursue some other esoteric or arcane goal. The trick is to have all their conquests serve a purpose.

Honestly Neutral Evil doesn't make a lot of sense. Succubi are pretty extreme creatures. Neutral Evil is like Petty Evil, where they're evil because its easy and they see opportunity to do it, like thieves. I suppose you could have aimless Succubi just sort of opportunistically preying on people but that's kind of lame.

Non-evil if you're adding succubi for fapbait, a crime for which you will eventually be punished by the universe.

Reedemed Succubi if you're a colossal faggot and you need to express it somehow.

>>51557939
Don't you mean as long as she's right?

>>51558444
>armed to the teeth with magic
Succubi are usually weak as all shit in an actual fight (and by weak as all shit I mean "not ridiculously overpowered"), if you can pin them down long enough, get rid of their charmed human helpers, and anchor them so they don't teleport away.

>Neutral Evil is like Petty Evil
Neutral Evil is more like Selfish Evil, I'd say Chaotic Evil is more like Petty Evil
I mean you can be Neutral Evil if you're just a huge fucking ass and whirlwind your way through the world.

>>51557563
>>51557666
>>51558402
That's largely only works if the questions was "What are Succubi?" rather than "What should Succcubi be?"

Most settings that include succubi in one of those three roles already tell you what their alignment is. But, it's up to you to decided whether you agree with that classification or role.

>>51557559
Chaotic Evil Demons and inherently unredeemable.

>>51558444
These descriptions just sound like variations of personality. This is why alignments beyond good/evil/ambiguous are pointless, any detail beyond that is personality, which should be personalised.

Also demons should be evil.

>>51558467
It depends on the setting you nincompoop.

Some combinations are more or less appropriate to different settings and themes. Unless you believe tossing anything you think is cool into a setting without rhyme or reason is a good way to design a game, it depends on the setting.

>>51558465

well charm, perfect shapeshifting, illusions, some attack magic, usually invisibility is a pretty nice setup compared to a normal guy

But yeah, as tradition dictates, they're not usually strong combatants.

>>51558482
Alignment is supposed to capture the overarching structure of the being's personality. Don't hate it for doing its job.

Demons that aren't evil aren't demons, and succubi can fill any evil alignment pretty easily. Although I guess you could have non-demonic succubi, but it would less confusing to everyone if you didn't give them a name specifically associated with demons.

>>51558487
All you've done is shift your non-answer one step further in degrees of irrelevancy. While setting is a factor, saying that your answer entirely depends upon it is just a way to remove yourself from the discussion but in a passive aggressive way.

File: there it is.gif (848KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 300x300px

>Succubi should be:

Any alignment, but always made of elemental evil. So I can fuck with my lawful stupid paladin player when he smites fiends that are various flavors of good.

File: Depending on Setting.jpg (95KB, 841x434px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 841x434px

>>51557559

>>51557559
Depends on the setting.

Also, more importantly

>alignment

>>51558444
I kind of feel like a Neutral Evil succubus is just sustaining herself. She seduces people to eat their soul or whatever because that's what they eat. She's evil, but not really maliciously so. She just eats people.

>>51558557
I'm sorry you have such crippling lack of intent, anon. Unity of design and vision is one of the most important things you can have in a setting. If you look, I think you will begin to notice it.

>>51558557
No it isn't. What are you even talking about? The idea that setting can have all the impact on the concept of alignment is fundamental to HAVING more than one setting. There are settings where creatures with free will don't have alignments, there are settings like the Forgotten Realms where everything does. Anon isn't making a non-argument at all.

>>51558444
Chaotic evil doesn't mean goalless or purposeless. It's not Chaotic stupid.

An intelligent creature of chaos, like a succubus, is more than capable of devising complex plans for their own advancement. While a succubus may very well enjoy ruining people's lives, that is likely secondary to their desire to gain strength and influence through their dealings.

As creatures of evil, they should always be more concerned with themselves than they are with anything else, and the risks, dangers, and costs of their efforts with mortals make it clear that they'd need to gain more from their outings than simple satisfaction of the misery they've inflicted.

>>51558612
>>51558621
This is an old game, where you pretend "depends on the setting" is a valid answer by then pretending that you are slaves to a single setting or are not allowed to have any preferences.

If you really need the question expanded to "What is [your favorite depiction of succubi]'s allignment?", you are being silly and passive aggressive, and might as well also say "it depends on my preferences" and then commit entirely to THAT non-answer.

>>51558803
Having different preferences is exactly why "depends on the setting" is a valid answer.
In some settings, alignment for beings like that is completely rigid. In other settings, it can be changed. In yet others, they might not even qualify to have alignments.
And then on top of that, you add all the possible origins and supernatural compulsions and potential organizations and there is no one answer that could possibly cover all possibilities.
Sometimes, succubus are lone wolves who just want to eat souls or vitality. Sometimes they work for an organized devil heirarchy that may or may not be trying to damn people or just serve its own ends. Sometimes they're related to leaderless hordes of unorganized demons. Sometimes they're just spirits that really like sex and vice but are otherwise harmless, and in all of these cases, they can sometimes be swayed away from it OR might be hard coded to only be one way.

>>51558903
>Having different preferences is exactly why "depends on the setting" is a valid answer.

Not at all. It remains a passive aggressive non-answer, because you pretend that you do not have any preferences when what's being asked is about preferences.

Saying what succubi sometimes are is nice, and while that may depend on the setting, offers more than just a simple meme non-answer.

Saying what you think they should be, however, is what OP is asking about.

>>51558803
Asking "What is your favorite depiction" is a question that will get you definitive answers. And probably a lot of them.

Vague questions get vague answers. If you want specifics, ask specifics. "How does this work in different settings?" "How does this work in this one setting?" "How do you like this?" all get good answers. "How does this work?" does not, because there's no context to it.

>>51558941
>Saying what you think they should be, however, is what OP is asking about.
If you follow the reply chain, that's not what this current conversation is about at all. OP just wants strawpoll answers anyway.

>>51558941
You make a non-thread, ask a non-question, don't bitch when you get a non-answer.

>>51558948
All you're really demanding is that people play to your autistic demands that what is obvious needs to also be spelled out. I'm glad that your "depends on setting" posts can be just ignored as passive aggressive neurotic behavior, but attempting to defend those non-answers just reveals the short-comings of the people who make them.

>>51558402
No it doesn't, the question itself makes it obvious the setting is the DnD cosmos.

You're being both argumentative and wrong.

>>51559004
You are one shitty reply hungry attention whore

>>51559004
And what you're demanding is that people post every possible variation of a thing. Questions without context get answers without context.

>>51558562
If they're made of evil then he's still smart to kill them.
Keep up the good work, paladin.

>>51558976
>Succubi should be: X, Y, or Z?
>not asking about what succubi should be

I should have known better than to engage with you trolls.

>>51558986
>my autism knows no bounds

It's a pretty simple question. I don't know what's triggered you to the point of calling it a non-question, but consider me to be done with you. You've derailed this thread enough.

>>51559053
>>Succubi should be: X, Y, or Z?
>>not asking about what succubi should be
Sorry, wrong answer, try again.

>>51559026
>asking for what you prefer means also listing everything you don't prefer

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>51559026
Which are wrong.

You must not have done well in school.

>>51559061
Oh, I get it, you didn't read the conversation and assume we're talking about OP and their strawpoll.
Well, we're not. Follow the reply chain.

>>51559036
She was taking care of an orphanage jim, you can't retard logic your way out of killing her

Those crying lolis are on YOU

>>51559074
Answers using a different context from the questions are never correct. So if the question has barely any context, the answers must also have barely any context.

>>51558444
Neutral Evil is for the purely self interested.
They don't want some grand Tyranny, they don't want to see the world burn.
They only want to take care of themselves. They are greedy, gluttonous, and cowardly.
It's always me me me with these people.
Or monsters.
In this case, to add to your manipulative seductress, and home wrecking psychopaths, add to nuetral evil option of shameless dependapotamus. They are parasites. They pick someone who is apparently strong, affluent and capable, attach to them, and suck them dry. They are also likely sadists. Not in the kinky way, but in the way that they enjoy seeing others miserable, broken. The nuetral evil Succubus wants a sugar daddy she can isolate and then suck dry of money and passion. When he (or she) as a destitute, stationless, friendless, broken shell of a person the succubus moves on to find another victim.

>>51559053
>You've derailed this thread enough
>Pretending a slut-fiend alignment thread isn't stale bait
You must be new here...

>>51559085
No, she's literally Evil. Not even an evil person, but Evil Itself. She had to go.

Taking away heroin from an addict may make them cry too, but giving heroin to an addict does not make you a heroine.

Succubi being chaotic evil makes sense to me.

The 4e argument of "they make deals, only devils make deals" only works by dramatically rewriting the majority of pre-existing D&D lore, and doesn't really appreciate that the "deals" that succubi offer are most often rather straightforward temptations, not complicated contracts.

A streetwalker, even in a city where prostitution is legal, is rarely going to be lawfully aligned, because their business is taking advantage of people's emotions and desires. The same goes with higher class prostitutes, and even extends to artists. Emotions are the essence of their business, and that makes them lean toward chaos.

>>51558444
Chaotic Evil things don't need to be stupid evil. They can plot and plan and do great things, and are harder to predict during it. Glabrezu are a good example of this.

>>51559146
>i'm just a dumb troll with nothing better to do

Thanks for at least admitting that, even if you didn't mean to.

>>51559168
Not that guy but you are the one looking like a dumb troll here

File: Glabrezu Manzanedo.jpg (140KB, 1046x1151px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1046x1151px

>>51559161
Glabrezu are some of my favorite demons because of this. It's the whole murder-machine/subtle-manipulator duality that make them so interesting, and it's awesome how this is reflected in their two separate sets of arms.

They also can be some of the coolest looking demons.

>>51559223
I like that in 2E, the Glabrezu use these schemes safe in the knowledge that they are immortal to stretch them out to extreme lengths. And even if things don't pan out in the long run, they are still increasing the standing of chaos and evil in the multiverse by the corruption they nurture each time.

Mariliths hate them because they prefer direct warfare, tactical brilliance and strategy. The Mariliths would probably kill the weaker Glabrezu themselves but the Balor leaders actually like the Glabrezu and their ways more.

>>51559223
You got some mantis on your satyr

>>51557559
D) Lawful good who just wants to be a good wife with a happy husband, leading a quiet comfy life.

File: Glabrezu-5e.jpg (400KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1200x960px

>>51559303
Do you prefer some crab on your dogman?

File: Succubus1.jpg (136KB, 593x1000px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 593x1000px

>>51557559
None of the above.

They should be misunderstood creatures of passion who actually just want to give everyone an amazing sex life and spread pleasure and love all over the world. Initiating virgins, helping soulmates get together, and curing all manner of sexual issues and dysfunctions are just a few of their methods, in addition to just giving people a good time.

>>51561347
I like this faggot, we need more of him.

>>51557559
Neutral evil male demons appearing as attractive women.

>>51559154
>A streetwalker, even in a city where prostitution is legal, is rarely going to be lawfully aligned
Or chaotic-aligned.

>>51558463
That's not nearly as funny.

File: 1483146213232.jpg (455KB, 630x833px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 630x833px

>>51557563
This first and foremost but,

>>51557559
Chaotic Evil is Succubi
Lawful Evil is Erinyes
Not sure what the Yugoloth sex fiend is but I'm sure there's at least one.

FUCKING ALLIGNMENT SYSTEM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
STOP PLAYING BAD GAAMES!

>>51561489
Erinyes aren't sex fiends just because they're female, shitlord

>>51561544
They aren't not sex fiends just because they're female either
Also did you just assume their gender?
Check your Privilege shitlord

>>51561347
Or they're all just stammering virgins who suck men's dicks in their sleep because they spaghetti when they're awake.

>>51561640
Pretty much true to lore though

>>51561660
I know right?

The greatest parodies root themselves in just enough fact to be reasonable.

>>51559149
Ok,who is raising starving children then?

>>51561703
I think the idea is that killing evil is automatically a Good act as long as you don't destroy too much good or neutral in the process. Whether or not the starving kids are too much is...something else.

>>51561703
The Chaotic Good Illithids that prey on Evil humans obviously.

File: blugh.png (398KB, 508x685px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 508x685px

>>51561703
If the paladin was dumb enough to off a caretaker he probably declared the children evil and burned them all.

>>51561723
No ,killing evil removes evil,but it doesn't make you good. Now start thinking about the dying children ,Jimbo. Because if you won't,your party's warlock will. And he's a drow ,Jim.

>>51559296
I want to marry a Marilith!

>>51561739
But that's a natural act.Lawful,but natural.

>>51561347
And you should be heterosexual, but you just keep having to disappoint your family, don't you?

>>51561773
>And he's a drow, Jim.
Sounds like he's breaking character

I never really liked how compartmentalized the fiends of D&D are.

Demons, Devils, Daemons/Yugoloths?

What's the difference except alignment?

File: 1418503340494.png (122KB, 499x594px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 499x594px

>>51562049
Relative acceptance of homosexuality and drug use.

>>51562102
Every fiend?

Devil likes the butt sex.

>>51557559
D) Lusty Titty Monsters

>>51561862
He will hold all of their hand ,Jim.And then force them to hold each other's hand randomly.

>>51562049
They're more like different terms for different fiendish acts
Demonic acts include exploding the qt princess into giblet for fun
Devilish acts include managing to get the princess to sell herself into slavery to fat faceless waifufuckers

>>51562049
Demons and devils make sense to me since they represent two different but very common fantasy fiends. On one side you've got the big nasty monster that exists only to spread chaos and destruction, and on the other you've got the "deal with the Devil" type of beings, which are bound by deals and contracts and are more likely to get you to sell your soul to them than stab you with a big flaming sword.

>>51562199
>>51562258

That's not really true because Demons cover a whole spectrum of behaviours, from Grazzt who is a narcissistic hedonist and the Black Prince of Pleasure, to Pazuzu who is outright helpful to those who summon him in exchange for the spread of his name, to Demogorgon whose schemes within schemes pit demon against demon, and even head against head.

I want something tangible to the difference. Like Devil is an ethnicity of Demon, since they come from fallen Celestials or something.

For example, what am I supposed to do if my world doesn't have all the planes of the Great Wheel? It has one Underworld/Hell and that's it. Where to the Demons and Devils fit?

>>51562321
>what am I supposed to do if my world doesn't have all the planes of the Great Wheel? It has one Underworld/Hell and that's it.
Invent your own lore for them? Not use all of them? This shit isn't hard.

>>51562357
Seems like a waste of resources given to me in the books.

>>51562403
So you use literally every monster every time you create a world?

>>51562437
I absolutely try to.

>>51562448
You're a fucking idiot.

>>51562448
>make a world where Heaven and Hell straight up don't exist
>still shove in Angels and Demons
???

>>51562476
I don't see how but this is beside the point.

What is an actual meaningful difference between Devils and Demons. It can't be alignment, and it's certainly not behaviour.

>>51562492
Angels could be the manifestation of the plane itself trying to protect it from planar incursion. They would appear wherever planar shit has happened, from Aberrations from the Far Realm, or the PCs trying to cross over to another plane, or bring something from another plane through. They manifest from animals, statues, or level 20 paladins or priests.

Demons are egregores manifested by the darker instincts and thoughts of the mind. They possess the mind and mutate the physical vessel into a more demonic shape. They seek to feed on the weaknesses of mortals and grow in power.

Angels and Demons without Heaven or Hell.

>>51562518
Read this shit: http://www119.zippyshare.com/v/AuhLZ15e/file.html

>>51562049
Devils are immortals fallen during the creation of Hell. Demons are elementals warped by the creation and existence of the Abyss.

You just need to play the right editions.

>>51562049
Scale.

There's a lot more demons. Effectively infinite, with infinite planes and ultimately infinite resources, they are willing to be far more liberal with how they waste and destroy things. They have a much harder time appreciating concepts of scarcity and uniqueness, and they value things in the present far more than they do the concept of potential.

If a demon kills a baby, they wonder why the parent weeps, because the child wasn't worth much and the parent could easily make more.

Devils are less numerous, and while Hell is likewise technically infinite, it is carefully ordered and controlled. Nothing goes to waste, with devils working around the clock rebuilding, refortifying, a redesigning the hellish cities, press-ganging new petitioners and consuming souls all in pursuit of twisted ideals of perfection. But, since they are chasing ideals, they will frequently abandon or destroy current projects if they don't meet their standards in order to pursue potentially perfect future ones.

If a devil kills a baby, they wonder why the parent weeps, because the child was nothing more than a bundle of flaws and would grow into nothing special, and the parent was better off trying again.

Yugoloths are the least numerous. They fit the role of creatures that parasitically depend on others, doing whatever they need to do to gain any scrap of power. They are the most pragmatic, and effectively fit in the roles of mercenaries, assassins, anything anyone might need if they can offer enough to pay for it.

If a yugoloth kills a baby, they wonder why the parent weeps, because they're in the middle of offering them a very fair bargain of simply pledging their soul for the life of their child.

>>51562612
Planescape baggage is not an answer.

>>51562674
Seems needlessly compartmentalized. I don't see how those behaviours can only be done by the type of fiend they are.

>>51562685
>literally the best D&D book on fiend society, ecology, and behaviour ever published
>lel it doesn't count because I don't want it to

>>51563023
It's largely irrelevant if I don't have Baatezu, Tanar'i, Yugoloths, and Ghereleths.

What if I just have Fiends, with one Underworld.

Or what if my Abyss is more like the Warp/Limbo?

I'll probably go through it and take any gameable ideas out of it, but much of it is fluff and baggage.

File: 2d1a5b7d9da1efc3b8d62855bc782025.png (296KB, 416x465px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 416x465px

>>51562747
Those are generalizations. Ultimately, you can't really have an entire plane where only one type of creature exists, and different creatures will develop to fit different niches. While those are the "big picture" ideas behind the fiends, you'll find some demons that are more pragmatic, and some yugoloths that are mindless berserkers, because these are roles that need to be filled, and there's nothing definitively limiting them.

It's kind of like expecting there to be no warrior angels. It's a niche that is necessary, and since there's nothing in their alignment prohibiting them from being warriors, that niche is filled.

The distinction ends up being somewhat subtle, but still important. A demon's alignment prohibits it from desiring to be a servant, but they can be cowed into being slaves or minions by more powerful demon. A demon will never serve another demon less powerful than itself. A devil, on the other hand, will serve beneath a weaker devil that holds a higher rank than itself almost compulsively, while still trying the scheme some way of rising within the system by potentially betraying their master. While a demon will have no problem attacking another demon with little provocation in order to take what that demon has, a devil can only harm their lessers and subordinates and is forced to scheme in order to either assassinate or duel their superiors.

To onlookers, the distinction may not be readily apparent, but to adventurers, there is a distinction in tactics, with demons having almost no organization beyond perhaps following the commands of the most powerful demon, while devils have strict and practiced tactics with a chain of command and planned contingencies.

>>51563123
>What if I just have Fiends, with one Underworld.
>Or what if my Abyss is more like the Warp/Limbo?
Then invent your own lore for the fiends and stop bitching.

>>51563172
You don't invent shit in a vaccum anon.

I'm looking for inspiration to make it plausible.

When the fuck did discussion or dissatisfaction in something suddenly become bitching?

>>51563221
Let me lay out this whole discussion for you:
>"what's the difference between demons and devils"
>given an answer
>"but what if I have a different cosmology"
>invent your own lore or don't use all of them
>"no, I have to use everything in the Monster Manual and I don't want to invent my own lore"
At this point the only reason you are the only reason you're having a problem.

>>51563162
See, those roles wouldn't need to be filled if the separation was never made. The separation is more a consequence of gygaxian synonym bestiaries and giving meaning to the alignment system.

As for subtle distinctions, that's not good enough for me. Subte may not as well be there. If it's not quickly apparent to me or my players what a thing is, just on an imaginability sense, if's no use to me.

For example: Here you have a Pit-Fiend, a big fiery evil red guy with weapons who lords over lesser fiends. Here you have a Balor, who is ALSO a big fiery evil red guy with weapons who lords over lesser fiends. You see the problem here?

>>51563356
>You see the problem here?
No.

>>51563356
Balor art always looks cooler, too. It's like, niggas, make your Awesome Devil Dudes look awesome, or it's just embarrassing. No self-respecting Erinyes would follow most of the Pit Lords as depicted in the books.

File: PSMC1 Pit Fiend.png (2MB, 1120x1538px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1120x1538px

>>51563444
You just need to wind back the clock a bit.

>>51563498
Now post the corresponding Balor, nerd

File: PSMC1 Balor.png (1MB, 1148x1532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1148x1532px

>>51563511
Kind of reminds me of a winged bugbear.

File: 1450154413741.jpg (199KB, 504x677px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 504x677px

>>51561544
They're the same CR and status just in a different perspective. Just because they're less seducy and more rope-bindy doesn't mean they don't fulfill the same role.

File: 1482831686071.jpg (91KB, 600x772px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x772px

>>51561633
They're outsiders with Alter Self (Any humanoid) at will in most versions I've run into with regards to D&D. Pretty sure gender's just a matter of what they want it to be at that point, given situation and their own preference. Incubus is pretty much the same stat line, or at least can be without major issue.

>>51563419
I don't know what to tell you then.

>>51563444
Exactly.

Demons have always been depicted and mechanized as much more interesting fiends than devils.

This is even apparent in D&D 5e, where in the Monster Manual The section on Demons details several Demon Lords, whereas on Devils, you get the layers and the names of the Devils that rule them, but no details on those Archdevils. That didn't come until the DMG. Out of the Abyss gives stats of many of the Demon Lords, and I can't recall if Volo's adds any new devils, but there are two new demons, and other demon related monsters.

Is this favouritism on behalf of the designers? Or is it simply that demons are more interesting and grabbing than devils?

>>51563626
They must have a default surely?

>>51563668
It's because Chaotic Evil is easier to deal with than Lawful Evil.

>>51563668
>I don't know what to tell you then.
How about you tell me the truth: You're incapable of demonstrating subtle differences in the behaviour of your hostile NPCs.

>>51563675
I was reading somewhere that a Succubus/Incubus's apparent for changes depending on the sexual position it takes. Succubus lie under, where Incubus are on top.

>>51563742
>It's because Chaotic Evil is easier to deal with than Lawful Evil.

That's a cop out and you know it.

>How about you tell me the truth:

Sure, those subtleties are absolutely useless and so I don't attempt to make them apparent in my hostile NPCs.

File: 1479186837224.jpg (45KB, 564x764px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 564x764px

>>51562049
Devils
>LE
>Originate from the 9 layered hells.
>Seek to bring order by way of hierarchy and control.
>By any means fitting the situation.
>Justice untempered by mercy or even practicality falls under their purview, all shall suffer for their wrongdoing.
>Being a devil is naturally wrong, but a necessary one to eventually rule the cosmos and stave off the otherwise inevitable dissolution chaos brings.

Yugoloths
>NE
>Hate everything all the time forever.
>Manifestation of malice and ill-will.
>Existence is suffering.
>Everyone and everything should suffer.
>In some cases pain is a path to enlightenment.
>Mostly just wanting to make all things everywhere hurt, suffer, etc.
>Make their home in the fucked up regions between the Hells and the Abyss, which are in a constant state of war between CE and LE forces both military and cosmic.

Demons.
>CE
>Home in the endless layers of the Abyss (six hundred sixty-six and counting).
>Generally wants to destroy everything, though with Chaos being the order of the day for them, some of them are just manifestations of extremes and unbridled interests that lead to evil and destruction.
>Would probably overrun the cosmos if not for the forces of both Order (LE, LN, and LG) and Good (LG, NG, CG) generally working to keep it contained. Good aligned folks cooperate, LE folks just doing their own thing.

At least that's what I remember and can intuit from various bits of info, books, editions, etc.

>>51563763
>Succubus lie under, where Incubus are on top.
Even after Lilith has fucked off, God continues to be a massive fucking asshole

>>51563788
>those subtleties are absolutely useless
Not for people who aren't trash, and actually give their hostiles personalities.

>>51563763
Get your real-world mythology out of here, this is D&D.

>>51563831
Does anyone actually use Forgotten Realms
Like I just can't, I need to homebrew a setting at least

>>51563875
Lots of people do, especially if you're talking about before WotC fucked it all up.

>>51563913
Maybe I'm just a fucking autist then

>>51563935
Lots of people homebrew things as well. FR has the advantage of the GM not needing to make a bunch of shit up, as well as being able to say "we're adventuring in this area, go read this sourcebook for detailed information, otherwise here's a one-page summary".

>>51559011
DnD actually has multiple cosmos. And what might be true for one isn't always true for others. One example is that in most DnD setting minotaurs are near feral beastmen. Except in the Dragonlance setting where they have a sophisticated culture.

>>51563994
>DnD actually has multiple cosmos.
Unless you're referring to 2e-era settings, which are all in the same multiverse.

What if what defines a Demon or a Devil is what they're the antithesis of? Demons and Devils have always been a sort of adversary or enemy of divinity in some manner, so why not have them be the antithesis of a divinity on the world?

Demons seem to me closer to the antithesis of nature. With Demon Lords of animals, fungi, undeath, the air, this seems much more apparent. They would be the enemies of gods of nature, animals, and natural processes.

Devils on the other hand, are the anthithesis of human and artifical concepts. Things like the sins of greed, deceit, pride, wrath, and their punishments. Heresies of faith is also relevant to them. Devils would be the enemies of gods of civilization, charity, war, knowledge.

A much more gameable and tangible idea than a difference in alignment and their neighbourhood.

>>51563831
>>51563788(You)
>Not for people who aren't trash, and actually give their hostiles personalities.

Personality is the strongest when it is focused. Subtle details muddle things up and make things bland.

>>51563763(You)
>Get your real-world mythology out of here, this is D&D.

Your repulsion to different ideas is certainly apparent.

>>51564074
>Personality is the strongest when it is focused. Subtle details muddle things up and make things bland.
Not if you aren't incompetent.

>>51563542
Erinyes are actually not about sex at all. Neither seducy or rope-bindy. They maybe be pretty and female but they are about rage. Fitting since they are derived for the greek mythos Furies.

File: baatpitf.gif (77KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 300x360px

>>51563356
You're doing that thing where you're trying very hard to make something not work, and then complaining about it not working.

I just outlined one way of how the distinction becomes apparent. If you need more, you're going to have to try and work with me, rather than against me. I'm not here to argue with you, but help you to understand something that frankly you seem quite resistant to understanding.

In the case of demons, if there is a demon in charge, it must be significantly stronger than the rest of the demons in order to prevent it being usurped. In the case of devils, however, the strength of the devils can be quite similar to the one that is in charge, or potentially even stronger.

If the head demon dies, the rest will act completely independently. Some will flee, some will continue fighting, and some may even switch sides if they think there's something worthwhile in doing so. In the case of devils, killing the head devil will initiate some contingency plan, with the most likely outcome being continued combat with a new chain of command put in place or an organized retreat.

While the Pit FIend and Balor are similar, the Balor does distinguish itself with its now iconic weapon pair of whip and sword. Beyond that, they are also very different in tactics and temperament, with Balor's not shying away from direct combat and hoping to end battles quickly and ferociously, while Pit Fiends prefer to gather intelligence and make use of their spell-like abilities to test the waters and soften up their foes before moving in to finish off stubborn survivors.

I understand what you want is sort of a "Demons are blue, Devils are red" immediate distinction, and if that's what you want, feel free to color code your demons. But, you can also try other, somewhat more subtle ways to provide a tangible distinction.

>>51564096
Again, that distinction is not good enough.

>>51564093
>Erinyes are actually not about sex at all.
Not anymore. They used to tempt you to go 'back to their place', which translated to getting you to end up in Baator layer I, where you would be killed and your soul would end up as a devil.

>>51564024
Even then there were plenty of homebrew where GM made up what ever they wanted and changed things to suit their image of how things should work in fantasy.

>>51564114
Make the demons blue and devils red then. You seem to just be trying to be a dick now, since it seems like no matter what, no distinction will ever be good enough for you.

>>51564074
>(You)
I think you fucked up your samefagging

>>51564136
The post I replied to was pretty clearly implying official settings.

>>51564114
>that distinction is not good enough.
For you.

File: succubus.jpg (9KB, 250x345px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x345px

>>51561347
Witcher Succubi are best Succubi. They are pretty much this. They really just want to feed off the sexual energy of humans and have a good time. They can drive humans to exhaustion, but most do not kill their partners as they have no use for corpses.

Unfortunately, sex with a succubus is so mind-blowing that many find it as addictive as heroin. That and Succubi tend to care little for human institutions like "marital fidelity" Nor are they faithful lovers. She will tire of you, sooner rather than later and leave you starving for more.

>>51564177
Nope, I replies to a post that replied to two of my own posts.

>>51564165
>>51564180

Read a thought I had while posting in this thread here. >>51564027

That is a kind of distinction i'm looking for.
What you think is subtle, is actually shallow. Painting them Red and Blue is just a massive deconstruction of what i'm actually trying to do.

Thankfully I think I've found my answer.

>>51564235
>I think I've found my answer.
Is it learning how to actually represent a personality?

>>51564331
Nope it's this. >>51564027

Thanks for the discussion, but ultimately I found your methods creatively bankrupt.

>>51564400
You mean you didn't understand what was being said.

>>51563626
>>51563675
>>51563763
Up until the high middle ages, succubi were distinctly separate from incubi. In fact, their origins come originally from Babylonian wind spirits/demons that were likely created to explain nocturnal emissions, and these were actually four types of spirits, with a male and female pair that simply had dream sex with people, and a second male and female pair that then worked together to sire children among themselves.

This was eventually developed into just the succubus and incubus, with the succubus taking the female roles and the incubus taking the male roles. This ultimately congealed in the 15th century with the succubus being able to transform into the incubus, so that they could take human semen in succubus form to impregnate human females in incubus form, likely to explain oddities like how the nun-who-was-seduced-by-an-incubus's child looks a lot like the abbot-who-dreamt-of-a-succubus. Ultimately, this latter idea is a little odd for a number of reasons, primarily with succubi more-often-than-not leaving the male semen behind on visits. And, while this suffices to explain the reality of a child being simply human because it's ultimately human sperm being put into a human woman, this negates the earlier folkloric concept of the Cambion, the half-demon offspring of a succubus/incubus.

Basically, the gender change business is a very late addition to the succubus myth, and not even all that prevalent. It gained some popularity for being in the Malleus Maleficarum, but it's hardly a pivotal part of the Succubus mythology.

>>51564440
No I understood and disagree with it.

How we each run our games is entirely different.

>>51564452
Sure, but it's much more weird.

>>51564235
>make the demons animally folk
>make the devils humanly folk

I mean, if that's your taste, go for it. But, to call more subtle distinctions shallow is kind of just admitting you really just want red and blue.

>>51564525
>make the demons animally folk
>make the devils humanly folk

Is that's all you can think of when you imagine the antithesis of gods/faiths, I think my point on how you're creatively bankrupt is proven.

Not enough succubi in this thread
I'm going to /d

>>51563531
>>51563498
Muscular bugbearman is way cooler than some grinning fatboy.

Demons 1
Devils 0

>>51558463
I just wanna see her get bent

>>51564555
The only point to be made is that you are close-minded to broader ideas and prefer to expound on the subtleties of narrower ones.

You could very well have red and blue fiends and spend years on those subtleties. Magic the Gathering already does something similar. And, the same could be done with animal demons and human devils. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a tall order to say that's superior to trying to explore the broader concepts of Law versus Chaos.

Basically, you started out with a bias, and then work only with that bias, and that's the definition of creative bankruptcy. You prefer to narrow down a fairly wide cosmic distinction down to something considerably more narrow, and while that's up to you, it's still perfectly appropriate to compare that to making them red and blue.

>>51564703
>The only point to be made is that you are close-minded to broader ideas and prefer to expound on the subtleties of narrower ones.

Anything but.

I don't know how you can correlate subtle with broad, but they don't mesh for me. A subtle difference is not a gameable idea to me. I work in gameable ideas.

I think this comes down to how we run our own games. The distinction between lawful and chaotic beings is not a hook or memorable detail to use. Law vs Chaos has that and can be expanded on, but two basically identical beings with a difference only in alignment, does not. It is a waste.

>you started out with a bias, and then work only with that bias

Of course I have a bias, it's foolish to assume someone doesn't. My bias is gameable ideas. Fluff is only good when you can take something from it and make a game from it, by hooks or mechanization. That sort of substance is not there with the distinction of two identical creatures that have a difference in alignment, beyond some kind of Mirror World shenanigans, but that isn't the case here.

>>51557559
D.) Bouncing on a dick.

>>51564555
Not him but he didn't even describe the antithesis of gods or faiths. Especially for demons, actually, since fungi, rot, and death are literally natural. They might be annoying for humans but not everything revolves around humans why are demons associated with rot and fungi when this is necessary to the well-being of the world at large? Why associate with disease when disease is simply the explosion of life? Makes far more sense to associate them with undeath - but wait that niche is taken, there shouldn't be a demon of undeath because the undead aren't demons and demons aren't undead it'd be as weird as the human god of elves.
As far as devils it's much easier - but wait, why should devils be tied to humanity, what makes them special? How are sins less artificial than virtues? Why is civilization even a thing, what does it represent? How do heresies work, does one exist for all heresies? Shouldn't one exist for all religions full stop since they're all a heresy of something?

>but two basically identical beings with a difference only in alignment
The thing is, alignment comes down to personality and describes nothing else, and there isn't a major difference otherwise. It's like saying republicans vs democrats or something. Not a huge number of mechanical differences between the two.

>>51564863
>My bias is gameable ideas.
No anon, your bias restricts what you consider 'gameable ideas'.

>>51564949
Ok i'll humor you.

Please explain, how this subtle difference, can be a gameable idea.

>>51564863
>I don't know how you can correlate subtle with broad
Broadness is often the progenitor of subtleness
A very large concave surface looks much the same to an observer situtated on it as a very large convex surface.

>>51564967
Which one exactly, and what does gameable idea mean to you?

>>51564863
>I don't know how you can correlate subtle with broad, but they don't mesh for me. A subtle difference is not a gameable idea to me. I work in gameable ideas.

Which of the ideas you casually dismissed were not "gameable"?

Basically, it's someone like you who is responsible for being asked to create the main inhabitants of Limbo, and after deeply considering the matter, decided that "eh, frog people" was the answer. They're distinct enough, right? Guess the creatures of law should all be Ant people or something.

Now, you're perfectly willing to sweep aside more subtle differences because you feel that "subtly different" somehow means "identical", even when someone is patient enough to explain how to treat those subtle differences less subtlely or even explains how those differences really aren't that subtle at all, but you just seem to be trying to figure out how to work against the idea rather than with it, and congratulations, that's a great way for making any idea not work.

The Planescape versions of devils and demons revolve around recognizing them as not simply enemies to fight, but creatures with cultures worth exploring. Reading through the 2e Monster Manual is more about learning about how the creatures live and what makes them special and interesting from a story perspective, and each entry is essentially meant to serve as inspiration for often rather complex plots. While we've thankfully moved past the somewhat simplistic combat statistics towards more diverse ones, it's a bit much to then try to also say that any and all lore should be kept no subtler than what a eight-year old can comprehend upon immediately seeing the creature.

You seem to be from the "The players only care about killing things" school of thought, and while that's nice, you really shouldn't be doing your damnedest to decry the school of thought where the game is not supposed to be a blender simulator.

File: slaneesh sales girl.png (163KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1000x1000px

>>51561347
moar like

>>51564923
>They might be annoying for humans but not everything revolves around humans why are demons associated with rot and fungi when this is necessary to the well-being of the world at large?

There would be some manner of faith or god that governs these natural processes. Demons are perversions of these processes.

>Why associate with disease when disease is simply the explosion of life?

As we understand them today, but historical depictions have put them in the realm of plagues and curses, the work of the beyond. I prefer that kind of depiction of disease, so Demons would be associated with that.

>Makes far more sense to associate them with undeath - but wait that niche is taken, there shouldn't be a demon of undeath because the undead aren't demons and demons aren't undead

Another needless distinction, and isn't even true in regular D&D. Orcus, Demon Lord of Undeath has been around of a while. Also while Death is not unnatural, there is likely a faith or god that governs it, there is also a Demon, like Orcus, that perverts it.

Why should devils be tied to humanity, what makes them special?

Not humanity, but artificial concepts. Things invented rather than discovered. There are devils for dwarves, elven, halfling, and whatever other concepts. A particular devil may be the antithesis of a common theme among difference races or societies, so they would each have their own name for that Devil.

>How are sins less artificial than virtues?

Sins and Virtues are both artifical. There would be gods or faiths expressing Virtues, and Devils expressing Sins. There is even the interesting relationship where a Devil is part of the religion, less Enemy and more Adversary. A test rather than a corrupter or destroyer.

Why is civilization even a thing, what does it represent?

Civilization is a thing because I want civilizations in the world. They represent order upon chaos, and the barrier between them.

>>51564923
>>51565143

>How do heresies work, does one exist for all heresies?

That can certainly be a thing. A Devil of Heresy, whose schemes are to corrupt the faithful of religions. Doesn't matter what religion, just that is seeds heresy.

>Shouldn't one exist for all religions full stop since they're all a heresy of something?

Also possible and likely, though this would be more expressed as the enemy Devil of the religion. The Satan to the God.

> alignment comes down to personality and describes nothing else

I disagree and actually like the implied D&D truth that there is fundamental Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil.Things can be made from Evil. Yugoloth tormentors in a black spires take the wicked and siphon Evil juices into glass vials using wicked mechanisms. They're almost like humors in the body in a sense, congealing and expanding through actions and influences of the beyond.

>>51565012
We'll go with the Pit Fiend vs Balor subtle difference since that seems to be a favourite in the thread.

A gameable idea is an idea something can be used in a game either as a hook, or a mechanical interaction.

For example. The Goblin worships a chaos toad god. So hook is there is a Toad God of Chaos in the world giving power to goblins. Mechanically the Goblin encounter will have toads accompanying him, and his magic will be unpredictable, likely rolling on a kind of random effects table.

>>51565143
Orcus is a bit of a special case. He's not really in charge of undeath, and while he controls undead and is pseudo-undead himself, he's still more primarily a demon. There are evil gods of Undeath, and they technically run the undeath show while Orcus parasitically depends on them. With most gods of undeath actually being lawful or neutral evil, he served as something for more chaotic creatures to worship.

Ultimately, you're looking at individual demons and devils and trying to defined the others by them. We've got Dis and his city, Orcus and his undead, Jubiliex with his oozes, and so on.

But, we've also got beings like Baalzebul, who is a bit more complex, with him being obsessed with perfection, but after suffering long from his cursed slug form has had his realm begin to deteriorate and be filled with filth and decay.

While still very lawful, and nevertheless obsessed with achieving perfection and despising his condition, he helps show that the line can begin to blur, and that expecting only demons to contend themselves with fungus, oozes and decay may not be wholly appropriate.

Complexity inevitably leads to blurred lines.

>>51565089
>Basically, it's someone like you who is responsible for being asked to create the main inhabitants of Limbo, and after deeply considering the matter, decided that "eh, frog people" was the answer. They're distinct enough, right? Guess the creatures of law should all be Ant people or something.

That can be evocative as hell. A Law vs Chaos war between lawful Insect gods and chaotic Frog/Toad gods waging a shadow war in the world.

>"subtly different" somehow means "identical"
In the realm of gameable ideas, yes. I've given posters in this thread to prove me wrong on this here>>51565281 I am seriously willing to listen and reconsider my position on this if it's shown it can be done.

>The Planescape versions of devils and demons revolve around recognizing them as not simply enemies to fight, but creatures with cultures worth exploring.

It's an admirable goal, but vast amount written there isn't very useful to me.

>Reading through the 2e Monster Manual is more about learning about how the creatures live and what makes them special and interesting from a story perspective, and each entry is essentially meant to serve as inspiration for often rather complex plots.

If only they could express what makes them special in mechanical terms, or in concise hooks. I don't give a shit about much of their ecology or where they live or who they interact with. That's for me to decide.

>>51565454
>Orcus is a bit of a special case. He's not really in charge of undeath, and while he controls undead and is pseudo-undead himself, he's still more primarily a demon.

Again, I think this distinction is a silly one.

>There are evil gods of Undeath, and they technically run the undeath show while Orcus parasitically depends on them. With most gods of undeath actually being lawful or neutral evil, he served as something for more chaotic creatures to worship.

I don't like this at all. Evil gods I can get behind, but gods of unnatural processes I don't get. Like a God of Death makes sense, Death is a natural facet of existence so it makes sense there is some manner of personification for it. Undeath is not natural, it's a perversion and an insult to the portfolio to a death god.

This isn't to say a Death God won't use undead, since she is the master of death, death is a tool for her alone to use. She will use undead against her enemies and those who pervert her portfolio, like Orcus and his followers. This hypocrisy makes gods interesting.

>Baalzebul, who is a bit more complex, with him being obsessed with perfection, but after suffering long from his cursed slug form has had his realm begin to deteriorate and be filled with filth and decay.

So it's an embodiment of Perfectionism to the extreme of self-defeat and destruction? A ennui enforced by the idea that no matter what you do, nothing will be perfect so you shouldn't try anyways? Seems a rather human trait.

>>51565690
>Undeath is not natural
If it's not natural, why does the Negative Energy Plane sometimes leak into the Prime and make undead?

>>51565723
>If it's not natural, why does the Negative Energy Plane sometimes leak into the Prime and make undead?

That's dependent on the world actually. There is a total possibility neither Negative or Positive energy planes exist in that world.

In the event they don't places where death is concentrated can be places of power for necromancers, who call undead forth, or places where spectres, wraiths, shadows, and ghosts are bound to roam. In this event, there is something disturbing the natural process and anchoring those things here.

>>51564213
>Unfortunately, sex with a succubus is so mind-blowing that many find it as addictive as heroin. That and Succubi tend to care little for human institutions like "marital fidelity" Nor are they faithful lovers. She will tire of you, sooner rather than later and leave you starving for more.
I can probably just find another one when that happens. I'm sure she wouldn't mind passing me on to one of her sisters so the sister can feed and enjoy me. Then she can pass me on to another, and so on. By the time I've been used by all the other succubi, the first one will probably be interested again, and we can start the cycle once more.

I shall dub myself the SuccuSeeker.

>>51565807
Nigger we're obviously arguing off D&D cosmology.

>>51565843
If that's the case then why was the Negative Energy plane brought up in the first place as an example of a natural form of undeath?

>>51562403
>resources given to me in the books
Exactly. Resources to help you make your own stuff if you want. That's one of the great things about it - you can pick and choose what you want, and make changes to stuff if you feel like it.

>>51565510
You've already been prove wrong then.

>>51564096
>>51563162

Also, your "gameable" example isn't particularly special or distinct, no more than the ideas already presented.

Balors are more direct and willing to expend their minions, with very little patience for complex tactics. Players will experience hoards of unorganized attacks that seem to come in random waves, and what's overwhelming about them is just the sheer force and brutality of them combined with seemingly endless numbers. The Balor itself is unpredictable, and may appear at any time to fight if the mood strikes him, holding nothing in reserve and fighting with the intent to cause the most amount of destruction in the least amount of time.

Pit Fiends are far more willing to play the long game, but with fewer resources, will make sure to use the terrain to their best advantage and set up defenses and choke points. Complex plans involving retreats, distractions, surprise attacks, and even weak devils will take their roles to slowly bleed out their enemies, even if it means nickle-and-diming them to death. The Pit Fiend itself will decide the optimal moment in whether his enemies are weak enough to crush immediately, or whether it makes sense to slowly make best use of his minions to debilitate and tire his foes until he finally makes his appearance, at which point he will be still quite content to maintain distance and relying on his special abilities.

As for hooks, Balors are more concerned with immediate results, such as destroying a temple of a good god through a full-frontal assualt, and will only play the long game for something like figuring out how to open up a portal in order to commit all his forces. Pit Fiends would rather slowly gain control of a city or region, and only after subtly dominating the existing powers would it decide to begin to wage war using its converted armies.

>>51565877
Because undead run off Negative Energy? That's been one of the few constants through the editions.

>>51565918
To add, if the Balor wants his troops to obey his orders properly, he's going to have to have some way of reminding them of the consequences of misbehaviour, whereas the Pit Fiend can use the infernal hierarchy to make sure his troops are obedient.

>>51565690
>Evil gods I can get behind, but gods of unnatural processes I don't get.

There are gods that were originally human. You can count most of the gods of war, knowledge and even agriculture as "unnatural."

>Seems a rather human trait.

It's open to interpretation, because it is complex. You can just as easily, or even more easily considering Baalzebul went from a human form to a slug one, argue that he has become less human and that he is succumbing to more "natural" instincts.

>>51565923
Oh I misunderstood.

I thought what was mean't here>>51565843
was saying that we aren't using D&D cosmology.

But in either case, some undead are powered by the Negative Energy Plane, and the Negative Energy plane to be is more the embodiment of entropy and decay, whereas the Positive Energy Plane is growth and life. It never made sense to me that undead come naturally from it's contamination.

>>51563636
>Is this favouritism on behalf of the designers? Or is it simply that demons are more interesting and grabbing than devils?
Demons make easier villains. It's easier to set up a fight against demons because they don't need any motivation more complex than "We want to destroy shit." Since pretty much the only interaction you'll have with them is fighting them, they need to be cool and interesting enemies, so they get the better creature designs.

>>51564096
The way I see it, Devils and Demons are quite different. I'd put Devils as representatives of what is effectively a supernatural evil empire with a strict hierarchy and backstabbing politics. On the other hand, Demons are mostly independent. They group together at times, but not for any particular common purpose and only so long as it's convenient.
>>51557559
For Incubi and Succubi? It depends on if they're using their seduction as part of some elaborate scheme of manipulation, or if they're really just giant dicks trying to debase and degrade people like something out of an NTR doujin.

>>51566020
>There are gods that were originally human. You can count most of the gods of war, knowledge and even agriculture as "unnatural."

I should have explained further. Undeath isn't an idea or construct in the D&D world invented by mortals, like Civilization, Knowledge, War. Undeath is a perversion of the natural process of Death. Gods are personifications of concepts, extrapolations of understanding the world. There is a God of the Sun, the Moon, Death, Cites, War, Knowledge, etc. There is not a god of the Black Hole Sun, the Blood Moon, Undeath, etc. unnatural processes as there are Demons for that, just like there isn't a God of the absence or ruins of cities, or pointless war, or the elimination or corruption of knowledge . There are Devils for that.

>>51566026
My mistake, I should have said 'arguing based on'.

File: ossuary_by_itsprecioustime-d7vqa2j.jpg (655KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 900x1200px

>>51564645
>Not enough succubi in this thread
I agree. It would be nice to have some pics to go with the discussion.

>>51566122
>there isn't a God of the absence or ruins of cities, or pointless war, or the elimination or corruption of knowledge .
Aren't there?

File: tumblr_nk0dlnkXkX1re3phqo1_1280.jpg (230KB, 684x950px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 684x950px

>>51557559
>Succubi should be
Cute and saucy.

File: bad2ed0bf5215412ad06394dcd2d477218d095f3_hq.jpg (86KB, 661x1024px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 661x1024px

>>51566134

>>51565918
See, that's useful. Thank you, a difference in tactics influences how encounters function, and the aims of their masters. It's certainly a beginning, but I prefer more tangible differences too, in all likelihood those tangible differences are expressed by the comparison and contrast of Archdevils and Demon Lords.

>>51566136
I've argued there shouldn't be if there is. Those portfolios are suited better in the hands of devils.

>>51566122
>Undeath isn't an idea or construct in the D&D world invented by mortals

It's certainly taken advantage of by them. Mortals are the #1 leading cause of undeath.

>There is not a god of the Black Hole Sun, the Blood Moon,

You mean Cyric and Malar?

>there isn't a God of the absence or ruins of cities, or pointless war, or the elimination or corruption of knowledge

There's actually a long list of those, including war gods like Hektor and Maglubiyet, slaughter gods like Erythnul and Gruumsh, destruction Gods like Hruggek, gods of secrets like Mask and Shaar and The Hidden God, and so on and so forth. I mean, there's enough of these sorts of gods for their to be domains of destruction, trickery, and flat out evil and chaos.

>>51566216
Why? Aren't those concepts, things to understand about the world?

>>51566252
>>51566333

I should have clarified.

If there are are gods of those things, there shouldn't be. It suits those portfolios better to be in the hands of devils and demons.

Now, that isn't to say those devils and demons can't be worshiped as gods, as that hypocrisy makes them interesting, but they should not be Gods.

>>51566352
>It suits those portfolios better to be in the hands of devils and demons.
Why? You said in >>51566122
>Gods are personifications of concepts, extrapolations of understanding the world.
Are not ruination, slaughter, lies, and secrets concepts and things that need to be understood about the world?

>>51566352
Devils and Demons should not be replacing gods, because that's not really their role. Even though the strongest are powerful enough to claim to be gods and to share and offer powers to mortals, they're still on the level of being killable by mortal means. It's going to take a very, very powerful mortal, often with very powerful magic, but we're still talking about people being able to fight them without any divine intervention if necessary.

Evil Gods, on the other hand, are largely untouchable. They can't be killed without some incredible divine power, putting them on the plane of "C'mon guys, I know you hate undead, but you can't just kill the God of Undeath. Kill Orcus or something instead."

>>51566388
>Are not ruination, slaughter, lies, and secrets concepts and things that need to be understood about the world?

Are they things to be worshiped and have temples to? Not in any "good" society no. In those, they have cults. Cults are associated with Devils and Demons. In "evil" societies they have worshippers and temples, because a wicked temple is an awesome set piece and cool encounters.

This ultimately comes down to, too many cooks spoil the broth. I don't need to have gods of a bunch of negative things, and devils and demons that do that same thing, except they're more bad then the bag gods?

It's more interesting to me if the devils and demons with those portfolios are worshiped as gods. I like that line being blurred. Where the god of one religion is the demon or devil of another, especially in the case of Monotheistic religions.

>>51566531
>Cults are associated with Devils and Demons.
Cults are also associated with gods you maroon.

Hell, there was a cult to Edward the Confessor, is he a demon now too?

>>51566552
>cult to Edward the Confessor, is he a demon now too

It would be far more interesting if he was, now wouldn't it?

>>51566599
Not really, no.

>>51566630

We play entirely different kinds of games.

>>51566654
Yes, mine aren't filled with autism.

>>51566663
Stop using that word. You very obviously don't know what it means.

>>51566684
Are you going to be autistic about it?

File: Xana_H6.jpg (492KB, 1565x2000px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1565x2000px

>>51566195

>>51566485
I don't like where all gods are impossible to kill. Definitely there should be many very powerful gods but there also should a large amount of small gods. For example, a Kobold village could worship a CR 13 baby lizard god. Also, high priests of gods (level 7 and above god worshippers) can be worshipped as proxies for gods and saints (level 15 and above god worshippers) are directly gods in their own rights.

File: The Three Gorgeous Damned.jpg (83KB, 736x936px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 736x936px

>>51566195
A succubus and her pets. She can't feed from them, but they're still fun to play with.

>>51557559
One of the ways I do it is that there are effectively different forms of succubi. One represents unrestrained lust (i.e., Demon), while the other represents temptation (Devil).

>>51557559
Chaotic neutral

>>51557559
Naked and horny at all times.

>>51557559
In Planescape they are CE, the Lawful equiv would be an erinyes.

Erinyes being not-succubi are total shit.

I prefer them to be fallen celestials, creatures who punish broken oaths and exact vengeance.

They are sexually shapeshifting creatures that sustain themselves on saliva, sperm, pussy juice and breast milk.
Everything else depends on the succubi, they all have different personality.
Just like you!

They're unseelie fey in my setting.
If I'd use alignments they most likely be mild CE (mild as in bordering CN rather than evil incarnate) but I don't

>>51566935
I think the problem is that you're confusing the idea of pagan-style gods as not omnipotent as pagan-style gods as being "human but bigger".
Gods differ in mortals in type, not degree. Someone worshipped as a god is not necessarily a god, but merely so powerful that in degree they may resemble one.

>>51573487
>They're unseelie fey in my setting.

That's an interesting thought.

Fey have been described as a kind of being from an otherworld next to our own. Or associated with nature and spirits. Or even later a kind of being that pays a tithe to the Devil to keep existing.

How would that work in a game? Fey pay a tithe to devils or the underworld to keep themselves independent?

>>51557559
All evil alignments and depending on the aspect of lust they embody.

>>51557559
For fetish reasons: Neutral Contagious

For actual games: Unaligned. Succubi (like all demons) are basically soul-powered human simulations. They aren't sentient, per se, and can never learn any information (besides uniformly structured stuff like names) they didn't come out of the hellpit with.
As such, anything you can do to "redeem" them would work just as well on a rock or tree.

>>51575087
I always imagined them as highly educated courtesans.

Lust is a very broad thing here. It's not only associated with carnal pleasure, but with other things.

Violence, knowledge, culture and many more. People see joy and lust in anything they think is pleasant. So why not make a succubus like this? Not just lust as carnal pleasures, but LUST IN GENERAL?

I can see one giving you a good time and she will also love to read books and indulge in science, as well as video games and delicious cuisines.

>>51575411
>I can see one giving you a good time and she will also love to read books and indulge in science, as well as video games and delicious cuisines.
Isn't that just a waifu

>>51575939
Well, succubi do make good waifus.

>>51576051
They're literally wanton sluts. They're never going to be loyal enough to be a waifu.

Don't get me started on people who want their waifu to be fucking other people, because those people are degenerate fuckers who should be exterminated.

File: 1796b319dab4b4bf25070e1ebdd9a72d.jpg (335KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1280x720px

>>51576100
Consider the following

>>51577155
Some slut should make me reconsider what exactly?

See my spoiler if you want your waifu to be a slut fucking other people.

>>51577192
I guess you can't consider the following if you don't know the source

>>51577224
Nobody cares about the source.

>>51577224
Reserve image search gives me nothing.

And I second >>51577230

>>51577224
The burden of proof is on you, if your source is some grand contravention of another argument.

>>51577230
I do.
inb4 "That's because you're a nobody."

File: 1472767249332.jpg (409KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 750x1000px

>>51576100
Not him but I rest my case

File: Screenshot (2).png (382KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1366x768px

>>51577407
Still don't understand how that refutes my original point.

File: 1465613463376.png (213KB, 750x693px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 750x693px

>>51577435
It's from Monster Girl Encyclopedia. Monster Girl Encyclopedia is the ultimate hugbox, your waifu will never cheat on you unless you wanted her to, she'll always love you, yada yada and the best part is there's enough for everyone. Even a mindflayer is a waifu.
It's not really a great setting to run a ttrpg in mind you unless you fiddle really hard with most normal rulesets.

>>51577435
>best guess for this image
>breast
kek'd out loud

>>51577468
Does that really count as a reference for the argument that Succubi are good waifus?

>>51577505
>ultimate hugbox
I'm going to say...no.

File: 1481337865628.png (647KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 1200x1600px

>>51577505
Yes, because succubi exist in MGE and they're just as loyal and perfect and and and [omitted].
>inb4 but that's not a real succubus
Yeah well real succubi don't exist so fuck you too buddy

>>51577531
I agree with this.

>>51577551
I disagree with this. But I want to read this MGE, for research purposes only.

>>51557559
chaotic evil sounds like more fun...

File: 1475488065458.jpg (477KB, 846x1200px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 846x1200px

>>51577576
I'm going to be honest with you it's not that great of a setting
The author basically takes D&D and generic fantasy monsters and waifuizes them with the slimmest of pretexts (the pretext is that the new Demon Lord is a succubus and she's so powerful she basically has a few divnity levels so she waifuized all the monsters). It's pretty good for how ridiculous it is though - there's literally a fruit, looks like a banana, that grows naturally for the express purpose of teaching the new waifus how to give a blowjob.

>>51577468
Pretty sure that's Astaroth from...That one Japanse collectible card thing. She's not a succubus, though, just a female demon.

File: 1481816177633.jpg (263KB, 714x1000px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 714x1000px

>>51577642
I know she's not a succubus
And while yeah you're right, she looks basically identical to the MGE demon so who cares

File: 1400421247791.gif (3MB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x320px

>>51577624
>there's literally a fruit, looks like a banana, that grows naturally for the express purpose of teaching the new waifus how to give a blowjob.
>mfw

>>51559104
definitly using that

>>51577505
I'm pretty sure MGE succubi prefer to keep one man as a pet instead of fucking lots of people.

File: 1462959678073.png (376KB, 1083x835px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1083x835px

>>51577468
Post smol squishies

File: 1459044105057.jpg (26KB, 343x354px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 343x354px

>>51577624
>there's literally a fruit, looks like a banana, that grows naturally for the express purpose of teaching the new waifus how to give a blowjob.
So it's a regular banana?

>>51578339
No it literally hardens if you touch it enough and sprays sticky sweet cream all over your face if you lick it the right way, and this is the only way to get at the sticky sweet cream.

>>51578418
Sounds gay

>>51578984
not if you're a cute girl

>>51578418
What's stopping you from cutting it in half

File: 1478592990482.jpg (60KB, 559x524px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 559x524px

>>51579254
Rule of sexy now shut up have a lich

>>51575411
>Succubus of violence
>Succubus of cuisine
Is there a succubus of money management, too?

File: Fatcubus.jpg (124KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 894x894px

>>51579359
>Succubus of cuisine
Due to budget cuts in Hell, the departments of lust and gluttony have been consolidated into one, leading into a lot of gluttony demons complaining about also having to seduce mortals and succubi complaining about gaining weight. Some demons, however, take to it better than others.

File: 1467065728339.jpg (1MB, 1922x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1922x2592px

>>51579438

>>51579438
Glustony

>>51580323
Sluttony.

>>51579359
>succubus of money management
Warning. This succubus is a shopaholic and lusts for extremely expensive stuff once your finances will be big enough.

When not going full shopaholic, she manages your account for you.

She's a pro at it.

>>51579438
is this how mancubuses are made in doom?

A succubus taking all of people's money and running doesn't even make sense. You may as well call her something else. Sucubo means 'to lie beneath,' the idea is a passive sub who destroys you.

>>51580364
That sounds incredibly useful, actually.

Pairs up with people, makes them fabulously wealthy in exchange for an impossibly large expense account to fuel their desires.

>>51580419
Useful right up until she spends most of the money she helped you make.

>>51580363
Sounds like just a glutton for cock and cum

>>51580503
Yeah but like ... honestly though that's pretty much her money anyway
If she turned your bank account from 500 000 to 50 000 000 then promptly spends 49 000 000 I don't know if you can really blame her

>>51580503
Just make more?

You'll end up as a new Pablo Escobar eventually, but have fun on the ride.

>>51580576
>Yeah but like ... honestly though that's pretty much her money anyway
Yeah. You'd basically have a succubus sugar mommy. As far as I'm concerned, she can keep most of the money as long as she sets aside enough to take care of me and continues to fuck my brains out every night.

>>51580576
>If she turned your bank account from 500 000 to 50 000 000 then promptly spends 49 000 000 I don't know if you can really blame her
Yup. So many people will see it as "that bitch spent 49 million of my money", instead of "she grew my 500k in to a cool 1 million".

>>51583988
Seriously. Who even cares about being super-rich instead of just rich when it happens easily and comes with a succubus?

>>51557559
A
But lawful good paladin succubutts are acceptable

File: 1478261166965.jpg (159KB, 896x774px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 896x774px

>>51587404
Why is it always Lawful Good Paladins?
Why not Chaotic Good Barbarians?

I always liked the idea that succubi look like flat chested adolescents, but once they lose their virginity they turn into stacked sex goddesses

>>51587451
Chaotic Good Sorcerers are probably more likely. Succubi aren't usually portrayed as being good at melee combat.

>>51587846
Also fits with the fact that a succubus is guaranteed to have ridiculously high Charisma.

>>51575411
>I always imagined them as highly educated courtesans.
I try to avoid making mine anything that should have a place in any kind of society. Demons are beings of spite, ruin, and degradation. Succubi aren't there to be your waifu or have classy sexy time with you. You aren't their food, and they barely care about the sex.

They just want to ruin you and everyone around you, for no higher purpose than spite and resentment of anything decent. The sort of depravity and decadence they lead to isn't anything glamorous. They'll get you to the point where you'll let them fuck your wife and suck their dick off afterward.

You will not redeem them with your holy dick. They will not be saved by your love. They're disgusting abominations, regardless of what appearance they wear, who take pleasure in making a mockery of any higher ideal of love, and lack the capacity to experience such a feeling themselves.

Demons in general are like this. They resent anything less corrupt and debased than themselves, and jealously seek to destroy it or tear it apart to prove a point. They want everything else to be just as foul as they are, with everything else just being bullshit, because otherwise they'd be forced to face just how pathetic and lowly they really are.

>>51587846
>Paladin makes sense
>Barbarian doesn't

Outside of your shitty 4e, where a Cha barbarian works there too, Paladins are expected to be melee combatants too mate.

>>51588260
I didn't say Paladin made sense. Different anon.

>>51565833
Why would they bother to pass you on when they don't even care about you?
"Oh you know that human that I screwed and then immediately forgot about after getting him hooked on my sweet puss? Me neither."

>>51588309
Is it established that they don't care at all? I think it's possible to get bored of fucking someone without being completely uncaring. Maybe they feel kind of bad about getting tired of someone, so they try to help out their former lover and one of their sisters at the same time.

>>51558425
>I demand an overarching rule

>>51587451
110% waifu

File: 1437490624143.jpg (127KB, 717x1012px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 717x1012px

>>51557584
>D) Convertible to good aligned waifus
Yes

>>51562152
>D) Lusty Titty Monsters
YES!

.>>51561347
>They should be misunderstood creatures of passion who actually just want to give everyone an amazing sex life and spread pleasure and love all over the world. Initiating virgins, helping soulmates get together, and curing all manner of sexual issues and dysfunctions are just a few of their methods, in addition to just giving people a good time.
>>51561377
>I like this faggot, we need more of him.
>>51565141
>moar like
Like some sort of... NICE ...Daemonette?

>>51575087
>For fetish reasons: Neutral Contagious
Yeeeeeeessss...

>>51577624
>The author basically takes D&D and generic fantasy monsters and waifuizes them with the slimmest of pretexts (the pretext is that the new Demon Lord is a succubus and she's so powerful she basically has a few divnity levels so she waifuized all the monsters).
Unfortunately...

>>51578984
>Sounds gay
...There aren't any real lesbians.

>>51579438
>Due to budget cuts in Hell, the departments of lust and gluttony have been consolidated into one, leading into a lot of gluttony demons complaining about also having to seduce mortals and succubi complaining about gaining weight. Some demons, however, take to it better than others.
Yeeeesss...

>>51582267
>Yeah. You'd basically have a succubus sugar mommy. As far as I'm concerned, she can keep most of the money as long as she sets aside enough to take care of me and continues to fuck my brains out every night.
YEEEESSS!

>>51587846
>Chaotic Good Sorcerers are probably more likely. Succubi aren't usually portrayed as being good at melee combat.
>>51588064
>Also fits with the fact that a succubus is guaranteed to have ridiculously high Charisma.
If you know what he means!

>>51589136
somebody call 2016, it missed one.

>>51588069
Tell us how you really feel, Anon.
Not that I disagree with the points you made.

>>51588069
Dunno.

I think they can be both like you say, but also be said highly educated courtesan.

Tell me, where can a succubus deal the most damage? The answer: the nobility, the royalty...essentially any place of high social standing.

A succubus uses this to her advantage to sow corruption into society via their skills. Just because they are a mockery of love it doesn't mean they are incapable of pretending they are some lady with high social status in order to get the job done.

File: lamia1_16_10.jpg (62KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x375px

>enthusiastic inexperienced

>>51589960
I like demons to be things that would make you sick to your stomach, something which feels inherently wrong and ruins everything it touches on a deep and fundamental level. They're beings who revel in evil, and not some lighthearted "misunderstood" evil that just needs a hug or just seeks to rebel against authority. They'll pretend to be misunderstood or victimized if you'll buy that shit. They can try selling entire kingdoms and countries the idea that demons are really good guys, and the Gods are unjust tyrants seeking to strip humanity of the freedom that demons represent.

This is, and will always be, bullshit.
>>51590986
Sure, they can pretend for as long as they need to. They could pretend to be a kindly old priest for as long as they needed to. They're shapeshifters, and inserting themselves into positions of authority allows them to do more damage. To enslave and defile more, by abusing the respect and fear people have for such authority figures.

Their prime targets will always be the most respected, the noblest, and the honorable, because they want to prove there's no truth to any of that. If posing as a highly educated courtesan gets their foot in the door, they'll go for it.

I'm more saying that there's a major difference between a Succubus pretending to be something and actually being that something.

>>51592765
Actually anon they're nonextant so they can be whatever you want them to be

>>51592807
But of course. I just like them as things that most would feel should not be, and who most people would seek to unmake at the earliest opportunity if they knew what they were dealing with.

>>51592917
I personally don't really do demons
If I have supernatural "that-which-should-not-be" types I go for metaphysical or ontological beings for the most part
I mean I doubt most people would feel comfortable talking to the metaphysical manifestation of their own Being-Towards-Death, or with the plot itself.

>>51592957
Well, I'm not talking metaphysical "should not be" or anything too Lovecraftian. This isn't something people can't comprehend. Contemplating their continued existence feels disgusting once you know what they are.

>>51588069
This.

Demons are ruin, corruption, and doom. If there is something glamourous, it's merely a thin mask.

>>51591827
>Lamia
>inexperienced
kek. She's only inexperienced in relationships, since those who have sex with her lose their memories of her (normally).

>>51594407
Description from the site:
>Lamia – is an inexperienced succubus with a great passion for her work.

>>51557584
That would be easier if they were Chaotic/Neutral, I think.

>>51561347
Sounds more like a lewd cupid.

>>51594950
There's a huge difference between "what is your favorite version of X?" and "What is X, objectively?"

>>51557563
>>51558487
>>51557666
>>51558574
>>51558568

Ok, would you prefer if the OP had asked, "In your subjective opinion, do you usually prefer a setting in which succubi are
A) Chaotic Evil Demons
B) Lawful Evil Devils
C) Neutral/Any Evil Fiends?"

Because that's literally the exact same question; the only difference is semantics.
Of course it depends on the setting. Every single question like this depends on the setting. This is obvious and implicit that we, as the people replying to the thread, already acknowledge and understand this, and will answer the question based on how it would fit in to a setting of our preference, or, in a setting ideal to us, which of the options provided we would prefer.
This is why "depends on the setting" is a pointless reply. If you really want this spelled out for you every single time someone asks a question like this, you're either a smartass or an autist.

File: [orz] SHOW BY ROCK!!# 01 [F2FF39FC].mkv_snapshot_03.41_[2016.10.23_21.55.43].png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>51557559

Entire species being locked to a single alignment is complete fucking bullshit.

>>51595109
What succubi should be changes depending on the setting.
Don't put words into OP's mouth just because you don't like the correct answer to vague questions. OP did not ask about preferences. He asked about what they should be.

>>51595130
>species
They're demons, you fucking retard.

>>51595088
They're not actually asking "what is X, objectively." Everything is subjective. Problems only arise from people interpreting it as if it's meant to be objective. But, because we aren't children, I would hope that the people on this board have the mental wherewithal to infer a little bit and answer the question as if it's subjective, because it is.

>>51595145

Which means they should be even more random than humans you retard.

And DnD does it to a shittons of species.

>>51595134
Asking "What movies were good today?" and "What are your favorite movies of today?" is asking the same thing, because there are no objectively good movies. We choose not to spell this out because it's unnecessary and we expect the recipient of our question to already understand this.

>>51595145

Most demons are former angels. So they switched alignment at least once.

>>51595145
Lucifer was literally the angel closest to being a second God anon

>>51595154
Except when they are.
I've seen people ask "How does magic work?" full stop. If a question is meant to be subjective, word it subjectively. If it's worded objectively, it will be answered objectively.

>>51595181
That's asking about opinions. OP and people like him are asking about facts. Facts from fictional settings, sure, but facts nontheless. And those facts are usually very different in different settings.

>>51595218
> OP and people like him are asking about facts.
>with a poll

Give it up, man.

>>51595264
Yes, with a poll. A poll that, objectively, doesn't have all the answers for "what should a succubus be?". In some settings, they should be demons. In other settings, they're some kind of non-religious magical being. In yet others, they're actually not magic at all, and the word is a codename or slang term for something. Sometimes they have free will, sometimes they're practically robots. Sometimes they just go where they want, other times they're attracted to bad people, other times they're attracted to good people to tempt them, or desperate people, or they have to be specifically called, or any number of other ways they could end up interacting with someone.

>>51595320
>A poll that, objectively, doesn't have all the answers for "what should a succubus be?".

It's pretty obviously the three Pre-4e, 4e, and 5e D&D succubi and asking which one you preferred.

I'm sorry, but your continued attempts to somehow "redeem" your non-answer are just making it obvious that your primary goal here is to figure out how to be upset when no one did anything wrong.

>>51595505
>It's pretty obviously the three Pre-4e, 4e, and 5e D&D succubi and asking which one you preferred.
Point to where OP said that.
It's sad, really. You just keep adding phantom sentences to justify your hate for correct answers though.

>>51595505
>He says, while being so upset that he literally calls people who answer vague questions with vague answers autists

>>51595548
>>51595565
>autists continue to be autists

I'm glad that most people just went ahead and ignored you. I guess that's the solution to people like you.

>>51595109
>literally the exact same question
>the only difference is
"Literally the exact same" is a construction which allows for no differences whatsoever. Please work on your use of words. The question you pose is substantially different from, albeit more reasonable than, the one OP implicitly asked.

"What should a succubus be?" is an open-ended question which invites subjective replies. On the other hand, "Which of these options is the best way to formulate a succubus?" has a very natural and immediate rejoinder of the form "Well, it depends on the context." The first question implies no ranking of possible replies, but the second question requires one; any sensible denial of the necessity or viability of such a ranking would resemble "It depends on the setting."

File: 1464561884302.jpg (113KB, 644x800px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 644x800px

>>51594938
>Sounds more like a lewd cupid.
I suppose that's not inaccurate. If I ever have to sum it up quickly, maybe that's how I'll describe it.

Succubi have better aesthetics than cupids, though. I'll take red skin, black hair, and black wings over pale skin, blonde hair, and fluffy white wings. Besides, I've never heard of cupids being able to shapeshift, and aren't cupids more about getting two humans to fuck than giving a human a supernatural fucking?

>>51595741
>i-i know, i'll call them autists, that'll defend op's honor
OP isn't going to fuck you through your screen, you know.

>>51595799
If you don't want to be called autists, don't make posts like >>51595787

>>51595856
Don't lump multiple posters together, and stop whining about answers that put as much effort in as the question they are answering.

>>51595884
>wah, people want to discuss something, and they didn't pretentiously cater to my autism!

>>51595924
Discuss what? A strawpoll?
>wah, people used the same context as the question when they answered!

>>51595996
I think you are genuinely upset that people ignored your "depends on setting /thread" and had a discussion in this thread about the topic.

>>51596072
See, that line of thought might have worked if you or someone with a similar argument to you hadn't started this entire meta conversation by being really whiny about people answering with "depends on the setting".
You can't start a fight and then blame the other person for starting the fight.

>>51595197
That's devils.

>>51595205
Lucifer is a devil by D&D standards.

>>51596144
And Devils are Lawful Evil which is a far cry from what he originally was, from Neutral Good -> Chaotic Evil

>>51596096
That's funny, I don't remember being the one to first give a non-answer, and then to try to defend that non-answer upon being called out on it.

I return your words to you.
>You can't start a fight and then blame the other person for starting the fight.

>>51596239
But you do remember starting this argument, right? Right here
>>51594950
>>51595109
This is you starting a fight. This is you actively attacking other posters. This is you putting words into the OPs mouth to make a non-question look like something it's not. This is you.
>inb4 it's a different poster

A non-question gets a non-answer.

>>51596271
>pretends that being passive aggressive isn't trying to start an argument

Being passive aggressive just means that you are the pathetic sort that has an issue, but you try to dance around it. Partly because you're pathetic and realize your grievance is petty, and partly so you can try to claim the high ground by acting like someone calling you out is the one looking to start something.

You keep calling the OP a non-question, when it's obvious from the other responses to not be the case. You do so because you readily admit that "depends on the setting" is a non-answer, and yet you still want to justify being passive aggressive somehow.

You're a sad autist.