PDA

View Full Version : Beautiful Good, Ugly Evil



Serpentine
2010-12-03, 05:07 AM
It always bugs me that good is always beautiful and evil is always ugly (or sexy, or both). Especially in D&D - the Nagas are the best example of this, where the only Good naga is shiningly golden gorgeous, and the Evil ones are sickeningly ugly. So...

Original purpose for this thread: I'm looking for examples of ugly-good for use in an Iron Avatarist entry. Aside from the really freaky real-world angels (look up the old descriptions of cherubim), I can't think of any... Is there any Good creature in D&D that is also ugly?

Secondary purpose for this thread: isn't it annoying how good is beautiful and ugly is evil in D&D? About as annoying as Chaos being eviler than Law...

edit: Aha! I thought of one! Bes, the dwarfish Egyptian god of midwives and good luck who is meant to be so ugly he scares evil spirits away.
And it counts as on-D&D-topic cuz he was statted out in Deities and Demigods :smallbiggrin:

jebob
2010-12-03, 05:20 AM
Sherlock Holmes was originally envisioned by Doyle to be "more gaunt, ill-favoured and grotesque than we can any longer believe."

Sparkly vampires from twilight perhaps?

D&D-wise, I think drow are beautiful, although I think that might be one of the reasons for the wave of good rebellious drow.

Serpentine
2010-12-03, 05:23 AM
Heh. The Drow open up a whole new bag of worms in the "matriarchies are evil" issue. Wonder if TVTropes has anything to say on that...

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 05:25 AM
Leonal and, what's that other one... avoral or something like that?

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG142.jpg

Somewhat of a paramount of NG alignment, but don't look really pretty. At least not the avian one. The leo guy at least has nice looking muscles :smalltongue:

Serpentine
2010-12-03, 05:28 AM
Ehh, that's a bit of a YMMV one. I mean, half-eagle and half-lion? You don't see any Bastion of Holiness half-slugs.

dsmiles
2010-12-03, 05:30 AM
Well, Dwarves are (IIRC) "usually" Lawful Good. They're not the smexiest beasts out there. Although I do like 'em a little muscley. :smalltongue:
Guardinals, too. I'm not really into the whole "furry" scene, so...eww. :smallyuk:
All in all, not many. (See also: Desmodu, Silthilar)

Zen Master
2010-12-03, 05:36 AM
Elves are evil. Of course they are generelly and almost universally misrepresented as good - precisely because they are beautiful.

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 05:53 AM
Ehh, that's a bit of a YMMV one. I mean, half-eagle and half-lion? You don't see any Bastion of Holiness half-slugs.

With the all the suplements out there, it's only a matter of finding the right one. But seriously, there aren't many good creatures that could be considered ugly per se. At least not that I know of.

Yora
2010-12-03, 05:53 AM
Erinyes and Succubus are evil.

Flumphs are good. :smallbiggrin:

JeminiZero
2010-12-03, 05:54 AM
Ugly Good: Deathless-They look like blueish Mutant Zombies or something.

FelixG
2010-12-03, 05:59 AM
Erinyes and Succubus are evil.

Flumphs are good. :smallbiggrin:

Flumphs are the crux of sexyness :smallbiggrin:

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 06:04 AM
Erinyes and Succubus are evil.


It always bugs me that good is always beautiful and evil is always ugly (or sexy, or both).

It was my impression that Serpentine was looking for evil creatures that weren't almost oozing with lust. Otherwise, erinye and succubi(and their counterpart, the incubi) are far too obvious answers.

Saph
2010-12-03, 06:24 AM
It always bugs me that good is always beautiful and evil is always ugly (or sexy, or both).

Secondary purpose for this thread: isn't it annoying how good is beautiful and ugly is evil in D&D?

Dragons are the most iconic monster of D&D. Half are good, half are pure evil, yet they don't look particularly different to each other. (I think they look rather nice, personally, but either way, they disprove the "always" thing.)

Coidzor
2010-12-03, 06:30 AM
Heh. The Drow open up a whole new bag of worms in the "matriarchies are evil" issue. Wonder if TVTropes has anything to say on that...

:smalltongue: They're kinda evil regardless of the matriarchy aspect.

Gloura - Underdark Fey beautiful if a bit unsettling due to being residents of the Underdark. An entire subrace of them is evil but otherwise identical.

Hell, Fey in general are fairly likely to be evil due to their selfishness and lack of regard for harming others to get what they want.


Ehh, that's a bit of a YMMV one. I mean, half-eagle and half-lion? You don't see any Bastion of Holiness half-slugs.

Unless you're on the kinkier side of furry, that birdman looks like he's been slapped with an ugly stick. The leonid is just a leonid though, so not really ugly or beautiful just kinda meh, he's a lion guy, he can bite your face off with the power of holiness.

This does bring to mind a note in, I believe, Arms and Equipment guide about players balking at the idea of Celestial Vermin in regards to the bit about getting vermin an Int stat in order to make them trainable.


Secondary purpose for this thread: isn't it annoying how good is beautiful and ugly is evil in D&D? About as annoying as Chaos being eviler than Law...

I don't really care, because whether something is pretty or not doesn't really affect me as a player so much as, "wow, everyone who agrees with my character's philosophy are ***** and want to kill me anyway because the designers were biased against chaos."

So, in my book, pretty=good, ugly=bad is nowhere even close to as annoying as Chaos is less good than Law.

hamishspence
2010-12-03, 06:34 AM
For evil, Eberron has some-

Daelkyr, and a kind of outcast celestial in one of the splatbooks. Looks like an angel with stumps where wings would be.

Yora
2010-12-03, 06:39 AM
D&D is not particularly known for being subtle and dealing well with ambiguity. :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 06:41 AM
I submit that this is because:
1) The players are largely supposed to fill in ugly-good. The heavens are there to provide inspiration, and a large amount of the good creatures are from there.
2) No one cares for neutral appearance (neither pretty nor ugly.)

Saph
2010-12-03, 06:47 AM
Actually, come to think of it, the races in the Players' Handbook don't follow the "beautiful good, ugly evil" pattern either.

Dwarves: Good, ugly.
Elves: Good, beautiful, but include Drow, who are Evil and beautiful.
Gnomes: Good, ugly (okay, maybe not strictly ugly, but they're not going to be winning many beauty contests).
Half-Orcs: Neutral, ugly.
Halflings: Neutral, not particularly beautiful or ugly.
Humans: Neutral, beautiful (according to most of the pictures, and compared to what they're usually fighting).

If you want more proof of the "ugly good" theme, half the adventurers out there also tend to have an 8 Charisma. :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 06:50 AM
I love me some dwarves, Saph. You know, that way.

And gnomes are adorable! But not that way.

I don't know what my fascination with the short is. Perhaps a deep desire to never need to bend when entering a door.

Yora
2010-12-03, 06:54 AM
Gnomes: Good, ugly (okay, maybe not strictly ugly, but they're not going to be winning many beauty contests).
Halflings: Neutral, not particularly beautiful or ugly.
Have you looked at gnomes and halflings since the beginning of 3.5e? They are short, but almost every picture makes them as close to current standards of good looking as possible.

Eloel
2010-12-03, 06:58 AM
Half-Orcs: Neutral, ugly.

I disagree. Half-Orcs tend to be cute.

Baveboi
2010-12-03, 07:02 AM
Wait, how you define a race to be Beautiful or Ugly?
By Charisma? That way Baalors are hugely appealing. By illustrations? Really, that only indicates the taste of said artist, not the real appealing of the race.

Anyway, what IS beautiful or ugly between other races? I'd freak out if I saw a naked demoness OR a naked Illithid (oh gods... whyyyy). I think it's more of a taste (mental sanity) kind of thing. You could try to make evil races more beautiful by pimpin' 'em up or turn good races ugly (hound archon...) but that isn't really the point, is it? /sarcasm

Saph
2010-12-03, 07:04 AM
Have you looked at gnomes and halflings since the beginning of 3.5e? They are short, but almost every picture makes them as close to current standards of good looking as possible.

The iconic 3.5 gnome looks like this. Bear in mind that this is supposed to be a really high-Cha, good-looking one.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG27_WEB.jpg
Now, I'm not saying he's horrible-looking, but there's a reason 3.5 doesn't have an entry for Half-Gnome.

Eldan
2010-12-03, 07:09 AM
If you use the original Planescape art, guardinals really look more "strange" than "ugly".


http://www.operatique.com/planescape/0guardinals.jpg

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080616120209/sfery/images/thumb/6/6a/EquinalLeonal.jpg/300px-EquinalLeonal.jpg



A though question, really. D&D really doesn't have much ugly good.

And phh. Gnomes should still look like this:
http://blog.storygames.kr/attach/1/1385348567.jpg

Murdim
2010-12-03, 07:10 AM
Elves are evil. Of course they are generelly and almost universally misrepresented as good - precisely because they are beautiful.
Alternatively, elves are usually Chaotic Good and are repeatedly said to be incredibly attractive (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttractiveness), but if we take the artwork as a reference... in a way (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UncannyValley), they tend to look even creepier than the "monstrous" races. Case in point : Mialee.


Dragons are the most iconic monster of D&D. Half are good, half are pure evil, yet they don't look particularly different to each other. (I think they look rather nice, personally, but either way, they disprove the "always" thing.)
No, not even then. Metallic dragons are shinier than chromatic dragons.


Attractive Evil is fairly easy to find among both evil-leaning races (drows) and incarnations of Evil (succubi, erinyes, several archfiends and evil gods), though it generally almost always falls under the archetype of the "tempter". On the other hand, "good" mortal races tend to be "unattractive in a nice, non-creepy way" at worst, and I have yet to hear of any planar entity of Good that isn't supposed to be some sort of beautiful (though "beautiful" doesn't necessarily mean "attractive-in-that-way by most human standards").

Saph
2010-12-03, 07:11 AM
No, not even then. Metallic dragons are shinier than chromatic dragons.

I think they look pretty similar attractiveness-wise. Shiny doesn't equal beautiful, unless we're playing Twilight: The RPG. :smallbiggrin:

JeminiZero
2010-12-03, 07:14 AM
Now, I'm not saying he's horrible-looking, but there's a reason 3.5 doesn't have an entry for Half-Gnome.

Apparently, its because gnomes are genetically incompatible with everything except those species that can reproduce with virtually anything thats alive (I.e. templates that can be applied to any living corporeal creature, such as Half Celestial, Half-Fiend, Half-Dragon).

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-03, 07:20 AM
If you want more proof of the "ugly good" theme, half the adventurers out there also tend to have an 8 Charisma. :smalltongue:

Or in the case of our current party, all of them...1



But yes, the whole good=pretty/evil=gross kinda irks me too, particularly the BoED and BoVD.

I have to say, though, Serp, I thought the AD&D Monstrous Manual Dark Naga was kinda cool-looking. Though not beautiful, I don't think, it wasn't nearly as shudder inducing as, say MM 3.5's Spirit Naga. Though, well, that's 3.x artwork, which is almost always unfavourably comparable to something I would find extruded from the posterior of a herbivorous mammalian quadruped of your choice... (The edition that brought you animals, now with pointlessly stupid added Spikey Bitz! And Mialee.)

Actually, come to that, a lot of AD&D creatures were less of that tendancy. Medusae were not that scaly...thingy...in the 3.x MM, but were supposed to be more-humanoid and at least theoretically rather more attractive. Dryads, though more sort of neutral, were rather less...um...freakish in AD&D, so. But again, 3.x artwork...

There was also, in AD&D the Obal, which was a good-aligned intelligent fungus-y thing; hardly what one would call pretty.



1"It's a dungeon-crawl", the DM said. And then changed his mind at th last minute and ran us through another module to level us up for that one. A social/investigation based module. Would it surprise you to know we totally FUBARed it up?2

2Actually, Cha 8 had nothing to do with it, we were just nearly all LG and too-well behaved to go around prodding things like we were supposed to, and the DM (who is after all a newbie) didn't figured out how to best adapt the module's schedule to us. Learning curve and all that...

Eldan
2010-12-03, 07:30 AM
Okay, trailed the SRD for all good creatures. Findings:

Barely anything is ugly.


Potential candidates:
Tritons have weird artowrk and 11 charisma. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/triton.htm)
Storm giants have 15 charisma, but at least they are a little more hairy than most standard good guys. YMMV, I don't think they ugly, really. Just not standard male model beauty. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#stormGiant)

So, nothing, in the SRD.

Amiel
2010-12-03, 07:49 AM
Ichabod Crane was also originally envisioned as transcendentally ugly, but of virtuous character, who always sought for the triumph of reason and rationality over crass evil.

So, a standard human(oid) perhaps?

Zen Master
2010-12-03, 08:08 AM
Alternatively, elves are usually Chaotic Good and are repeatedly said to be incredibly attractive (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttractiveness), but if we take the artwork as a reference... in a way (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UncannyValley), they tend to look even creepier than the "monstrous" races. Case in point : Mialee.

I see elves described as chaotic good - but my honest opinion of elves is that their alignment is for other elves only. The rest of the civilized races can basically beat each other to extinction for all the elves care - and the only time the elves take any sort of interest is when their own hides are at stake.

So basically, if the humans were coming to threaten the elves, the elves would gleefully ally with the orcs to teach the humans their proper place.

I'd consider elves neutral - except that they consider themselves better than other races to the point where they see little cause to distinguish between animals and humanoids.

Amiel
2010-12-03, 08:10 AM
You could also think of the uncommon attractiveness of the elves as a form of glamour; beneath the veil, the reality is far from agreeable to the eye.

Fawsto
2010-12-03, 08:22 AM
One Word: Semmurv


Seriously, this is a good example of good is bizarre. Anyone who has seen its picture knows what I am talking about.

Also, there are Quatls. Big winged Snakes. Snakes being one of the top things that make humans (IRW) go "ierghh". They are paragons of good.

In contrast with Yuan-Ti. Evil Snakes of many kinds. Specially the Snake with Snake arms.

Also: I do not hate snakes. I just remembered them out of thin air.

Also 2: Snakes

Eldan
2010-12-03, 08:23 AM
Are there any canonically good aberrations in 3.5? Races, I mean. Not individuals. I know Planescape had a city of good Mindflayers in Celestia who fed on the psychic energy of happyness.

Fawsto
2010-12-03, 08:28 AM
If there is something besides demons and devils that is coined as evil in D&D they are aberrations.

I know. There maybe neutral and good aberrations, but seriously, 9 times out of 10, they will be evil.

I can't remember no "not evil" aberrations.

Except one: Elans. Talk about obscure.

Amiel
2010-12-03, 08:29 AM
I think Lords of Madness briefly touched on a goodly aligned aberration race; IIRC, they were the silthilar.

WinceRind
2010-12-03, 08:37 AM
Orcs are beautiful to other orcs, dwarves to other dwarves, underground midgets to other underground midgets... And so on.

Also, don't forget the awesomeness of Mongrelfolk. There's nothing stopping you from playing a Good Mongrelfolk, but ugliness, at least in the eyes of most base races, is right there in the description. A Mongrelfolk character would look and perhaps even act just like Nobby Nobbs, I think...

Eloel
2010-12-03, 08:38 AM
If there is something besides demons and devils that is coined as evil in D&D they are aberrations Undead.

Fixed.
Really, Aberration = Weird. Weird is, if anything, chaotic, not evil.

Eldan
2010-12-03, 08:38 AM
That's not really the question, though. There is a very strong tendency for good creatures to be attractive by real world human standards.

And who knows. Perhaps in a given setting Senmurvs think that Lupinals are extremely sexy.


Fixed.
Really, Aberration = Weird. Weird is, if anything, chaotic, not evil.

They should be neutral, really, but they aren't. Mindflayers, Aboleths, Beholders: all the most iconic aberrations are evil.

WinceRind
2010-12-03, 08:40 AM
Are there any canonically good aberrations in 3.5? Races, I mean. Not individuals. I know Planescape had a city of good Mindflayers in Celestia who fed on the psychic energy of happyness.

Well, Elans are aberrations. I'm pretty sure they're at least canonically neutral, if not good. They're from the psychic books.

Basically a psychically evolved human. Or perhaps not just human, I don't quite remember. They live practically forever, look pretty much like they used to, so yeah.

WinceRind
2010-12-03, 08:41 AM
Fixed.
Really, Aberration = Weird. Weird is, if anything, chaotic, not evil.
But if it ain't like us, it must be evil! Kill it!

I think that describes the general logic...

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 08:46 AM
The iconic 3.5 gnome looks like this. Bear in mind that this is supposed to be a really high-Cha, good-looking one.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG27_WEB.jpg
Now, I'm not saying he's horrible-looking, but there's a reason 3.5 doesn't have an entry for Half-Gnome.

What? Compare this dude to Mialee. This guy's like the entirety of the male sexy in the PHB.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-03, 09:06 AM
What? Compare this dude to Mialee. This guy's like the entirety of the male sexy in the PHB.

Yes, but to be fair, compared to Mialee, so is anything...

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 09:07 AM
Yes, but to be fair, compared to Mialee, so is anything...

That does not change the fact that were his proportions normalized, I would invite him into my magnificent mansion anytime. With Extend Metamagic.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-03, 09:26 AM
That does not change the fact that were his proportions normalized, I would invite him into my magnificent mansion anytime. With Extend Metamagic.

...

Y'know, AstralFire, I have no idea how to even begin to respond to that.

So I'm just going to loudly assume you mean for tea and crumpets.

...

*facepalm*

Okay, that was probably not the best turn of phrase to use there, was it...

Maho-Tsukai
2010-12-03, 09:27 AM
As far as D&D cannon goes, the beautiful=good, ugly=evil is rather emphasized heavily. Especially in the BoVD. The art, descriptions ect.. do tend to make good beautiful and evil ugly....and not always in the evil monster way. Heck, BoVD basically says "fat people are evil" via the willing deformity(obesity) feat. However, that dose not mean evil is always ugly and good is always pretty. Why? Because most of the "ugly evil" comes from MONSTERS...and I don't know about you, but unless this is some card game anime like Pokemon, Digimon ect..a monster should kinda be, um...ugly, provided they represent evil.

You see, in D& and fantasy in general, most "monsters" are more or less symbols and avatars for certain human attributes. Dragons are symbolic of greed and power(Though in more modern portrayals dragons have come to represent countless different things and now a days good/moral dragons are just as common, if not more, then evil/immoral ones.) Demons/Devils of various vices ect.. Thus, a monster that is supposed to represent a broder moral concept will be designed to portray that aspect. Thus, since most normal humans see evil as a nasty, vile thing, the creatures which represent/symbolize it in a fantasy world will be ugly. Same thing with people's ideas about good. "Ugly evil, pretty good" is thus an archtype ingrained in many human minds as far as monsters go....however, monsters is where it stops.

While monsters are avatars of certain ideas/moral concepts, the PCs are more then that. The PCs are people, and as the 8 cha PC statements made above, nothing in the rules is stopping you from making a PC who is good and ugly and the fact that many PCs DO have low cha is a testament to this. Likewise, an evil PC can most definitely be beautiful and some are expected to be. I mean look at the Dread Necromancer class. It is most definitely oozing with evil spells and powers yet is a cha based caster meaning most DNs will be stunningly beautiful despite the fact that go around stealing people's souls, animating undead and other morally questionable things.

Finally, ugly and beautiful is in the eyes of the beholder. While most people may find devils and demons to look scary and such, there are some people who actually PREFER the aesthetics of the "dark side," myself being one of them. Sparkeling guy with a halo shining golden full plate, holy sword surrounded by light and a pair angel wings? Meh. Monstrous guy with horns, black-spiky full plate, a unholy scythe surrounded by negative energy and a pair of tattered demonic wings? Pure awesome.

So, while the good=pretty and evil=ugly is present in canon, that dose not mean you need to stick to it like glue. You can still have ugly PCs and a pretty BBEG....the latter of which is EXCEPTIONALLY common.(Especially in anime. I mean, just look at people like Sephiroth, Yami Bakura ect... they all have legions of fangirls who find them sexy yet they are the BBEGs of their respective series.)

So it all comes down to this point. If you don't like the good=pretty, evil=ugly trope just have ugly PCs and pretty baddies or homebrew some ugly good monsters. D&D is flexible and you don't have to stick to "cannon" since your the DM and you can do whatever you want.

Amiel
2010-12-03, 09:28 AM
He clearly means for intellectual discourse and stimulating conversation; to discuss and to understand the vagaries of the arcane arts :smalltongue:

Eloel
2010-12-03, 09:35 AM
*snip*
Charisma is not a physical stat.

Maho-Tsukai
2010-12-03, 09:40 AM
Yeah, but Cha dose include looks as far as I know. Cha is not ALL looks, but looks are a part of it. Older additions of D&D used another psudo-stat "comeliness" for looks but 3.5e clearly, as I remember, stats that somebody with good looks will have a good cha score. Now that's not to mean you have to be a total bombshell if you have a high cha(case in point, Hitler, most politicians ect..) but looks do increase your cha score. Thus, a person is drop dead gorgeous and people are attracted to them but they have a horridly unlikeable personality, they would still have a cha that is at least slightly over 10, if not more.

In fact, here is a quote strait from the 3.5e SRD to prove my point..

"Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

So, yeah, while Cha is mostly a mental stat, appearance still factors into it. Wizards says so.

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 09:53 AM
Charisma is not a physical stat.

It is one aspect of it and, like it or not, also the one most commonly associated with high charisma.

Spiryt
2010-12-03, 09:59 AM
I think that SRD makes it pretty clear that physical attractiveness is one of the Charisma aspects...

Also, can anybody explain Mialee stuff to me?

Google shows witchy looking chick, in rather ridiculous costume, but anyone in PHB PHB 2 or whatever wears ridiculous outfit...

Not looking very attractive, but who said that any female characters must be necessarily attractive?:smallamused:

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 10:21 AM
I think that SRD makes it pretty clear that physical attractiveness is one of the Charisma aspects...

Also, can anybody explain Mialee stuff to me?

Google shows witchy looking chick, in rather ridiculous costume, but anyone in PHB PHB 2 or whatever wears ridiculous outfit...

Not looking very attractive, but who said that any female characters must be necessarily attractive?:smallamused:

Well, she certainly fits 'Ugly Good' despite being an elf, so it throws off quite a bit of the statements 'round here.

Calmar
2010-12-03, 10:26 AM
And phh. Gnomes should still look like this:
http://blog.storygames.kr/attach/1/1385348567.jpg

Factol Hashkar is a dwarf, however.

Eldan
2010-12-03, 10:30 AM
...

I totally knew that! :smalleek:


No, really. Wow. How did I forget that. I mean, he's in an adventure I'm currently preparing.

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 10:31 AM
Well, she certainly fits 'Ugly Good' despite being an elf, so it throws off quite a bit of the statements 'round here.

Isn't Mialee neutral anyway?

hamishspence
2010-12-03, 10:33 AM
What about BoED- the Rhek (which looks like a rhino-man) and the Hollyphant (which looks like an elephant with wings).

Not exactly paragons of beauty there:

Rhek:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75118.jpg

Hollyphant:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75113.jpg

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-03, 10:46 AM
Also, can anybody explain Mialee stuff to me?

It was a consensus on the WotC boards, long ago that, if one is to use iconic characters, one must be aware that they will have a notably impact on new players and even experienced ones, and that it thus behooves one to not use characters that in every pictured instance and especially the one on page 17 of the Complete Arcane are more likely to be able to repel creature from the Far Plane due to sheer horror.

Mialee, or the "mutant cricket" as she was often called at one point, was considered to be not freakishly grotesque only in the instances in about two images in the entire of 3.x, and those were generally considered to be another person clearly cos-playing as Mialee. It was not even that, to many eyes that she was merely lacking aesthetics, not just that she wasn't pretty, but that there was something inherently wrong with her on some fundemental level in a nearly Lovecraftian manner (though even Cthulu would probably have balked when presented with an image of Mialee). Sort of less "uncanny valley", and more "uncanny bottom of the Underdark and still digging."

A very wise and magnificant poster, one who should command a great deal of respect, once famously said that1:


Mialee less resembles a person who fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, but more one who climbed down carefully in a tight spiral, repeatedly headbutting every. single. branch. until it snapped off.



1Really, it got into the WotC "Best quotes from the board thread" and everything. Even I was surprised it'd been preserved for posterity when I google'd it...

Callos_DeTerran
2010-12-03, 10:48 AM
It was my impression that Serpentine was looking for evil creatures that weren't almost oozing with lust. Otherwise, erinye and succubi(and their counterpart, the incubi) are far too obvious answers.

Actually, have seen the picture for a real incubi (not just a succubus that looks male)? Lemme tell you, those blokes aren't winning a beauty pageant anytime soon. At least in the WotC version of them.

As for good=ugly exampls..hmm...The Silthar jump to mind again. As does the mutant rhino people. Uhh....lantern archons? With their floaty ball of lightness...don't exactly strike me as 'beautiful'. Um...The 'orca/giant people' from...I think Stormwrack were fairly disturbing Darfellan? Something like that.

Spiryt
2010-12-03, 10:49 AM
It was a consensus on the WotC boards, long ago that, if one is to use iconic characters, one must be aware that they will have a notably impact on new players and even experienced ones, and that it thus behooves one to not use characters that in every pictured instance and especially the one on page 17 of the Complete Arcane are more likely to be able to repel creature from the Far Plane due to sheer horror.

Mialee, or the "mutant cricket" as she was often called at one point, was considered to be not freakishly grotesque only in the instances in about two images in the entire of 3.x, and those were generally considered to be another person clearly cos-playing as Mialee. It was not even that, to many eyes that she was merely lacking aesthetics, not just that she wasn't pretty, but that there was something inherently wrong with her on some fundemental level in a nearly Lovecraftian manner (though even Cthulu would probably have balked when presented with an image of Mialee). Sort of less "uncanny valley", and more "uncanny bottom of the Underdark and still digging."

A very wise and magnificant poster, one who should command a great deal of respect, once famously said that1

Well, now I know that people think way too much about it.

Especially on WotC boards, at least. :smalltongue:

WarKitty
2010-12-03, 10:52 AM
Didn't you know? Evil makes you ugly! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilMakesYouUgly)

Enjoy the distraction!

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 10:55 AM
Actually, have seen the picture for a real incubi (not just a succubus that looks male)? Lemme tell you, those blokes aren't winning a beauty pageant anytime soon. At least in the WotC version of them.

To be honest, I didn't. I just assumed they are very similar to succubi, just with different anatomy. You are of course free to provide pictures as evidence, I'm always eager to learn further.

To be fair, the guy in the middle doesn't look all that ugly. This one is from Savage Species.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ss_gallery/49130.jpg

And the 4E version looks positively gorgeous, though I imagine this one is shapeshifted.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpts_20100709.jpg

SPoD
2010-12-03, 11:04 AM
I think the illustrator matters more than anything else. I've seen pictures of a medusa that I would describe as beautiful without being totally sexed-up, in accordance with the original's origin as being a legendary beauty. The snake hair obviously puts it off a bit, but still. And then I've seen pictures of the same monster drawn like it was a whore, and somewhere else, drawn completely and hideously reptilian. Different artists, different interpretations.

If you're looking for official WOTC sources, though, you're unlikely to find much. I'm pretty sure it's part of a deliberate attempt to de-glamorize Evil at every turn, lest they be accused of luring youths to worship the devil as they were in the 80's.

Yora
2010-12-03, 11:08 AM
I think it's actually the same creature.
Sex and gender are meaningless in the lower planes. And I think planescape even question if fiends have such things, and (in typical planescape fashion) points out the possibility that demons have the sex that's currently convenient for them.
And the succubus has the ability to change into any humanoid shape at will, and is perfectly capable to assume a male form. And being limited to female forms would severely limit a succubuses tactic of seducing mortals, of which a considerable amount is only attracted to men. And fiends laugh at anything that mortals consider inappropriate or makes them uncomfortable.
So going by the internal logic of evil outsiders, there's really why a succubus is actually female.

My suspicion is that most writers and artists are male and they rather deal with sexy female demons than with sexy sex-shifting demons.

Also, in many of the older descriptions of medusa, it was neither her hair or her eyes that turned mortals to stone, but the mere sight of her ungodly ugly face. But even in the 5th century BC lots of people rather liked to have a hot chick in their stories and pictures than a horribly ugly monster, so they often changed her that way. :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 11:08 AM
I really doubt that's the case so much as the nature of the legends that D&D inherently pulls on.

Telonius
2010-12-03, 11:18 AM
One instance of beautiful not necessarily being Good is the Sirine from MM2. It's your basic Siren, high charisma, but usually CN.

Ugly Good (again from MM2): the Desmodu.
Ugly Good (from MM3): Phoelarch

bokodasu
2010-12-03, 11:20 AM
re Charisma being physical - if it were, your Charisma would change when you were reincarnated, but it doesn't. You can get stronger or more dexterous, but not prettier?

Actually, if you do think of it as physical, it makes a pretty strong case for D&D beauty being based on some sort of soul-quality vs. body-quality. (Evil makes you ugly. And evil is something you are, not necessarily something you do.)

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 11:23 AM
I see Charisma <-> attractiveness being that people who are charismatic often care about their appearance, and having a good appearance often gives people the confidence to be charismatic.

WinceRind
2010-12-03, 11:30 AM
re Charisma being physical - if it were, your Charisma would change when you were reincarnated, but it doesn't. You can get stronger or more dexterous, but not prettier?

Actually, if you do think of it as physical, it makes a pretty strong case for D&D beauty being based on some sort of soul-quality vs. body-quality. (Evil makes you ugly. And evil is something you are, not necessarily something you do.)

Also your charisma improves as you get older... So, yeah, it's not a physical feature. It's a mental attribute, just like Intelligence and Wisdom, and it grows with it as you get older while physical attributes get worse.

You do not have to be pretty to be charismatic. Abe Lincoln was one ugly bastard, and look at what he accomplished. And consider most politicians, ever. They aren't exactly beautiful in most cases. Quite hideous, most often, in fact. Yet they manage to ignite the minds of others and have great influence and great results... In my opinion, that's the essence of Charisma.

Of course, having a couple of huge breasts and/or huge abs only helps in some cases.

... But then again, your charisma improves as you get older in D&D and, uh, yeah. Ignore the above previous paragraph completely.

Ravens_cry
2010-12-03, 11:36 AM
Coutal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm)
Lawful Good. While possibly beautiful in the way dragons, even evil dragons are, certainly not beautiful in any sexual sense.

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 11:38 AM
Coutal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm)
Lawful Good. While possibly beautiful in the way dragons, even evil dragons are, certainly not beautiful in any sexual sense.

Couatls are a damn sight better looking than any dragon.

Murdim
2010-12-03, 02:20 PM
What about BoED- the Rhek (which looks like a rhino-man) and the Hollyphant (which looks like an elephant with wings).

Not exactly paragons of beauty there:

Rhek:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75118.jpg

Hollyphant:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75113.jpg
Heh, nicely found, hamish. The Hollyphant even looks like a mammalian Cthulhu, for expletive's sake :smallbiggrin:


To be fair, the guy in the middle doesn't look all that ugly. This one is from Savage Species.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ss_gallery/49130.jpg
According to Savage Species, succubi and incubi are the female and male form of the same type of demon, with the implication that they have the same modus operandi of seduction. But there have been many different (i.e conflicting) versions of the incubus, and many of those are, to quote Paizo's own variation on the theme, "physical manifestations of male sexuality"... or in other words (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications), serial rapists. The version published in Dragon #353 was apparently of this kind, accompanied with a rather unflattering illustration. That might be what Callos was referring to.

Ravens_cry
2010-12-03, 02:27 PM
Couatls are a damn sight better looking than any dragon.
Even if I agreed with you, the point still stands about dragons.

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 02:28 PM
According to Savage Species, succubi and incubi are the female and male form of the same type of demon, with the implication that they have the same modus operandi of seduction. But there have been many different (i.e conflicting) versions of the incubus, and many of those are, to quote Paizo's own variation on the theme, "physical manifestations of male sexuality"... or in other words (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications), serial rapists. The version published in Dragon #353 was apparently of this kind, accompanied with a rather unflattering illustration. That might be what Callos was referring to.

Yeah, I remembered that little detail shortly after posting the picture, but didn't felt like correcting myself. I believe I read somewhere that incubi and succubi are different type of demons and certain sources seem to confirm that, but I may just be mixing my 3.5 lore with 4E one. Still, thanks for explanation, I guess I'll just have to look for the said illustatrion myself, since if it is what you say, it's probably against forum rules to post it here.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-12-03, 02:33 PM
According to Savage Species, succubi and incubi are the female and male form of the same type of demon, with the implication that they have the same modus operandi of seduction. But there have been many different (i.e conflicting) versions of the incubus, and many of those are, to quote Paizo's own variation on the theme, "physical manifestations of male sexuality"... or in other words (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications), serial rapists. The version published in Dragon #353 was apparently of this kind, accompanied with a rather unflattering illustration. That might be what Callos was referring to.

This. The Demonomicon went on to say that incubi actually aren't summoned that often, with most summoners instead ending up with a shape-shifted succubus that looks male (a subterfuge that some succubus seems to enjoy) which lead to the 'incubi is a succubus, but male' rumor.

Actual incubi are rather bestial looking (think cloven feet, twisted horns, no hair, and a mouth full of needle sharp teeth. Really pale and...off looking faces too) and, as Murdim mentioned, pretty much portrayed as the violent and non-consensual side of sexuality i.e rapists.

I tend to go with that portrayal myself, not just because it means demons are diversified with another low-level 'foot-soldier' type demon, but because it always seemed off that succubi represented ALL sexuality with just being temptress. And they definitely ain't pretty.

EDIT: The picture Paizo used is perfectly safe to post here...the problem is finding it. A lot of the artwork they use is surprisingly elusive to find on the internet, which is a shame considering the art is pretty awesome.

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 02:33 PM
Even if I agreed with you, the point still stands about dragons.

Oh, no doubt.

Murdim
2010-12-03, 02:35 PM
Still, thanks for explanation, I guess I'll just have to look for the said illustatrion myself, since if it is what you say, it's probably against forum rules to post it here.
Well, I haven't been able to find the picture myself, so I don't know if it is unflattering in a NSFW way, or just brutish-looking. From what I've read, I was guessing the latter.

Coidzor
2010-12-03, 03:31 PM
But there have been many different (i.e conflicting) versions of the incubus, and many of those are, to quote Paizo's own variation on the theme, "physical manifestations of male sexuality"... or in other words (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications), serial rapists. The version published in Dragon #353 was apparently of this kind, accompanied with a rather unflattering illustration. That might be what Callos was referring to.

So if male sex=rape... by that logic, would gay sex be double rape or rape squared? :smallconfused:

Kind of insulting to be called a rapist by nature. Or to call the majority of one's fanbase/marketshare/staff rapists where they can read it easily. :smallannoyed:

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 03:36 PM
It's up there with calling all women temptresses and seducers. I don't think we're exactly supposed to see the *cubus as how business is usually done.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-03, 04:01 PM
Are there any canonically good aberrations in 3.5? Races, I mean. Not individuals. I know Planescape had a city of good Mindflayers in Celestia who fed on the psychic energy of happyness.

There is a type of Beholder that is neutral, but that is the only one I know of.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-12-03, 04:01 PM
It's up there with calling all women temptresses and seducers. I don't think we're exactly supposed to see the *cubus as how business is usually done.

I don't think that's the intent either. Demons don't take the form of activities. They take the form of sins and evils. Apparently the evil side of feminine lust is the archtypical temptress/seducer which...makes sense in it's own way. Temptresses and seducers are commonly looked down upon for that very activity. The evil side of masculine lust is brutal, violent, and (more often then feminine lust in most people's mind anyway) non-consensual. Unless you consider yourself an evil lusty person, I doubt the creators are calling you a rapist. :smallwink:

Lord_Gareth
2010-12-03, 04:23 PM
For those who think that CHA = conventional beauty or even caring about one's appearence, I would like to point you to the following:

- Dragons
- Beholder
- Pit Fiends
- For that matter, Bone Devils and Kytons
- Actually, just throw every single fiend in this list
- The majority of liches
- Dragons
- Dracoliches

Everything on that list has an unusually high Charisma score and all of them are ugly as all hell.

Coidzor
2010-12-03, 04:29 PM
I don't think that's the intent either. Demons don't take the form of activities. They take the form of sins and evils. Apparently the evil side of feminine lust is the archtypical temptress/seducer which...makes sense in it's own way. Temptresses and seducers are commonly looked down upon for that very activity. The evil side of masculine lust is brutal, violent, and (more often then feminine lust in most people's mind anyway) non-consensual. Unless you consider yourself an evil lusty person, I doubt the creators are calling you a rapist. :smallwink:

There's no unfortunate implications that way though. Just a blatant statement. Meh, shows what I get for taking someone at their word.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-03, 04:36 PM
For those who think that CHA = conventional beauty or even caring about one's appearence, I would like to point you to the following:

- Dragons
- Beholder
- Pit Fiends
- For that matter, Bone Devils and Kytons
- Actually, just throw every single fiend in this list
- The majority of liches
- Dragons
- Dracoliches

Everything on that list has an unusually high Charisma score and all of them are ugly as all hell.

And they are all extremely beautiful to each other; heck dragons glitter and shine. The assumption that human standards of beauty are going to be objective is the issue here. You ever seen a Homo Erectus recreation? Not my cup of tea, but they are most emphatically us (actually we are them but whatever).

Lord_Gareth
2010-12-03, 04:38 PM
Liches and dracoliches are not beautiful to anyone. Furthermore, the current argument being used involves them being pretty to us and/or paying attention to and preening over their appearence. Nothing on that list except Red dragons and a pair of the metallics does that. Beholders let fungus grow on them, man!

hamishspence
2010-12-03, 04:48 PM
There is a type of Beholder that is neutral, but that is the only one I know of.

The Spectator in Lords of Madness (and Magic of Faerun)- Lawful Neutral.

In 4E Demonomicon, Incubi are succubi who came with Grazz't to the Abyss, and like him, were transformed into demons.

The picture shows a male one- but like succubi they can shapechange to any form of humanoid they want.

They have the ability to invade dreams though- a bit more like the traditional myth.

Mordokai
2010-12-03, 04:57 PM
For those who think that CHA = conventional beauty or even caring about one's appearence, I would like to point you to the following:

- Dragons
- Beholder
- Pit Fiends
- For that matter, Bone Devils and Kytons
- Actually, just throw every single fiend in this list
- The majority of liches
- Dragons
- Dracoliches

Everything on that list has an unusually high Charisma score and all of them are ugly as all hell.

Most of these monsters have high social skills, which is a representation of charisma. Most of their (Su) and (Ex) abilities saves are based on charisma. Another aspect. Succubi and erinye are, by most mortal standars, very attractive. The third standard.

Appearance and beauty are not the only possible representation of charisma, but they are ones that play a big part. And like Tvtyrant said, the interracial differences makes it hard to judge. Given that humans can mate with pretty much anything in DnD, it's kinda moot point anyway :smalltongue:

Amiel
2010-12-03, 05:37 PM
I thought the Rhek tended to lawful neutrality rather than innate goodness, hailing from Arcadia as they do?


For those who think that CHA = conventional beauty or even caring about one's appearence, I would like to point you to the following:

Everything on that list has an unusually high Charisma score and all of them are ugly as all hell.
- Dragons

Dragons mate with everything, surely they can't be that unattractive :smalltongue:


- Pit Fiends
Pit fiends have, well they used to have, polymorph. So they originally could appear as anything they wanted to; and make full use of that fine Charisma.


- Actually, just throw every single fiend in this list
Succubi and erinyes

Lord.Sorasen
2010-12-03, 06:25 PM
Let's get some logic in on this one. Some incorrect logic, since I'm going to be telling what I remember and probably getting it wrong.

It's been shown that, even if people don't realize it, we treat attractive people better than unattractive people. Generally we won't even know: In our heads, it's the way they talk or carry themselves, or their good nature, or even their intelligence. This works regardless of sexuality (straight men will treat more attractive straight men better, and children will treat attractive teachers better). The scientific theory? It's an evolutionary trait, in which, if a person is attractive, they probably don't have any disorders: diseases, deformities, or otherwise will generally show visible symptoms) and therefor it is in the specie's best interest to keep these people alive and maybe mate with them.

And so, our best good creatures are beautiful: It's useful to an artist in we'll assume better things of a good looking person.

Lustful but attractive evil creatures exist, but even these creatures have a very sickening air to them. They're "sexy", but their faces often have harsh, sickly traits, so that we'll know they're evil.

Note that a lot of the things we interpret as ugly are so because of how they effect us. A sickening stench is an ugly trait because if it smells bad it will probably make you sick if you touch it too much or eat it. Gaunt faces are ugly because they remind us of death and sickness. Older people tend to look uglier because really our genetics probably didn't expect people to actually get that old.

People mention dwarves as being good but also ugly. I would have to disagree here and mention that dwarves are short and stern looking, but that's about the extent to any unnatractiveness. While they're ugly for good guys, compare them to the evil equivalent races: Goblins, kobolds, gnolls, etc. Much more attractive. Much more human.

Murdim
2010-12-03, 07:48 PM
There's no unfortunate implications that way though. Just a blatant statement. Meh, shows what I get for taking someone at their word.
:smallfrown: I didn't invent anything. Apparently, the "physical manifestation of male sexuality" part was written in the description of the incubus. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/265677-incubus-3-5e.html#post4943413)


It's up there with calling all women temptresses and seducers. I don't think we're exactly supposed to see the *cubus as how business is usually done.
*snip*
The conception of sexuality that lies behind the modern succubus myth, and more particularly its D&D incarnation, is much more warped (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ValuesDissonance) than that. Succubi do not represent evil aspects of sexuality that are only or mostly found in women. That's quite the opposite, actually. If the succubus is an exclusively female figure, it's because the qualities that she embodies are considered "unquestionably evil" and "unnatural" only when they are applied to women (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard).

Let me put it this way. A succubus is lustful, and seductive. In other words, she plays an active role in her sexuality, having both the motive - lust - and the means - seduction. Men are expected to have the active role in their sexuality, to seek out partners ; to this end, they need to feel some level of lust, and use some kind of seduction. Women, on the other hand, are expected to be passive. Any lust they could feel, any seduction they could use, would be a transgression of their role. Of course, I do not think this way, at all, but the implications are there, behind the "temptress" archetype.

AstralFire
2010-12-03, 08:21 PM
...And none of this changes the fact that we're not supposed to be seeing *cubus as representative of their genders; men aren't supposed to be going around raping things, either. I'd be more quick to point out the fact that people are less likely to use the incubus than succubus as a subject of concern.

Also, to my knowledge, those of us in the D&D crowd who swing that way seem rather fond of forward women.

Coidzor
2010-12-03, 09:04 PM
Le Tangent:
...And none of this changes the fact that we're not supposed to be seeing *cubus as representative of their genders; men aren't supposed to be going around raping things, either. I'd be more quick to point out the fact that people are less likely to use the incubus than succubus as a subject of concern.

Except the statement is that male sexuality = rape. Not that the evil, dark side of male sexuality = rape or that the particular demon's perversion of male sexuality = rape. Just male sex = rape. :smallannoyed: It's loose language use like this that always makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people in the biz.

Then again, it's probably more of a matter of nobody is as dumb as all of us.



So... IIRC, the Yuan-ti that can pass as human are supposedly to be exotically beautiful and evil, rather than all Yuan-ti being ugly as sin snakes. The rest of them though, pretty much play the line straight.

Goliath Paladins are pretty craggy, but mostly a PC thing, anyway.

Githzerai are pretty funky-looking, though I can't remember what their alignments tend towards.

Malenti are good looking (if aquatic elves = good looking, YMMV, but they're probably still easier on the eyes than regular sahuagin or the 4-armed variety) but malevolent sahuagin which are a designer/system joke about the way aquatic species reproduce.

Hags of course play the existing system to the hilt by gaming it with their disguises...

The Inspired/Empty Vessels of Eberron are very beautiful and were specially bred to be evil and beautiful and cunning in equal measure. The Quori that control them are weird centipede-squid-scythe-limbed things that are as ugly as they are evil. The Spirits of the Kalashtar, on the other hand... I believe greatly resemble the Quori being an offshoot of them, so they're pretty ugly though you wouldn't really ever see them and they tend towards goodness.

Lord_Gareth
2010-12-03, 09:27 PM
Except the statement is that male sexuality = rape. Not that the evil, dark side of male sexuality = rape or that the particular demon's perversion of male sexuality = rape. Just male sex = rape. :smallannoyed: It's loose language use like this that always makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people in the biz.

Don't even get folks started around here as to whether "Always" alignments are compatible with free will. WotC slept through their ethics class.

absolmorph
2010-12-03, 09:30 PM
Don't even get folks started around here as to whether "Always" alignments are compatible with free will. WotC slept through their ethics class.
And the Charm and Dominate spells, plus similar spells.

SaintRidley
2010-12-03, 10:26 PM
Actually, come to think of it, the races in the Players' Handbook don't follow the "beautiful good, ugly evil" pattern either.

Dwarves: Good, ugly.
Elves: Good, beautiful, but include Drow, who are Evil and beautiful.
Gnomes: Good, ugly (okay, maybe not strictly ugly, but they're not going to be winning many beauty contests).
Half-Orcs: Neutral, ugly.
Halflings: Neutral, not particularly beautiful or ugly.
Humans: Neutral, beautiful (according to most of the pictures, and compared to what they're usually fighting).

If you want more proof of the "ugly good" theme, half the adventurers out there also tend to have an 8 Charisma. :smalltongue:

The female halfling from the races art in the Races chapter is pretty darn good looking if you ask me.


But I'd say if you classify Halflings as not particularly one or the other, the same should go for humans. The art basically suggests that they're just smaller, identically-proportioned versions of the same.

Dr.Epic
2010-12-03, 10:28 PM
It always bugs me that good is always beautiful and evil is always ugly (or sexy, or both). Especially in D&D - the Nagas are the best example of this, where the only Good naga is shiningly golden gorgeous, and the Evil ones are sickeningly ugly. So...

Evil: succubus
Good: Dwarves

Mikeavelli
2010-12-03, 10:36 PM
Don't even get folks started around here as to whether "Always" alignments are compatible with free will. WotC slept through their ethics class.

Aren't angels\demons\etc. not even supposed to have free will? No comment on the other "Always" alignment races though.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-04, 01:03 AM
Now here's the real kicker

Is a Good (insert race here) more beautiful than an Evil (insert race here)?

Cerlis
2010-12-04, 01:21 AM
I'm reminded of a quote from Runelords

"When you see the face of true evil, it will be beautiful"


I.E. Takhisis, Tarquin, Rajahten



p.s. I think a major issue to (more in this topic, than the actual Good vs Evil attractiveness) is peoples appreciation for asthetic. Leonids and Dwarves are only ugly if you look at them from a human perspective (and in fact, many things i like about humans are seen in most dwarves. The Two dwarves in the PhB from 3.5 are very attractive I think. they just arent..human)

dsmiles
2010-12-04, 03:47 AM
Also, to my knowledge, those of us in the D&D crowd who swing that way seem rather fond of forward women.

Indubitably. :smalltongue:

Yora
2010-12-04, 06:28 AM
Le Tangent: [SPOILER]

The Inspired/Empty Vessels of Eberron are very beautiful and were specially bred to be evil and beautiful and cunning in equal measure. The Quori that control them are weird centipede-squid-scythe-limbed things that are as ugly as they are evil. The Spirits of the Kalashtar, on the other hand... I believe greatly resemble the Quori being an offshoot of them, so they're pretty ugly though you wouldn't really ever see them and they tend towards goodness.

The quori aren't neccessarily evil. It's just that it's currently the Evil season in Dal'Quor. Though I have no idea how they look during the Good season.

dsmiles
2010-12-04, 06:30 AM
The quori aren't neccessarily evil. It's just that it's currently the Evil season in Dal'Quor. Though I have no idea how they look during the Good season.Rabbit season! :smallwink:

Coidzor
2010-12-04, 06:30 AM
The quori aren't neccessarily evil. It's just that it's currently the Evil season in Dal'Quor. Though I have no idea how they look during the Good season.

Well, the current batch of quori are evil, and once they're killed off, I don't know that the next batch of natives to that particular plane would be close enough to them to be Quori. Certainly the kalashtar/current batch of quori don't seem to own their precursors from last cycle.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-12-04, 10:21 AM
Le Tangent:

Except the statement is that male sexuality = rape. Not that the evil, dark side of male sexuality = rape or that the particular demon's perversion of male sexuality = rape. Just male sex = rape. :smallannoyed: It's loose language use like this that always makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people in the biz.

Then again, it's probably more of a matter of nobody is as dumb as all of us.



Le Tangent Continued:

It...never makes that statement. Not once. The only 'statement' that could be made is instead implied, that being that 'the demonic incarnation of male sex is a forceful and violent creature that doesn't bother itself with things like "consent" and if it has them'. And it doesn't even make that, you have to draw it yourself from the article...though it is a pretty easy conclusion to come to.

Serpentine
2010-12-05, 04:54 AM
Hokay, clearing up a few things...

If you're looking for examples specifically to assist me (as opposed to, say, general discussion, which is most welcome and progressing marvelously :smallbiggrin:), I'm looking for examples of ugly-good, not evil-beautiful.

At the end of the first post (I think), I switched terminology a bit. Good is always beautiful, but rather than evil always being ugly it is rather that ugly is always (well, usually) evil. There is, indeed, plenty of beautiful evil, but it's often portrayed in a sort of deceptive "ugly in the inside" way. It is also, I think, worth pointing out that most of the ugly-good examples are 1. individuals, and 2. don't get happy endings - the perfect example being Quasimodo, of course.

Finally (I think), I am definitely not just talking about beauty in the anthrocentric sexual-romantic sense. It can be beautiful like mountains are beautiful, or a beautiful day, or a beautiful animal. So, to hail back to an early example, lions and eagles are beautiful creatures, whereas slugs and warthogs are (generally considered) not. Moreover, lions and eagles are often related to holiness, including in D&D with the lionals and that other one. Thus, I would not count non-human beings such as Coatls, lantern archons and so on as ugly or "non-beautiful", because they are beautiful, just in a more general aesthetic way rather than sexual attraction. And the Good dragons are sparkly. Exactly the same as the Evil dragons (with exceptions. See: Black dragons), but with SPARKLES. Sparkles are pretty. They still fit the mould.
I will agree that the semmurv are bizarre, though, even if they are based on a real-life mythological creature.

It was my impression that Serpentine was looking for evil creatures that weren't almost oozing with lust. Otherwise, erinye and succubi(and their counterpart, the incubi) are far too obvious answers.See above: not actually looking for evil creatures at all, although happy to discuss them.
Ichabod Crane was also originally envisioned as transcendentally ugly, but of virtuous character, who always sought for the triumph of reason and rationality over crass evil.Ichabod Crane, virtuous? :smallconfused: Wasn't he mostly just a sponge?
Also, there are Quatls. Big winged Snakes. Snakes being one of the top things that make humans (IRW) go "ierghh". They are paragons of good.

In contrast with Yuan-Ti. Evil Snakes of many kinds. Specially the Snake with Snake arms.

Also: I do not hate snakes. I just remembered them out of thin air.

Also 2: SnakesHaving just completed a 3,000 word essay on a small part of serpent iconography, I feel the need to mention that the "snakes are yuck" thing is VERY recent, and until the Christianization of the world snakes were more benign than they were malign, and their malignity was far more based on their dangerousness than their appearance. See: uraeus, cudaceus, Asklepius, Ningishzida, Egyptian creation myth, African creation myth...
Also, hey :smallannoyed: Snakes are bootiful...

What about BoED- the Rhek (which looks like a rhino-man) and the Hollyphant (which looks like an elephant with wings).

Not exactly paragons of beauty there:

Rhek:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75118.jpg

Hollyphant:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75113.jpgYESSSS! That is EXACTLY the sort of thing I was looking for! Thank you so much.

So, so far I have:
Rhek (if they are Good, not Lawful Neutral)
Hollyphant
Triton
Bes (Egyptian god)
Quasimodo
Senmurv (arguably)
What have I missed?


Also, this is the incubus that I'm familiar with:
http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/fuseli11-1024x816.jpg
Mmm, nummy.

Proven_Paradox
2010-12-05, 06:06 AM
Hm. Would bears count as 'ugly' by your definition? I cold see it going either way, really. If we go with 'yes,' there's the "always lawful good" wearbear. Perhaps "usually lawful good" Blink Dog?

some guy
2010-12-05, 07:20 AM
Also, this is the succubus that I'm familiar with:


Isn't that a nightmare?

Also, that horse always freaks me out.

EDIT: Hrm, according to wiki, it's an incubus. Though the painting is called 'the nightmare'. In Dutch folklore that thing would be called a nightmare though. But I'm sure the terms nightmares and incubi and succubi will be mixed in use.
EDIT the Second: And hags do that too, though hags and nightmares could be the same. I think almost every mythological creature will sit on someone's chest for kicks and giggles.

And to stay on subject, I don't think the hollyphant is ugly. Weird perhaps.

Serpentine
2010-12-05, 08:17 AM
The horse in the background is a nightmare (did an IA entry based on that, actually...), and yes that's the name of the painting, but that's also a depiction of the incubus similar to others elsewhere. And yeah, nightmare-incubus-sleep paralysis-night terrors-alien abduction, all associated.

Murdim
2010-12-05, 09:03 AM
If you're looking for examples specifically to assist me (as opposed to, say, general discussion, which is most welcome and progressing marvelously :smallbiggrin:), I'm looking for examples of ugly-good, not evil-beautiful.
Well, let's face it, there aren't many examples of ugly-looking, Good-aligned creature in D&D, so the discussion had to drift somewhat in order to keep the topic alive.

I did some searching myself, but I haven't found anything noteworthy. Svirfneblins (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_277qP9dtbI0/RusDXZ68HoI/AAAAAAAAAB0/EM1z_HxNZ6U/s320/Svirfneblin_k.jpg) are a sinister-looking subspecies of Gnomes, but they are actually Neutral, as well as pretty much one of the best guys around in their overwhelmingly Evil environment. D&D 3,5-style Dragonborn (http://www.aidedd.org/images/race3/dragonborn1.jpg) are servants of the Good dragon god Bahamut and are pretty monstrous-looking, but whether one considers the mixing of humanoid and draconic traits to be ugly is up to one's tasters. Crypt Wardens (http://www.gemmaline.com/bestiaire/gardiencrypte.png) are basically Lawful Good, intelligent super-zombies who run on positive energy, and they certainly look the part - but the Deathless as a whole have already been proposed by JeminiZero on the first page, so I guess I'm a bit late.


And to stay on subject, I don't think the hollyphant is ugly. Weird perhaps.
Well, again, they do look like a pachydermous version of Cthulhu. I would say that's enough to qualify as "ugly Good".


The horse in the background is a nightmare (did an IA entry based on that, actually...), and yes that's the name of the painting, but that's also a depiction of the incubus similar to others elsewhere. And yeah, nightmare-incubus-sleep paralysis-night terrors-alien abduction, all associated.
I also heard that 'cubi were also a very convenient way to explain an unexpected pregnancy, especially if the child shared a troubling resemblance with some family friend. Obviously the demon took a female form in order to seduce the gentleman in his dreams, and then used the imaginary seed in order to impregnate the maiden with a cambion.

Serpentine
2010-12-05, 09:23 AM
Well, let's face it, there aren't many examples of ugly-looking, Good-aligned creature in D&D, so the discussion had to drift somewhat in order to keep the topic alive.Eh, there were a couple of "well Serpentine if you're looking for..."s and "I think what Serpentine wants is..." which I thought was worth clearing up so people didn't go to effort (beyond mere discussion) because they thought they were helping me.

D&D 3,5-style Dragonborn (http://www.aidedd.org/images/race3/dragonborn1.jpg) are servants of the Good dragon god Bahamut and are pretty monstrous-looking, but whether one considers the mixing of humanoid and draconic traits to be ugly is up to one's tasters. Crypt Wardens (http://www.gemmaline.com/bestiaire/gardiencrypte.png) are basically Lawful Good, intelligent super-zombies who run on positive energy, and they certainly look the part - but the Deathless as a whole have already been proposed by JeminiZero on the first page, so I guess I'm a bit late.There might be something there, thanks.

Eldan
2010-12-05, 11:55 AM
I went through the Planescape monster books, they are usually a bit more diverse. First of all, it seems that all really bizarre things are some flavour of neutral on the Evil-good axis.

Some I could find:

Good:

The Buseni, noted as being between Lawful Good and lawful neutral. Not really ugly, but at least a little weird and unusual:
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4397/buseni.jpg


The guardinals, also unusual with their half-animal shapes:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7465/lupinal.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4928/cervidal.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7771/leonal.jpg

And finally, the Hollyphant as it looked back then, just as contrast, since here, it's not ugly.
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6734/hollyphant.jpg



Evil:

Evil has, of course, the usual temptress types:

Alu-fiend:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3737/alufiend.jpg

Yochlol:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8903/yochlol.jpg

Erinye:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5262/erinyes.jpg

But it also has, so far, the only Mariliths I've seen that look at least like they could be good generals and tacticians.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1237/marilith.jpg


It also has these two cute critters:
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1403/achairai.jpg

Linqua:
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6625/linqua.jpg

Psyren
2010-12-05, 05:33 PM
Having just completed a 3,000 word essay on a small part of serpent iconography, I feel the need to mention that the "snakes are yuck" thing is VERY recent, and until the Christianization of the world snakes were more benign than they were malign, and their malignity was far more based on their dangerousness than their appearance. See: uraeus, cudaceus, Asklepius, Ningishzida, Egyptian creation myth, African creation myth...
Also, hey :smallannoyed: Snakes are bootiful...

I get the sense this particular point might be a bit personal for you :smalltongue:

As for "ugly-good" weren't many of the angels in a certain western religion's holy text actually High-Octane Nightmare Fuel-style lovecraftian horrors? (Granted, their alignment wasn't exactly clear-cut either, but I won't go there.)

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-05, 05:47 PM
Would you mind conventional mythology? Lamashtu is some sort of midwife-murderer.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ersF53wzhq4/SJ35tf-35RI/AAAAAAAAAWM/xul8YZ1DuH0/s400/lamashtu.jpg
Unless you return to our modern artwork, in which she's a marilith general.
http://www.imgjoe.com/x/ewwwara.png

absolmorph
2010-12-05, 05:49 PM
I get the sense this particular point might be a bit personal for you :smalltongue:

As for "ugly-good" weren't many of the angels in a certain western religion's holy text actually High-Octane Nightmare Fuel-style lovecraftian horrors? (Granted, their alignment wasn't exactly clear-cut either, but I won't go there.)
This is a cherubim, roughly as it originally was described:
http://www.elfwood.com/art/c/a/casssita/cherubim.jpg
To summarize: They have four faces (lion, ox, human, eagle), four wings, hands under the wings, eyes everywhere (including BETWEEN THE EYES) and "straight" legs. Just "straight". And they have hooves.
When an angel was sent to people and it opened conversation with "Do not be afraid!" it was because they make no sense to our minds. Eldritch abominations with too many parts.
And discussing their alignments may get a bit... testy, so let's avoid that.

Eldan
2010-12-05, 06:04 PM
I also like Seraphim. They have six wings, which they need to cover their body. Otherwise, they'd set people on fire and blind them.

Serpentine
2010-12-05, 10:52 PM
The freaky angels is definitely the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Here's another version of the Cherubim, which I already intend to use:http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/258/5/7/Cherub_by_lvl9Drow.jpgIf anyone can point me in the direction of some collection of early descriptions of these sorts of things, 'twould be most handy.

Dimers
2010-12-06, 01:27 AM
I don't have any more examples of ugly-good for you, Serpentine. I just wanted to say that I think you ask the best questions. :smallsmile: