Creepiest D&D Content

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Have you ever opened up a D&D book, and while browsing, found something truly unsettling or disturbing? I don't mean things from books where the writers were trying to be unsettling, like in Heroes of Horror or the Book of Vile Darkness. I'm looking for creepy spots in otherwise comfortable books.

[Balain]

A friend of mine always found modrons creepy.

[Welknair]

Whatever those psionic leeches were called?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Thought eaters (the original emaciated platypus things) are actually kind of terrifying to me. It seems like a laughable concept at first, but the more one thinks about them, the scarier they seem.

Its even more disquieting if one takes into account the tidbit of lore saying that they are the souls of dead psionic characters.

[TuggyNE]

ELH's High Proselytizer has a signature ability (Proselytize) that creeps me out because it seems like it's intended to be some kind of sick parody of cults or something. Anything that lets you command low-level followers of the same deity/cause to commit suicide, no save, is just ... Dude Not Funny.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It kinda treads on the line for the OP's request, but the Tsochar from Lords of Madness creep me out to no end.

Hive mind leech/snake things that climb inside your body and force you to do their bidding or suffer horrible agony, and can also decide keeping you alive isn't worth the trouble so they just eat your brain and drive your body around like an old volvo.

*shudders*

[ghost_warlock]

Whatever those psionic leeches were called?

You mean puppeteers?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/33547.jpg

Personally, I love those things. :smallbiggrin: I played one in a short campaign several years back. I was Lawful Good but would go around using my dominate on the BBEGs in order to rehabilitate them and show them how to lead a good life. Quickly acquired quite the entourage and hilarity ensued!

[falloutimperial]

Technically, this was in the BoVD, but they weren't trying to be unsettling at that point: D&D morality.

Lying: Probably evil.
Cheating: Evil.
Making an advantageous contract: Evil
Having a disadvantageous hallucination: Evil
Cannibalism: Evil
Masochism: Evil
Self-Mutilation: Evil
Obesity: Evil

etc.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Technically, this was in the BoVD, but they weren't trying to be unsettling at that point: D&D morality.

Lying: Probably evil.
Cheating: Evil.
Making an advantageous contract: Evil
Having a disadvantageous hallucination: Evil
Cannibalism: Evil
Masochism: Evil
Self-Mutilation: Evil
Obesity: Evil

etc.

I object! This is being misconstrued by taking it out of context.

BoVD says that many evil characters have one or more of those traits, or do one or more of those things.

It does not say that everyone that does any of those things or has any of those traits is automatically evil, or even that the traits and acts are in and of themselves evil.

This kind of misunderstanding is the biggest reason that people think D&D's alignment system is non-functional.

[DigoDragon]

Neogi usually get my vote for creepy factor. Particularly their reproduction cycle.

[Ranting Fool]

Well the picture of the Female half-orc in the Players Handbook tends to disturb a fair number of people (Though I think that is just because they want all/most women in a fantasy world to be stunningly attractive and scantly clad in chain mail bras or aged hags who curse people)

The more and more I think about it the more creeped out I get by the fact that a dragons Good/Evilness is based on the color of it's skin.

[Ashtagon]

Wildren (Planar Handbook). If you thought the classic half-orc background was ick, this makes it even more so.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I object! This is being misconstrued by taking it out of context.

BoVD says that many evil characters have one or more of those traits, or do one or more of those things.

It does not say that everyone that does any of those things or has any of those traits is automatically evil, or even that the traits and acts are in and of themselves evil.

This kind of misunderstanding is the biggest reason that people think D&D's alignment system is non-functional.

Willing Deformity Feats.

[PaperMustache]

Intellect devourers. They kill you and move into your head while you sleep and then drive you around to mad orgies and stuff. They do this while BEING a giant brain with hands and feet.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Willing Deformity Feats.

Cover some of those things taken to their extreme and require that a character be evil to take them. A character with one of the physical or mental features granted by a deformity feat, that doesn't have the feat is still perfectly RAW legal. He just gets no benefit or drawback from being deformed. Or are you actually arguing that deformities should be beneficial to everyone that has them?

For example, there was an entire thread on obese characters in D&D in the 3.5 subforum recently.

Edit: upon further review only self mutilation and obesity are covered by the deformity feats.

[Feytalist]

How has someone not mentioned the BoEF yet?

Although whether that's intentional or unintentional, I'd rather not find out.

I'll just vaguely mention the alternate bag of holding analogue and leave it at that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How has someone not mentioned the BoEF yet?

Although whether that's intentional or unintentional, I'd rather not find out.

I'll just vaguely mention the alternate bag of holding analogue and leave it at that.

Really? I didn't think it was that bad, except for one of the pictures. I covered that with post-its and never looked back.

Then again, my creep factor detector for that sort of thing may be a little off.

I'm not creepy myself (I don't think. My wife doesn't seem to either) but I think that as long as your kinky doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't want to be hurt and doesn't involve children or animals it's noone else's business.

[Lapak]

Neogi usually get my vote for creepy factor. Particularly their reproduction cycle.Since you remind me of it, yes, that is one of the creepier things D&D has produced. And in a setting (Spelljammer) that wasn't overtly creepy most of the time. But alongside matchlock-wielding hippo mercenaries and Giant Space Hamsters that literally power spaceships by running on exercise wheels, you have a race of ruthless hermaphroditic spider-monster slavers. Who reproduce by waiting until one of their kind starts to suffer from the senility of old age, then subject it to a (thankfully not detailed) hormonal/chemical/letsnotconsiderittooclosely process that causes it to go completely mindless and swell up with young who are birthed by devouring it from the inside.

Which, just as a side effect, leads to encounters with ships captained by aging monsters who already had no conscience and are now suffering from both dementia and an ironclad determination to avoid the notice of their kindred at any costs.

[Ravens_cry]

The Worm the Walks sets off a little *ping* in my brain :smalleek:

[kardar233]

The Worm the Walks sets off a little *ping* in my brain :smalleek:

Speaking of which, I think the Ulgurstasta (sp?) is probably the grossest creature in D&D.

Father Llymic also gives me a bit of a twang, but that might just be shades of Stephen King.

[tbok1992]

Wildren (Planar Handbook). If you thought the classic half-orc background was ick, this makes it even more so.

Yeah, that's why I cited them as well in the Stupid Non-Monster things thread. I still don't get how Editorial didn't nix that. I mean, it's kinda hypocritical to say "No" to the Book of Erotic Fantasy and yet still make an entire race spawned by bestiality.

Also, on the whole "S&M is Evil" issue from the BoVD, I also don't get why the Vermin Lord has a "Must Be Evil" requirement in both the 3e and 4e versions. Yes it's squicky to turn yourself into a living hive for bugs, but that could just as easily be flavored as a "Friend to all living things, even the lowliest" thing, like a really weird version of St. Francis.

[Arbane]

Also, on the whole "S&M is Evil"

To quote one review on RPGnet:


Sadism I can understand, but masochism? A villain who enjoys being beaten is a villain that's realized their place in the universe with unusual clarity.

[Dimers]

Rot grubs and scarecrow golems from AD&D both creeped me out in terms of mechanics. I shudder when I think of save-or-dies inflicted by what appears to be an innocuous object (a pile of garbage, a scarecrow). Rot grubs also have gross fluff, of course.

[Blueiji]

I find Gnolls horrifying, not because I'm scared of Hyenas or anything, but because of how purely evil and morally disgusting my first DM portrayed them as. Plus the their cackling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE), which evokes pure terror.

Rakshasas also creep me out, because of the hand thing. Just imagine shaking their hands. . . *shudder*

[Kelb_Panthera]

To quote one review on RPGnet:

Masochism was included in BoVD for its undeniable relationship with sadism, not because it's a trait common to evil characters, excepting of course sadomasochist villians.

Also, where the devil else were they going to describe such things? Complete Scoundrel?

[Kane0]

Not sure if it counts, but one session of Pathfinder led us to meeting some very enthusiastic followers of Zon-uthon...

[tbok1992]

Masochism was included in BoVD for its undeniable relationship with sadism, not because it's a trait common to evil characters, excepting of course sadomasochist villians.

Also, where the devil else were they going to describe such things? Complete Scoundrel?

Ah. Well, I do think that it's in poor taste for D&D to malign a relatively reasonable kink like that. I mean, they don't use Catfolk or Dragonborn to bash on furries or Changelings to bash on transformation fetishists, so why should S&M be singled out like that?

This also reminds me of the Yuan-Ti from my setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255799) {:coughshamelessplugcough:}, who routinely mutilate themselves to practice their own brand of blood magic and whose god is a giant skinless snake with nails pounded into his muscles and hung up by hooks on the celing, dripping luminescent blood...

And they just so happen to be the good guys, using said blood magic to keep the Tarrascon (Essentially the Ur-Tarrasque, the being upon which all Tarrasques across the multiverse unconsciously base themselves and who could make Tharazidun pee his pants in fear) sealed within the setting and being willing to teach their magic to those hardy enough to withstand it and unselfish enough to use it for others sake and not their own.

[Mordokai]

I find Gnolls horrifying, not because I'm scared of Hyenas or anything, but because of how purely evil and morally disgusting my first DM portrayed them as. Plus the their cackling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE), which evokes pure terror.

Rakshasas also creep me out, because of the hand thing. Just imagine shaking their hands. . . *shudder*

Really? I find that laughter kinda endearing :smallbiggrin:

Guess I'm just used to much more obvious display of fun from hyenas. Aka, The Lion King style.

[tbok1992]

You mean puppeteers?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/33547.jpg

Personally, I love those things. :smallbiggrin: I played one in a short campaign several years back. I was Lawful Good but would go around using my dominate on the BBEGs in order to rehabilitate them and show them how to lead a good life. Quickly acquired quite the entourage and hilarity ensued!

Well that just sounds silly. Also, weren't the Puppeteers ripped off from Heinleins' the Puppet Masters?

And by the way Blueiji, could you give me some examples of Gnoll brutality from that DM? I find myself intrigued.

[Silus]

Pathfinder Goblins.

Imagine a player that plays their character Chaotic Stupid as much as they can with an unhealthy fascination with fire. Now make a whole race of them. First encounter with PF Goblins, they were in the rafters, with cover, and a good supply of fire bombs.

*Shudders* It's 'cause of this that my next character is gonna be a Peri-Blooded (Aasimar) Fire Mage for that sweet 15 Fire Resist at lvl 1.

Stat-wise, the Wonderland themed Tane from Pathfinder. Jabberwocky, Bandersnatch and JubJub Birds, oh no!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah. Well, I do think that it's in poor taste for D&D to malign a relatively reasonable kink like that. I mean, they don't use Catfolk or Dragonborn to bash on furries or Changelings to bash on transformation fetishists, so why should S&M be singled out like that?

This also reminds me of the Yuan-Ti from my setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255799) {:coughshamelessplugcough:}, who routinely mutilate themselves to practice their own brand of blood magic and whose god is a giant skinless snake with nails pounded into his muscles and hung up by hooks on the celing, dripping luminescent blood...

And they just so happen to be the good guys, using said blood magic to keep the Tarrascon (Essentially the Ur-Tarrasque, the being upon which all Tarrasques across the multiverse unconsciously base themselves and who could make Tharazidun pee his pants in fear) sealed within the setting and being willing to teach their magic to those hardy enough to withstand it and unselfish enough to use it for others sake and not their own.

Sadism is singled out like that because addressing that particular kink with an unwilling partner -is- evil, whether there's sexual contact or not. Masochism was included for its relationship to sadism. There's nothing inherently evil about having either trait, and the book never says otherwise. Many evil characters are sadists =/= many sadists are evil.

The book gets maligned constantly because of the notion that having any of the traits or committing any of the acts described therin makes you automatically evil, when what the book actually says is that those traits and acts are common amongst evil characters.

Evil characters do (X). =/= Characters that do (X) are evil.


Those yuan-ti sound interesting BTW.

[Serpentine]

I find Gnolls horrifying, not because I'm scared of Hyenas or anything, but because of how purely evil and morally disgusting my first DM portrayed them as. Plus the their cackling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE), which evokes pure terror.You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

[DigoDragon]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

I bet you always score high on "You don't Know Jack" :3

The one time I created a Gnoll tribe, it was matriarchal. Can't say I knew about the other part... or really I don't think that would have come up in PC conversation with them. :smallbiggrin:

[some guy]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

I don't know if RAW Gnolls are matriarchal, MM 3.5 just states that they are ruled by their strongest member. If gnolls follow real-world hyena's, their strongest member would be female.
But yeah, in my games gnolls are just like real-world hyena's. That gets awkward sometimes. Other fun-facts; displaying an erect pseudo-penis is a sign of subordination; daughters are less agressive to their fathers than to other males; Cubs of the highest dominant female outrank adult females.

[Serpentine]

Can you imagine what an impact it'd have on gnoll society?

Spoilered for hyenas and some squick. Also rape, so trigger warning.
What sort of an impact would it have on their society that, say, rape is completely impossible? What would they think of that phenomenon amongst other races? For that matter, what would they think of the more obvious sexual dimorphism in other races?
Or what about how incredibly painful childbirth must be? What sort of rituals and myths could they have around it - would there be a confinement, as is common for humans? Or would they rally together to support the new mother? Would protective rituals be a feature, or would they be more fatalistic? Then there's the fact that the pseudo-penis often splits during childbirth, and can take weeks to heal; mark of pride and adulthood, or a sad, painful inconvenience? Could it (not to go into a very heated and dark real-world issue) be a sort of cultural analogue to female circumcision? Considering everything the females go through, could femininity be revered by them? Or might there be a sort of "no point getting attached to them, they're just going to die when they give birth anyway"? Or maybe both: few strong connections being made with female gnolls until they've survived birth, when they are revered as the epitome of gnoll toughness?
And the high mortality rate during birth, for both mother and child: considering, again, how downright difficult mating is, "accidental" pregnacies seem fairly unlikely, and in an intelligent* being, with how awkward sex itself is and how terrifying the birth is, just what motivation is there for breeding? Do they have an extra-intense breeding instinct? Is their sex actually absolutely amazing? Or is it culturally reinforced, as a solemn duty to the clan^? I found it interesting, incidentally, that hyenas apparently prefer to do it privately, alone, without other hyenas watching. Modest/prudish gnolls?

I'm thinking, with the intensity of childbirth as well as the awkwardness of sex and their apparent secrecy with the act, maybe they would make a big ritual out of sex, make it a big community thing. Maybe a sort of solemn sacrifice type thing, like the classic old "young virgins sacrificed for the good of the tribe" situation. I'm sure they'd make a big deal of the birth. Maybe, even, their god of Death would be merged with their god of Birth, seeing as they converge so often (and I'm pretty sure it has precedence in certain pantheons, where you've had a God of Life and Death or of Beginnings and Endings or somesuch). I think there'd be a particular ritual set up for if the mother and/or baby died, and a big celebration if they both lived, as well as lots of protective rituals during the birth itself.
I think I'd make the veneration of mothers a big thing. I mean, obviously there's the matriarchal factor, but I think there'd be a spiritual aspect, too. I think the first birth would be a huge coming-of-age for female gnolls, even more than various human ones - and one that, quite dramatically, males do not have. Would they have some sort of substitute, or would it just be yet another example of male inferiority? I'm not sure which I'd prefer.
As for the rape aspect, again, I'm not sure. I could see it ranging from mere ignorance ("He did what? How? :smallconfused: Why didn't you just, you know, not let him?"), to all-out contempt ("If you are weak enough to allow a mere male do that, then you deserved it!").

I think it's kinda interesting that, with all of the above and the rest of hyena stuff, you could make gnolls truly awful, nasty and icky, or extremely sympathetic, or anything in-between. I've never really thought about gnolls all that much, but now I think I really want to work out exactly what they're like in my gameworld...


*and apparently they do better than chimpanzees on some intelligence tests.
^actually what they call hyena packs, apparently.

edit: Putting it here so I don't forget the idea later.Gnoll Death/Birth god: pregnant dominant female. Myths about the cub she carries devouring the world when it is born.Can't think of much actually on topic, I'm afraid. Haven't flicked through my books recently. There's that worm what looks like a naughty bit that squirts out things that look like what comes out of naughty bits, though...

[Lapak]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?Since I'm always glad to have the chance to plug Digger (http://www.diggercomic.com), I'll go ahead and point out that it's got a pretty excellent presentation of a matriarchal hyena culture, complete with creation myth (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=183) to explain both why the women are bigger and stronger and why childbirth is so difficult for them.

[Serpentine]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though :smalltongue:
Well, it's not seen, but we do see loin cloths, so it could merely be behind the loincloth.

[wadledo]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though :smalltongue:

Digger is absolutely fantastic.

[Arbane]

Since I'm always glad to have the chance to plug Digger (http://www.diggercomic.com), I'll go ahead and point out that it's got a pretty excellent presentation of a matriarchal hyena culture, complete with creation myth (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=183) to explain both why the women are bigger and stronger and why childbirth is so difficult for them.

Well, drat, you beat me to suggesting Digger.

So I'll just agree. It's an awesome comic, and well worth reading.

[Ravens_cry]

Pathfinder Goblins.

Imagine a player that plays their character Chaotic Stupid as much as they can with an unhealthy fascination with fire. Now make a whole race of them. First encounter with PF Goblins, they were in the rafters, with cover, and a good supply of fire bombs.

*Shudders* It's 'cause of this that my next character is gonna be a Peri-Blooded (Aasimar) Fire Mage for that sweet 15 Fire Resist at lvl 1.

Stat-wise, the Wonderland themed Tane from Pathfinder. Jabberwocky, Bandersnatch and JubJub Birds, oh no!

The trouble is they are just so darn cute looking. Like evil green teddy bears.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The trouble is they are just so darn cute looking. Like evil green teddy bears.

Teddy bears? The one on the pathfinder SRD website looks like some kinda mutant bipedal chihuahua.

They're no tsochar, but that is a little creepy to me.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Well, drat, you beat me to suggesting Digger.

So I'll just agree. It's an awesome comic, and well worth reading.

I never found Pathfinder goblins to be very threatening. The adventure We Be Goblins, while awesome, kind finished the process of turning them into a joke.

Its Pathfinder ogres that are chilling.

[Arbane]

I never found Pathfinder goblins to be very threatening. The adventure We Be Goblins, while awesome, kind finished the process of turning them into a joke.

"I don't mind when people laugh at me, it just means they look more surprised when I kill them." - NPC in City of Heroes.



Its Pathfinder ogres that are chilling.

Oh, yeah. Take the hillbillies from Deliverance, add the cannibal family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then make them eight feet tall and strong as an ox. No fun.

[Mary Leathert]

Couple of spells in the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide caught my attention yesterday.

One of them let you turn all of your soft tissue into a swarm and control it. Your bones would be left behind. The spell would only end when you returned all of the swarm to the bones, or the swarm was destroyed. But if your bones were destroyed, you would be stuck as a swarm.
Another was vomiting swarms. First spiders then with level up other insects. Yucky.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Couple of spells in the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide caught my attention yesterday.

One of them let you turn all of your soft tissue into a swarm and control it. Your bones would be left behind. The spell would only end when you returned all of the swarm to the bones, or the swarm was destroyed. But if your bones were destroyed, you would be stuck as a swarm.
Another was vomiting swarms. First spiders then with level up other insects. Yucky.

I once played a character with Vomit Swarm. He also had the Child Scent ability, that allows him to smell children from a way off.

I was trying to creep out my DM.

[Water_Bear]

Sadism is singled out like that because addressing that particular kink with an unwilling partner -is- evil, whether there's sexual contact or not. Masochism was included for its relationship to sadism. There's nothing inherently evil about having either trait, and the book never says otherwise. Many evil characters are sadists =/= many sadists are evil.


Many slaves to darkness are consumed by addictions and perverted tastes. Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse.

Look, I like the BoVD, but it has a very very problematic (though unfortunately common) stance on kink addiction and mental illnesses. That they are fundamentally wicked traits, though you can still be good in spite of your sinister nature as long as you follow <insert random philosophy>.

The BDSM stuff is particularly bad because there was never really any need to put in a judgement on any sexual practice in D&D, because that's not really something there are rules for. Drugs have already shown up mechanically and, for better or worse, so has insanity. It's just there for a bit of pointless "ooooo.... eeeevil" shock value, which makes the offensive character of it that much more offensive.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Look, I like the BoVD, but it has a very very problematic (though unfortunately common) stance on kink addiction and mental illnesses. That they are fundamentally wicked traits, though you can still be good in spite of your sinister nature as long as you follow <insert random philosophy>.

The BDSM stuff is particularly bad because there was never really any need to put in a judgement on any sexual practice in D&D, because that's not really something there are rules for. Drugs have already shown up mechanically and, for better or worse, so has insanity. It's just there for a bit of pointless "ooooo.... eeeevil" shock value, which makes the offensive character of it that much more offensive.

Horrible =/= evil.

You've got to remember that to most people those traits and behaviors are considered pretty squicky, and they -are- common amongst evil and/or perverse characters.

That doesn't mean that all characters that have those traits or indulge in those behaviors are perverse and/or evil.

A transitive property is being added where it doesn't exist here.

BoVD does -not- say that those behaviors are evil, just that they are common amongst evil characters.

[Marlowe]

Deities and Demigods implies that Clerics of Freya are sworn, as an act of devotion, to have intercourse with anyone who's willing. Whether or not they're actually attracted to the persons concerned doesn't seem to come into it.

[Lanaya]

Horrible =/= evil.

You've got to remember that to most people those traits and behaviors are considered pretty squicky, and they -are- common amongst evil and/or perverse characters.

That doesn't mean that all characters that have those traits or indulge in those behaviors are perverse and/or evil.

A transitive property is being added where it doesn't exist here.

BoVD does -not- say that those behaviors are evil, just that they are common amongst evil characters.

Bleh? I can't say I have any statistics to back me up here, but are you really more likely to be into S&M if you're evil? I don't think alignment has any impact on what turns someone on.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bleh? I can't say I have any statistics to back me up here, but are you really more likely to be into S&M if you're evil? I don't think alignment has any impact on what turns someone on.

The book doesn't say that either. Neither did I. Sadism and masochism's commonality amongst evil isn't necessarily greater than it is amongst neutral characters. But given the nature of sadism, I'd be surprised if anyone were to say it's just as common amongst good creatures as anyone else.

And you're right, your alignment doesn't have anything to do with what turns you on, but what turns you on can have an effect on your aligment. If you get off on hurting others, choosing to go without because you can't find a willing partner can be harder than simply victimizing someone. The sex-drive is an incredibly powerful pyschological force in most people.

Sidenote: BDSM is an acronym for a lot more than just sadism and masochism. It's not at all uncommon for people whose kinks fall in the BDSM category to be neither sadistic nor masochistic.

Edit & sidenote 2: Your alignment doesn't have any effect on any of your behavior. Your alignment is determined by your behavior. That the reverse is true is the single most common misconception regarding the alignment system and that misconception is quite likely the biggest reason the alignment system is so frequently derided.

[Arbane]

Edit & sidenote 2: Your alignment doesn't have any effect on any of your behavior. Your alignment is determined by your behavior. That the reverse is true is the single most common misconception regarding the alignment system and that misconception is quite likely the biggest reason the alignment system is so frequently derided.

So, Helm of Opposite Alignment...?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, Helm of Opposite Alignment...?

specifies that it changes your behavior to match the new alignment. If it didn't the item wouldn't have any long term effect at all. You'd just immediately go get an atonement or continue to act as you always have, causing your alignment to change back in short-order.

Your alignment is a result of your thoughts and behavior. Magic can temporarily or permanently alter your behavior to that of another alignment and changes your alignment to match in the cases of certain spells and items.

Repeated exposure to enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects can cause the changes in behavior necessary to generate a more natural change in alignment and atonement can change your alignment without changing your behavior.

There does exist a correlation between alignment and behavior. That doesn't make them one-and-the-same or interchangeable.

Bottom line:

You're evil because you do bad things.

You don't do bad things because you're evil.

[tbok1992]

Well, there's the goddess Evening Glory from The Book Of Bad Latin (AKA The Libris Mortis) who is creepy for a different reason than everything else in the book. Namely in how she represents "Undying Love", which in her case means resurrecting your dead spouse as a zombie for creepy necrophiliac lovin'.

Though she's neutral, most other religions kick out her clerics when they realize what she represents. She also has "Alluring heart-shaped holes in her palms," which I think is developer code for "Yes, those are meant to give a horrible new meaning to the phrase 'H*ndjob'."

[Lost Demiurge]

Oh... What's the name of that undead diety fetus in the Epic Level Handbook? Yeah, that thing's just loaded with triggers...

[Water_Bear]

And you're right, your alignment doesn't have anything to do with what turns you on, but what turns you on can have an effect on your aligment. If you get off on hurting others, choosing to go without because you can't find a willing partner can be harder than simply victimizing someone. The sex-drive is an incredibly powerful pyschological force in most people.

So... being kinky makes people more likely to be Evil because they'll just go nuts and start whipping people or something whenever they're horny and single?

By your logic, no-one should ever be trusted with an unconscious person of their preferred gender; after all, the sex-drive is apparently so inescapably powerful that liking rough sex can warp your entire moral character towards Evil. Or maybe you just mean only people with "bad" kinds of sexual desires are incapable of acting like reasonable human beings. :smallannoyed:

Believe it or not, it is much much easier to decide to take a cold shower than to sexually assault someone. That's just as true whether you're talking about someone with vanilla preferences or not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So... being kinky makes people more likely to be Evil because they'll just go nuts and start whipping people or something whenever they're horny and single?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I -am- saying is that if your brain feeds you a positive chemical response every time you inflict pain on someone, you're going to want to inflict pain on people. Choosing not to act on that desire is exactly what any non-evil character should do, but for some the urge to fulfill their own desires can be overwhelming. In any case, the desire to hurt people creates a hurdle to remaining neutral, much less good, that most people don't have to jump.

By your logic, no-one should ever be trusted with an unconscious person of their preferred gender; after all, the sex-drive is apparently so inescapably powerful that liking rough sex can warp your entire moral character towards Evil. Or maybe you just mean only people with "bad" kinds of sexual desires are incapable of acting like reasonable human beings. :smallannoyed:

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. :smallannoyed:

It is possible, even common, for people to resist whatever sexual urges they have, but that doesn't change the fact that those urges play a significant role in their overall behavior on both the concious and unconcious levels. To try and deny this is simply being naieve or purposefully dense. BTW, it -is- generally a bad idea to leave someone alone with an unconcious member of their preffered gender if you don't know them and don't have reason to believe that aloneness will be short-lived.

Believe it or not, it is much much easier to decide to take a cold shower than to sexually assault someone. That's just as true whether you're talking about someone with vanilla preferences or not.

Of course it is. That doesn't change the fact that having the urge to do something that, in the right context, is evil will cause a tendency toward evil.

Constantly thinking about hurting others will make you ping on detect evil whether you ever act on those thoughts or not, regardless of the reason you're having those thoughts, because in D&D rules, if not necessarily in your personal view on morality, harming others without just cause is evil. If however, you also regularly commit acts of good, you will revert to neutrality, and if you do good more often than you think evil, you can even register as good to detect spells.

Answered in bold above, left in the spoiler for being off-topic at this point.

Also note that the quote of my response says that denying those urges -can- be more difficult than victimizing someone. Some people are sadists and some people have poor impulse control. Sometimes there's overlap.

Also, a sadist doesn't have to sexually assault someone to feed their sadism, a simple physical assualt followed by a round of furious self-gratification works too.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh... What's the name of that undead diety fetus in the Epic Level Handbook? Yeah, that thing's just loaded with triggers...

Atropus is the one you're thinking of.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Atropus is the one you're thinking of.

I think that's "atropal."

Atropus is the elder evil.

[Water_Bear]

Of course it is. That doesn't change the fact that having the urge to do something that, in the right context, is evil will cause a tendency toward evil.


But there isn't any more reason to assume sadists won't obtain consent than to assume anyone else wouldn't; after all, most sex crimes are committed by "regular" guys. Doing anything sexual to someone non-consentually is capital-E Evil, so I don't see how sadist's "urges" are any more evil than anyone else's libido. Again, by your logic everyone who isn't asexual will have a tendency towards evil because they might be tempted to commit rape.


Well, there's the goddess Evening Glory from The Book Of Bad Latin (AKA The Libris Mortis) who is creepy for a different reason than everything else in the book. Namely in how she represents "Undying Love", which in her case means resurrecting your dead spouse as a zombie for creepy necrophiliac lovin'.

Though she's neutral, most other religions kick out her clerics when they realize what she represents. She also has "Alluring heart-shaped holes in her palms," which I think is developer code for "Yes, those are meant to give a horrible new meaning to the phrase 'H*ndjob'."

Bwah! :smalleek:

That's worse than the Lich Loved feat, which still kind of weirds me out. The strangest thing is trying to imagine why someone thought they could get away with writing that feat, and then the reason why they were right.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

My list of the most unsettling content I have found. Some of this is Pathfinder.

Gnolls. Especially 4e ones.
Pathfinder ogres.
Dylls. The flying penises.
Pre-3e thought eaters.
Pathfinder adherers, which reproduce through tentacle rape.

[Mordokai]

My list of the most unsettling content I have found. Some of this is Pathfinder.

Gnolls. Especially 4e ones.
Pathfinder ogres.
Dylls. The flying penises.
Pre-3e thought eaters.
Pathfinder adherers, which reproduce through tentacle rape.


Hattrick, ladies and gentlemen!!! Chainsaw Hobbit does it... without his lucky chainsaw even. Truly, a historic moment!!!

On a more serious note, can we drop the S&M debate? Fascinating as it may be, it is also totally off topic.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But there isn't any more reason to assume sadists won't obtain consent than to assume anyone else wouldn't; after all, most sex crimes are committed by "regular" guys. Doing anything sexual to someone non-consentually is capital-E Evil, so I don't see how sadist's "urges" are any more evil than anyone else's libido. Again, by your logic everyone who isn't asexual will have a tendency towards evil because they might be tempted to commit rape.

the mistake you're making is only considering that the sadist's fetish will lead to sexual assault.

Sadism, while a sexual fetish, doesn't require actual intercourse to address. It could, and unfortunately sometimes does, lead to garden variety physical assault. Because of how much easier it is to simply waylay someone and flee, sadists have a much easier time dealing with their particular kink than, say, a rapist, who would also ping on detect evil whether he's actually commited the act or not. Both characters however would only ping on evil-dar if they have no other redeeming virtues. Thoughts alone can make you evil, but only if evil thoughts take up the majority of your mental time.

At the same time, I'm not saying that sadism is, itself, evil. Only that it has a stronger tendency than most sexual urges to lead to evil. A sadist who finds a masochist and sates his urges only with that masochist isn't doing anything wrong. He may be thinking evil thoughts in regard to others, but most people do, regardless of any sexual mores they have. The sadist just has a peculiar connotation associated with those thoughts.

There's also a rather dramatic leap in logic that you're associating with my argument that isn't there. While your average Joe might or might not be tempted to commit a sexual assualt at some point in his life, every sadist is tempted to inflict pain on someone on a nearly daily basis. He may not even realize that there is a sexual component to these urges. All he knows for sure is that when he hurts someone he likes it.

I forgot about Evening Glory. That is somewhat disturbing.

Though with the way the whole vampire craze is going these days, I bet she could pick up a decent following IRL.

Stupid sparkly bastards.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Stupid sparkly bastards.

The sparkly thing is stupid, but the overall mindset of Twilight vampires is fine. I don't like that they are beings of living crystal. The fact that they are sexually tortured, angsty blood-drinkers is kind of interesting, however.

[Water_Bear]

At the same time, I'm not saying that sadism is, itself, evil. Only that it has a stronger tendency than most sexual urges to lead to evil. A sadist who finds a masochist and sates his urges only with that masochist isn't doing anything wrong. He may be thinking evil thoughts in regard to others, but most people do, regardless of any sexual mores they have. The sadist just has a peculiar connotation associated with those thoughts.


Um, again, using someone to fulfill your sexual desires without consent is always sexual assault; that's literally what the term means. It doesn't matter if your stabbing people with a hat-pin or feeling them up on the subway instead of having penetrative intercourse, it's still rape.

And what exactly do you think sexual sadists are thinking that is so different from "normal" people? In what way is it an "evil thought" to be sexually aroused by the idea of people in pain as opposed to being sexually aroused by the idea of women in schoolgirl uniforms, or any other random vanilla fetish with weird implications?


While your average Joe might or might not be tempted to commit a sexual assualt at some point in his life, every sadist is tempted to inflict pain on someone on a nearly daily basis. He may not even realize that there is a sexual component to these urges. All he knows for sure is that when he hurts someone he likes it.

(Emphasis mine)

Either you have just described the sinister mental condition called "having occasional sexual fantasies," or you are saying that sadists are fundamentally less capable of self control than other people which is a serious [Citation Needed].

[The Tygre]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

To answer your question on Gnoll matriarchy; Yes. According to WotC 'canon', namely in Monster Manual IV, Gnolls are a matriarchal society. The matriarchs are also usually priestesses of Yeenoghu, who they feel is the only male worthy of having any say in the pack.

Yeah, that's right.

I read Monster Manual IV.

[karkus]

The more and more I think about it the more creeped out I get by the fact that a dragons Good/Evilness is based on the color of it's skin.

Maybe the people who wrote the MM were a bunch of racists?:smallconfused:

[Swooper]

Meenlocks. How did this thread even get past the first page without anyone mentioning freaking meenlocks? :smalleek:

Okay, maybe it's partly because they are sort of obscure - the 3.X version appeared in MM2 which was 3.0. Let me enlighten you what's creepy about them. First of all, they look like this:
http://bogleech.com/dnd/meenlock3.jpg
They're about two feet tall, hideously malformed, shambling, vaguely-humanoid aberrations. And get this: they used to be human (or demi-human). And they want nothing more than to creep out from their maze-like lairs, first drive you insane with telepathy, then paralyse you and drag you with them down to their lair to finally make you one of them as well.

[Menteith]

Murderjacks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040828a). Seriously, screw them. They're a case of fluff matching crunch really well, in that they're fully capable of ripping apart (literally) an unprepared party, and it doesn't help that I associate them with Slenderman.

How's your spot check?
http://www.viralchart.ru/Images1/Images/Slender_Man/17.jpg

[Kelb_Panthera]

Um, again, using someone to fulfill your sexual desires without consent is always sexual assault; that's literally what the term means. It doesn't matter if your stabbing people with a hat-pin or feeling them up on the subway instead of having penetrative intercourse, it's still rape.

And what exactly do you think sexual sadists are thinking that is so different from "normal" people? In what way is it an "evil thought" to be sexually aroused by the idea of people in pain as opposed to being sexually aroused by the idea of women in schoolgirl uniforms, or any other random vanilla fetish with weird implications?

It was my understanding that for an assault to be considered a sexual assualt it had to be sexual for the victim.

As for the evil thoughts, being sexually aroused isn't a thought. The evil thought is the thought of bringing pain to others. The sexual arousal is simply a cause. It's not a cause that excuses the thought from being evil.

I could've been clearer in my meaning I suppose, when I said everyone has such thoughts. I meant everyone occasionally has thoughts of bringing harm to someone. The most typical, or so I'd imagine, is the thought of slugging your boss across the chin for being a dill-hole. This thought is also evil. No matter how big a dill-hole your boss is, his asinine personality and/or actions probably aren't the kind of thing that gets you the evil tag. Even if they are, motive matters to alignment. Your thoughts of retribution are thoughts of petty revenge, not divine punishment.


Either you have just described the sinister mental condition called "having occasional sexual fantasies," or you are saying that sadists are fundamentally less capable of self control than other people which is a serious [Citation Needed].

There's nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies in and of themselves. However, for a sadist the fantasies are about bringing pain and suffering to others, typically strangers if the sadist hasn't made the connection between their fantasies of violence and their sexual component. Regularly fantasizing about harming others is having evil thoughts. The fact that there is a sexual component in sadists doesn't change this.

As for self-control, you're putting words in my mouth again. Some people have poor self-control, some people are sadists, where the two intersect is almost always a person that -is- evil. A sadist with strong self-control can be neutral or even good.

A non-sadist with poor self-control isn't necessarily a danger to others. A sadist with poor self control is.

@menteith: Is there a murderjack in that pick? or is that one of those "There are 11 ninjas in this picture" pics?

[MachineWraith]

[spoiler]@menteith: Is there a murderjack in that pick? or is that one of those "There are 11 ninjas in this picture" pics?

There's Slenderman in the background, just to the left of center, in front of a patch of green grass. Look for two long, slender "trees" that meet at a torso.

I didn't know about Murderjacks before, but I think I may have to work them into my next campaign. Supposed to be a horror campaign anyway, so why not throw fantasy Slenderman at the party?

[Water_Bear]

The evil thought is the thought of bringing pain to others. The sexual arousal is simply a cause. It's not a cause that excuses the thought from being evil.

...

Regularly fantasizing about harming others is having evil thoughts.

Ahhh. Okay, now I see where you're coming from. If you have the view that thinking a socially unacceptable thought is evil in and of itself, sadists and other people with non-standard sexualities are going to seem fairly vile to you. But that kind of ethics doesn't leave a lot of room for choice; human beings can control their actions, actually pretty well most of the time, but we really can't control what we desire.

Morality is, in my mind, separate from desire because it is something imposed on top of it; everyone has thoughts that are socially unacceptable, our morality is how we deal with that conflict. I would say that a person who acts reasonably and respects the boundaries of others, as the vast majority of sadists do, is at the least neutral if not good. In fact, as far as I know, sexual sadism has no correlation with crime whatsoever; there really isn't much of a basis for saying they are any more evil than any other demographic group.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ahhh. Okay, now I see where you're coming from. If you have the view that thinking a socially unacceptable thought is evil in and of itself, sadists and other people with non-standard sexualities are going to seem fairly vile to you. But that kind of ethics doesn't leave a lot of room for choice; human beings can control their actions, actually pretty well most of the time, but we really can't control what we desire.

Morality is, in my mind, separate from desire because it is something imposed on top of it; everyone has thoughts that are socially unacceptable, our morality is how we deal with that conflict. I would say that a person who acts reasonably and respects the boundaries of others, as the vast majority of sadists do, is at the least neutral if not good. In fact, as far as I know, sexual sadism has no correlation with crime whatsoever; there really isn't much of a basis for saying they are any more evil than any other demographic group.

In the more general RL sense, I agree. I've been presenting the D&D view of morality. D&D morality isn't RL morality. In D&D your thoughts are weighed against you. They're weighed much, much more lightly than your actions, but they are weighed. Naturally, in your RL view of morality, YMMV.

You have to admit though, after this discussion the notion does seem at least a bit less nonsensical. Yeah?

@Menteith's pick: Yeah, I saw that vaguely humanoid figure. Do murderjacks look like that? I don't have the book.

Edit: just read the thing on murderjacks that menteith linked. Meh, I'm not impressed.

Maybe if I knew more about this slender man?

[Water_Bear]

You have to admit though, after this discussion the notion does seem at least a bit less nonsensical. Yeah?

It was never nonsensical, just deeply offensive and completely baseless. I am really tired of talking about it though, so I'll just go and be evil elsewhere.

[PangolinPie]

When I first read the Manual of the Planes description of the Far Realm years ago...I remember reading it and getting simultaneously disturbed and fascinated as it just sucked me in...and then I went off to search for more info on the subject...

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Meenlocks. How did this thread even get past the first page without anyone mentioning freaking meenlocks? :smalleek:

Okay, maybe it's partly because they are sort of obscure - the 3.X version appeared in MM2 which was 3.0. Let me enlighten you what's creepy about them. First of all, they look like this:
http://bogleech.com/dnd/meenlock3.jpg
They're about two feet tall, hideously malformed, shambling, vaguely-humanoid aberrations. And get this: they used to be human (or demi-human). And they want nothing more than to creep out from their maze-like lairs, first drive you insane with telepathy, then paralyse you and drag you with them down to their lair to finally make you one of them as well.
Isn't that the premise of a bad 70s horror movie?

[Menteith]

Edit: just read the thing on murderjacks that menteith linked. Meh, I'm not impressed.

Maybe if I knew more about this slender man?

If you've got time to kill, check the Marble Hornets video series on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn59FJ4HrmU), or read about him at either TvTropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Franchise/TheSlenderManMythos?from=Main.TheSlenderManMythos) or Know Your Meme (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slender-man).

Each to their own - something about the creatures ripping you to pieces, healing you up, and doing it over and over again does it for me.

[Poil]

Well, there's the goddess Evening Glory from The Book Of Bad Latin (AKA The Libris Mortis) who is creepy for a different reason than everything else in the book. Namely in how she represents "Undying Love", which in her case means resurrecting your dead spouse as a zombie for creepy necrophiliac lovin'.

Though she's neutral, most other religions kick out her clerics when they realize what she represents. She also has "Alluring heart-shaped holes in her palms," which I think is developer code for "Yes, those are meant to give a horrible new meaning to the phrase 'H*ndjob'."

Doesn't the text say that people become undead by their own choice when following her? Normally before death too. It's just couples that want to spend literary forever together. :smallconfused:

[tbok1992]

Isn't that the premise of a bad 70s horror movie?

I believe you're thinking of "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," which it likely is a reference to. And I've also heard it's pretty good, or at least Gulliermo DelToro liked it.

[Iruka]

I believe you're thinking of "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," which it likely is a reference to. And I've also heard it's pretty good, or at least Gulliermo DelToro liked it.

I guess that's why he made a remake of it last year. I haven't seen it, but it got good reviews.

[chaotician375]

Beholders man... Eyes, tentacles, eyes on tentacles, and that huge gaping maw, things that make you go... uggh.

[willpell]

Speaking of which, I think the Ulgurstasta (sp?) is probably the grossest creature in D&D.

No, I think that honor has to go to the Century Worm.


Father Llymic also gives me a bit of a twang, but that might just be shades of Stephen King.

Who? (Llymic, obviously, not King.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, I think that honor has to go to the Century Worm.



Who? (Llymic, obviously, not King.)

Elder evil bug-thing that wants to freeze the world. Source is, naturally, Elder Evils.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Beholders man... Eyes, tentacles, eyes on tentacles, and that huge gaping maw, things that make you go... uggh.

Hmmmm ... I never found beholders to be very intimidating. Fun, but not scary.


I guess that's why he made a remake of it last year. I haven't seen it, but it got good reviews.

I just watched the original and then the remake. I enjoyed both. I didn't find either scary, but I am a jaded horror fan. The potential for scariness was there in both.

[Noedig]

Ethergaunts of all varieties, mainly for the reason that they have faces that are creepy as all hell. Murderjacks sound delightful. I shall research them.

To be quite honest the creepiest things in DnD for me usually turn out to be humans. 'What evil lurks in the hearts of men?' and all that jazz.

[kardar233]

No, I think that honor has to go to the Century Worm.

Century Worm is weird, but Ulgurstasta makes me shudder when I go past that page.

[Arbane]

When I first read the Manual of the Planes description of the Far Realm years ago...I remember reading it and getting simultaneously disturbed and fascinated as it just sucked me in...and then I went off to search for more info on the subject...

...And now you're posting to us from just outside a recently-unearthed crypt where you hope to find evidence of your theories, this is the last we'll ever heard from you, and the PCs are friends and family of yours trying to figure out what happened to you?

Because that sounds like the backstory of about half of all Call of Cthulhu adventures. :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe if I knew more about this slender man?

You can also play the free game, Slender (http://slendergame.com/), which actually gives a good feel for him/it. It's a horror game, which doesn't tell you the controls and doesn't let you pause (if you press Escape, or alt+tab out, you go to the main menu, but you have to start a new game to play again). You have to look the controls up online, remember them well, use the restroom before you play, and make sure you don't have anything to do, because you're in for a long haul of no-pause horror.

The no-pause feature and the lack of plot killed it for me. But it does it's job; it's really quite scary, so YMMV.

EDIT: Added link because popular demand. Not trying to advertise, just so y'all know.

[willpell]

Are gnolls even matriarchal?

Yeenoghu is a male, so this seems unlikely. In my campaign world, gnolls have an ultra-patriarchal society which keeps the females in a constant state of oppressed terror, specifically because they're larger and naturally inclined to be dominant if not brutalized into unthinking submission.

[SaintRidley]

I'm rather fond of the implications of the future empire of the Illithids.

And Thoon. Thoon is nuts.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I'm rather fond of the implications of the future empire of the Illithids.

And Thoon. Thoon is nuts.

Thoon scares me. Too bad it came in so late and got basically ignored in 4e.

[willpell]

Even if they are, motive matters to alignment. Your thoughts of retribution are thoughts of petty revenge, not divine punishment.

So, if you think your boss is a dill-hole and want to punch him, you're Evil, but if an archangel thinks your boss is a dill-hole and grants you the power to smite him, you're Good? What exactly makes the archangel Good anymore at that point? The more literal you are with paladins' (and other such zealots) authority to smite anything they deem smiteworthy, because they're definitionally Good no matter how many "Evil" creatures they murder on sight, the more thoroughly you are justfiying all the stupid alignment tropes.

[Mordokai]

You can also play the free game, Slender, which actually gives a good feel for him/it. It's a horror game, which doesn't tell you the controls and doesn't let you pause (if you press Escape, or alt+tab out, you go to the main menu, but you have to start a new game to play again). You have to look the controls up online, remember them well, use the restroom before you play, and make sure you don't have anything to do, because you're in for a long haul of no-pause horror.

The no-pause feature and the lack of plot killed it for me. But it does it's job; it's really quite scary, so YMMV.

When you say something like that, a link to home page or download or something similar usually goes a long way towards evoking more wish to try it, if you catch my meaning, winkwink.

[North_Ranger]

From D&D? Mindflayer reproductive cycle.

From Pathfinder? Urgathoa. Just... goddamn... Urgathoa.

[Hanuman]

This, definitely this.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/3rd-party-spells/4-winds-fantasy-gaming---3rd-party-spells/autocannibalism

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, if you think your boss is a dill-hole and want to punch him, you're Evil, but if an archangel thinks your boss is a dill-hole and grants you the power to smite him, you're Good? What exactly makes the archangel Good anymore at that point? The more literal you are with paladins' (and other such zealots) authority to smite anything they deem smiteworthy, because they're definitionally Good no matter how many "Evil" creatures they murder on sight, the more thoroughly you are justfiying all the stupid alignment tropes.


No, you're just having an evil thought. Whether or not you're actually evil depends on whether such thoughts make up the majority of your mental time, and what actions you take. Even if this thought is a nearly daily occurence, it can easily be outweighed by virtually any good action taken in the same week, and any thoughts of performing altruistic deeds, whether you actually follow through on those thoughts or not. Your alignment is the result of your overall patterns of thought and behavior. No one thing is responsible for your alignment unless its a spell that specifically changes your alignment or is an aligned act of at least regional, if not global importance. Thought patterns are easily the smallest portion of the alignment puzzle.

Also, neither the celestials nor the gods they serve determine what good is. Good in D&D is a cosmic force that predates all sentient creatures. As are evil, law, and chaos.

BTW, I'm rather firmly on record as saying that the only valid smite-on-sight targets are fiends. Check out the "Paladin and rogue in the same party, what's allowed and what's not" thread.

I remembered another creepy yesterday, but it's slipped my mind. I'll edit this if it comes back to me so as to stay on topic.

[Eldest]

When you say something like that, a link to home page or download or something similar usually goes a long way towards evoking more wish to try it, if you catch my meaning, winkwink.

There's this fascinating thing called Google. You may have heard of it.
First page that comes up.

[Sith_Happens]

One day, I found out that the Tome of Magic has two base classes in it besides just the Binder. Definitely one of the more unsettling things I've read in my life.

[Mordokai]

There's this fascinating thing called Google. You may have heard of it.
First page that comes up.

Google, Google... oh, I know!

You mean this one? :smalltongue: (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google)

[Libertad]

Planar Binding. Nevermind that it's pretty much involuntary servitude and/or unlawful imprisonment by another name.

And the worst part? If you do it to an Angel, the spell's of the [Good] subtype, even if you force the Angel to do something morally wrong!

[Zeful]

Planar Binding. Nevermind that it's pretty much involuntary servitude and/or unlawful imprisonment by another name.

And the worst part? If you do it to an Angel, the spell's of the [Good] subtype, even if you force the Angel to do something morally wrong!

Only after an opposed charisma check.

[TuggyNE]

Only after an opposed charisma check.

"Everything's OK as long as you're awesome enough to convince people to do things for you."

... Yeah, that's pretty high up there in Unfortunate Implications.

[willpell]

The GM is WELL within his rights to apply a circumstance penalty to that check, of course....

[Zeful]

"Everything's OK as long as you're awesome enough to convince people to do things for you."

... Yeah, that's pretty high up there in Unfortunate Implications.

Goes the same way for the captive who can make a charisma check to escape the confinement, with no modifiers even if the captive makes it clear that you're going to get murdered if it escapes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Planar Binding. Nevermind that it's pretty much involuntary servitude and/or unlawful imprisonment by another name.

And the worst part? If you do it to an Angel, the spell's of the [Good] subtype, even if you force the Angel to do something morally wrong!

Actually, planar binding has a clause that makes this a non-issue.
Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. End of the 4th paragraph.

Then there's the fact that even if you win the cha check, you've only gotten the creature to promise service. If the creature isn't of the lawful subtype, it can just ignore the promise it made and try to find its own way home.

You can kidnap an angel and make him promise to do something that's not evil (requests to perform evil deeds would be unreasonable) but you can't actually make him do squat without other spells.

[Venger]

Number one for me is the wall of the faithless. if you don't worship a god, you're doomed to an eternity of torment, even if you lived a good life. like the problem with high proseltyizer and judging dragons by skin color, too close to RL thoughts/practices for comfort.

the infinite staircase from p110 of fiendish codex 1 is also surprisingly scary. it's a staircase with doors that lead everywhere in the universe, to all the planes and etc. but if you go alone (and only alone) then you see one secret, disused door, that you know in your bones has never been opened before.

you know that beyond it is your heart's desire. you need to make a will save to not open the door. if you succeed, you can continue on your way, but no matter how many times you come back, you will never see it again.

if you fail, you open it, go through, and...

your character is removed from play. Forever.

no one ever sees him again.

speaking of which, complete arcane's alienist has a unique twist on timeless body. you don't age, but the pasta is different when it comes to what happens to you when your time is up. rather than dying of old age, you are "stolen away by horrible entities...never to be seen again"

and time doesn't pass in the far realm. so whatever they do to you, they do to you forever.

[Libertad]

Actually, planar binding has a clause that makes this a non-issue. End of the 4th paragraph.

Then there's the fact that even if you win the cha check, you've only gotten the creature to promise service. If the creature isn't of the lawful subtype, it can just ignore the promise it made and try to find its own way home.

You can kidnap an angel and make him promise to do something that's not evil (requests to perform evil deeds would be unreasonable) but you can't actually make him do squat without other spells.

Thanks for spotting that.

But what if the summoner tricks the Angel/Outsider with magic? Like uses Illusion magic to make the Angel perceive a good guy in a market square as a rampaging demon?

[Venger]

Thanks for spotting that.

But what if the summoner tricks the Angel/Outsider with magic? Like uses Illusion magic to make the Angel perceive a good guy in a market square as a rampaging demon?

well then, the angel has unwittingly committed an evil act by killing an innocent person.

depending on the dm, s/he may have to go receive an atonement spell.

which you, as the unscrupulous individual you are in this hypothetical may well offer them if they do (insert real objective for summoning them) for you.

[willpell]

Number one for me is the wall of the faithless. if you don't worship a god, you're doomed to an eternity of torment, even if you lived a good life. like the problem with high proseltyizer and judging dragons by skin color, too close to RL thoughts/practices for comfort.

Agreed. The only way I will ever play in a Forgotten Realms campaign is if the DM either ditches the Wall or permits me to destroy it and liberate the atheist souls (possibly to lead them in a crusade of vengeance against the gods, possibly just letting them go free to whatever sort of non-deitic afterlives they'd prefer). I will probably not ever DM the Realms, being how complicated they are, but if I did I would certainly ditch the Wall, as in "it never existed, it's just a malicious rumor spread by the churches to consolidate their power, and finally someone has made the truth known".


if you fail, you open it, go through, and...

your character is removed from play. Forever.

no one ever sees him again.

Well, if he really did find his heart's desire, he probably wouldn't ever want to leave, knowing he might never be able to return. But the "know in your bones" part is no guarantee of accuracy, of course, so it does seem likely this is a trap.

[Eldan]

They made finding your own door that easy? If I remember correctly, Planescape had people who wandered the staircase all their lives, looking for that particular door.

Also, strange that it would show up in the Fiendish codex, of all places. Usually, it's linked to the chaotic good planes.

[willpell]

Also, strange that it would show up in the Fiendish codex, of all places. Usually, it's linked to the chaotic good planes.

Well it's not like wizards ever plans on publishing a Celestial Codex. Angels and faeries (well, eladrins technically) that love you and want to be happy aren't "dark and edgy", so they'll never sell to today's audiences.

[Venger]

Well it's not like wizards ever plans on publishing a Celestial Codex. Angels and faeries (well, eladrins technically) that love you and want to be happy aren't "dark and edgy", so they'll never sell to today's audiences.

more importantly, as outlined in OOTS, there are very few of them. not enough to make up a whole book, under the assumption that most adventurers are good aligned, so will fight evil monsters

see, wall of the faithless isn't just for atheists (which would be bad enough), but for people who are just ignorant about the existence of specific gods, which is far worse

anyone else horrified by the Mockery Bugs? the example of using them in play (along with that damn picture) is one of the scariest things I've seen in my life, in this game or not

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thanks for spotting that.

But what if the summoner tricks the Angel/Outsider with magic? Like uses Illusion magic to make the Angel perceive a good guy in a market square as a rampaging demon?

This is rather unlikely, since IIRC most angels have always-on trueseeing and at-will aligment detection, but if the angel is duped, then it's a tradgedy. The angel hasn't necessarily commited an evil act, however, since intention counts toward an act's alignment. He thought he was killing a rampaging fiend. The fact that he was wrong snatches the good right out of it, but I'd call it a neutral act at worst, providing the angel took at least some time to try to verify the target.

Being an angel, he'll almost certainly seek atonement anyway, but not from the guy that called him. That guy's got a great big plate of divine retribution headed his way. The angel might even call that his atonement. That and reviving the poor soul he was duped into slaying, after a quest on the outer planes to find the guy's new petitioner-self to explain the mixup and offer revival.

[hamishspence]

more importantly, as outlined in OOTS, there are very few of them. not enough to make up a whole book, under the assumption that most adventurers are good aligned, so will fight evil monsters

see, wall of the faithless isn't just for atheists (which would be bad enough), but for people who are just ignorant about the existence of specific gods, which is far worse

Deities & Demigods tones down the conditions for getting stuck in the Wall a bit. "Person with no patron deity" simply wanders the Fugue Plane until demons or devils snatch them up, or until they're lucky enough to be invited into a deity's realm by its agents.

Only people who "actively oppose the worship of the gods" get the Wall.

[Shir]

anyone else horrified by the Mockery Bugs? the example of using them in play (along with that damn picture) is one of the scariest things I've seen in my life, in this game or not

I try to spend every waking minute of my life forgetting Mockery Bugs exist.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I try to spend every waking minute of my life forgetting Mockery Bugs exist.

Where can I find these mockery bugs?

Sounds like something from Faiths of Eberron, if I had to guess.

[Shir]

Where can I find these mockery bugs?

Sounds like something from Faiths of Eberron, if I had to guess.

Monster Manual 5

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Why has no one mentioned Pathfinder adherers? Those bastards are not only quite metal, they are also tentacle rapists with blood fetishes.

See Misfit Monsters Redeemed for more information. The section feels like it was written by an emotionally disturbed teenager.

[Deathkeeper]

Monster Manual 5

No, what have you done?!

[Libertad]

I realize now that I'm grasping at straws with my "Planar Binding an Angel" example. But the spells in and of themselves are tailor-made for ethically dodgy acts.

Other creepy stuff in D&D:

Ravages from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

"It's just like poison, except it's not Evil because it only affects Evil creatures!"

How about the Slayer of Domiel? "It's just like assassination, except it's not Evil because they kill only Evil creatures!"

This implies that the forces of Good share more in common with Evil than they'd like to admit.

Also, the Book of Vile Darkness, with its emphasis on gross-out evil. Also, people who enjoy kinky S&M sex are somehow all of Evil alignment. Like to get tied up and spanked by dominatrices? Sorry, but you register as Evil and are destined to the Lower Planes.

We're being a little close-minded, are we, Monte Cook?

[dascarletm]

Did someone say Harpy boobs? If they have then +1, if not Harpy boobs. Harpy boobs, harpy boobs. :smallyuk:

damn those things to harpy hell.

harpy boobs. :smalleek:

If i wanted some past-they-prime bozongas that have no colour or whatnot I'd go to Miami.

:smallfurious::smallfurious:CURSE YOU HARPY BOOOOOBS!:smallfurious::smallfurious:

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, what have you done?!
Nothing to me. I don't have access to MM5. At least not yet.

I realize now that I'm grasping at straws with my "Planar Binding an Angel" example. But the spells in and of themselves are tailor-made for ethically dodgy acts.

Other creepy stuff in D&D:

Ravages from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

"It's just like poison, except it's not Evil because it only affects Evil creatures!"

How about the Slayer of Domiel? "It's just like assassination, except it's not Evil because they kill only Evil creatures!"

This implies that the forces of Good share more in common with Evil than they'd like to admit.

Also, the Book of Vile Darkness, with its emphasis on gross-out evil. Also, people who enjoy kinky S&M sex are somehow all of Evil alignment. Like to get tied up and spanked by dominatrices? Sorry, but you register as Evil and are destined to the Lower Planes.

We're being a little close-minded, are we, Monte Cook?

:sigh: I've discussed each of those topics in some detail in other threads. I'm not going to say there isn't a certain creepy factor to at least the kinky sex stuff, (if it's not your kink it's creepy whether its S&M, feet, balloons, or whatever else), but the rest of it isn't that bad.

I'll cook up a couple of links.

Edit: The S&M thing I actually covered in this thread.

Poison & Ravages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13856253&postcount=245) & that whole thread is about how assassination isn't necessarily evil.

On why [Good] and [Evil] are so simliar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249451) It's a long read, but the basic point is that good and evil are cosmic forces that have morality attached to them, not aspects of morality with cosmic forces attached.

[Venger]

wheep. why does it have nails in the eyes. they're not mentioned in the description. they're just there.

[willpell]

Did someone say Harpy boobs? If they have then +1, if not Harpy boobs. Harpy boobs, harpy boobs. :smallyuk:

damn those things to harpy hell.

harpy boobs. :smalleek:

If i wanted some past-they-prime bozongas that have no colour or whatnot I'd go to Miami.

:smallfurious::smallfurious:CURSE YOU HARPY BOOOOOBS!:smallfurious::smallfurious:

What's especially funny is that in the original greek myths, harpies were hawt. They didn't start being ugly old women with dangling flab-sacs until the later depictions when someone got all hung up on them looking too much like sirens. This might have been an improvement in D&D terms, except that D&D's harpies have a siren song. So they shouldn't be called harpies at all, and they should be pretty (which would also coincidentally prohibit them from being bare-breasted, since Wizards is only worried that the soccer moms will picket them if they show attractive female nudity.)

[Zeful]

What's especially funny is that in the original greek myths, harpies were hawt. They didn't start being ugly old women with dangling flab-sacs until the later depictions when someone got all hung up on them looking too much like sirens. This might have been an improvement in D&D terms, except that D&D's harpies have a siren song. So they shouldn't be called harpies at all, and they should be pretty (which would also coincidentally prohibit them from being bare-breasted, since Wizards is only worried that the soccer moms will picket them if they show attractive female nudity.)
Succubus, Nymph; 3.5 monster manual.

[willpell]

Only people who "actively oppose the worship of the gods" get the Wall.

I am now picturing Bane and Tempus sitting down to a plate of linguini and discussing how youze has got to whack these here no-goodniks what is tryin' to cut into the gods' turf, see.


Succubus, Nymph; 3.5 monster manual.

Both of whom are covered up. The harpy is not.

[Sith_Happens]

Both of whom are covered up. The harpy is not.

Last I checked, the phrase "covered up" implies that the covering isn't completely transparent.

[Lyndworm]

I don't think that the succubus is covered at all, let alone with something as tantalizingly thin as the nymph's covering of choice.

[some guy]

Nothing to me. I don't have access to MM5. At least not yet.

Have some pictures from the art galery!

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106319.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106320.jpg
At least, I think these are Mockery bugs, I'm not sure. They are called mockery drone and mockery monarch, so I guess so?

[willpell]

I don't think that the succubus is covered at all, let alone with something as tantalizingly thin as the nymph's covering of choice.

Ah, I misremembered. I think the succubus is doing the arms (or wings?) covering the chest thing, or maybe she was just painted with vague nipple-less breasts; it wasn't explicit, I'm 98% sure, but you're right that she is nude. I was thinking of the "Jozan smites a succubus" picture in the PHB, remembering 3.0 in which the monster manual didn't have a picture of every demon (or devil or "celestial", those having not been subdivided at all), and she was one of the ones left out.

Oh, and really, if we're talking creepy and mentioning the succubus, we really have to point out the fact that the picture of her has her being towered over by a much larger nalfeshnee who has exactly the same decolletage as the Harpy, except that in his case they're clearly intended to be moobs (the kind that go with a pot-belly, which he also has). Tell me that isn't worse.

[Lyndworm]

At least, I think these are Mockery bugs, I'm not sure. They are called mockery drone and mockery monarch, so I guess so?
Those are, indeed, they. Good job. *shudder*


Ah, I misremembered. I think the succubus is doing the arms (or wings?) covering the chest thing, or maybe she was just painted with vague nipple-less breasts; it wasn't explicit, I'm 98% sure, but you're right that she is nude.
Nah, the succubus is letting it all hang out, man; both nipples are clearly visible and her arms at her sides. She's even groping herself with her tail. It's more than a little off-putting. Wizards has the picture in their MM gallery, if you're AFB. I'd drop a link, but I seriously think it's considered NSFW.


Oh, and really, if we're talking creepy and mentioning the succubus, we really have to point out the fact that the picture of her has her being towered over by a much larger nalfeshnee who has exactly the same decolletage as the Harpy, except that in his case they're clearly intended to be moobs (the kind that go with a pot-belly, which he also has). Tell me that isn't worse.
The nalfeshnee isn't pleasant, but I wouldn't call it especially creepy either.

[Venger]

Have some pictures from the art galery!

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106319.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM5_Gallery/106320.jpg
At least, I think these are Mockery bugs, I'm not sure. They are called mockery drone and mockery monarch, so I guess so?

those are indeed the mockery bugs. that's a picture of a drone.

the drones are born looking like a humanoid, and can do a (sort of) impression of the host, but due to int 3 can't do anything especially sophisticated. their aim is to lead you back to their queen.

the queen swallows you, and if you get below 0hp (not -10, but 0) in her gut, then you're converted into a mockery bug, and she spits you out her next turn.

you still look like yourself, but you're actually a hollow shell with a bug hiding behind your face. as shown in the picture, when the bug knows its cover is blown, it can jump out of the body (with its human face still on there) repeating its last lines at you.

it's like body snatchers, but actually scary.

[Zubrowka74]

:smallfurious::smallfurious:CURSE YOU HARPY BOOOOOBS!:smallfurious::smallfurious:

Isnt that the next "Pirate of the Carribean" title ? Curse of the Harpy Boobs ?

[Joe the Rat]

I'll see you your Harpy boobs and raise you a Night Hag cleavage.


I don't think that the succubus is covered at all, let alone with something as tantalizingly thin as the nymph's covering of choice.

It's wearing a sort of thin shred of white fabric, with a peek above, and hidden treasures below. I'd describe both as "wet t-shirt" translucent - though the succubus is marginally covered at that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

those are indeed the mockery bugs. that's a picture of a drone.

the drones are born looking like a humanoid, and can do a (sort of) impression of the host, but due to int 3 can't do anything especially sophisticated. their aim is to lead you back to their queen.

the queen swallows you, and if you get below 0hp (not -10, but 0) in her gut, then you're converted into a mockery bug, and she spits you out her next turn.

you still look like yourself, but you're actually a hollow shell with a bug hiding behind your face. as shown in the picture, when the bug knows its cover is blown, it can jump out of the body (with its human face still on there) repeating its last lines at you.

it's like body snatchers, but actually scary.

Okay. Now that I've got the full picture, mockery bugs are pretty squick. Tsochar are worse IMO, though.

[willpell]

I'll see you your Harpy boobs and raise you a Night Hag cleavage.

Perhaps I'm jaded, but that that isn't really enough to bug me; I've seen real women showing more unpleasantness than that. At least it's purple and thus fairly hard to see. Now, it's off the subject of boobs (which we all know is ALWAYS the subject, no matter what the thread says), but when it comes to female monsters and creepiness (not that the list is long since most of the nastier monsters don't have an identifiable gender), I think the prize-taker has GOT to be the Medusa. Her "assets" aren't really in view, but even if they were absent altogether, she'd still be one of the most unsettling sights in that entire book - basically skinless muscle, although mercifully less pink-hued, and that FACE...brrrr.


It's wearing a sort of thin shred of white fabric, with a peek above, and hidden treasures below. I'd describe both as "wet t-shirt" translucent - though the succubus is marginally covered at that.

Having given her a closer inspection than is at all conducive to proving myself mentally well-adjusted, the succubus is definitely wearing a flimsy white negligee which just barely covers her torso, hanging low on the boobs and riding high just under the waist...I think they intentionally set out to make the skimpiest item that you could still pass off as actual clothes, rather than as a set of miniature napkins connected by dental floss But there are unquestionably wrinkles of white cloth on top of the skin tone. So I do believe the harpy has the only completely naked female nipples in MM1, and having taken another look at them, I can indeed averr that they definitely do not "appeal to the prurient interest". Which of course means it's perfectly fine to publish them, according to the malicious doppelganger which has infiltrated the American collective consciousness in the stolen guise of logic.....

[Novawurmson]

Scylla (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/scylla) from Pathfinder is pretty fun. Woman's upper body, then wolf heads, then tentacles.

Attic Whisperer (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs20/f/2007/297/e/c/Attic_Whisperer_by_nJoo.jpg) freaked my party out a little when they were walking through the abandoned house of a dead serial killer. Another PF creature.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Scylla (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/scylla) from Pathfinder is pretty fun. Woman's upper body, then wolf heads, then tentacles.

Attic Whisperer (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs20/f/2007/297/e/c/Attic_Whisperer_by_nJoo.jpg) freaked my party out a little when they were walking through the abandoned house of a dead serial killer. Another PF creature.

The former is sort of silly in a fun way. The ladder is scary I guess, but a bit of an overdone concept.

[Mordokai]

Nah, the succubus is letting it all hang out, man; both nipples are clearly visible and her arms at her sides. She's even groping herself with her tail. It's more than a little off-putting. Wizards has the picture in their MM gallery, if you're AFB. I'd drop a link, but I seriously think it's considered NSFW.

Maybe I have weird fetishes. Scratch that, I know I do. But what exactly do you find so off-putting about succubus?

I mean, at least she has feet, not hooves.

[Arbane]

Scylla (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/scylla) from Pathfinder is pretty fun. Woman's upper body, then wolf heads, then tentacles.


She's from Greek mythology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla)

[Lyndworm]

It's wearing a sort of thin shred of white fabric, with a peek above, and hidden treasures below. I'd describe both as "wet t-shirt" translucent - though the succubus is marginally covered at that.
Upon a close inspection than I could ever explain to someone else, I can see that you're right. The succubus appears to be wearing some sort of near-invisible negligee. Her nipples and even navel are plainly visible, though.


Maybe I have weird fetishes. Scratch that, I know I do. But what exactly do you find so off-putting about succubus?
Well, there's a difference between off-putting and creepy. Mostly it's just that there's a time and a place for sensual self-gropery, and inside the MM is simply not it. It totally works, given that it's a succubus and that's sort of the point, though.


I mean, at least she has feet, not hooves.
It may be a weird choice, but I'd take hooves over wings. The logistics of dealing with wings boggle my mind.

[Maquise]

For me, it would have to be behirs. While normally I'm fine with insects, chilopodes have always given me the creeps. So if I saw what was basically a giant lizard centipede coming after me, I'd probably curl up in a corner and cry.

[Mordokai]

Well, there's a difference between off-putting and creepy. Mostly it's just that there's a time and a place for sensual self-gropery, and inside the MM is simply not it. It totally works, given that it's a succubus and that's sort of the point, though.

Eh, it could be far worse and, as you have mentioned, it's totally in character for succubus. Fact is, it's totally working for me.


It may be a weird choice, but I'd take hooves over wings. The logistics of dealing with wings boggle my mind.

One needs to get creative :smallbiggrin: And personally, hooves are one of the few things that kinda really bothers me. Compared to them, pair of wings is downright sexy.

[SgtCarnage92]

One needs to get creative :smallbiggrin: And personally, hooves are one of the few things that kinda really bothers me. Compared to them, pair of wings is downright sexy.

Isn't there a reason that succubi can shape change? Removes the wing problem, assuming you find it as problem.:smallamused: I have friends who are into the hooves, can't say I join them.

As far as the topic itself goes, there's very little content itself that gets to me on the creep-o-meter. However the way it's used can be very effective. A kobold den can be very creepy if it's played correctly.

Overall I think the PF fluff on Daemons is delightfully twisted, as it should be. The horseman of famine being vomited by his horse as a dismount is just one of the many fine details that made me grin when I was reading through it. And on that note, Urdefan are wicked twisted when you have a GM who runs the "psychotic enemy who knows no fear" thing well.

[Hanuman]

Isn't there a reason that succubi can shape change? Removes the wing problem, assuming you find it as problem.:smallamused: I have friends who are into the hooves, can't say I join them.

As far as the topic itself goes, there's very little content itself that gets to me on the creep-o-meter. However the way it's used can be very effective. A kobold den can be very creepy if it's played correctly.

Overall I think the PF fluff on Daemons is delightfully twisted, as it should be. The horseman of famine being vomited by his horse as a dismount is just one of the many fine details that made me grin when I was reading through it. And on that note, Urdefan are wicked twisted when you have a GM who runs the "psychotic enemy who knows no fear" thing well.
On that note, haunts and illusions are probably the most terrifying thing, as the limitations on what you can do with them isn't very constricting.

Pathfinder did quite a good job with creating colorful content I have to agree.

@Behir
There's no shame in being afraid of a 4000lb animal no matter what it is. What astounds me about behirs is that they aren't at least 9,000lbs considering they are 40' long.

[willpell]

Eh, it could be far worse and, as you have mentioned, it's totally in character for succubus. Fact is, it's totally working for me.

Thanks for sharing. :smallannoyed:


@Behir
There's no shame in being afraid of a 4000lb animal no matter what it is. What astounds me about behirs is that they aren't at least 9,000lbs considering they are 40' long.

It must be their lightening breath. *rimshot*

[Sith_Happens]

It may be a weird choice, but I'd take hooves over wings. The logistics of dealing with wings boggle my mind.

Simple, she wraps them around you nice and tight.:smallwink:

[Mordokai]

Isn't there a reason that succubi can shape change? Removes the wing problem, assuming you find it as problem.:smallamused: I have friends who are into the hooves, can't say I join them.

Hey, the way succubus is portrayed in 3.5 MM, she needs shapechange nothing :smallbiggrin:


Thanks for sharing. :smallannoyed:

Hey, I consider a day when I can't squick a single person a lost one :smallwink:


Simple, she wraps them around you nice and tight.:smallwink:

Some intimacy, eh? :smallamused: In the immortal words...

http://1080hdwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/me_gusta_image_wallpaper.jpg

[Lyndworm]

That shows you how well-behaved and well-moderated the Playground is, I guess; in a thread titled "Creepiest D&D Content" it took us most of five pages to turn it into a fetish thread. :smallamused:

[willpell]

Rule 34: Someone, somewhere, is now "into or curious about" Harpy Boobs. shudder

And in the spirit of oversharing, I see nothing wrong with hooves, but I would love a woman with wings (provided she wasn't a harpy). Bird, bat, butterfly, dragonfly, dragon, pterodactyl, segmented chrome, crystal, heatless magical fire...all are fine by me. There's a reason that images of angels, devils, faeries and such are iconic; mankind has always dreamed of flight. Getting a gorgeous babe along with his escape from the tyranny of gravity? Well, that's just gravy. Besides, who doesn't want to join the mile high club?*

* Okay, fine, I actually don't want to join the mile-high club, being afraid of heights and all. But wings are still sexy, if only for the aforementioned wrapping-around. Maybe not the metal and crystal ones so much.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Rule 34: Someone, somewhere, is now "into or curious about" Harpy Boobs.

Nah, rule 34 is: There is porn of it, no exceptions.

That would be rule 51: No matter what it is, it is somebody's fetish. No exceptions.

[willpell]

That would be rule 51: No matter what it is, it is somebody's fetish. No exceptions.

Ah, yes, that's the one I had in mind. How many rules have we got up to yet? I'm pretty sure I've seen a rule 87 at least....

[Dusk Eclipse]

according to this page (http://rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php?title=Main_Page) we are up to 1006 before people just said "screw the numbering"

[Mordokai]

And in the spirit of oversharing, I see nothing wrong with hooves, but I would love a woman with wings (provided she wasn't a harpy). Bird, bat, butterfly, dragonfly, dragon, pterodactyl, segmented chrome, crystal, heatless magical fire...all are fine by me. There's a reason that images of angels, devils, faeries and such are iconic; mankind has always dreamed of flight. Getting a gorgeous babe along with his escape from the tyranny of gravity? Well, that's just gravy. Besides, who doesn't want to join the mile high club?*

It's not so much not liking hooves(though I'm certainly not particular to them), it's more that I see feet as much too nice to set for anything else. Guess that falls under the aforementioned rule 51, even if I'm pretty sure that foot fetish is pretty mild by today standards and double so when we start talking about DnD :smallbiggrin:

As for the wings... I love them in all shapes. It may actually have something to do with what you said, being free from gravity and whatnot, but if that is so, it's subconscious for me. Regardless, I love me chicks with wings.

[willpell]

The feet are about the least interesting part of a woman IMO, except maybe for like the backs of the ears or something. (Now I wonder how many of my friends are secretly back-of-ear fetishists....)

[Novawurmson]

Yeah, succubi are attractive to me, not so much for the hooves and wings side as the "living being of lust and seduction."

Anyway, I'm glad someone brought up haunts. Most of them are pretty awesome (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/haunts/cr-13-15/asphyxiating-taxidermy); if you've never gotten to read the haunts in Spires of Xin-Shalast, you're missing out.

Something I'm disappointed about in 3.5/PF: I've not read a god zombie scenario. Zombies scenarios are/were one of the most frightening things to me. Sure, they're ridiculously overdone in mainstream media now (to the point of being tiring), but they aren't well done, for the most part; none of them return me to the first time I saw Night of the Living Dead at a friend's house and spent the whole next day jumping at small noises.

[Arbane]

Something I'm disappointed about in 3.5/PF: I've not read a god zombie scenario. Zombies scenarios are/were one of the most frightening things to me. Sure, they're ridiculously overdone in mainstream media now (to the point of being tiring), but they aren't well done, for the most part; none of them return me to the first time I saw Night of the Living Dead at a friend's house and spent the whole next day jumping at small noises.

The problem is that a Zombopocalypse just won't WORK in D&D. On one hand, there's too many ways for a typical adventurer to annihilate masses of stupid enemies, and on the other hand "Oh, you got scratched? You die and come back as a mindless flesh-eating husk" is somewhat incompatible with the ENTIRE PURPOSE of hit points.

Maybe if you ran it with a bunch of Commoners....

[Thump]

Vargouilles.

Just...

ew.

[Menteith]

The problem is that a Zombopocalypse just won't WORK in D&D. On one hand, there's too many ways for a typical adventurer to annihilate masses of stupid enemies, and on the other hand "Oh, you got scratched? You die and come back as a mindless flesh-eating husk" is somewhat incompatible with the ENTIRE PURPOSE of hit points.

Maybe if you ran it with a bunch of Commoners....

Zombie Plague, Contact, DC16+1/day*, Incubation 1 day, inflicts 1 negative level.

Zombie Plague cannot be cured without magical aid. A person cannot fight it off with subsequent successful Fortitude saves. Zombie Plague resists magical treatment, and an individual attempting to remove Zombie Plague must make a caster level check against the current save DC of Zombie Plague.

Have the Wights that spawn get increasingly souped up abilities/mutations (Blindsight, Wings, Burrow Speeds, Breath Attack which spreads the disease/immediately inflicts negative levels, Regeneration/Fire or other fun possibilities) and give them the ability to combine their biomass into larger organisms. If a critical biomass is reached an Elder Evil is reborn. Party's goal is to stop said rebirth while a cult who secretly controls the leader of a nation is intentionally spreading the disease.

Functional?

[Novawurmson]

Maybe if you ran it with a bunch of Commoners....

Had exactly this idea for a one-shot. Everyone is a Commoner, invited to a lord's mansion for a feast. Turns into Masque of the Red Death with zombies.

@Menteith - Could work. Still feels like it would be hard to run a zombie survival campaign.

[SgtCarnage92]

Vargouilles.

Just...

ew.

Especially when you're swarming commoners with them and the ungodly shrieks are causing more than a few of the poor townsfolk to stop dead in their tracks. The vargouilles wrapping their wings around their horror struck faces as they slide the long sinuous double tongue into their mouth and down their throat, depositing their unholy spawn there to start the cycle anew.

That...and stumbling onto a town where everyone's head is missing is just a great way to screw with players. :smallamused:

edit: grammar

[Menteith]

@Menteith - Could work. Still feels like it would be hard to run a zombie survival campaign.

Yeah, it would be. The biggest draw of most good zombie stories isn't the zombies itself which in many cases could be replaced by aliens or mutants or whatever and feel would be the same. Watching a social collapse and how people react to it, or how the transformative and corrupting nature of the virus/mutation/whatever has a really hard time working in D&D, and those are the biggest draw in many good zombie stories. When fantasy/medieval stories involve zombies, they generally do so for vastly different reasons than typical "zombie" stories. You'd need to create a legitimate fantasy world that people can recognize as normal, and then work to destroy that world because of some transformative threat....which is pretty hard to do.

[Mordokai]

Had exactly this idea for a one-shot. Everyone is a Commoner, invited to a lord's mansion for a feast. Turns into Masque of the Red Death with zombies.

I am most interested and would like to subcribe to your newsletter :smallsmile:

Seriously, would you consider running something like this? I would helping and/or playing.

[Hanuman]

I don't know about creepy, but one of the scariest dnd concepts I've thought of is:

What if insects could contract and transmit zombification plague?

[Arbane]

I don't know about creepy, but one of the scariest dnd concepts I've thought of is:

What if insects could contract and transmit zombification plague?

GAME OVER.

And it occurs to me that I have seen ONE good Zombopocalypse in D&D - SilverClawShift's campaign. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836)

[Derjuin]

Abominations. I'm surprised no one's mentioned any of them yet!


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery5a/44165_C5_atropal.jpg
HAUNT YOUR DREAMS FOREVER

[Vknight]

When in doubt a thread will eventually divulge into a talk about fetishism

I think Meenlock's are pretty creepy because they take some of those great traits of low level creatures and mix in a flair of bizarre.

[Zombulian]

We're being a little close-minded, are we, Monte Cook?

SHHHHH! They finally stopped bickering. Let's talk about something else... Flesh Golems always creeped me out. I realize it's basically the idea behind Frankenstein's Monster, but the picture always got me.

[Novawurmson]

I am most interested and would like to subcribe to your newsletter :smallsmile:

Seriously, would you consider running something like this? I would helping and/or playing.

Maybe, but it would have to be a one-shot over Skype. I am notoriously bad at DMing by forum :P

[Zelphas]

In regards to the "zombie apocalypse" idea, if I may offer a suggestion: Use the Mockery Bugs that were mentioned earlier in this thread. Add in some odd Ankheg disease that causes Ankheg eggs to only hatch as Mockery Monarchs, and sit back and watch as every commoner in the kingdom slowly turn into grinning, shambling idiots... with a CR of 9. Each.

[Sith_Happens]

That shows you how well-behaved and well-moderated the Playground is, I guess; in a thread titled "Creepiest D&D Content" it took us most of five pages to turn it into a fetish thread. :smallamused:

Not to mention that at least most forums I've been to are ten pages per thread instead of thirty, so this was more like fifteen pages if you're comparing.

[Lappy9001]

Not super creepy, but I did have a legitimate cartoon double take when I realized the power "Déjà vu" was printed twice in the Expanded Psionics Handbook :smallbiggrin:

[Eldest]

GAME OVER.

And it occurs to me that I have seen ONE good Zombopocalypse in D&D - SilverClawShift's campaign. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836)

Thank you. Just... thank you for linking those.

[Novawurmson]

Thank you. Just... thank you for linking those.

Oh god, they just ate like half of my day. THAT is how I want my next horror campaign to go, only I'm planning on fey as the main evil force.

[Kelb_Panthera]

RE: zombie apocalypse;

Juju zombie in unapproachable east. They're intelligent and they don't lose their class HD. Add in a disease component and you've got your zombipocalypse right there. I like using a modified blightspawn template with a modified blight touch disease, same book, as the carrier.

[Coidzor]

Zombie Plague, Contact, DC16+1/day*, Incubation 1 day, inflicts 1 negative level.

Zombie Plague cannot be cured without magical aid. A person cannot fight it off with subsequent successful Fortitude saves. Zombie Plague resists magical treatment, and an individual attempting to remove Zombie Plague must make a caster level check against the current save DC of Zombie Plague.

Have the Wights that spawn get increasingly souped up abilities/mutations (Blindsight, Wings, Burrow Speeds, Breath Attack which spreads the disease/immediately inflicts negative levels, Regeneration/Fire or other fun possibilities) and give them the ability to combine their biomass into larger organisms. If a critical biomass is reached an Elder Evil is reborn. Party's goal is to stop said rebirth while a cult who secretly controls the leader of a nation is intentionally spreading the disease.

Functional?

I'm not sure if that's so much zombies as slower gestating necromorphs with less gribblyness and claws. :smallconfused:

[Menteith]

I'm not sure if that's so much zombies as slower gestating necromorphs with less gribblyness and claws. :smallconfused:

Dead Space isn't a Zombie game? :smalltongue:

[Arbane]

RE: zombie apocalypse;

Juju zombie in unapproachable east. They're intelligent and they don't lose their class HD. Add in a disease component and you've got your zombipocalypse right there. I like using a modified blightspawn template with a modified blight touch disease, same book, as the carrier.

Why not just use wights?

[Gnoman]

The former is sort of silly in a fun way. The ladder is scary I guess, but a bit of an overdone concept.

My apologies for the pedanticism, but the word is "latter", not "ladder."


On topic, I always found the Robe of Eyes intensely disturbing, which is why it is now a black square in my DM's guide and banned from play.

[Gotham]

Excuse my pedantry, but it's "pedantry" not "pendanticism".
:smallbiggrin:

On topic: The...implied relationship between the father and daughter- pair of Archdevils. Fierna and Belial, i think it was. The picture just weirds me out in Fiendish Codex II

[SgtCarnage92]

On topic: The...implied relationship between the father and daughter- pair of Archdevils. Fierna and Belial, i think it was. The picture just weirds me out in Fiendish Codex II

Yeah, that was a little squicky to me too. Then I realized it was archdevils I was dealing with and incest is the least of the things we have to worry about from them. The picture is very...suggestive...but they do represent desire...so it sort of works.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why not just use wights?
Wights are fixed at 4HD and are absurdly deadly as a horde, what with the energy drain. Zombies aren't supposed to be particularly dangerous individually. It's the horde that scares the crap out of you. The template also means that you can have important individuals that are still zombies.

I think there was a wight template in SS that might work too, but I don't have that book anymore.

Excuse my pedantry, but it's "pedantry" not "pendanticism".
:smallbiggrin:

On topic: The...implied relationship between the father and daughter- pair of Archdevils. Fierna and Belial, i think it was. The picture just weirds me out in Fiendish Codex II

If you think the FC2 pic is bad, take a look at the shot of them in BoVD.

[SgtCarnage92]

If you think the FC2 pic is bad, take a look at the shot of them in BoVD.

*checks artwork in both books* That's the picture I was thinking of when he posted initially...:smalleek:

[willpell]

Yeah, that was a little squicky to me too. Then I realized it was archdevils I was dealing with and incest is the least of the things we have to worry about from them. The picture is very...suggestive...but they do represent desire...so it sort of works.

Well yes, incest is a pretty minor bit of nastiness compared to mass murder or what not - IN REALITY. But from where I sit, wanting to slaughter a few hundred fictional people is a lot less wicked than wanting to slaughter a few hundred real ones, while wanting to shag your fictional sister is not very much less squicky than wanting to shag your real sister. Either way, it's less like a real crime and more like a "thoughtcrime", so being fictional doesn't reduce the impact much.

[Mordokai]

Well yes, incest is a pretty minor bit of nastiness compared to mass murder or what not - IN REALITY. But from where I sit, wanting to slaughter a few hundred fictional people is a lot less wicked than wanting to slaughter a few hundred real ones, while wanting to shag your fictional sister is not very much less squicky than wanting to shag your real sister. Either way, it's less like a real crime and more like a "thoughtcrime", so being fictional doesn't reduce the impact much.

I'm... having a REALLY hard time trying to tell what is it that you're trying to say here.

[Novawurmson]

I'm... having a REALLY hard time trying to tell what is it that you're trying to say here.

I believe the intent is as follows:

A. In reality, mass murder is generally far worse than incest.
B. The desire to mass murder is far less disturbing than actually murderering hundreds of people
C. The desire for incest is about as disturbing as actual incest.

Therefore, simulated incest is more disturbing that simulated mass murder.

Correct?

Edit: Another way to think about it: If I say "I'm going to kill all the orcs!", there's a very clear separation between when my character is going to do and what I as a person am going to do, especially because genocide is a crime that has to be committed. Merely thinking about genocide is not a crime (and a good thing too, because we seem to think a lot about it in 3.5/PF games XD).

However, if I say, "I'm going to sleep with my daughter!" there's a much higher "ick" factor because even considering such a thing is mostly seen as repulsive in polite society, and the difference between fantasy and reality is much thinner. While none of us will ever literally kill an orc (without a severe disruption in what we know to be real), one of us could possibly commit this very real taboo - not saying any of us will, but the possibility of the action is there.

Similarly, if my character said, "I'm going to murder all the orcs," and then went on to use real-world racial epithets to describe the "orcs," it would quickly become uncomfortable, because the boundaries of fantasy and reality just blurred until the point where they're insignificant.

[willpell]

I believe the intent is as follows:

A. In reality, mass murder is generally far worse than incest.
B. The desire to mass murder is far less disturbing than actually murderering hundreds of people
C. The desire for incest is about as disturbing as actual incest.

Therefore, simulated incest is more disturbing that simulated mass murder.

Correct?

Pretty much yeah. There are degrees, of course; the murder is more disturbing the more detail you put into the bloodshed and the victims' reactions and so forth. On the incest side I don't want to say too much, but without recalling the details of diabolic reproduction, it's probably not entirely the same thing for ancient immortal beings who didn't exactly grow up behind a white picket fence among loving parents (EDIT: I wrote that having forgotten that one of the fiends in question was the parent, so this point doesn't really stand anymore); to me the ewness of incest is in the idea of a family relationship going into inappropriate territory, but family probably doesn't mean much to devils in the first place and there's much question as to whether anything they do qualifies as "appropriate". But in general I'm inclined to think that incest is conceptually disgusting and thus disgusting even when it is no more than a concept, while violence is not that problematic as long as it remains abstract.

The rest of your post pretty well supports my position, although I wouldn't have gone into orcs because that imposes too much of a separation between the concept of "person" and the thing you're talking of killing (though the sideline about racializing them is a good point to have made). Even if you're saying "I'm going to kill all the humans," though, it seems less bothersome as long as it remains fully fictitious; you imagining killing people doesn't hurt them, but you imagining a sex act places the emphasis on you, on your capacity to want such a thing and the effect that this desire has on you. Wanting to wreak violence is maybe not entirely healthy, but it's something our species' history has prepared us for, so the very idea we'd think about it isn't too horrifying, but the issue of what turns a person on is more intimate to them and more suggestive of their private sensibilities.

[Novawurmson]

I specifically used the orc example to transition into the racism comparison :D

Getting back to the point of the thread, I think the idea that "races" and subraces can be inherently good or bad, and that they can be judged instantly on the basis of the color of their skin or scales is increasingly creepy to me. Refer to the OOTS comic about how it's totally cool to kill a dragon as long as its scales aren't shiny :P

Also, Urgathoa (http://alharadnd.wdfiles.com/local--files/urgathoa/PZO9202-Urgathoa.jpg) (warning: mild gore) is one of my favorite evil deities. I really like how her followers run the gamut of "affable hedonists" to "plague-worshiping abominations."

[willpell]

Getting back to the point of the thread, I think the idea that "races" and subraces can be inherently good or bad, and that they can be judged instantly on the basis of the color of their skin or scales is increasingly creepy to me. Refer to the OOTS comic about how it's totally cool to kill a dragon as long as its scales aren't shiny :P

"Creepy" isn't the word I'd use there, but I do think it's one of the more wrong aspects of D&D and I wouldn't game for very long with anyone who nails it very hard. With dragons, they are different species with different habitats, so it's somewhat justified; you don't kill a red dragon because it's red, but because there's a very long history of red dragons randomly burning small cities to the ground and kidnapping princesses to eat and such. And for any race that's explicitly been created by an evil deity, whether Tiamat or Gruumsh or something, you can say that malice is in their blood and they don't really have any free will. But at the very least, you need to do a good job of backing this up with observable behavior patterns, and it starts to fall apart fast if you send any signals to the contrary, such as using the Sanctified Creature template from BOXD on even a single member of a species, thereby proving that they're NOT irredeemable and so you should be redeeming them instead of killing them. Any time there isn't a very clear supernatural source of evil, killing creatures just because they're *said* to be always evil is definitely not behavior I'm going to be cool with.

[JediSoth]

The first time D&D Content creeped me out was in the AD&D 2nd edition book that went into the ecology of Mind Flayers (I don't recall the title, it was part of the series that spawned I, Tyrant for a similar book on Beholders). Their reproductive process was nasty and creepy. It involved putting their larval form into the head of a humanoid, resulting in a very painful, slow, and graphic transformation into a mind flayer.

Come to think of it, it wasn't all that dissimilar to that episode of NuWho where the Doctor & Donna were on the planet of the Oods and that guy (who was played by Percy from Blackadder) was changed into an ood 'cause he was a jerk.

[MickJay]

The entire concept that personal advancement is most quickly and efficiently attained by killing other beings. Want to learn how to weave baskets? Kill a few bears. Want to learn to sing and all the animals are already wiped out? Slaughter a goblin village. Want to make a magic belt? Why not wipe out those peasants?

[JediSoth]

The entire concept that personal advancement is most quickly and efficiently attained by killing other beings. Want to learn how to weave baskets? Kill a few bears. Want to learn to sing and all the animals are already wiped out? Slaughter a goblin village. Want to make a magic belt? Why not wipe out those peasants?

Hey! I slaughtered my way through college! That village of pixies barely had enough XP for my capstone class.

I've said too much...

[Zeful]

The entire concept that personal advancement is most quickly and efficiently attained by killing other beings. Want to learn how to weave baskets? Kill a few bears. Want to learn to sing and all the animals are already wiped out? Slaughter a goblin village. Want to make a magic belt? Why not wipe out those peasants?

3.5 has less simulation elements than minecraft. Taking the rules as a representation of a reality is your issue, not one with a ruleset that's not even attempting to simulating reality.

There's a reason FATAL is treated with such scorn, it tries to simulate a world, D&D has never attempted such.

[Sith_Happens]

There's a reason FATAL is treated with such scorn, it tries to simulate a world, D&D has never attempted such.

Um, yeah, I think the problem lies more in (a) what sort of world it's trying to simulate and (b) how atrociously poor of a job it does at trying to simulate anything at all...

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Um, yeah, I think the problem lies more in (a) what sort of world it's trying to simulate and (b) how atrociously poor of a job it does at trying to simulate anything at all...

And the fact that the simulation was often taken too far. I never want to know the anal stretching capacity of my character.

[Zeful]

Um, yeah, I think the problem lies more in (a) what sort of world it's trying to simulate and (b) how atrociously poor of a job it does at trying to simulate anything at all...

Well, yes, but I couldn't figure out a way to say that while pointing out D&D was never a simulation of any scale.

[Eldest]

GURPS. Much better example of a simulation, if you needed to bring one up at all.

[SgtCarnage92]

Hey! I slaughtered my way through college! That village of pixies barely had enough XP for my capstone class.

I've said too much...

Eh, I just suck up to the professors enough to get roleplay XP and then proceed to murder just enough kobolds in the warrens under campus to get credit for the course. They breed fast enough that it isn't a problem. :smallwink:

[Zeful]

GURPS. Much better example of a simulation, if you needed to bring one up at all.

The point was to show that deliberately taking non-simulation rules as a simulation is a bad thing. By making the comparison of what he was saying to FATAL, I figure he's more likely to understand what he's doing is wrong and why than with a GURPS analogy.

[tbok1992]

SHHHHH! They finally stopped bickering. Let's talk about something else... Flesh Golems always creeped me out. I realize it's basically the idea behind Frankenstein's Monster, but the picture always got me.

Actualy, Blasphemes from the 3e libris mortis and 4e's Open grave are a lot closer to the Frankenstein's Monster, as they're actually intelligent.


Yeah, that was a little squicky to me too. Then I realized it was archdevils I was dealing with and incest is the least of the things we have to worry about from them. The picture is very...suggestive...but they do represent desire...so it sort of works.

Well, they do explicitly say in The Book of Vile Darkness (or at least my copy) that they are at least rumored to be incestuous.

[Slipperychicken]

When you say something like that, a link to home page or download or something similar usually goes a long way towards evoking more wish to try it, if you catch my meaning, winkwink.

Here's yer link (http://slendergame.com/). 4 Pages late, because I attempted to have a social life in meatspace this week. I wasn't trying to advertise it, because I wasn't sure if linking it was forum-kosher (I got a violation for linking dndtools a while back, and have been erring on the side of caution ever since).

[Marlowe]

On topic: The...implied relationship between the father and daughter- pair of Archdevils. Fierna and Belial, i think it was. The picture just weirds me out in Fiendish Codex II

I had heard of this before, and I didn't bother looking up Belial (I already read "Paradise Lost") but I did look up Fierna.

So her "Evil" seems to consist of,
1, She's an archdevil.
2, She likes to "have fun".
3, She likes fire.
4, She's obediant to her elders and superiors.
5, She wears skimpy clothes.
6, She's still learning responsibility appropriate to her position.
7, There's gossip about her.


She can't help point 1. And possibly not point 7. As for the rest, THAT's evil? Most PCs should be so evil.

That in itself is creepy.

EDIT: How did I type "COLOR", instead of "QUOTE" by mistake? Especially since I don't spell "colour" that way.

[123456789blaaa]

[QUOTE]On topic: The...implied relationship between the father and daughter- pair of Archdevils. Fierna and Belial, i think it was. The picture just weirds me out in Fiendish Codex II [/COLOR]

I had heard of this before, and I didn't bother looking up Belial (I already read "Paradise Lost") but I did look up Fierna.

So her "Evil" seems to consist of,
1, She's an archdevil.
2, She likes to "have fun".
3, She likes fire.
4, She's obediant to her elders and superiors.
5, She wears skimpy clothes.
6, She's still learning responsibility appropriate to her position.
7, There's gossip about her.


She can't help point 1. And possibly not point 7. As for the rest, THAT's evil? Most PCs should be so evil.

That in itself is creepy.

The second fiendish codex is hilarious. You've got Glasya, the popular girl that everyone likes who's rebelling against her father while her father tries to placate her. You've got Fernia the vapid wild party girl who still loves her daddy but really wants to be like the popular girl. Her father Belial is the controlling father who's terrified of her getting out from his control and wants to keep her away from Glasya. There's even a sentence in the book where it says that Fernia (or was it Glasya?) was actually going out with Mammon until her father forbid her. Now she's angry at Mammon for not fighting to stay with her.

I'ts like the archdevils of hell are in a teen oriented sitcom.

[SgtCarnage92]

[QUOTE=Marlowe;13977195]

The second fiendish codex is hilarious. You've got Glasya, the popular girl that everyone likes who's rebelling against her father while her father tries to placate her. You've got Fernia the vapid wild party girl who still loves her daddy but really wants to be like the popular girl. Her father Belial is the controlling father who's terrified of her getting out from his control and wants to keep her away from Glasya. There's even a sentence in the book where it says that Fernia (or was it Glasya?) was actually going out with Mammon until her father forbid her. Now she's angry at Mammon for not fighting to stay with her.

I'ts like the archdevils of hell are in a teen oriented sitcom.

I...never thought of it that way...wow. I guess one of the writers was watching re-runs of Dawson's Creek while writing the book. :smalleek:

[Arbane]

I'ts like the archdevils of hell are in a teen oriented sitcom.

Being stuck in high school forever sounds pretty hellish to me...

[hamishspence]

I think a point is made in FC2 that "having fun" for archdevils, tends to involve a lot of mortal-torture.

[The LOBster]

I'm just going to echo what people have said about PF Ogres. Plus, I'm hardly politically correct, but darn near every time someone attempts Rape as Drama only succeeds in making me ticked off at the author, not the villain. Plus, having ogres just kill people for "sport" would be just as horrifying without the trigger factor, and you could even twist them killing people for laughs as being kinda hillbilly-ish. :smallannoyed:

As for other stuff that creeps me out about D&D, the illustration of Torog from the end of the Underdark book in 4e freaks me right the hell out.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

s for other stuff that creeps me out about D&D, the illustration of Torog from the end of the Underdark book in 4e freaks me right the hell out.

That was probably the the most brutal thing ever sneaked past the censors into a D&D book.

[Marlowe]

I think a point is made in FC2 that "having fun" for archdevils, tends to involve a lot of mortal-torture.

I think if Archdevils were in the regular habit of kidnapping people from the prime material plane "Sailor Nothing" Yamiko-style for their own amusement, that should be more explicit. Because it would be a regular feature in the adventuring world that should be standard story hook. A lot of us have never seen FCII. Or FCI. Or TBOVD. As it is, Fierna seems to be mostly interested in having sex. If we were talking about Sharossa, it might make more sense.

Fierna's mortal sin appears to be Sloth, or rather, lack of ambition. Since she's already got everything she actually wants.

But yes, the decadent rich-girl teenager interpretation holds some weight. But I'm not going to call someone evil for being that alone.

[Noedig]

Torog seems rather offensive to all five of the sense.

[Doxkid]

I'm... having a REALLY hard time trying to tell what is it that you're trying to say here.

I only skim his posts for the same reason.
--
Solipsism:
For a few moments you awake from a hellish nightmare where everyone is trying to kill you. You are happy. You are back in reality.

Life is good.

Then...then you are back in that nightmare. Only now the nightmare is a few seconds later. A warrior that was across the room is already hacking into you. Another attacker just ran a blade across your throat and arrows jut out of your body.

The mage that cast the spell at you is laughing uproariously.

He knows you'll never escape from this hell quite like that ever again, even if you don't die in a few seconds. He knows you're desperately trying to wake up safe in bed, struggling to escape a nightmarish death that shouldn't be real.

[123456789blaaa]

<snip>

Fierna's mortal sin appears to be Sloth, or rather, lack of ambition. Since she's already got everything she actually wants.

But yes, the decadent rich-girl teenager interpretation holds some weight. But I'm not going to call someone evil for being that alone.

In the FC2 it's said that Glasya is encouraging Fernia to be more independant and ambitious (Belial is terrified that she might ursurp control). So her mortal sin might change.

As for your second point... i just assumed that since she's an archdevil of hell she does all the "standard" evil stuff that just isn't worth a mention since it's so common amongst devils.

[Elm11]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet.

Wendigos. (Warning, Creepy) (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/wendigo) Goddamnit those things are off the creepy chart. Aside from being dangerously close to a CR 17 ghoul, they're absolutely terrifying in picture, fluff and crunch. They look (as you can see) horrifying, and what they do is even worse.

These things, controlling weather, can make it foggy for days on end. They'll stalk you at the very edge of your view, so you can always just see that face behind some tree. They screech in the depth of the night, slowly driving you insane. As ways to die go, that's about as bad as they come.

Of course, they get a little comical when, instead of just turning into a Wendigo, you rocket off into the sky to do it. That just seems plain weird, so my campaign has been ignoring that for the purpose of a good monster.

Goddamn those things are creepy.

[Wyntonian]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet.

Wendigos. (Warning, Creepy) (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/wendigo) Goddamnit those things are off the creepy chart. Aside from being dangerously close to a CR 17 ghoul, they're absolutely terrifying in picture, fluff and crunch. They look (as you can see) horrifying, and what they do is even worse.

These things, controlling weather, can make it foggy for days on end. They'll stalk you at the very edge of your view, so you can always just see that face behind some tree. They screech in the depth of the night, slowly driving you insane. As ways to die go, that's about as bad as they come.

Of course, they get a little comical when, instead of just turning into a Wendigo, you rocket off into the sky to do it. That just seems plain weird, so my campaign has been ignoring that for the purpose of a good monster.

Goddamn those things are creepy.

That bit's from the original folklore. It's some pretty scary stuff.

Seriously, Slenderman has nothing on this.

[SgtCarnage92]

Seriously, Slenderman has nothing on this.

Am I the only one who doesn't find Slenderman really all that frightening? Old school folklore has things that still creep me out. I especially love old stories about the fae.

[Elm11]

That bit's from the original folklore. It's some pretty scary stuff.

Seriously, Slenderman has nothing on this.

Is it? Well, that's ONE way of explaining shooting stars, but I think I preferred 'Wishes come true!' to 'Horrific monster makes you eat someone's face off for its amusement!'

[Zeful]

Am I the only one who doesn't find Slenderman really all that frightening?
This is the internet, you're never the only one of anything.

But yeah, Slenderman: creepy, but overblown to the point that, like Cthulhu, has lost all of his prestige as a creature of fright.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Am I the only one who doesn't find Slenderman really all that frightening? Old school folklore has things that still creep me out. I especially love old stories about the fae.

I agree on in every way possible.

Some of the stuff from old Celtic, Irish, and Welsh folklore is chilling.

[Inglenook]

Slendy Off-Topic:
I think Slendy is most frightening when divorced from the online "mythos" that has sprung up around him (e.g. Marble Hornets).

Back to the very basics: an abnormally tall, pale man in a suit, otherwise normal-looking when seen in person, but when photographed is revealed to have horrifying, featureless skin stretched over where his face should be. Oh, and he stalks/abducts/horribly murders children, and anyone who photographs him and realizes his "true form". Gives me the collywobbles.

Although maybe it's because he reminds me of Albert Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_fish). :smalleek:

[SgtCarnage92]

Slenderman: creepy, but overblown to the point that, like Cthulhu, has lost all of his prestige as a creature of fright.

I still find Cthulhu frightening, but only when I think of it as an entity separate from the "cult"-ure that made him an internet icon. Granted, I find many of the other stories within the "mythos" to be much creepier.


Some of the stuff from old Celtic, Irish, and Welsh folklore is chilling.

I am a strong supporter of bringing back faeries as credible horror monsters. It's been a dream of mine to run a PF game with this as a major part of the plot. Or maybe I'll check out Changeling...

Edit: Found to be in violation of the Redundancy clause of Redundancy...

[nyjastul69]

Flumphs are creepy. They're the only Lawful-Good monster in the 1st Ed. Fiend Folio. Why? Are they a secret agent of sorts? A single L-G beastie in a folio of fiends. Again...why? :smallwink: Oh, and of course their just all sorts of weird as well.

[Zeful]

I still find Cthulhu frightening, but only when I think of it as an entity separate from the "cult"-ure that made him an internet icon. Granted, I find many of the other stories within the "mythos" to be much creepier.

Cthulhu never really grabbed me due to my introduction to him at all was a parody that inspired more rage than fear, and the demystification of what Euclidean Geometry meant, that he's pretty much just a whipping boy to me.

[Zombimode]

Flumphs are creepy. They're the only Lawful-Good monster in the 1st Ed. Fiend Folio. Why? Are they a secret agent of sorts? A single L-G beastie in a folio of fiends. Again...why? :smallwink: Oh, and of course their just all sorts of weird as well.

What? Have you never heard of Blasto, the Hanar Specter (http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/221/e/a/blasto__the_1st_hanar_spectre_by_rascalart-d45yq9w.jpg)?

[nyjastul69]

What? Have you never heard of Blasto, the Hanar Specter (http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/221/e/a/blasto__the_1st_hanar_spectre_by_rascalart-d45yq9w.jpg)?

That flumph must have explored dungeon module S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Where else could it have gotten tech like that? It's also lacking the spikey bits, flumphs gotta have spikey bits. As a side note, their farts (it's actually a squirt, kinda squicky in a way) are toxic. Although, they are helpless when flipped over. I guess at that point they're a spikey, tentacled plate, but not quite as useful. I wonder if they come with matching flatware?

[Ammutseba]

I've got to be a bit to the left. I've read all eight pages, and no one has mentioned anything that specifically creeps me out. There were quite a few posts that were completely off topic, though.

Most of the creepy stuff in here (the on-topic stuff, that is) are the kinds of things that make me grin with excitement and want to learn more. Some other stuff just seems cute. The overtly morally dark grey to black sexual stuff makes me go "meh" and move on, though, because it was obvious that when a game dev team wanted to create things that would raise red flags, they would gun straight for the stuff with shock value. So on that one, it's probably just that I'm a little jaded.

But before this conversation rolled of the rails? Well...


I find Gnolls horrifying, not because I'm scared of Hyenas or anything, but because of how purely evil and morally disgusting my first DM portrayed them as. Plus the their cackling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE), which evokes pure terror.

Oh my gawd. Those things are soo cute! :3


Rakshasas also creep me out, because of the hand thing. Just imagine shaking their hands. . . *shudder*

Dude, that is awesome. I want to try that.


It kinda treads on the line for the OP's request, but the Tsochar from Lords of Madness creep me out to no end.

Hive mind leech/snake things that climb inside your body and force you to do their bidding or suffer horrible agony, and can also decide keeping you alive isn't worth the trouble so they just eat your brain and drive your body around like an old volvo.

*shudders*

Haha. That is so cool. I love the volvo analogy. I can totally see why these things are creepy to you, but they kind of remind me of those symbiotic fish that replace the tongues of that other species, except with nervous systems.


You mean puppeteers?
*image snipped*

Personally, I love those things. :smallbiggrin: I played one in a short campaign several years back. I was Lawful Good but would go around using my dominate on the BBEGs in order to rehabilitate them and show them how to lead a good life. Quickly acquired quite the entourage and hilarity ensued!

Whoa. I want to try that now. Emissary of Barachiel style. Hehehe. Exalted leech.


Neogi usually get my vote for creepy factor. Particularly their reproduction cycle.

Also cute.


Intellect devourers. They kill you and move into your head while you sleep and then drive you around to mad orgies and stuff. They do this while BEING a giant brain with hands and feet.

These guys were just silly. Good for some laughs, and noticing that when it comes to brains, WotC wasn't much more than a one-trick pony.


I only skim his posts for the same reason.
--
Solipsism:
For a few moments you awake from a hellish nightmare where everyone is trying to kill you. You are happy. You are back in reality.

Life is good.

Then...then you are back in that nightmare. Only now the nightmare is a few seconds later. A warrior that was across the room is already hacking into you. Another attacker just ran a blade across your throat and arrows jut out of your body.

The mage that cast the spell at you is laughing uproariously.

He knows you'll never escape from this hell quite like that ever again, even if you don't die in a few seconds. He knows you're desperately trying to wake up safe in bed, struggling to escape a nightmarish death that shouldn't be real.

This... is an awesome idea for an entire campaign. The whole story is a struggle between freedom and control, set in a large, inescapable city. Tier 3 and lesser classes only (tiers 5 and 6, may gestalt), no evil characters.

It starts in a back alley fight, in which the player characters are pitted in a fight to the death against some nameless lower-level thugs. Soon, it becomes apparent that the thugs are just the pawns of a larger problem at work, and it becomes the responsibility of the players, who are the only ones to see the problem for what it is, to do something about.

With time, different truths of the story emerge, but the complete picture is that the city and all of the events inside it are the incarnation of a small span of seconds in the real world. What's really going on is that the player characters are the personifications of the different facets of a single person's willpower, struggling against the effects of a solipsism spell.

Their existence will come to an end whether they succeed or fail in their struggles, but to fail also comes with the knowledge that their failure will lead to the eternal torment of another man, and though in a way, themselves, this fact is quite lesser to the knowledge that should they give up, they will be creating a helpless victim of everlasting torture.



That's not to say there aren't things in this game which do creep me out, but those things are also real things. Namely, squid. Nightmare fuel with techron, right there.

[willpell]

So her "Evil" seems to consist of,
1, She's an archdevil.
2, She likes to "have fun".
3, She likes fire.
4, She's obediant to her elders and superiors.
5, She wears skimpy clothes.
6, She's still learning responsibility appropriate to her position.
7, There's gossip about her.

Well in BOVD it says she's an "avid consumer of males"; that may well not be a metaphor.


I'ts like the archdevils of hell are in a teen oriented sitcom.

This is a fairly common trope for immortal gods and similar beings; the idea is that if you lived forever, much as teenagers always seem to believe they will, you'd be incredibly venal and petty by virtue of having all eternity to do nothing but plot and snipe and obsess over trivialities, having no sense of restraint or perspective because the world cannot force you to be humble or reasonable. It's not a trope I like, but it's used quite a bit.


As for other stuff that creeps me out about D&D, the illustration of Torog from the end of the Underdark book in 4e freaks me right the hell out.

Is it this? (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/usethisbook_20100119.jpg) From all I can tell it's just a red cyclops; if it's actually a cyclops with no skin and covered in blood, that's be pretty bad, but I'd be surprised if there's not quite a few similarly nasty things out there.

[Kris Strife]

Is it this? (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/usethisbook_20100119.jpg) From all I can tell it's just a red cyclops; if it's actually a cyclops with no skin and covered in blood, that's be pretty bad, but I'd be surprised if there's not quite a few similarly nasty things out there.

That is indeed a cyclops with no skin.

[Marlowe]

That's not to say there aren't things in this game which do creep me out, but those things are also real things. Namely, squid. Nightmare fuel with techron, right there.

You are advised not to visit the seafood section of a Korean supermarket anytime soon.

[The LOBster]

If we're gonna bring in PF monsters, then I might as well bring in one of my mythological favorites: The nuckelavee (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/fey/nuckelavee). Thing is, Paizo messed up when they described it as a "Nature's Vengeance" type thing. See, in mythology, nuckelavees aren't out for revenge against polluters. They're just cruel, monstrous, hateful fae that want to spread plagues and kill everything on land.


Is it this? (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/usethisbook_20100119.jpg) From all I can tell it's just a red cyclops; if it's actually a cyclops with no skin and covered in blood, that's be pretty bad, but I'd be surprised if there's not quite a few similarly nasty things out there.
Nope. Torog's worse. Waaaaaaay worse.


Oh my gawd. Those things are soo cute! :3

I freaking love hyenas, but you can probably blame the ones in The Lion King for making me unable to take Gnolls seriously. Combine that with how hyenas make "mooOOOOO" noises all the time, and it's a monster I laugh with :smallamused:

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I am a strong supporter of bringing back faeries as credible horror monsters. It's been a dream of mine to run a PF game with this as a major part of the plot. Or maybe I'll check out Changeling...

Edit: Found to be in violation of the Redundancy clause of Redundancy...

*High fives.*

I've been studying fae lore for years, and some of that stuff is downright horrific, in a subtle and truly scary way.

You REALLY should check out Changeling: the Lost, as it is a very well done fae roleplaying game that emphasizes the aspects of the folklore I find scariest and most fascinating.

Changeling: the Dreaming is a whole different beast. Think of a mixture of Peter Pan, Jim Henson's Labyrinth, and Neverwhere.

[willpell]

You REALLY should check out Changeling: the Lost, as it is a very well done fae roleplaying game that emphasizes the aspects of the folklore I find scariest and most fascinating.

+1 to this. CTL is my 2nd-favorite RPG of all time (D&D isn't even in the top 5, for reference, though it is good about triggering my tendency to obsess and so I spend a disproportionate amount of my time on it). They do a great job of creating a complex set of conflicts and taking advantage of how huge and tangled the body of lore is.


Changeling: the Dreaming is a whole different beast. Think of a mixture of Peter Pan, Jim Henson's Labyrinth, and Neverwhere.

CTD is an interesting premise but was horribly bungled. You basically have to have a Peter Pan complex to enjoy it the way they wrote it. They literally have evil accountants that try to bore you to soul-death. It was not White Wolf's finest hour, though there's definitely potential (specifically the potential to hit the Neverwhere end of the spectrum; Labyrinth is more like Lost, really) if you're patient enough to dig for it. I used to be, but wasn't the last time I tried.


Torog seems rather offensive to all five of the sense.

I am now intensely curious as to how the referenced painting tastes.....

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I am now intensely curious as to how the referenced painting tastes.....

If you start off by fighting kobolds in a cellar and then go on an epic odessy that takes you to the deepest pits of the Underdark where you have a final climatic duel with Torog, you may be able to run your tongue against his still-cooling corpse. However, in doing so, you may absorb his divine essence and become the new god of torture, digging an even deeper Underdark in your death throes.

[willpell]

Yes, but Lobster didn't say that Torog freaked him out, he said the illustration in a particular book did. So I was running with the idea that it was the physical picture which both he and Noedig were talking about.

[SgtCarnage92]

*High fives.*

I've been studying fae lore for years, and some of that stuff is downright horrific, in a subtle and truly scary way.

You REALLY should check out Changeling: the Lost, as it is a very well done fae roleplaying game that emphasizes the aspects of the folklore I find scariest and most fascinating.

*returns high five with enthusiasm*

What's a good source for more information on fey? I've done some basic net searches but I would love to delve into the lore more.

I had a friend who was going to start a C:TL game awhile ago and it never got off the ground due to scheduling. :smallfrown:

[willpell]

I had a friend who was going to start a C:TL game awhile ago and it never got off the ground due to scheduling. :smallfrown:

Time makes *****es of us all, doth it nae?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

*returns high five with enthusiasm*

What's a good source for more information on fey? I've done some basic net searches but I would love to delve into the lore more.

I had a friend who was going to start a C:TL game awhile ago and it never got off the ground due to scheduling. :smallfrown:

Well, I was lucky enough to be partially raised by a mythology and literature scholar, who told me much. You can also learn more on Wikipedia, and even TvTropes. The best resource, however, is Grimm's Faerie Tales.

Perhaps I could run a Changeling: the Lost Skype or PBP game, and folklore enthusiasts such as yourself could join.

[Eldan]

I am now intensely curious as to how the referenced painting tastes.....

I have eaten several D&D books. Curiously, the worst tasting picture was that of the Archmage in the 3.0 DMG.

[lotusblossom13]

Mind altering spells have always creeped me out. The idea that someone could make you do something horrific with the right command or choice of words is terrifying. Also, spells like mind rape are really horrific because you could never be certain that you were truly yourself.

[Sutremaine]

Nope. Torog's worse. Waaaaaaay worse.
Is it the picture where his waist is bent backwards?

[Marlowe]

Missed this, but can't leave it alone.


Well in BOVD it says she's an "avid consumer of males"; that may well not be a metaphor.



Leaving aside that nobody with any grasp of the history of English literature would take it literally, Outsiders don't eat.

[Lyndworm]

Sure they do. They just don't eat for sustenance.

[BootStrapTommy]

The Ogre stats in the Monster Manuel.

[willpell]

Leaving aside that nobody with any grasp of the history of English literature would take it literally

Except that we're talking about devils, so doing something which is wrong specifically because it's wrong is entirely in character here. And as Lyndworm pointed out, just because they don't eat for sustenance doesn't mean they aren't fully capable of doing it for their own sick amusement. In fact aren't there devils or demons that are specifically called out as gluttonous?

[Lyndworm]

Yes, there are outsiders that eat for enjoyment; I'm almost certain of it. I can't think of one off of the top of my head, though, sorry.

I almost edited my post with the above, but a forum error hid my post. Sorry to sound so curt!



Edit:
I've found several outsiders (two non-demons, one non-devil) that eat, for one reason or another;

Fiend Folio:
Maurezhis: Basically demonic ghouls that can shapeshift into things they've eaten.

Wastriliths: Demonic eel-men that specifically do not need to eat, but eat intelligent beings for fun.

Monster Manual:
Bebeliths: Spider-like demons that hunt and "prey" upon other demons.

Monster Manual II:
Abyssal maw: Essentially a mouth with legs, they're demons known to eat bits they tear off during combat.

Jariliths: Demonic lions that are stated to prefer the flesh of other demons, and hunt prey.

Monster Manual IV:
Nashrous: Bizarre demons that "devour any other creature that crosses their path."

Demonhives: Evil bee-monster outsiders that specifically eat carrion.

Monster Manual V:
Adarus: Demonic centipedes that specifically do not to eat, but love to eat anyway.

Gadacros: demons who specifically do not need to eat, but crave flesh and prefer fresh eyeballs.

Solamiths: basically gluttony demons. They don't need to eat, but they eat pretty much everything, including weaker demons and petitioners.

Gulthirs: devils who eat other devils as a form of punishment (devils are weird).

[Serpentine]

What's a good source for more information on fey? I've done some basic net searches but I would love to delve into the lore more.I don't know how you'd get a hold of it, but The Enchanted World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchanted_World_Series) series is a great resource, and as a bonus goes out of its way somewhat to look at stuff outside of Europe. The specific books that cover fey include Fairies and Elves (duh), Legends of Valor, Water Spirits, Dwarfs, Spells and Bindings, Seekers and Saviours, Fabled Lands, Magical Justice, and Lore of Love. But there's probably bits and pieces all over the place.
Oh, and one of the best things about that series: every book has a comprehensive bibliography, which if you're interested in it would be a great start for more academic research.

[willpell]

I now find myself wondering if the Wastriliths have anything to do with Wastri the Greyhawk god of "bigotry and amphibians".

[SilverLeaf167]

Hey, all you guys discussing Torog, http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/30878/torog.jpg (this) popped up on multiple Google searches. Is this the one?

WARNING: THE PICTURE IS RATHER DISTURBING TO THE LEVEL OF POSSIBLY BEING NSFW AND I JUST COPIED THE URL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO I COULD LEAVE THE PAGE.

EDIT: Derp, I hate the link coding on forums, I always get it the wrong way around :smallredface:

[willpell]

It was so disturbing that my browser refused to display it....

[Serpentine]

The coding was wrong. Try this (http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/30878/torog.jpg).

[willpell]

Gwah! Yeah, that's pretty horrid. I'm jaded enough to have endured a brief glance, but I don't blame anyone for getting their stomach in a twist from that level of yick.