nipple clamp of exquisite pain

[lianightdemon]

While flipping through the book of vile darkness I came across the nipple clamp of exquisite pain. It is an 8000gp item that makes the wearer immune to the wrack spell and turns all pain into a pleasurably sensation.

It got me thinking why is this an evil item. It would actually provide more benefit to good or neutral characters who suspect they may be tortured. Or even simply taking damage in combat, they could put it on before a battle and then fight to their fullest potential even if they are taking damage.

(yes I realize there isn't any actual penalty for pain but for role play purposes if your getting stabbed it's going to hurt)

From a role playing perspective this ring is pretty handy for adventurers as it negates all that pain they tend to take when getting injured and replaces it with pleasure.

Thoughts?

[Azoth]

I remember a trick involving this item, a hospital, and spell clocks to create ambrosia for free crafting purposes.

Other than that I think it may lead to some characters intentionally looking to get hurt as a bit too often. After all murder hobos are prone to addictive personalities...and not much is more addictive than pleasure.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The item is evil because the requisite spell has the [evil] tag.

As to why the spell has the [evil] tag, you got me. *shrug* It doesn't deserve it, and it won't change anything, balance wise, if you remove it.

[Yawgmoth]

It's evil because nipples are evil. Duh.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's evil because nipples are evil. Duh.

If this is true, then I'm very fond of evil. At least feminine evil, anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[Answerer]

It's evil because nipples are evil. Duh.
Ah, for that bit of snark to work best you've got to capitalize it, like "Evil." Or even better, "[Evil]" Because evil, Evil, and especially [Evil], are most definitely not the same thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah, for that bit of snark to work best you've got to capitalize it, like "Evil." Or even better, "[Evil]" Because evil, Evil, and especially [Evil], are most definitely not the same thing.

QFT.

I don't know if Answerer was joking or not, but that statement couldn't be more true if it tried hard.

[Augmental]

Possible explanation: in real life, there are people who can't feel pain due to genetic disorders. It's a lot worse then it sounds: it turns out that pain is what stops children from chewing on themselves. They might bite off the tip of their tongue, damage their eyes by rubbing them too much, or break their bones without realizing it because they can't feel pain.

[lianightdemon]

The pain is replaced with pleasure. So the character would need to be wary of what is actually happening when their feeling pleasure.

You can get the feeling of no pain when you get your mouth frozen then try eating and bite into your numb lips. Painless then but once the effect wears off then your lip is hurting.

[Crasical]

Masochism is evil in the DnD universe.

[Cwymbran-San]

Pain is a natural safeguard against dangers, much like fear is. If you are feeling pain, you know something is wrong and you do something to change it.

So maybe, it should be listed as [Unnatural], but that tag does not exist afaik. So, being unnatural means being evil. Yes, i know, this means paladins of a certain level should be counted as evil, too.

[Slipperychicken]

I remember a trick involving this item, a hospital, and spell clocks to create ambrosia for free crafting purposes.


I recall hearing it as Clamp + Permanency'd Symbol of Pain (or other source of massive, unending pain) = Infinite Pleasure. Use infinite pleasure to wrack up ambrosia production.


You'd probably have an easier time combining Eternity of Torture (Pain 9, BoVD) with the Nipple Clamp. Even if you can't cast it yourself, it's cheap: one casting of a 9th level spell is just 1,530gp. Or you can just skip the clamp and extract the Evil ambrosia-equivalent in BoVD (But that's a jump right off the deep end of the alignment pool, so it's not for everyone).

[tyckspoon]

I recall hearing it as Clamp + Permanency'd Symbol of Pain (or other source of massive, unending pain) = Infinite Pleasure. Use infinite pleasure to wrack up ambrosia production.


However you're doing it, the spell-clock or a similar means of shortcutting the casting time is still a pretty crucial part; otherwise your rate of production is just too slow to be of much use.

[Knaight]

You can get the feeling of no pain when you get your mouth frozen then try eating and bite into your numb lips. Painless then but once the effect wears off then your lip is hurting.

Local anasthesia can also do this - I once chewed off a decently sized (about a square centimeter) chunk of my inner lip, because the pain was dulled to the extent that I thought I was just removing a tiny protrusion that needed to go. The next month or so's worth of meals were all sorts of fun as a result.

Back to topic: This simplifies fairly nicely to the BoVD being poorly written dreck, which lapses into coherency or sensibility infrequently, and the overlap at best a few handful of times.

[Venger]

Possible explanation: in real life, there are people who can't feel pain due to genetic disorders. It's a lot worse then it sounds: it turns out that pain is what stops children from chewing on themselves. They might bite off the tip of their tongue, damage their eyes by rubbing them too much, or break their bones without realizing it because they can't feel pain.

yes, this disorder is known as CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis) and is super rare.

as far as "why is the nipple clamp Evil?" it's because, as bovd showed us, according to wotc, sex is evil/Evil. since nipples are apparently only for sexual purposes, accessories for them are evil/Evil as well.

[Answerer]

It's associated with a fetish, I'm sort of confused why anyone is surprised that WotC put it down as Evil. They do that sort of crap all the time.

[Starbuck_II]

BoED lets you redeem magic items removing evil tag so no problems.

Then you get Holy nipple clamps of pleasure.

[motoko's ghost]

BoED lets you redeem magic items removing evil tag so no problems.

Then you get Holy nipple clamps of pleasure.

That is so going in a pile of treasure one day, just to see the look on the paladin's face:smalltongue:

[sreservoir]

hm, it is perhaps interesting, though, to wonder how they interact with eternity of torture -- it's fluffed as can't move because of the pain, after all, so per the item's description that doesn't bother you? would the immortality and ability drain still be a thing? editing, dammit.

[Eurus]

BoED lets you redeem magic items removing evil tag so no problems.

Then you get Holy nipple clamps of pleasure.

Hm... Would the [Good] Nipple Clamp of Terrible Pleasure turn normally pleasurable experiences into pain? I could almost imagine that being embraced by particularly dour and ascetic cults of Lawful/Good deities with a taboo against indulgence...

[Venger]

BoED lets you redeem magic items removing evil tag so no problems.

Then you get Holy nipple clamps of pleasure.

silly me. I forgot that the way to solve a stupid problem is with a stupid solution. kind of like multiplying two negative numbers.

well done. I am pleased with this. I'm going to throw holy nipple clamps of pleasure at the pally in my game next time I roll treasure to see how he reacts.


It's associated with a fetish, I'm sort of confused why anyone is surprised that WotC put it down as Evil. They do that sort of crap all the time.

no one in the thread is "surprised" per se. due to OP's low post count, he may be new to the game and not well-versed with wotc's backwards views on sexuality, so we're addressing reasons (even/especially if they are bad reasons since that means they're not immediately obvious) that this is the case. your evil,Evil,[Evil] thing was a good way of explaining this, since getting into the game, we all thought it used the word "evil" the way it's used outside the game for at least a little bit.

[herrhauptmann]

Hm... Would the [Good] Nipple Clamp of Terrible Pleasure turn normally pleasurable experiences into pain? I could almost imagine that being embraced by particularly dour and ascetic cults of Lawful/Good deities with a taboo against indulgence...
That's...
Actually that's a really good idea. Fortunately, I'm in a game where tehre's a church of Flagellates. people that flog themselves.
I'll suggest to the DM that the high priest wears this thing. But also lives the most hedonistic lifestyle possible.

[SaintRidley]

It's evil because nipples are evil. Duh.

See also Orcus's nipple rings.

It's a clue to his evil, since only the evil have nipple rings.*



*Well, them and one of the bridesmaids at my wedding. Or does that mean she's evil too?



I am loving the Nipple Clamps of Terrible Pleasure idea. I also think I'm going to find a way to work that into things somehow.

[Urpriest]

The [Evil] tag might be unwarranted, but thematically masochism is a villain trait. It comes up in order to make the heroes uncomfortable with harming the villain and to make them have to think past more naive methods of persuasion. Villains don't have the same issue, since they can always start removing kneecaps or other things the hero will care about anyways, and besides villains don't tend to get uncomfortable. While real-life masochism adheres in both good people and bad, in heroic fantasy it shows up much less on the hero side.

[Kelb_Panthera]

yes, this disorder is known as CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis) and is super rare.

as far as "why is the nipple clamp Evil?" it's because, as bovd showed us, according to wotc, sex is evil/Evil. since nipples are apparently only for sexual purposes, accessories for them are evil/Evil as well.
Bold for emphasis.

That's simply not true. BoED has an exalted goddess of sensual/sexual pleasure.

Urpiest's post, just above this one, is right on the money.

[Answerer]

Bold for emphasis.

That's simply not true. BoED has an exalted goddess of sensual/sexual pleasure.

Urpiest's post, just above this one, is right on the money.
Yes, it is true (though Urpriest also does have a point). It's true that WotC played lip service to the idea of Good sexuality, but for the most part sex only comes up in the books when it's "perverse" or outright rape, which WotC has sometimes unfortunately implied are similar by virtue of tagging both as [Evil].

See also, Vow of Chastity.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, it is true (though Urpriest also does have a point). It's true that WotC played lip service to the idea of Good sexuality, but for the most part sex only comes up in the books when it's "perverse" or outright rape, which WotC has sometimes unfortunately implied are similar by virtue of tagging both as [Evil].

See also, Vow of Chastity.

There's also sune firehair in the forgotten realms setting.

The vows are about giving up something that is good or normal in the physical world for spiritual benefits. Vow of Chastity is no different. You're giving up a normal, pleasureable part of life for a spirtitual (and mechanical) benefit.

Trying to use vow of chastity as evidence that sex is evil is like trying to use vow of poverty to say treasure is evil, or vow of silence to say that talking is evil. It's utter nonsense.

[SaintRidley]

The fact that it's tagged as Exalted, which is basically defined as Good, but Better!, does imply a value judgement. And the value judgement is chastity is better than, more Good than, superior to sex.

Wherever sex falls in D&D, it's pretty well implied that a character who enjoys it is not and cannot be as Good as a chaste character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The fact that it's tagged as Exalted, which is basically defined as Good, but Better!, does imply a value judgement. And the value judgement is chastity is better than, more Good than, superior to sex.

Wherever sex falls in D&D, it's pretty well implied that a character who enjoys it is not and cannot be as Good as a chaste character.

By this logic never talking is better than talking, always being poor is better than being rich, never harming the living is better than smiting evil, never having a drink.... okay I'll give you that one.

The fact that the sacred vows are exalted doesn't make the thing they prohibit evil. To say otherwise is asinine.

This insane binary outlook is exactly why the alignment system is so looked down upon. Why do people forget that neutral exists?



...... The smart money says this is about to become another alignment thread. *eyerolls* :smallamused:

[Mithril Leaf]

There's also sune firehair in the forgotten realms setting.

The vows are about giving up something that is good or normal in the physical world for spiritual benefits. Vow of Chastity is no different. You're giving up a normal, pleasureable part of life for a spirtitual (and mechanical) benefit.

Trying to use vow of chastity as evidence that sex is evil is like trying to use vow of poverty to say treasure is evil, or vow of silence to say that talking is evil. It's utter nonsense.

Well, talking does lead to discussion of nipples, which as we previously discussed, are inherently evil. :smallwink:

[SaintRidley]

By this logic never talking is better than talking, always being poor is better than being rich, never harming the living is better than smiting evil, never having a drink.... okay I'll give you that one.

The fact that the sacred vows are exalted doesn't make the thing they prohibit evil. To say otherwise is asinine.



The logic behind the Exalted stuff, which is pretty screwy, is basically that denial is superior. Never talking means you afford no possibility of speaking evil, even accidentally. Denying yourself material wealth theoretically leads to helping the less fortunate. Never harming a living thing is better than smiting evil (because the Exalted should be more concerned with redeeming Evil than destroying it, no matter how good it feels to splat baddies). Alcohol is poison and unnatural to the body, no good there (which makes you wonder if other things, like, say grafts and arcane magic, which are also unnatural to the body, because, you know, the logic is always pretty incomplete when it gets to extreme craziness like this).

I did not say that since exalted things are implied to be more Good that the nonexalted things are evil. I said that there's a straight value system in place. And that system, Exalted - Good - Neutral - Evil - Vile, implies that anything marked down on the left is superior to all else in that area (chastity as the most superior expression of sexuality, for example). And when anything outside vanilla sex is given unsavory associations, by only ever describing it in the context of people on the Evil-Vile end of the system, it pretty strongly hints at the the writers' thoughts on the matter.



This insane binary outlook is exactly why the alignment system is so looked down upon. Why do people forget that neutral exists?

Ask the designers. They did most of the forgetting. And treatment of the system as binary.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, talking does lead to discussion of nipples, which as we previously discussed, are inherently evil. :smallwink:

Bah, if nipples are evil it's because they mesmerize men with no saving throw and make us act stupid against our will. The fact that they can be involved in sex is coincidence. :smallwink:

Tongue firmly in cheek here, BTW.

EDIT:

Here's a passage I nearly forgot.


There is nothing inherently evil about human (or humanoid) sexuality, and being a good character doesn't necessarily mean remaining a virgin.
First sentence of the second paragraph under the Relationships header.


Certain religion and cultures in the D&D universe encourage or at least condone some people taking vows of chastity, but these are similar to vows of poverty or abstinence -- rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits, not derived from the attitude that sex is evil. [...] A good character is not opposed to sex in principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships such as [examples].

That's most of the rest of the paragraph and that's plain english telling you that sex is a good and natural thing.

The more I see people taking the attitude that BoED and BoVD say that sex is evil via implication, the more I'm convinced that few of them have actually read the whole of the text. At the very least they haven't read it in a while.

Last I checked, an explicit statement like that had more weight than an implication. Even if that isn't the case, the fact that it's explicitly stated makes it RAW.

The (apparent) implications are houserules at best, and I'm pretty sure they're more peoples own attitudes and biases creeping in to what they read than anything the writers actually may have meant.

[StreamOfTheSky]

BoVD specifically calls out BDSM as evil.

WotC doesn't have a problem with sex. Just fun/kinky sex.

[Kelb_Panthera]

BoVD specifically calls out BDSM as evil.

WotC doesn't have a problem with sex. Just fun/kinky sex.

It only explicitly calls BDSM* horrible. It does say that the listed kinks are more common among evil characters, but it never flat calls them evil.

The fact that the spells sadism and masochism have the evil tag is just WotC being terrible at attaching the proper subtypes and key words to spells. See deathwatch for a comparison.

In-fact, I just had a long conversation in the thread Creepiest D&D Content (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13915382) on the general roleplaying forum, where I went into this in some detail. Gimme a minute and I'll cook up a link.


*BTW, the acronym BDSM is being misused here. Technically BoVD only discusses Sado-masochism. BDSM also covers bondage and discipline and domination/submission. Just an FYI.

[SaintRidley]

Khelb, nobody is saying that the books paint sex as evil. We're saying that the books say that chastity is inherently more Good than sex, any sex, by requiring one to be Exalted to take a vow of chastity. And they paint "deviant" sexual expression in an unflattering light, and the use of horrible in the BoVD may not be the word "evil," but words like horrible, fell, terrible carry that connotation.

I think you're being a bit too literal about this.

[Ravens_cry]

Or maybe because D&D, unless modified, basically tries to emulate Standard European Fantasy and SEF tried to emulate a weird quasi-Medieval Europe, and in the actual Medieval Europe, most people who took vows like these also took vows to live lives of piety and righteousness as part of their profession.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Khelb, nobody is saying that the books paint sex as evil. We're saying that the books say that chastity is inherently more Good than sex, any sex, by requiring one to be Exalted to take a vow of chastity. And they paint "deviant" sexual expression in an unflattering light, and the use of horrible in the BoVD may not be the word "evil," but words like horrible, fell, terrible carry that connotation.

I think you're being a bit too literal about this.
If I'm being too literal it's only because others aren't being literal enough.

Btw, Noone?

as far as "why is the nipple clamp Evil?" it's because, as bovd showed us, according to wotc, sex is evil/Evil. since nipples are apparently only for sexual purposes, accessories for them are evil/Evil as well.

[Answerer]

Again, WotC pays lip service to the idea of sexuality as good, and then goes and makes a wealth of material that implies otherwise. Actions speak louder than words. Just because you say human sexuality is good, doesn't mean you actually believe it -- and it's hard to believe you do when you print things like the Vow of Chastity and the Nipple Clamp of Exquisite Pain (and those are hardly the only examples).

Wizards rarely brings up sex for any reason other than to describe some demon, devil, or other Evil beings penchant for some fetish or for rape.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It only explicitly calls BDSM* horrible. It does say that the listed kinks are more common among evil characters, but it never flat calls them evil.

The fact that the spells sadism and masochism have the evil tag is just WotC being terrible at attaching the proper subtypes and key words to spells. See deathwatch for a comparison.

*BTW, the acronym BDSM is being misused here. Technically BoVD only discusses Sado-masochism. BDSM also covers bondage and discipline and domination/submission. Just an FYI.

Sorry, I didn't go to re-read and was going off of memory. Wasn't like I used quotes...

And so what if it "only" called S&M horrible? This is a book about the greatest of evils, of outsiders literally made out of evil, describing all manners of torture and execution and demonic sacrifice...

...and they feel the need to take out some page space to tell us of how horrible that S&M stuff is. I mean, all the other stuff in this book is no doubt Evil, but it at least makes sense in our world view. But that S&M sex stuff? WTF is up with that?!

It's still appalling and stupid.

[Urpriest]

Or maybe because D&D, unless modified, basically tries to emulate Standard European Fantasy and SEF tried to emulate a weird quasi-Medieval Europe, and in the actual Medieval Europe, most people who took vows like these also took vows to live lives of piety and righteousness as part of their profession.

While this is true, half of all people who take vows to live lives of piety and righteousness in D&D are evil. I could easily see a vow of chastity making sense for a nun of Hextor, for example.

[willpell]

...and they feel the need to take out some page space to tell us of how horrible that S&M stuff is. I mean, all the other stuff in this book is no doubt Evil, but it at least makes sense in our world view. But that S&M sex stuff? WTF is up with that?!

This is a simple question of sex selling, most likely. They had to get an "adults only" designation for the book anyway since it was going to contain gruesome horror, so they figured they'd throw in a little more attractive content to lure people in. (Which is pretty consistent with Evil's M.O.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sorry, I didn't go to re-read and was going off of memory. Wasn't like I used quotes...

And so what if it "only" called S&M horrible? This is a book about the greatest of evils, of outsiders literally made out of evil, describing all manners of torture and execution and demonic sacrifice...

...and they feel the need to take out some page space to tell us of how horrible that S&M stuff is. I mean, all the other stuff in this book is no doubt Evil, but it at least makes sense in our world view. But that S&M sex stuff? WTF is up with that?!

It's still appalling and stupid.

As I discussed in the other thread that I linked to in my earlier post, sadism was included because it does have a relation to evil, not because it's evil in and of itself. Masochism was included for its relationship to sadism. They're labeled as horrible, because most people find them squicky as hell. Horrible =/= evil, even in connotation. To whit; spilling the guts of an owlbear that's trying to rip my face off is horrible, what with the gore and the stink, but that doesn't mean I've done anything evil.

The clamp is evil because its requisite spell is evil, and its requisite spell is evil because WotC sucks at attaching appropriate key-word tags and subtypes to spells. Repeat: see deathwatch.

[INoKnowNames]

I don't see what the confusion is. Anyone that enjoys pain, be it to themselves or to other people, is probably a naturally creepy or slightly disturbed person, and such characters are much easier cast as Evil than Good.

I haven't gone through the Book of Vile Darkness, admitedly, but still, that seems like a relatively straightforward concept.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't see what the confusion is. Anyone that enjoys pain, be it to themselves or to other people, is probably a naturally creepy or slightly disturbed person, and such characters are much easier cast as Evil than Good.

I haven't gone through the Book of Vile Darkness, admitedly, but still, that seems like a relatively straightforward concept.

This is just categorically untrue. I've known several masochists that you'd never have any idea if they didn't want you to know. Same thing for sadists.

Hell, most of the time when they find a sadist that's actually gone dark-side all his neighbors and most of his friends all say the same thing, "I had no idea. He seemed so normal."

[herrhauptmann]

This is just categorically untrue. I've known several masochists that you'd never have any idea if they didn't want you to know. Same thing for sadists.

Hell, most of the time when they find a sadist that's actually gone dark-side all his neighbors and most of his friends all say the same thing, "I had no idea. He seemed so normal."
You forgot something important:
D&D != Real life.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You forgot something important:
D&D != Real life.

I didn't forget. But if you take that attitude, then what does it matter whether those fetishes are labeled evil or not.

Do you care about verisimilitude or not?

If you do, then my last statement is relevant. If you don't then the whole conversation is moot.

[Arcanist]

Masochism is evil in the DnD universe.

D&D called me Evil...
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/830/sad_frog.jpg

The only reason the Nipple Clamps have the [Evil] tag is because an evil spell is required to make it. Other then this there should be no reason as a DM that you could rule that it is good... However I wouldn't want to be the DM to tell that to MY players...

The Nipple Clamps (if in the real world) would completely revolutionize the medical field and would most likely put a lot of Anesthesiologist out of work, but for combat reasons, I'd rather not see my opponent moaning in pleasure when I stab him in his underbelly... :smallconfused:

[INoKnowNames]

This is just categorically untrue. I've known several masochists that you'd never have any idea if they didn't want you to know. Same thing for sadists.

Hell, most of the time when they find a sadist that's actually gone dark-side all his neighbors and most of his friends all say the same thing, "I had no idea. He seemed so normal."

Notice how I was not absolute in my previous comment. I didn't say that they were -definitely- that way, or that -all- fit it. With 7 Billion People on this planet, generalisations like that can't be true.

That said, it's really hard to deny that enjoying pain inflicted on yourself and inflicting pain on others isn't kinda creepy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombatSadomasochist)


You forgot something important:
D&D != Real life.

Both worlds are varied enough that it doesn't really matter. It's only a matter of time until we can apply odd templates to ourselves, and we've already got artificers...


I didn't forget. But if you take that attitude, then what does it matter whether those fetishes are labeled evil or not.

Trying to decide what kind of fetishes ones character should have? Good people can have kinks...

Not to mention the op seemed confused by a magic item that's Evil but could potentially have Good uses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Notice how I was not absolute in my previous comment. I didn't say that they were -definitely- that way, or that -all- fit it. With 7 Billion People on this planet, generalisations like that can't be true.
The thing of it is, since most people look at such things with disgust, most sadists and masochists do their damndest to hide it. You only ever hear about the rare few that do a poor job of it.

That said, it's really hard to deny that enjoying pain inflicted on yourself and inflicting pain on others isn't kinda creepy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombatSadomasochist)

Tv Tropes, really? Media portrayal of a thing like this is hardly a good guidepost for verisimilitude. Anything that's squicky tends to get demonized in the entertainment industry.


Both worlds are varied enough that it doesn't really matter. It's only a matter of time until we can apply odd templates to ourselves, and we've already got artificers... We have artificers? Do tell.




Trying to decide what kind of fetishes ones character should have? Good people can have kinks... Yes they can. There's nothing in the rules to stop it either. You can have a good masochist (FR has a whole church of them) you can even have a good sadist.

You just can't have a good cleric casting sadism or masochism. Though in masochism's case I maintain that it's a case of WotC being bad at attaching proper subtypes to spells.


Not to mention the op seemed confused by a magic item that's Evil but could potentially have Good uses.

The reason the item is evil has been given, I believe, 4 times now. I've even posted it twice myself. The conversation has pretty much moved on.

[Arcanist]

We have artificers? Do tell.

Yes, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificer) we do have Artificers. (http://uk.ask.com/what-is/what_is_an_artificer_in_the_royal_navy) :smallbiggrin: I couldn't resist...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificer) we do have Artificers. (http://uk.ask.com/what-is/what_is_an_artificer_in_the_royal_navy) :smallbiggrin: I couldn't resist...

Ah. I see. This side of the pond we just call 'em engineers.

I've learned tidbit about a foreign dialect today. :smallsmile:

[Ravens_cry]

While this is true, half of all people who take vows to live lives of piety and righteousness in D&D are evil. I could easily see a vow of chastity making sense for a nun of Hextor, for example.
I can see that. Like Asmodeus in Pathfinder's default setting, Hextor is a semi-socialy acceptable evil god in-universe.
People might worship one side of him, order and law, while still being trying to be good people.

[willpell]

I can see that. Like Asmodeus in Pathfinder's default setting, Hextor is a semi-socialy acceptable evil god in-universe.
People might worship one side of him, order and law, while still being trying to be good people.

Hear hear. I play this aspect of him up in my game, to the point that he barely looks like a war god anymore. Instead he's like Wolfram & Hart on "Angel"...rotten to the core, but with his fingers in so many societal pies that he's basically indispensible, and society has largely come to regard his "evil" as the norm. People have to earn the right to happiness by working hard and doing as they're told; if you don't agree, you must be some kind of communist hippie who hates {insert name of Nation here}.

[Eurus]

Hear hear. I play this aspect of him up in my game, to the point that he barely looks like a war god anymore. Instead he's like Wolfram & Hart on "Angel"...rotten to the core, but with his fingers in so many societal pies that he's basically indispensible, and society has largely come to regard his "evil" as the norm. People have to earn the right to happiness by working hard and doing as they're told; if you don't agree, you must be some kind of communist hippie who hates {insert name of Nation here}.

I prefer to play up the "war" aspect to the point where the "evil" seems a little less important; he's a god of martial strength and discipline, of strong leadership and swift punishment because punishment is the foundation on which law is built and law is the foundation on which armies and kingdoms stand. He prepares for war during times of peace, he strikes first and salts the land when he does because it's not as if the enemy is going to play fair. And there's always an enemy.

[willpell]

That's probably closer to a fitting characterization for Hextor in particular. I've been debating whether I ought to stop using the names of the Greyhawk gods for my pantheon, given how liberally I reinterpret them.

[Arcanist]

While this is true, half of all people who take vows to live lives of piety and righteousness in D&D are evil. I could easily see a vow of chastity making sense for a nun of Hextor, for example.

http://blogs.amctv.com/movie-blog/features/horror-hacker/Magdalena-sm.jpg

... Ehhhhhhhhh... Stating out Magdalena as a Nun of Hextor :smallconfused: :smallamused: :smallredface:

[Ravens_cry]

That's probably closer to a fitting characterization for Hextor in particular. I've been debating whether I ought to stop using the names of the Greyhawk gods for my pantheon, given how liberally I reinterpret them.
I'm working on some children's gods, beings that children have found, created, and worship through a loose oral mythos.
Grownup's don't don't know, grown-ups can't know.
So far I got the Blue Lady (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1997-06-05/news/myths-over-miami/)*, Black Mother (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1997-06-05/news/myths-over-miami/)*, King Rat King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king_%28folklore%29) and The Drowned Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body).
*Warning: May cause tears

[herrhauptmann]

I didn't forget. But if you take that attitude, then what does it matter whether those fetishes are labeled evil or not.

Do you care about verisimilitude or not?

If you do, then my last statement is relevant. If you don't then the whole conversation is moot.

I do care about verisimilitude, but I don't let ridiculous rules get in the way when I'm DMing.
Nor does it matter. I'll only start including certain things like sex/fetishes at my table, if every player is ok with it, and can handle the subject without feeling uncomfortable. Doing anything else would be irresponsible of me.

[willpell]

I can't find any evidence on when nipple clamps were invented (and this forum being what it is, people should probably not help me with that), but really they do NOT strike me as being a very medieval thing to include; I don't see them making sense for the setting, even if they are in fact historically accurate, they seem like they shouldn't be. I think if I were to put this item into my game, it would be in a different form, like a tattoo or an acupuncture needle (not much better I know, but at least in OA it would fit). Same effect, same lack of a body slot, most of the same potential to squick out Roy the PCs, but a bit more at home in the milieu.

[Novawurmson]

This is one of the ways in which I'm definite partial to Paizo and their world-building. Their goddess of lust (whose chosen weapon is a whip, iirc) is Chaotic Neutral. Almost every god or goddess condones most forms of sexuality (with the possible exception of Erastil, who's a cranky old man), and all of their iconics should be assumed to be bisexual unless stated otherwise (so says James Jacobs (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/campaignSetting/general/homosexualityInGolarion&page=12&source=search#584)). Most adventure paths include non-"traditional" romantic couplings.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do care about verisimilitude, but I don't let ridiculous rules get in the way when I'm DMing.
Nor does it matter. I'll only start including certain things like sex/fetishes at my table, if every player is ok with it, and can handle the subject without feeling uncomfortable. Doing anything else would be irresponsible of me.

I commend you for respecting your players' comfort zones.

However, there's nothing in BoVD that says you must be evil to be a sadist or a masochist. The "silly rule" you're talking about isn't a rule at all. It's a conclusion people jump to because the spells sadism and masochism have the evil descriptor, and the actual rules for naturally having those kinks are in BoVD.

You can build a masochistic high priest of Illmater just fine by RAW. It'd probably even be more appropriate than if he wasn't.

[Rosstin]

Here's a great trick: take Vow of Chastity as a feat.

Your character is GUARANTEED to be constantly offered sex for the rest of the campaign. Which is a million times better than the +4 bonus itself.

[Lateral]

Here's a great trick: take Vow of Chastity as a feat.

Your character is GUARANTEED to be constantly offered sex for the rest of the campaign. Which is a million times better than the +4 bonus itself.
I'm pretty sure I saw a homebrewed Vow of Nudity somewhere...

[Crake]

I defer to the BoEF for all things sexual to prevent silly things like masochism being tagged Evil.

[Alienist]

Now that I think about it, this is probably the defining item in 3.5

It tells you everything you need to know about the system. By which I mean, of course you expect the double take and "bwuh?" reaction, but it's what follows that which determines whether someone is 'right' for 3.5 or whether they should move along and find another system.

[Saintheart]

However you're doing it, the spell-clock or a similar means of shortcutting the casting time is still a pretty crucial part; otherwise your rate of production is just too slow to be of much use.

Easiest method I can think of, which I only spruik because it blew my mind how broken it was when I examined it doing the handbook, is to go and buy a permanent rune of Distilled Joy from a runecaster somewhere in the Forgotten Realms. A rune contains a spell; the way Rune Magic is written, it's a use-activated spell, in effect, so not even a scroll required. All the casting time for the spell is consumed when you first make the rune, and as far as I can tell the spell otherwise triggers instantaneously, or at least with a standard action, every time you tap the rune (that being the reason for the permanent rune.) There's nothing to say the ambrosia only accumulates a day at a time - it's only the casting time of the spell that dictates a day out of commission to collect 2 XP.

Admittedly you need a big bunch of vials around to collect the drops of ambrosia, but no spell clock or time-accelerated demiplane shenanigans required.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I think the clamps are appropriately tagged as [evil], because of the implications of the item. The item doesn't just cause you to pick up a bit of new kink, including the Masochism Fetish listed on page 10, it turns pain into pleasure. This could be a very evil thing to inflict on another and a foolish thing to inflict on yourself.

When every sharp object is suddenly a pleasure button, how long will it be before you destroy yourself. Basically, any reference to real world masochism is irrelevant, because drawing deriving sexual satisfaction from pain != pain being replaced with pleasure. Real world masochists don't stub their toes and cry out with pleasure and face a temptation to kick the thing they stubbed their toe on a few times for good measure.

[Samalpetey]

I'm pretty sure I saw a homebrewed Vow of Nudity somewhere...

Taking Vow of Nudity and Vow of Chastity together is just mean... :smallwink:

[Rubik]

I think the clamps are appropriately tagged as [evil], because of the implications of the item. The item doesn't just cause you to pick up a bit of new kink, including the Masochism Fetish listed on page 10, it turns pain into pleasure. This could be a very evil thing to inflict on another and a foolish thing to inflict on yourself.

When every sharp object is suddenly a pleasure button, how long will it be before you destroy yourself. Basically, any reference to real world masochism is irrelevant, because drawing deriving sexual satisfaction from pain != pain being replaced with pleasure. Real world masochists don't stub their toes and cry out with pleasure and face a temptation to kick the thing they stubbed their toe on a few times for good measure.The problem is that using that doesn't need to have evil consequences. When you use the item on a temporary basis and cause pain during those times which is magically induced but has no lasting consequences, you're basically just casting what amounts to an orgasm spell for whatever purpose you put it to, whether the results are good, neutral, or evil. It doesn't have to hurt anyone (meaning both pain-as-pain and as long-lasting negative results) and has potentially useful side effects (both ambrosia and liquid pain). Adding the [Evil] tag should only happen when used for Evil purposes.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Cursed items can have favorable effects, they're still cursed. Why should [Evil] be different? Unless I'm mistaken about the effects of occasionally using an [Evil] item (I'm assuming it's similar to using [Evil] spells; a vague don't do it too much or your alignment may shift) it's use isn't an evil act.

[Coidzor]

Now that I think about it, this is probably the defining item in 3.5

It tells you everything you need to know about the system. By which I mean, of course you expect the double take and "bwuh?" reaction, but it's what follows that which determines whether someone is 'right' for 3.5 or whether they should move along and find another system.

I can't deny that you seem like you have a point there.

[The Oni]

Taking Vow of Nudity and Vow of Chastity together is just mean... :smallwink:

Especially with 18+ Charisma.

[The Oni]

Also, think about the corrupting influence an item that makes you unable to feel pain, in fact even enjoy pain, might have on a person. In the short term it may be all in good fun. What happens if you wear the thing for a year and a day and then you stab someone for giggles because you genuinely forgot that pain hurts?

[Rubik]

Also, think about the corrupting influence an item that makes you unable to feel pain, in fact even enjoy pain, might have on a person. In the short term it may be all in good fun. What happens if you wear the thing for a year and a day and then you stab someone for giggles because you genuinely forgot that pain hurts?Then you're either psychotic, extremely stupid, or evil, because you really should know better.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread necromancy has the [Evil] subtype.