PDA

View Full Version : Beware Women, for they come from Hell.



Morithias
2012-11-27, 05:51 AM
Well new counter monkey is up.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/11/25/counter-monkey-beware-the-woman-for-they-come-from-hell/

Now let's get rid of this right off the bat, I do NOT agree with what he says to a large degree, and this is NOT me asking you to argue on this, this just caused me to think about how I write women in my games as a DM, and how the people think I am doing in terms of writing a gender I biologically am not.

Let's go over my campaigns.

X-crawl.

This campaign kinda died, but the main NPC was a woman who was a sports coach, who in a very dangerous game took a team to the top, and when people started getting jealous and talking about her behind her back, made a new team to try and prove herself.

Path of Evil.

This campaign had a female villain in the backstory. The Demon King Miki, who was a legendary being who nearly took over the world. Other females who have shown up are the merchant Yumi, who is rejected by her piers for being evil, and Maria, the engineer who simply loves to invent things, and her crown invention being a legendary weapon.

Oriental Kingmaker.

So far the only girl who has shown up is the leader of the Kitsune, who is one of the seven commanders who works for Taichi. She has had no real character development yet.

Grimoire of the Rift.

Mana the merchant was in love with the man that one of the PC's replaced. Princess Teru is a noble woman who wishes to run her kingdom. The vampire chick was meant to be kind of an athletic Moka from Rosario Vampire. And the knights Leila and Aisha are powerful warriors who fight for the crown.

I try to write women are realistic, with the obvious exception of the Demon King, who is basically a legend.

So am I doing anything wrong? I'm not using women to kill them, it's just well. I spent a lot of my youth with female friends, so my worlds tend to be full of girls. Many videogames I play are eroges, where your harem is a warrior harem, and I ironically have more experience with writing girls then boys.

So am I doing this wrong? Right? Could I be doing better? Any advice?

Patsy
2012-11-27, 06:38 AM
Nice video, but I can't say I've ever really had this problem. It probably helps that 50% of my players are women, so maybe that keeps my lazy writing in check.
As a result, I tend to run fantasy games in a pretty gender-blind way, just as a question of tone- it's a bit more cheerful and 'heroic' to me to have a variety of different characters and types in the world, as opposed to a more 'historical' idea of serious men with beards taking all the positions of authority, with their wives and sisters cowering behind them somewhere.

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 07:55 AM
Based on what you wrote, I would advise you not to worry as you seem to be doing just fine. It isn't bad thing however to sometimes reflect on what you are doing and see if you're being unintentionally sexist, awareness is usually a good thing.

Based on the video however, I'd recommend that guy to find some more mature people to play with, I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of the players on this forum have never experienced the 'problems' he is describing.(which is to say, that every woman is untrustworthy, not that there never are trickster woman)


P.S. I like your provocative thread title, I was quite curious what this thread would contain and how fast it would blow up.

Boci
2012-11-27, 08:06 AM
What kind of response did you expect? Yes your doing it wrong, three dimensional female characters who aren't there to murder the rightous male heroes? That worse than a dual katana wielding DMPC and DM's girlfriend with a pet unicorn combined?

Not only is counter monkey a humour series, but a lot of it draws from the high school years of someone growing up in the 90s, were an all male group of socially awkward friends played D&D in their free time because they didn't have girlfriends. Yes its a stereotype, but like most it has its origins in truth.

Morithias
2012-11-27, 08:18 AM
P.S. I like your provocative thread title, I was quite curious what this thread would contain and how fast it would blow up.

It's kinda what the video is called. Should I change it?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-27, 08:34 AM
(Unfortunately I can't watch the video because Springboard never wants to work for me. Have to wait for someone to put it on youtube.)

I have to admit I'm pretty sexist... in the opposite way. I almost never give female characters anything but the purest of motives (not to say they never serve as antagonists regardless of this; they're just misguided idealists at worst) and establishing a male character as a wife-beater or a rapist is my most often used method of not-so-subtly saying "Hey you, you're supposed to hate this guy." And if your player character is one of these things, God help you!

Basically my campaigns end up looking like a Lifetime original movie.

Badgerish
2012-11-27, 08:56 AM
There are a lot of monsters in D&D that are setup to: 1) seduce target, 2) murder target.

A lot of these where based off of mythology and folklore, and many of those where created to discourage random hook-ups.

As mentioned, Spoony's counter Monkey rants/stories are informed by his teenage gaming in the 90's. It's clear that was a sexist time and he does point that out a number of times.

I aim for about 25% female NPCs, but there is a little/no romance/sexuality in games, so no murderous Succubi/Hags/Lamia disguised as whores or overly-friendly barmaids.
I write all my NPCs as people/classes first, then look at how their gender/race/species/etc effects their personalities. Not many of my female NPCs will actually be that feminine.

In one of the 1st D&D games I can remember, we where playing through a module and had been given a warning of "Don't trust a book by it's cover" at the start. Towards the end, we encountered an attractive woman chained to a rock, with no apparent dangers about; when we approached carefully, keeping watch for traps, ambushes and if the woman did anything strange, the GM acted like we where meta-gaming (the woman was indeed a Hag). It's a standard trope: If you encounter a woman in D&D, it's quite possibly a disguised monster.

SgtCarnage92
2012-11-27, 10:18 AM
Interestingly enough, I've only used the "woman from hell" trope once, and it was rather effective because it was less a seduction, and more convincing a group of civilians that she was a vampire who had them charmed (one of the best role-playing encounters i've ever ran, however there was a long argument regarding the use of mind-effecting spells on PCs, which is another topic entirely).

I try to have a variety of NPCs from either gender, but I also try and take the particular culture of origin into account. Not every culture is going to be gender equal and there's going to be a variety of gender roles. I'm not always "traditional" when it comes to my culture's gender roles, but I do keep in mind when designing an NPC.

For example, I tend to run dwarves more or less "men are warrirors, women act as support" but that doesn't mean female dwarves are pushovers in combat as the dwarves teach every citizen how to defend themselves. They just aren't usually on the front lines holding back an orc onslaught.

In contrast, i run elves as being pretty much androgynous when it comes to gender roles. This is playing to the cliche of not being able to tell if the elf is male or female, but it makes a lot of sense for a race that generally values individual freedom above all else. Plus as far as military goes, elf populations tend to be small, so they need every available citizen to defend it if need be.

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 12:21 PM
It's kinda what the video is called. Should I change it?

Depends on what you want to achieve. If you are afraid that you will insult or unnecessarely provoke anybody, you should change it. If you want to lure people into this thread by provoking them, then obviously you should keep it.



Not only is counter monkey a humour series, but a lot of it draws from the high school years of someone growing up in the 90s, were an all male group of socially awkward friends played D&D in their free time because they didn't have girlfriends. Yes its a stereotype, but like most it has its origins in truth.

I'd have to say that for a 'humours' series, the video wasn't very funny, it might have told a few funny stories, but the tone of the video was very serious. Secondly, he mentions recent experiences in the video, so I have really no reason to assume it's about playing D&D while growing up.
Thirdly, if there is additional context needed to understand a video it should either be included in the video or be linked to/written down below the video.
If you do neither then I'll take it at face value and I won't feel sorry for it.

Morithias
2012-11-27, 12:45 PM
Depends on what you want to achieve. If you are afraid that you will insult or unnecessarely provoke anybody, you should change it. If you want to lure people into this thread by provoking them, then obviously you should keep it.

Yeah...the reason I picked this title is that I was too lazy to come up with something for myself....

erikun
2012-11-27, 01:19 PM
While I have not seen Counter Monkey before, Spoony has always struck me as more comedy than review and this doesn't change much. The whole Deadly Women trope seems restricted to the killer DM mentality, where everything significant must either be producing GP or XP for the party. I doubt I could run a game that way; I think far too much about making a setting involved and interactive to have every female character a succubus or vampire.

To Morithias, I think your characters are just fine. They are women, but even the evil ones have motivations and reasons for their actions (beyond just being evil-for-evil's-sake). If a PC is going to hit on Demon King Miki on first sight, then they are probably due what's coming to them. Outside that, I think that anyone paying attention to the character would pick up on the obvious warning signs.


For example, I tend to run dwarves more or less "men are warrirors, women act as support" but that doesn't mean female dwarves are pushovers in combat as the dwarves teach every citizen how to defend themselves. They just aren't usually on the front lines holding back an orc onslaught.

In contrast, i run elves as being pretty much androgynous when it comes to gender roles. This is playing to the cliche of not being able to tell if the elf is male or female, but it makes a lot of sense for a race that generally values individual freedom above all else. Plus as far as military goes, elf populations tend to be small, so they need every available citizen to defend it if need be.
I think I run dwarves and elves in much the same way. Of course, "support" from dwarven women might come in the form of growing ten feet tall and stomping everyone flat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) or just being commander of an army. :smalltongue:

Boci
2012-11-27, 01:19 PM
Thirdly, if there is additional context needed to understand a video it should either be included in the video or be linked to/written down below the video.
If you do neither then I'll take it at face value and I won't feel sorry for it.

How about just assuming the creator of the video is a decent human being who does not infact hate just over 50% of the world's population because they have matching 23rd (?) chromosomes?

You seem to be taken undue offence at a joke (however unfunny) at a trend that as previous poster pointed out stems back to folklore. He could have said "Beware Children, for they come from Hell." and no one would have been offended, and its no different with women: fiends taking on forms that will make their targets more receptive to them.

Sith_Happens
2012-11-27, 01:20 PM
Yeah...the reason I picked this title is that I was too lazy to come up with something for myself....

Personally I thought it was going to be some sort of crazy campaign setting idea.

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 01:35 PM
How about just assuming the creator of the video is a decent human being who does not infact hate just over 50% of the world's population because they have matching 23rd (?) chromosomes?

I never said anything about the videos creator aside from mentioning that he has playing with immature players.

Boci
2012-11-27, 01:42 PM
I never said anything about the videos creator aside from mentioning that he has playing with immature players.

I was just saying you seemed to be taking the whole joke about an old gaming trope awefully seriously.

And assuming them to be immature is a tad judgemental for people you have never met. There is a difference between immature people and people who are immature doing their gameing sessions.

Themrys
2012-11-27, 01:42 PM
I aim for about 25% female NPCs

Why 25%?

50% I would understand, but 25%?

Boci
2012-11-27, 01:44 PM
Why 25%?

50% I would understand, but 25%?

Presumably because the power structure is modelled after midevil Europe, and since most of the NPCs players meet are in somewhat important places it makes sense that males would be overrepresented.

Morithias
2012-11-27, 01:48 PM
If a PC is going to hit on Demon King Miki on first sight, then they are probably due what's coming to them.

I'd question how she came back to life. But this is D&D. True resurrecting the most vile being to have ever been born is something that is totally in character for an evil party...and if miss-worse-than-insert-dictator-from-real-life-here-cause-I-can't-state-real-world-politics-on-the-forum, is a woman, might as well try to woo her, hey it could work.

Of course knowing my Dm style I'd probably let it work. XD

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-27, 02:00 PM
How about just assuming the creator of the video is a decent human being who does not infact hate just over 50% of the world's population because they have matching 23rd (?) chromosomes?

I dunno, I'm not exactly Spoony's biggest fan but the more of his material I watch the more I suspect he really is a misogynist creep. I'm not exactly ready to call him out as a horrible human being yet, but this video has not helped.

Cikomyr
2012-11-27, 02:01 PM
I like that you cite a number of villainous female characters in various RPG settings or modules..

Should we compare the number of male villains?


I do not think female are usually more villainous. It's just the sad fact that very often, a DM will only mention a detail if he feels its important to the plot (Chekov's gun?), and if he specifies that a certain character is female, it's because he wants to exploit feminine attributes for the plot.

If it happens that the villain is a female, he probably planned to have something of a seductive plot of the male NPC or PC. Otherwise, why would the GM have made her a villain in the first place? It's a very common problem is modern storytelling, where scriptwriter might go out of their way to make female character "female" by their behavior, whereas genuinely strong female character are simply characters who happens to be female.

Do I make sense...?

Cikomyr
2012-11-27, 02:16 PM
I dunno, I'm not exactly Spoony's biggest fan but the more of his material I watch the more I suspect he really is a misogynist creep. I'm not exactly ready to call him out as a horrible human being yet, but this video has not helped.

As far as Spoony goes, the whole point of this video was simply to talk about his personal RPG experience. So I do not think you can use this as evidence of actual hatred or fear of women. Simply that it's kind of the easy way to capture socially-insecure nerds who simply would never easily get women. It's part of the escapism experience of the whole RPG paradigm.

Now, I'm a big Spoony fan (but stay away from his forum), and I'd get why you could get the idea that he is somewhat of a mysogynist. But I do not think he means bad; he merely is awkward and clumsy at many things, and sadly for him, one of these things happens to be "women".

For what I've heard, his previous relationship with the legendary Scarlet probably didn't helped his attitude. But I doubt I know enough about him to make a proper judgment call there.

Grimsage Matt
2012-11-27, 02:17 PM
Vampire game I'm running (And no, they do not sparkle:smallannoyed:), the players have three leaders in charge of the base.

One is a drow Vampire. Why? To be honest, thought a Drow Widow Queen would make sense, and sure, I'm planing on her being slightly seductive.... but only because shes great at grapples and the Widow Queen PrC offers great spawn making abillities.

The other one is a Angel called Nyx. To be honest, was going Acrane/Martial/Divine for leaders, and I thought a Undead Angel would be cool. And since most of the fallen were guys....

Can write them up a bit more, but ya, not trying to go for sexist here.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-27, 02:21 PM
I do not think female are usually more villainous. It's just the sad fact that very often, a DM will only mention a detail if he feels its important to the plot (Chekov's gun?), and if he specifies that a certain character is female, it's because he wants to exploit feminine attributes for the plot.

A generalization of the smurfette principle: Characters are male by default. Females only appear when the presence of a vagina is necessary for the plot the writer has in mind to work. Thus, female characters frequently get reduced to their vaginas, because if the story doesn't involve it the writer would use a male character for her role instead.

Cikomyr
2012-11-27, 02:25 PM
A generalization of the smurfette principle: Characters are male by default. Females only appear when the presence of a vagina is necessary for the plot the writer has in mind to work. Thus, female characters frequently get reduced to their vaginas, because if the story doesn't involve it the writer would use a male character for her role instead.

Very well put! Just we put this on the table: I do not condone this practice. But would you agree it is sadly common in generic storytelling?

It is one rational wariness to hold in roleplaying game; beware of women, for their vagina is a plot point.

Greyfeld85
2012-11-27, 02:27 PM
Watching the video, when he mentioned subverting your players' expectations, it reminded me of a female NPC I wrote in the last game I ran.

She was a tibbit psychic rogue, so the first meeting between her and the players was when she was in cat form. Since I drew attention to the cat, they players automatically zoomed in on that aspect and were like, "Ok, something's up with the cat." When she padded off down the nearest alleyway, the ranger PC and a couple other players tried to track her down, but eventually lost her trail.

Later on, she introduced herself to the group by transforming into her humanoid form right in front of them. Many questions ensued, but one of the major questions was, "If you're not hiding anything, and you don't mean us any harm, why did you run away from us earlier??"

The answer to the question was very simple. "You were chasing me, what did you expect me to do?"

By subverting their suspicions into completely reasonable actions, considering their behavior at the earlier point in the game, I completely threw them for a loop, and created a female character that was helpful and blatantly not-evil, but still had her own values and her own agenda.

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 02:27 PM
I was just saying you seemed to be taking the whole joke about an old gaming trope awefully seriously.

And assuming them to be immature is a tad judgemental for people you have never met. There is a difference between immature people and people who are immature doing their gameing sessions.

1. Again, serious tone, I see absolutely no reason to assume that he's isn't speaking the truth. And while his goal is to amuse and he obviously picks the most exaggerated examples to help build his case, the fact that he felt this topic was worth addressing, suggests to me that this is about his real experiences.

Come to think of it, the reason I'm not offended at all by the title, is because right of the bat it's an obvious hyperbole.

2. It's obvious from the context of my reply that I'm talking about his gaming habits and not about him as a person, who are you to make assumptions about my assumptions?just in case it's not obvious that last bit is a joke

Yora
2012-11-27, 02:32 PM
The entire argument is that every time an NPC is remotely seductive or the GM reacts in any ways to players attempts to hit on an NPC, that NPC will be some kind of succubus.

Which from every RPG experience and account known to me, is the case.

It doesn't get in any way into female NPCs that don't make any advances to the PCs. They don't have any part in any of this.

Boci
2012-11-27, 03:25 PM
1. Again, serious tone, I see absolutely no reason to assume that he's isn't speaking the truth.

That's not Spoony's fault. He a breed of online entertainer who uses a limited bag of tricks + relatability to satisfy an audience. One of those tricks is to say slightly outlandish things with a serious face.


Come to think of it, the reason I'm not offended at all by the title, is because right of the bat it's an obvious hyperbole.

Ofcourse its hyperbole. What else would it be?

erikun
2012-11-27, 03:46 PM
The entire argument is that every time an NPC is remotely seductive or the GM reacts in any ways to players attempts to hit on an NPC, that NPC will be some kind of succubus.

Which from every RPG experience and account known to me, is the case.

It doesn't get in any way into female NPCs that don't make any advances to the PCs. They don't have any part in any of this.
But situations like these in games are times where success is sometimes more amusing than failure (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=951). :smalltongue:

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 03:49 PM
That's not Spoony's fault. He a breed of online entertainer who uses a limited bag of tricks + relatability to satisfy an audience. One of those tricks is to say slightly outlandish things with a serious face.
I'll just have to take your word for it then.



Ofcourse its hyperbole. What else would it be?

Are you directing this question at me? Because I honestly have no idea what you want with this question.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-27, 03:52 PM
The entire argument is that every time an NPC is remotely seductive or the GM reacts in any ways to players attempts to hit on an NPC, that NPC will be some kind of succubus.

Which from every RPG experience and account known to me, is the case.

If you'd like I can share several counterexample anecdotes from my own experiences.

Boci
2012-11-27, 03:56 PM
Are you directing this question at me? Because I honestly have no idea what you want with this question.

Its just seemed so obvious that I was puzzled when you pointed it out, but didn't want to break out the "Captain Obvious strikes again meme" because I find it a tad obnoxious.

Fenix_of_Doom
2012-11-27, 04:14 PM
Its just seemed so obvious that I was puzzled when you pointed it out, but didn't want to break out the "Captain Obvious strikes again meme" because I find it a tad obnoxious.
That's probably a good decision as it's a bit weird to point out something is obvious even though the person who posted it also pointed out it was obvious.
Also the point made wasn't about being a hyperbole, it was about why it wasn't offensive.

The point was a delayed response about your earlier comment which mentioned something about the title and got me thinking.

Morph Bark
2012-11-27, 05:15 PM
The best part of the video was after he related the stuff about the succubus-turning-good story. I'm getting to the point where introducing such things and play them the way they'd fluff-wise work wouldn't be very awkward to anyone, so that helped.

I liked how he went into detail on how things you call attention to WILL get attention, even if they aren't attention-worthy. I did this with traps and some monster encounters already, but maybe I should do that with more things.

Totally Guy
2012-11-27, 06:22 PM
This sort of thing exploded on twitter yesterday. (http://mashable.com/2012/11/27/1reasonwhy/) It's very interesting to highlight the problems in our community.

Water_Bear
2012-11-27, 07:18 PM
Yeah, I love Spoony to death but that title was a really poor choice for what the videos actual content was. Shock value is really only good for so much, and with the Channel Awesome thing so recent it was just a really poor decision.

Ironically, the video was actually pretty much about exposing the sexist gaming tropes rather than reveling in them. The idea that any woman who shows interest in the party is 100% sure to be a soul-sucking demon, the complete lack of women in non-stereotypical roles, the inability of players to figure out that a sexy female NPC might have motives that don't revolve around their pleasure. That plus some solid DM advice at the end, it's really nothing like the title implies. Certainly not feminist, but not really sexist either.

On a different note, in my games I tend to have a disproportionately large number of female villains but otherwise try to keep the gender ratios roughly 50:50. The real "OMG run!" group in my games is children though; if you see a child, it is either about to die horribly or is an evil (but cute) monster waiting to strike. I really deeply loathe children, adorable though they might occasionally be, and this spills into my DMing a bit.

Acanous
2012-11-27, 07:21 PM
Before you cast any judgement on the Male/Female ratio of my NPC's, remember that my players frequently start off any social encounter by attempting to murder any non-PC characters and take their things, rape their women, and drag off any male survivors (Usually there are none, but sometimes) to the local evil Sorceror to have them Mindraped and then Polymorphed into females so they can also be raped.

...
....
.....two of my players are female.

navar100
2012-11-27, 10:00 PM
My DM does do this, but only against two particular players. One is a munchkin. Let's just say he fell for the gazebo joke right after we discussed it. Yes, he said his character attacks it. The other one for some reason the DM just likes to treat his characters as a punching bag. The player falls for it not due to amorous feelings but because he really wants to help the woman. Sometimes the woman starts out as a villain already. Suchs villain are always very much higher level and can do anything.

For everyone else individually and as a party, female NPCs we meet who offer help genuinely want and do offer help. Some become party allies. As for amorous encounters, once in a while a one night stand is offered. The DM is sincere about it. I always pass just because it's not in character, except for one time. The party had gone through a lot of violence and death and danger and all sorts of shenanigans that I figured the heck with it just have a little fun. It was a sincere offer. All legit. Next campaign where my character was now an NPC, he married her and my new character was their son.

DrBurr
2012-11-28, 12:18 AM
I'm not sure where the problem is if everyone actually watched the video instead of taking it by its title alone, the Video has two parts the first is more about how NPCs never really serve an extra function besides their job unless their plot/adventure important. Example the Blacksmith never goes adventuring because hes just the Blacksmith and if hes with your party then its probably a quest or in the case of this video the Bar Maid never sleeps with Adventurer unless their a succubus, the second half of the video is about twisting expectations, this is where Spoony talks more about his more recent experience.

Also their are really two kinds of Counter Monkey videos, the first are humor based recollections of games back when he worked at a game shop and the second are his more recent explanations on odd behaviors you should look out for, like suddenly needing to get on a boat or NPCs who suddenly have names and back stories

idk maybe you guys see something I don't

Kaerou
2012-11-28, 05:07 AM
I recall this happening to a player in my old group who would ICly hit on anything that moves. Its a pretty common trope I think.

Cikomyr
2012-11-28, 05:41 AM
If you'd like I can share several counterexample anecdotes from my own experiences.

You had a female character actively trying to seduce PCs, and it didn't turned out to be an evil plot?

Kitten Champion
2012-11-28, 06:37 AM
Funnily enough, my current PC actively seduces others for the explicit purpose of assassinating them. I've playing a lot of Assassin's Creed Liberation and was in something of a rush thinking up ideas for an Iron Kingdoms game.

The black widow killer is pretty old hat in fiction generally, we avoid such cliches like the plague.

SmartAlec
2012-11-28, 09:19 AM
This is a pretty old story. Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, Jezebel... Morgan le Fay... I think there's a literal seductress-actually-is-the-devil in the Grail quest of Sir Percival... Lady MacBeth, Reagan and Goneril... Lady Havisham and Estella... that's just the examples I can think of off-hand with zero research, I'm sure there's a million of 'em. DMs are storytellers, of course they're going to draw on this stuff.

Darius Kane
2012-11-28, 10:38 AM
Sometimes, when I work on an adventure, I totally forget making any male NPCs (other than random commoners with no names).

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-28, 12:41 PM
You had a female character actively trying to seduce PCs, and it didn't turned out to be an evil plot?

Yes, though to be fair my examples are all in solo games with my boyfriend. I wouldn't really be comfortable roleplaying those kinds of interactions with anyone else, which I suspect is another reason why this trope shows up.

Tengu_temp
2012-11-28, 04:34 PM
Not only is counter monkey a humour series, but a lot of it draws from the high school years of someone growing up in the 90s, were an all male group of socially awkward friends played D&D in their free time because they didn't have girlfriends. Yes its a stereotype, but like most it has its origins in truth.

This is a point worth repeating. Most of Spoony's stories cover these kind of oldschool experiences - games in all-male groups of socially awkward nerds, ones that often don't have that much roleplaying or focus on the story.

Cikomyr
2012-11-28, 05:29 PM
Yes, though to be fair my examples are all in solo games with my boyfriend. I wouldn't really be comfortable roleplaying those kinds of interactions with anyone else, which I suspect is another reason why this trope shows up.

.... well... *ahem*, these kind of.. games aren't exactly the norms I would expect in ye average RPG groups.

Or at least, plot parts inserted into the plot.. err...

I mean, a GM holding a big focus on.. ... err...


you know what, nevermind.
Hope you don't mind the jokes ;)

Morithias
2012-11-28, 08:01 PM
Okay so what I've gathered so far is.

1. What Spoony says is very old school, and rarely happens anymore.
2. You can use female characters, so long as you use them like any other character, aka. in a way that makes sense in story.
3. If I ever run path of evil again, someone is going to try to resurrect the demon king in order to attempt to lay her.

Are we good?

Doug Lampert
2012-11-29, 04:07 PM
A generalization of the smurfette principle: Characters are male by default. Females only appear when the presence of a vagina is necessary for the plot the writer has in mind to work. Thus, female characters frequently get reduced to their vaginas, because if the story doesn't involve it the writer would use a male character for her role instead.

This argument makes me glad I've spent the last 20 years rolling randomly for NPC gender unless there is a strong reason to have one particular gender in a role (and even then I often still roll, but just adjust the odds some, unusual features and odd hooks like a male in a normally female roll such as drow leader roll or vice versa like a female orc ruler make for interesting characters).

My players typically IGNORE the gender of my NPCs, which means the last time I used a succubus on them it worked like a charm, they never suspected till she struck since "NPC met in the dungeon" was a standard thing to happen in the campaign, and "attractive woman" no longer rang alarm bells for any of them.

I'll add: Attractive woman who wanted to seduce them ALSO rang no alarm bells, because as the rich heroes of their home town none of them were accostomed to having to sleep alone if they didn't want to. Both the male and female players were fine with her joining and with her going off alone with one male character and were surprised when it ended up costing them gear and levels. I don't see any need to roleplay the seduction (as mentioned, that's just asking for awkward), it's a diplomacy roll or something similar and I tell the player how high she rolled and what they think she wants. They can decide what that all means and how they react.

Agrippa
2012-11-29, 05:49 PM
This is a point worth repeating. Most of Spoony's stories cover these kind of oldschool experiences - games in all-male groups of socially awkward nerds, ones that often don't have that much roleplaying or focus on the story.

I think part of the old school oppostition story and plot in RPGs is the idea that there should be "no one direction" or "pushing the adventure forward" in adventuring. Basically that the adventure/campaign is not a strict linear progression and that the players should play their characters as they are, without automatic regard for party unity (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=59005&p=1304359#p1304359). Whatever successes the PCs gain or failures they suffer should be the result of their in game actions and the success or failure of said actions. They decry anything else as DM handholding and babying the players. Old school TTRPG players also tend to favor DM/GM arbitration and detailed player descriptions instead of die rolls (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=59003&p=1304374#p1304374) for many non-combat actions whenever possible. Make of that what you will. That's what they typically mean by roleplaying.

TheThan
2012-11-29, 09:45 PM
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned the evil is sexy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsSexy) trope.

Anyway, I’ve sort of done this. Not in the “huhuhu I got you!” way. But I’ve run female villains before, even gone so far to work out a back-story and a reason why they’re doing the things they do. I’m not of the mindset that dropping a succubus in the middle of a dungeon for no apparent reason is a good idea. I tend to place monsters of any type where they would make sense to be. So a succubus is more likely going to be found in a house of ill repute, than say, the middle of a dungeon.

And then, there’s the idea of playing the idea up a little, and simply make consequences for the players actions. Sure the smexy bard sleeps with a local tavern wench, then a few months later, the pcs return to town and the bard discovers the tavern girl is pregnant. Or maybe the bard wakes up, dresses and finds his coin purse to be quite a bit lighter, apparently that particular girl has a price. That sort of stuff, you can do completely mundane, but cause a tremendous amount of trouble.

Plus, women can be completely vicious when angered. Ever hear of the phrase, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? yeah.

comicshorse
2012-11-29, 10:26 PM
[QUOTE] Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."


William Congreve 'The Mourning Bride'

TheThan
2012-11-29, 10:39 PM
William Congreve 'The Mourning Bride'

Ahh, didn't know it came from something. Though it was just an idiom. Learned something new.

Kadzar
2012-11-29, 10:53 PM
William Congreve 'The Mourning Bride'

Huh, I always assumed it was Shakespeare. Turns out it was a different English playwright named "William".

comicshorse
2012-11-30, 06:09 PM
" A woman scorned has no fury like Hell "

Jack.L.Chalker 'River of the Dancing Gods'

:smallsmile:

Arbane
2012-11-30, 08:00 PM
So a succubus is more likely going to be found in a house of ill repute, than say, the middle of a dungeon.


A brothel? What, was she on vacation? If she REALLY wants to wreak the maximum amount of havoc, she should try a royal court. :smallamused:

SgtCarnage92
2012-11-30, 08:33 PM
A brothel? What, was she on vacation? If she REALLY wants to wreak the maximum amount of havoc, she should try a royal court. :smallamused:

I agree with this one. Succubi are the physical embodiment of lust after all. Why go to a place where lust is easy to come by, instead of having some fun with the lust you can invoke? A well placed succubus is the type of thing that destroys a noble family's honor, or makes all the young men in a small town fight to the death for her "honor". It's the kind of monster that destroys families and sucks the souls out of those who are so driven by their basic urges that it literally leads them to ruin.

A brothel? Eh, you'll get lusty souls for sure...but they aren't nearly as sweet as those belonging to the devoted family man, who loses himself in the bosom of a young woman who makes him feel things he can barely remember.

TheThan
2012-11-30, 09:57 PM
I guess that’s the underachieving succubus.

Not all creatures should be the completely the same after all.
But I do understand and agree with everyone’s opinion.

Now, saying that, theirs is reason for a succubus to start at a high class brothel. There she can learn all the dirty little secrets that nobility gather on one another. Using connections gained there to manipulate her way into high society, where she could really start to cause trouble. After all they don’t just *poof* appear in the royal court.

Sith_Happens
2012-11-30, 11:27 PM
After all they don’t just *poof* appear in the royal court.

Actually they do: Greater Teleport at will.

Morithias
2012-11-30, 11:36 PM
Actually they do: Greater Teleport at will.

Part of me wants to laugh for that glorious pun.

The other half wants to groan.

TheThan
2012-12-01, 01:40 AM
Har har

So you got me. But it still shouldn’t work. Someone’s going to get real suspicious real fast when a succubus teleports into the throne room and starts trying to seduce the king. I don't think one could charm enough guards fast enough to keep from taking a sword to the gut. besides that, an inteligent guard *gasp* would notice the charm going off and know that his boss is probably under a spell.

Or if she appears in his bedchamber (at least his wife would). This is especially true if anyone has any knowledge of the planes, magic or the occult. Such as the local court wizard, besides if the king is paranoid at all, he’d have much of his castle warded against teleportation attempts, keeps the riff raff out.

really, trying to barge your way into a position of power shouldn't work.

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-01, 02:24 AM
That's why you play it subtle. An absolutely stunning young woman happens to show up for the local gala on the arm of a young nobleman. She's dressed in finery (adhering to local fashions while being significantly more suggestive than any other dresses there) and claims to be some obscure noble's daughter (or cousin) and she was sent to represent the family (whatever happened to the family is up to you). Or better yet, give her an exotic flair and play her off as an emissary from a far off nation who wishes to discuss increased trade. (the nation did send an emissary, but she took care of that problem already)

She may not teleport directly into the throne room, but that doesn't mean she can't appear out of nowhere. :smallwink:

And if the king is particularly paranoid, you can play that against him easily enough. A few well placed rumors and whispered promises and the entire nobility is in chaos...which is exactly what demons are good for.

Cikomyr
2012-12-01, 04:50 AM
Part of me wants to laugh for that glorious pun.

The other half wants to groan.

Failed my spot check on that pun... care to share your suffering? :smallbiggrin:

Morithias
2012-12-01, 06:56 AM
Failed my spot check on that pun... care to share your suffering? :smallbiggrin:

"After all they don’t just *poof* appear in the royal court."

"Actually they do: Greater Teleport at will."

One guy was talking metaphorically, one guy was talking literally.

It's a play-on-words, and therefore a pun.

Pun: "A joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words that sound alike but have different meanings."

One guy means "poof" as in they metaphorically don't just show up out of nowhere.
One guy means "poof" as in they LITERALLY just appear in the court, due to teleport.

Cikomyr
2012-12-01, 07:08 AM
Oh... Darn, I saw that. I just wasn't thinking it was a pun. Just a literal interpretation...


Thank you for sharing your pain. I know it's not always easy :smallbiggrin:

Morph Bark
2012-12-01, 07:38 AM
It works even better against some English and Dutch kings. Or Shakespeare, if he ever was at court.

Unseenmal
2012-12-01, 09:22 AM
I watched the video and I feel that I used to be in the same boat as him. For a long time, I followed every stereotype there was. The damsel in distress that turns out to be an assassin, the evil advisor, etc.

My group called me out on it and I began to look back and see they were right.

Now I like to do a good mix of things...like the BIG, BAD, BLACK-ARMORED DUDE is actually a good guy. Or the little old hermit that lives alone in the forest is not the BBEG is disguise, he's just an curmudgeon that doesn't like people.

I think the best one I got the group on was also using a succubus...There was a CG rogue, LG paladin, CN bard and a NG wizard.

While exploring a particularly nasty dungeon, they heard crying off in the distance. It took them some time to find her but there was a succubus, in her natural form, sitting in the corner. She was bawling her eyes out.

Now begins the discussion among the players whether they should kill her or not...right in front of her. She doesn't make any aggressive movements towards them during the whole thing. She just cries. They all wanted to kill her...except the Paladin?! He felt that since she did not make any moves to attack AND they still haven't even talked to her...they shouldn't just kill her, even though she is evil. This surprised the hell outta me....he had been playing the Paladin smartly (not lawful stupid) but very dedicated to the destruction of evil in all of it's forms.

He asked her why she was crying and she said she was tired of living in world where she had no free will to do what she wanted. She had to always do the will of her demon masters. She would welcome them to kill her. She would not even fight them. She even knelt on the ground and bowed her head so they could coup de grace her. Begin the debates again on whether this is a trick.

The other 3 players decided to kill her. The Pally would have none of that and stood in front of her all badass like, saying "First one to touch her will pull back a stump." She melted at that because here is a LG Paladin that is going against HIS nature to defend her, an evil Succubus, so why can't she go against hers and be better (not necessarily good...just better).

In the end, no one killed her and she dedicated her life to the protection of the Paladin and even became a cleric of his god....St. Cuthbert...the god of retribution :smallbiggrin:

tl;dr: I'm guilty of the same things in the video and now actively try to go against the stereotypes so much so that a Paladin in my group saved a Succubus from the rest of the party.

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-01, 12:09 PM
I don't know what it is for me, there are things i will always have trouble accepting such as a succubus wanting to turn good. When you are literally made from the souls of sinners and the very essence of the plane of chaotic evil, there isn't much room for moral reasoning. There is no reason for a succubus to turn "good" that seems convincing enough for me. Yeah, there's the free will argument but that doesn't seem to hold much water for me. A succubus who gets free will is scarier than one that is bound to a demon lord purely because she won't have the direction, which ultimately either leads to her destruction when she gets careless, or ends up causing a great deal of chaos, which works in the favor of the Abyss anyway. Add to the fact that a succubus turned good wouldn't be able to suck souls if she turned good...it'd be like being forced to starve just to be a decent person...

Eh, to each their own. There are plenty of other monsters i can use to twist perceptions. Fiends just aren't one of them.

Traab
2012-12-01, 12:29 PM
I couldnt even watch most of the video, I swear its only 30+ minutes long because he spend 25 minutes of it stuttering "ummm"ing, and quietly holding his head as he tries to get his thoughts back in order. However, thanks to what I DID watch, and darths and droids, I now know to always closely watch any female, or male with a goatee.

PersonMan
2012-12-01, 02:29 PM
Add to the fact that a succubus turned good wouldn't be able to suck souls if she turned good...it'd be like being forced to starve just to be a decent person...

I don't see why you think this. Outsiders don't actually need to eat or drink, but even if she does "have" to she can just eat evil souls, simple as that.

Unless you're working with an alternate succubus designed to be hard to redeem.

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-01, 04:52 PM
I would imagine it's a natural drive, pretty much a combination between the libido and hunger that's turned up to extreme levels. It's not that she NEEDS it to sustain herself, but she will suffer if she doesn't get it.

It's never explicitly stated in the fluff, it's just an assumption i've always made (leave it to me to ground an immortal fantasy creature in real-world biology).

Plus isn't munching on the soul of an evil person...still technically an evil act? Depending on what happens to the soul that is...

I think about this kind of stuff way too much...

I'll shut up now. :smalltongue:

Sith_Happens
2012-12-01, 09:45 PM
Har har

So you got me. But it still shouldn’t work. Someone’s going to get real suspicious real fast when a succubus teleports into the throne room and starts trying to seduce the king. I don't think one could charm enough guards fast enough to keep from taking a sword to the gut. besides that, an inteligent guard *gasp* would notice the charm going off and know that his boss is probably under a spell.

I agree that teleporting into the throne room would be a terrible idea. However, you said "royal court," not "throne room." Which means you just need to charm and/or suggest one person so they can vouch for you to the rest. As for the guards noticing, that would work plenty well with an actual spell, but an SLA is much harder to catch due to not having components.

But yes, mainly I was just making a pun.:smalltongue:

Morph Bark
2012-12-02, 07:07 AM
It's never explicitly stated in the fluff, it's just an assumption i've always made (leave it to me to ground an immortal fantasy creature in real-world biology).

All the type-specific monster books (LoM, LM, Draconomicon) do this too. The Fiendish Codices might even go into this. LM goes into the urges of undead and whether they are necessary or just very much desired by the undead.

Cikomyr
2012-12-02, 07:31 AM
I don't know what it is for me, there are things i will always have trouble accepting such as a succubus wanting to turn good. When you are literally made from the souls of sinners and the very essence of the plane of chaotic evil, there isn't much room for moral reasoning. There is no reason for a succubus to turn "good" that seems convincing enough for me. Yeah, there's the free will argument but that doesn't seem to hold much water for me. A succubus who gets free will is scarier than one that is bound to a demon lord purely because she won't have the direction, which ultimately either leads to her destruction when she gets careless, or ends up causing a great deal of chaos, which works in the favor of the Abyss anyway. Add to the fact that a succubus turned good wouldn't be able to suck souls if she turned good...it'd be like being forced to starve just to be a decent person...

Eh, to each their own. There are plenty of other monsters i can use to twist perceptions. Fiends just aren't one of them.

I'd see why a Succubus would try to become good. She has been genuinely impressed by someone, etc..

But I think I'd pull a page out of Avatar and make her pull as Zhuko: "Why am I so bad at being good?". She will always remain a Succubus. And that is her cross to bear. Her very nature will always be one of lust, treachery, etc... She might do good, but she will often consider her actions through the lens of her existence.

Not sure how that would actually translate in term of story points, tho. But she couldn't become ye normal goody-two shoes. She will probably mean well, tho.

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-02, 11:34 AM
You know, I put a random Erinyes into a dungeon once. My players found her nailed to a wall (literally) with nails and chains made out of metallic light culled from the Positive Energy Plane.

"Let me down from here," the she-devil pleaded, and of course they were suspicious. She offered to sleep with them and they got more suspicious. She offered to sleep with them, and then immediately leave their plane of existence and never return. Still all the suspicion. Finally she screams this:

"FOR THE LOVE OF WHATEVER GODS YOU FIND HOLY, I HAVE BEEN NAILED TO THIS WALL FOR THREE THOUSAND YEARS! Do you have any idea how boring it's been? I went mad, had enough time to get bored of madness and went sane again! You're the first rubes to come by here in more than six centuries and I swear to you on my true name and on pain of retribution from my superiors in Baator that if you let me down I will not only service your bodies, but serve you for the remaining span of your natural lives, after which I will follow your designated trustee to the nearest portal off of this plane of existence and never again return to the Prime Material. Let. Me. Down."

So they let her down.

Nothing bad happened.

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-02, 11:54 AM
I'd see why a Succubus would try to become good. She has been genuinely impressed by someone, etc..

But I think I'd pull a page out of Avatar and make her pull as Zhuko: "Why am I so bad at being good?". She will always remain a Succubus. And that is her cross to bear. Her very nature will always be one of lust, treachery, etc... She might do good, but she will often consider her actions through the lens of her existence.

Not sure how that would actually translate in term of story points, tho. But she couldn't become ye normal goody-two shoes. She will probably mean well, tho.

Genuinely impressing a succubus is quite a feat, not going to lie.

Eh, I'm sure there is a way that it could be done that would be convincing. I just haven't seen it yet. Granted, i can imagine some fantastic hijinks ensuing if she happened to be shadowing the party...

"We told you, that virgin farm boy was off limits!"

"He wanted it! Besides...he died with a smile on his face."

Traab
2012-12-02, 02:01 PM
Genuinely impressing a succubus is quite a feat, not going to lie.

Eh, I'm sure there is a way that it could be done that would be convincing. I just haven't seen it yet. Granted, i can imagine some fantastic hijinks ensuing if she happened to be shadowing the party...

"We told you, that virgin farm boy was off limits!"

"He wanted it! Besides...he died with a smile on his face."

Oh god that would be an AWESOME story! A succubus that honestly WANTS to change, has decided to attach herself to your good adventurer party so she can basically learn how. Throughout the story she tries to help, really she does, but she is a demon with a demons viewpoint and sense of ethics, so even trying to do good she messes up in ways that are both evil and humorous. The majority of the time she is constantly bugging the party with questions about how to act good. The party lets her stay with them because they honestly want to see if she can redeem herself. Maybe there is a patient paladin or cleric on hand sitting her down and explaining exactly why draining the soul out of a merchant who cheated them is not a proper response, or that setting fire to the tavern because the bbeg is in it isnt what a good person would do because of all the innocent people sleeping in there. That sort of thing. Im sure a good writer could come up with all sorts of hilarious events as well.

Cikomyr
2012-12-02, 03:54 PM
Oh god that would be an AWESOME story! A succubus that honestly WANTS to change, has decided to attach herself to your good adventurer party so she can basically learn how. Throughout the story she tries to help, really she does, but she is a demon with a demons viewpoint and sense of ethics, so even trying to do good she messes up in ways that are both evil and humorous. The majority of the time she is constantly bugging the party with questions about how to act good. The party lets her stay with them because they honestly want to see if she can redeem herself. Maybe there is a patient paladin or cleric on hand sitting her down and explaining exactly why draining the soul out of a merchant who cheated them is not a proper response, or that setting fire to the tavern because the bbeg is in it isnt what a good person would do because of all the innocent people sleeping in there. That sort of thing. Im sure a good writer could come up with all sorts of hilarious events as well.

Hilarious?

Killing a crooked merchant or setting fire to an inn are hilarious events?

Foeofthelance
2012-12-02, 04:23 PM
Hilarious?

Killing a crooked merchant or setting fire to an inn are hilarious events?

They can be, depending on the original motivation and how the scene plays out and what the characters are like, as well as whether it gets handled before or after the act, how naive the succubus in question is, etc.

My groups have never run into the evil succubus problem, mostly because they tend to be rather single minded in their purposes and quests. Any time evil women and seduction comes up, it tends to be player initiated. For example, find yourself battling a water mage in a pool with a school of sharks? Tie the gnome to a stick and dangle him over the water so that he can put his Diplomacy check to good use. Ambushed by a trio of female necromancer pirates? Send the Dragonborn to have a discussion with them about the merits of rustic architecture and future career decisions. And since the Dragonborn seduced the human necromancers, naturally the human warlord had to try and out do him by successfully seducing the female dragonborn warlocks we ran into next...

TheThan
2012-12-02, 04:23 PM
Hilarious?

Killing a crooked merchant or setting fire to an inn are hilarious events?

Well, sitting her down and explaining to the succubus why doing such things are wrong, like you would with a small child does sort of present a funny picture.

Cikomyr
2012-12-02, 06:13 PM
Well, sitting her down and explaining to the succubus why doing such things are wrong, like you would with a small child does sort of present a funny picture.

There is nothing funny about a psychotic child who killed people. Man, RPG players (me included, definetly, at times) are weird. Really callous about hypothetical lives meant to be disposed for the fun of it.

Traab
2012-12-02, 06:33 PM
There is nothing funny about a psychotic child who killed people. Man, RPG players (me included, definetly, at times) are weird. Really callous about hypothetical lives meant to be disposed for the fun of it.

What I said was, im sure better writers than me could come up with funny setups. I obviously, could not.


Im sure a good writer could come up with all sorts of hilarious events as well.

As well, meaning the events I listed arent hilarious, and off the top of my head I couldnt come up with one. But im sure there are some that a good writer could think of.

Water_Bear
2012-12-02, 06:33 PM
There is nothing funny about a psychotic child who killed people. Man, RPG players (me included, definetly, at times) are weird. Really callous about hypothetical lives meant to be disposed for the fun of it.

Well, it beats being callous about real lives. Comparing RPGs, Video Games and whatever Freak of the Week thing we get hyped up about these days to wholesome old-time-y pastimes like cat burning or going to watch a hanging (if you can catch the blood on a handkerchief it's good luck!) and you get a little more perspective. If anything, we're weird because the idea of being callous bothers us in the first place.

Plus, you've got to admit that there's a lot of potential for black comedy in the situation.

Cikomyr
2012-12-02, 06:47 PM
What I said was, im sure better writers than me could come up with funny setups. I obviously, could not.


Don't take my comments too harshly. Maybe I'm just tired tonight. It's just that, when telling the tale of redemption of an evil being, "casually killing innocent" isn't what will break a laugh out of me.


Well, it beats being callous about real lives. Comparing RPGs, Video Games and whatever Freak of the Week thing we get hyped up about these days to wholesome old-time-y pastimes like cat burning or going to watch a hanging (if you can catch the blood on a handkerchief it's good luck!) and you get a little more perspective. If anything, we're weird because the idea of being callous bothers us in the first place.

Plus, you've got to admit that there's a lot of potential for black comedy in the situation.

Well.. again, here's my problem. I don't associate "tales of redemption" with "black comedy". Either you go with tongue-in-the-cheek violence, with the clueless Succubus who just don't get it but means well..

Or you go with the dramatic tale of the broken daemon who endured unimaginable torture and torment, and realized just how shallow and despicable her entire existence has been.


Think about it: if the Paladin or the Cleric stands up to her and protect her, because she is willing to be redeemed, it's quite an heroic act. It's a moral stance of legend, even. But if that succubus kills someone "because she did not realized it" for comedy purpose, these people are morally liable for the murder. It cheapens the decision they took. You expose everything to a very powerful mood whiplash that, in my opinion, cheapens the drama.

Or maybe I'm just stuck up about it at the moment. Either way can go.

Water_Bear
2012-12-02, 08:44 PM
Well, my way of looking at it isn't that she doesn't get the difference between Good and Evil, but that she doesn't intuitively see why you wouldn't do something Evil. To her, killing someone because it will give her momentary pleasure makes perfect sense; it's literally her entire purpose for being, and the only life she's ever known. Being Good means accepting a whole bunch of very strange concepts like empathy which are pretty tough even for Humans, and which she has no frame of reference for.

The humor is the absurdity of the situation, in the Absurdist sense of the word. Her Demon nature is telling her the meaning comes from spreading wickedness and from savoring pain and pleasure, her reformers are telling her that meaning comes from altruistic love and good works, and the D&D Cosmology doesn't support any meaning as objectively correct. Essentially, it's the idea that Good v Evil, even when both are objective forces, is an arbitrary conflict.

Or at least that's my reading of it.

TheThan
2012-12-02, 09:52 PM
Well, my way of looking at it isn't that she doesn't get the difference between Good and Evil, but that she doesn't intuitively see why you wouldn't do something Evil. To her, killing someone because it will give her momentary pleasure makes perfect sense; it's literally her entire purpose for being, and the only life she's ever known. Being Good means accepting a whole bunch of very strange concepts like empathy which are pretty tough even for Humans, and which she has no frame of reference for.

The humor is the absurdity of the situation, in the Absurdist sense of the word. Her Demon nature is telling her the meaning comes from spreading wickedness and from savoring pain and pleasure, her reformers are telling her that meaning comes from altruistic love and good works, and the D&D Cosmology doesn't support any meaning as objectively correct. Essentially, it's the idea that Good v Evil, even when both are objective forces, is an arbitrary conflict.

Or at least that's my reading of it.
That’s basically it. The absurdity of the situation can be very amusing.

Most normal and sane people are taught right from wrong and have a conscience. This being that has lived for centuries has none. But because of the actions of the Pcs, she’s turned from her evil nature and now has to learn how what being good is all about. She has to constantly fight against that nature.

That can be an interesting concept in and of itself; and can lead to questions of nature vs nurture. She is trying to understand the nature of good, even though she has no frame of reference to understand it. After all how many “good” heroes have tried to kill her because of what she is; regardless of her having the opportunity to do anything to them first (she can understand retribution and vengeance). How is that different than the redeemed succubus killing someone over something slight annoyance?

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-02, 11:33 PM
The thing is, I think I've seen this trope somewhere before...i just couldn't tell you where...

Arbane
2012-12-03, 01:47 AM
The thing is, I think I've seen this trope somewhere before...i just couldn't tell you where...

Which one? The "All Women Are Evil" one, or the "Succubus Trying For Redemption" one?

Because the second one can be found here: Tales from Wyre (http://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/) (a genuinely epic epic-level D&D campaign).

The first can be found in a vast assortment of fiction, sadly. :smallsigh:

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-03, 01:53 AM
Which one? The "All Women Are Evil" one, or the "Succubus Trying For Redemption" one?

I was referring to the "evil character seeking redemption and having hilariously absurd black humor." Probably should have made that more clear.

Sith_Happens
2012-12-03, 02:12 AM
The thing is, I think I've seen this trope somewhere before...i just couldn't tell you where...

Beware TV Tropes links, for they come from Hell. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroWithAnFInGood):smalltongue:

Darius Kane
2012-12-03, 07:27 PM
Genuinely impressing a succubus is quite a feat, not going to lie.

Eh, I'm sure there is a way that it could be done that would be convincing. I just haven't seen it yet. Granted, i can imagine some fantastic hijinks ensuing if she happened to be shadowing the party...

"We told you, that virgin farm boy was off limits!"

"He wanted it! Besides...he died with a smile on his face."
Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-03, 08:11 PM
Why is it that the Playground accepts the idea of fallen celestials easily and without question, but the moment someone brings up a non-evil fiend there has to be a gigantic debate about it? Look: either outsiders with alignment subtypes are locked into their roles (which means no evil angels or good fiends, no chaotic modrons or lawful slaadi) or the precedent WotC set holds and there's good-aligned fiends, evil-aligned celestials, chaotic modrons, lawful slaadi and more stuff besides. Yes, those events are rare and unusual, but geez guys. Good in D&D is against the wall hard enough without you ripping the teeth out of its 'redemption' schtick.

Morithias
2012-12-03, 08:14 PM
Why is it that the Playground accepts the idea of fallen celestials easily and without question, but the moment someone brings up a non-evil fiend there has to be a gigantic debate about it? Look: either outsiders with alignment subtypes are locked into their roles (which means no evil angels or good fiends, no chaotic modrons or lawful slaadi) or the precedent WotC set holds and there's good-aligned fiends, evil-aligned celestials, chaotic modrons, lawful slaadi and more stuff besides. Yes, those events are rare and unusual, but geez guys. Good in D&D is against the wall hard enough without you ripping the teeth out of its 'redemption' schtick.

You know, this is a legit point.

SgtCarnage92
2012-12-03, 08:42 PM
Why is it that the Playground accepts the idea of fallen celestials easily and without question, but the moment someone brings up a non-evil fiend there has to be a gigantic debate about it? Look: either outsiders with alignment subtypes are locked into their roles (which means no evil angels or good fiends, no chaotic modrons or lawful slaadi) or the precedent WotC set holds and there's good-aligned fiends, evil-aligned celestials, chaotic modrons, lawful slaadi and more stuff besides. Yes, those events are rare and unusual, but geez guys. Good in D&D is against the wall hard enough without you ripping the teeth out of its 'redemption' schtick.

It is a legitimate point (that I thought of after i posted my comment about not finding a satisfying reason for a succubi to go good).

All in all, it's all POSSIBLE within the realms of the game. However, people in general are more interested in a hero's downfall than by a villain's redemption. Often because redemption stories aren't as well done (and if they do redeem themselves they soon die after seeing the error in their ways).

Anyway, I think that's a topic for a different thread.

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-03, 08:46 PM
All in all, it's all POSSIBLE within the realms of the game. However, people in general are more interested in a hero's downfall than by a villain's redemption. Often because redemption stories aren't as well done (and if they do redeem themselves they soon die after seeing the error in their ways).

I honestly don't think that's it. I've fought tooth-and-nail about this subject before; for some reason many posters/people in real life just utterly fail to see the hypocrisy inherent in the stance.

Also: the villain always dying shortly after being redeemed is another convention I hate, in this case a Victorian one. That trope? It's gotta go.

TheThan
2012-12-03, 09:13 PM
Off the top of my head, I’d say it’s all about ease and believability.

See it’s really easy to be evil; but it’s a lot harder to be good. Therefore it’s easier for a good being to become evil, than an evil being to become good.

This makes it easier for people to buy into a story of a good guy becoming evil than it is for people to buy into a story about an evil guy becoming good.

Basically, it’s easier to believe someone can fall, but harder to believe someone can be redeemed.

awa
2012-12-03, 09:50 PM
additionally evil acts are weightier then good acts and easier to come by.
One murder is worth more then one life saved.

its also easier to justify a falling angel then it is to justify a rising demon.
for example an angel growing to hate his demonic foes and taking pleasure in their destruction, forgetting the need to help people in it's hate.

their lots of logical character concepts for a celestial going bad.

but what about a demon what plausible reason can you think of for a demon to go good. Their are a lot less particularly if you cut out cheesy romance cliches.

being good is hard its constantly striving, facing adversity being evil is easy.

Now i could see a demon , who is focused on greed and sees no reason to go out of his way hurting people when mutual cooperation is more effective in getting what he wants but that's neutral /mildly evil not good.

Cybren
2012-12-03, 09:56 PM
I dunno, I'm not exactly Spoony's biggest fan but the more of his material I watch the more I suspect he really is a misogynist creep. I'm not exactly ready to call him out as a horrible human being yet, but this video has not helped.

I think his headline was sensationalist to grab attention but his point was more "man, we were real misogynist back in the day". Spoony's Vlogs are unrehearsed and he tends to make lots of errors in both memory and grammar. If you listen he'll contradict himself in terms frequently, too. Man that always bothered me.


I wouldn't call him a creep.

Traab
2012-12-03, 10:02 PM
Its because evil is a natural state of being, while good is the denial of our natural state. We hear about the temptation to do evil. "Noone will notice if I take that money/cheat on that test/take a picture up her skirt" etc etc etc. You almost never hear about bad guys, both real and fictional struggling to not do the right thing. Evil is easy because its the natural way we act. Good is a false construct of morals put in place by people who dont want to have evil things done to them. We have to be raised to be good. Indoctrinated from birth. If being good was natural behavior, then we wouldnt need to learn right from wrong as we grow up.

Morithias
2012-12-03, 10:27 PM
Its because evil is a natural state of being, while good is the denial of our natural state. We hear about the temptation to do evil. "Noone will notice if I take that money/cheat on that test/take a picture up her skirt" etc etc etc. You almost never hear about bad guys, both real and fictional struggling to not do the right thing. Evil is easy because its the natural way we act. Good is a false construct of morals put in place by people who dont want to have evil things done to them. We have to be raised to be good. Indoctrinated from birth. If being good was natural behavior, then we wouldnt need to learn right from wrong as we grow up.

That's...cynical...I feel sad now.

Traab
2012-12-03, 10:39 PM
That's...cynical...I feel sad now.

Well I could offer all sorts of potential religious justifications that would make you feel less sad about it, but im fairly sure that would violate forum rules, so yeah, lets just leave it with my initial post. Instead I will ask, am I wrong? Does what I say not pass the fridge logic test? Are there any real holes in my hypothesis?

Morithias
2012-12-03, 10:42 PM
Well I could offer all sorts of potential religious justifications that would make you feel less sad about it, but im fairly sure that would violate forum rules, so yeah, lets just leave it with my initial post. Instead I will ask, am I wrong? Does what I say not pass the fridge logic test? Are there any real holes in my hypothesis?

Replace "Evil" with "Ignorance" and "good" with "Wisdom" your whole paragraph works just as well.

:P

Neon Knight
2012-12-03, 10:45 PM
Well I could offer all sorts of potential religious justifications that would make you feel less sad about it, but im fairly sure that would violate forum rules, so yeah, lets just leave it with my initial post. Instead I will ask, am I wrong? Does what I say not pass the fridge logic test? Are there any real holes in my hypothesis?

We must also be taught to not trust strangers and to not believe everything we read. If evil were so natural, would it not be expected? Would it not be automatically understood, instead of something that a person must learn to fear? Once we learn it, it is all too strong a fear... but it still must be learned.

Terraoblivion
2012-12-03, 10:57 PM
Its because evil is a natural state of being, while good is the denial of our natural state. We hear about the temptation to do evil. "Noone will notice if I take that money/cheat on that test/take a picture up her skirt" etc etc etc. You almost never hear about bad guys, both real and fictional struggling to not do the right thing. Evil is easy because its the natural way we act. Good is a false construct of morals put in place by people who dont want to have evil things done to them. We have to be raised to be good. Indoctrinated from birth. If being good was natural behavior, then we wouldnt need to learn right from wrong as we grow up.

*looks closely, rubs her eyes and then looks again*

I thought Thomas Hobbes died centuries ago...And thought that having morality imposed on us was a good thing...

awa
2012-12-03, 11:02 PM
i disagree that good is a false construct, evil is easy good is hard but that doesn't mean good doesn't exist.

for example if you get angry when you hear about someone mistreating a dog that's becuase you have empathy. but here's the thing mistreating a dog is a lot easier then say taking in a battered dog and nursing it back to health. all you need to be is an angry drunk and bang animal abuse. But undoing some one else harm might take years.

and that's really the problem doing bad is easy being good is hard. If a good act is so easy it doesn't cost you anything then it's just a neutral.

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-03, 11:03 PM
additionally evil acts are weightier then good acts and easier to come by.
One murder is worth more then one life saved.

its also easier to justify a falling angel then it is to justify a rising demon.
for example an angel growing to hate his demonic foes and taking pleasure in their destruction, forgetting the need to help people in it's hate.

their lots of logical character concepts for a celestial going bad.

but what about a demon what plausible reason can you think of for a demon to go good. Their are a lot less particularly if you cut out cheesy romance cliches.

being good is hard its constantly striving, facing adversity being evil is easy.

Now i could see a demon , who is focused on greed and sees no reason to go out of his way hurting people when mutual cooperation is more effective in getting what he wants but that's neutral /mildly evil not good.

Not in D&D. In D&D, being neutral is easy. Being evil or good isn't just about doing evil or good things, it's about spreading that evil or good around.

Now, as far as demons and devils going good, I submit the following character concept:

Example Demon
Her name had been Nianna, once. Why did she remember that? The succubus didn't remember the other details of her life, though she had been told, a long time ago, that the name 'Nianna' was Drow in origin. Now her name was Licentia, and after two thousand years of being Licentia she had, tenatively, added a title - the Calipha of Sin - to her name, which her master chose to honor with vague chuckles.

Licentia lived a relatively easy life, as demons go. She had been a larva once (and sometimes she shook with terror at the vague memories of torture that still haunted her essence), but she had been upraised at the whim of Kolatinax, a prince among demonkind who styled himself The Devouring Shadow, a prince of death and of darkness. She served him in his palace, bringing him pretty things to devour and executing his will. Licentia proved cunning enough to destroy many of his other servants, and he rewarded her temerity with increasing status and privilege, and with punishments and fear. After many centuries, Licentia was entrusted with bringing The Devouring Shadow things from other layers in the Abyss - things he desired - and soon enough even with bringing her master things from beyond the plane itself.

Of course things went wrong. They always go wrong. And after a debacle on the Prime Material plane, Licentia was imprisoned in the dungeons of her master and subjected to torments so foul that even other demons shuddered at their names. She had failed. She was worthless, pitiful, less than the lowly worms that consumed mortal flesh. It took two centuries to regain her former status, but only five more decades to fail her master again. Eventually, Licentia began to understand that her master was sending her on impossible tasks in order to punish her, and she despaired.

Sent away on another mission, Licentia detoured to Sigil, the City of Doors, desperately seeking asylum. She couldn't possibly hide in Sigil, of course. And with whom could she take refuge? The Lawful powers, in addition to being distasteful, would never trust her given word no matter how true it was. Yugoloths would sell her out in a heartbeat for a cheap thrill, and she misliked them. Slaadi? Untrustworthy. That left one option, which made her cringe and shiver in fear and revulsion. She went to see an Eladrin.

The Arborean took pity upon her (taking advantage of her weakness, Licentia felt) and traded her asylum with a cult dedicated to Morwel on the Prime Material Plane, asking her to sign a magically binding contract to serve them while benefiting from their asylum, and in exchange the succubus owed Arborea an unspecified favor. It was a better offer than she would have gotten elsewhere.

The succubus looked down on the mortal cultists, at first. Oh, they were interesting enough - intelligent, pretty to look at, exuberant. They appealed to the part of her that delighted in chaos and creativity, but their soft-hearted qualities made her scoff in disgust at mortal weakness. Except - except time and again, they rallied forth to prove their dedication. Time and again, they repelled the machinations of evil, the plots of tyrants, and the villainies of ravenous monsters. She watched them push themselves to acts of desperation in the name of love and companionship that she'd never seen in the Abyss, and she grew curious, and talkative. She served the cult through four generations of their short, mortal lives, growing to know them and then, ultimately, care for them. When Arborea finally called in its favor, she requested to be returned to the care of the cult she'd served with, and the Court of Stars agreed.

She goes by Nianna, these days. She still struggles, in some situations, to separate what is good behavior from what simply seems good, but the succubus attacks her misconceptions with the dogged zeal of a true believer, and she commits less and less evil with each day. If you asked her what finally made her decide to leave her old ways behind her, Nianna's answer would be to smile, and to tell you this:

"I don't have to be afraid any more."

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-03, 11:08 PM
That's...cynical...I feel sad now.

The REALLY cynical thing to say is that "evil" is something we invent to have someone to blame when we screw things up. No, Bruce, your parents didn't die because those muggers attacked them: They died because you couldn't help them.

awa
2012-12-03, 11:12 PM
see thats a possible concept but it needs far more to go exactly right then for a situation of a celestial falling and logical falling in with a neutral group or an evil organization that has something to gain from having a demon in it's ranks is infinitely more likely there are literally infinite groups in the multiverse that would be more logical and more palatable for a demon to turn to first.

So it could happen it's just a lot less likely.

Traab
2012-12-03, 11:24 PM
i disagree that good is a false construct, evil is easy good is hard but that doesn't mean good doesn't exist.

for example if you get angry when you hear about someone mistreating a dog that's becuase you have empathy. but here's the thing mistreating a dog is a lot easier then say taking in a battered dog and nursing it back to health. all you need to be is an angry drunk and bang animal abuse. But undoing some one else harm might take years.

and that's really the problem doing bad is easy being good is hard. If a good act is so easy it doesn't cost you anything then it's just a neutral.

Your empathy also brings up the old nature versus nurture argument as well. Do you feel bad seeing a dog get beaten because you were raised to believe thats wrong? Or because its in your nature to be horrified by this? Maybe false construct was the wrong phrasing. Artificial might be closer. Its something put together by those in power to control our behavior. Im not saying its a bad thing, but if we were predisposed to be good, how necessary would our laws really be? Those who act evil would be naturally looked upon as aberrations without a 500,000 page collection of laws to enforce that outlook. (I am honestly totally ignorant of how many pages long a book listing every law we have in say, america, would be. But you get my point.)

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-03, 11:57 PM
The book (actually a crapload of separate books) exists and is over 200,000 pages long, according to Wikipedia.

Wait, what are we even talking about now?

Agrippa
2012-12-04, 12:02 AM
Not in D&D. In D&D, being neutral is easy. Being evil or good isn't just about doing evil or good things, it's about spreading that evil or good around.

Now, as far as demons and devils going good, I submit the following character concept:

Example Demon
Her name had been Nianna, once. Why did she remember that? The succubus didn't remember the other details of her life, though she had been told, a long time ago, that the name 'Nianna' was Drow in origin. Now her name was Licentia, and after two thousand years of being Licentia she had, tenatively, added a title - the Calipha of Sin - to her name, which her master chose to honor with vague chuckles.

Licentia lived a relatively easy life, as demons go. She had been a larva once (and sometimes she shook with terror at the vague memories of torture that still haunted her essence), but she had been upraised at the whim of Kolatinax, a prince among demonkind who styled himself The Devouring Shadow, a prince of death and of darkness. She served him in his palace, bringing him pretty things to devour and executing his will. Licentia proved cunning enough to destroy many of his other servants, and he rewarded her temerity with increasing status and privilege, and with punishments and fear. After many centuries, Licentia was entrusted with bringing The Devouring Shadow things from other layers in the Abyss - things he desired - and soon enough even with bringing her master things from beyond the plane itself.

Of course things went wrong. They always go wrong. And after a debacle on the Prime Material plane, Licentia was imprisoned in the dungeons of her master and subjected to torments so foul that even other demons shuddered at their names. She had failed. She was worthless, pitiful, less than the lowly worms that consumed mortal flesh. It took two centuries to regain her former status, but only five more decades to fail her master again. Eventually, Licentia began to understand that her master was sending her on impossible tasks in order to punish her, and she despaired.

Sent away on another mission, Licentia detoured to Sigil, the City of Doors, desperately seeking asylum. She couldn't possibly hide in Sigil, of course. And with whom could she take refuge? The Lawful powers, in addition to being distasteful, would never trust her given word no matter how true it was. Yugoloths would sell her out in a heartbeat for a cheap thrill, and she misliked them. Slaadi? Untrustworthy. That left one option, which made her cringe and shiver in fear and revulsion. She went to see an Eladrin.

The Arborean took pity upon her (taking advantage of her weakness, Licentia felt) and traded her asylum with a cult dedicated to Morwel on the Prime Material Plane, asking her to sign a magically binding contract to serve them while benefiting from their asylum, and in exchange the succubus owed Arborea an unspecified favor. It was a better offer than she would have gotten elsewhere.

The succubus looked down on the mortal cultists, at first. Oh, they were interesting enough - intelligent, pretty to look at, exuberant. They appealed to the part of her that delighted in chaos and creativity, but their soft-hearted qualities made her scoff in disgust at mortal weakness. Except - except time and again, they rallied forth to prove their dedication. Time and again, they repelled the machinations of evil, the plots of tyrants, and the villainies of ravenous monsters. She watched them push themselves to acts of desperation in the name of love and companionship that she'd never seen in the Abyss, and she grew curious, and talkative. She served the cult through four generations of their short, mortal lives, growing to know them and then, ultimately, care for them. When Arborea finally called in its favor, she requested to be returned to the care of the cult she'd served with, and the Court of Stars agreed.

She goes by Nianna, these days. She still struggles, in some situations, to separate what is good behavior from what simply seems good, but the succubus attacks her misconceptions with the dogged zeal of a true believer, and she commits less and less evil with each day. If you asked her what finally made her decide to leave her old ways behind her, Nianna's answer would be to smile, and to tell you this:

"I don't have to be afraid any more."

You say that she's committing less and less evil each day. With that she's still committing evil acts. Is there anyone there to stop Nianna from harming anyone? Is there anyone to protect the innocents around her at all? Is there a point at which protecting the lives of the innocent outweighs redemption? I'd say there is a point where those goals clash, and if they do I'd argue that the sane and reasonable good aligned choice would always be to protect the innocent.

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-04, 01:07 AM
You say that she's committing less and less evil each day. With that she's still committing evil acts. Is there anyone there to stop Nianna from harming anyone? Is there anyone to protect the innocents around her at all? Is there a point at which protecting the lives of the innocent outweighs redemption? I'd say there is a point where those goals clash, and if they do I'd argue that the sane and reasonable good aligned choice would always be to protect the innocent.

Evil doesn't need to be murderous. Good characters have regard for the lives and dignity of sapient beings, they practice altruism, attempt to be helpful and mindful of others, etc. Evil characters disregard the life and dignity of sapient beings, harm those beings, exploit them, and disregard them as chattel. In a D&D context, being an insensitive ass is a form of minor evil.

And I'll state this again:

- Evil holds that any being can fall to corruption. It treasures and loves the idea that even the most pure of beings, and nurtures the fond hope that even the most distant and righteous celestial can fall into its clutches.

- Good, conversely, holds that no being is past redemption, that all sapient beings can, and should, choose Good. Like Evil, Good does not make exceptions; even the blackest gods of the pits are not beyond help, or unworthy of saving. Good treasures the idea that the truly repentant can be offered aid and succor on their path to righteousness.

By supporting the idea that Evil is correct but Good is delusional, you de-fang Good and turn the D&D verse into even more of a mockery of justice than it already is.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-04, 01:43 AM
By supporting the idea that Evil is correct but Good is delusional, you de-fang Good and turn the D&D verse into even more of a mockery of justice than it already is.

By one interpretation. By another, you make the PCs the lone warriors of justice fighting an impossible battle against the entirety of the multiverse.

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-04, 02:40 AM
By one interpretation. By another, you make the PCs the lone warriors of justice fighting an impossible battle against the entirety of the multiverse.

The battle being impossible because of aforementioned mockery of justice, however. It doesn't actually remove the 'mockery of justice' bit.

Morithias
2012-12-04, 02:54 AM
The battle being impossible because of aforementioned mockery of justice, however. It doesn't actually remove the 'mockery of justice' bit.

Isn't one of the core concepts of 90% of the D&D settings, the whole "neither can defeat the other" due to the whole cosmic balance between good and evil, with the exceptions being the places like ravenloft?

Arbane
2012-12-04, 03:06 AM
Evil doesn't need to be murderous.

"Any sufficiently pragmatic Evil is indistinguishable from Cynical Neutral."


Well I could offer all sorts of potential religious justifications that would make you feel less sad about it, but im fairly sure that would violate forum rules, so yeah, lets just leave it with my initial post. Instead I will ask, am I wrong? Does what I say not pass the fridge logic test? Are there any real holes in my hypothesis?

If you were right, humanity would never have survived long enough to form any sort of coherent society.

SmartAlec
2012-12-04, 04:38 AM
I honestly don't think that's it. I've fought tooth-and-nail about this subject before; for some reason many posters/people in real life just utterly fail to see the hypocrisy inherent in the stance.

Always thought of it as Evil being possessive, and once it gets hooks into you it'll always fight to drag you back in. Because it's Evil. But Good loves you, and it loves you so much that it'll let you go your own way, in the hope that you'll come back to it one day. Otherwise... it wouldn't be Good.

Therefore, it's much easier to fall than it is to rise.

Morph Bark
2012-12-04, 06:47 AM
Why is it that the Playground accepts the idea of fallen celestials easily and without question, but the moment someone brings up a non-evil fiend there has to be a gigantic debate about it? Look: either outsiders with alignment subtypes are locked into their roles (which means no evil angels or good fiends, no chaotic modrons or lawful slaadi) or the precedent WotC set holds and there's good-aligned fiends, evil-aligned celestials, chaotic modrons, lawful slaadi and more stuff besides. Yes, those events are rare and unusual, but geez guys. Good in D&D is against the wall hard enough without you ripping the teeth out of its 'redemption' schtick.

Y'know, with all the precedents WotC has set, there are fallen angels, risen fiends, rogue modrons, but I've never once heard of Lawful Slaadi.

SmartAlec
2012-12-04, 07:03 AM
Y'know, with all the precedents WotC has set, there are fallen angels, risen fiends, rogue modrons, but I've never once heard of Lawful Slaadi.

Vaguely recall a lawful slaad in Planescape, but can't remember if it was in an official supplement or not.

Traab
2012-12-04, 07:57 AM
"Any sufficiently pragmatic Evil is indistinguishable from Cynical Neutral."



If you were right, humanity would never have survived long enough to form any sort of coherent society.

Self interest is a powerful motivating force. In fact, that may be the baseline behavior of people. Its not so much people are inherently evil, its that they mainly only care about whats best for themselves. See a nice item? You want to take it for yourself. That person making you angry? Beat them up or kill them to get them out of your way. You dont want to be eaten by packs of wolves out in the wild? Come to an agreement with a dozen other people and pool your efforts together so you end up better off. Self interest just looks evil because in reality its more amoral and as such the person will commit evil acts if they are in his best interest as he perceives them. That same self interest is whats harnessed to form society. People want to be safe and protected, and thats easier to arrange if you have a lot of people watching your back.

awa
2012-12-04, 08:48 AM
I don’t think something like empathy for animals fits into the idea that it has been placed to control people. Because a society is not materialistically better off by not killing chimps or dolphin.

Maybe empathy original developed just to aid the group but it has grown from their far beyond it's originally

Lord_Gareth
2012-12-04, 11:31 AM
Isn't one of the core concepts of 90% of the D&D settings, the whole "neither can defeat the other" due to the whole cosmic balance between good and evil, with the exceptions being the places like ravenloft?

Yes, and at the same time a large and resounding no. Grayhawk and Krynn hold this to be true; however, the canon supplements released on the subject (BoED, BoVD, the various Fiend Folios) paint a different picture, where the multiverse slants hard towards evil - especially since even good-aligned beings can end up trapped in evil afterlives through no fault of their own, or without being offered the chance to redeem some singular, all-consuming sin. Getting worse, evil is portrayed as being highly pro-active, whereas Good, generally, is written as being passive (and when it is pro-active, half the time they're selling a 'good falling into corruption' story).

I get that the PCs are supposed to be heroes, but that really doesn't excuse the way they've tilted the scales here. There's not a single published campaign setting except Planescape and perhaps Ravenloft (if you believe the theory that the Demiplane of Dread is a sort of prison for beings of great and terrible evil) where evil is not winning, and usually winning with one hand tied behind it's back.

Morph Bark
2012-12-04, 12:51 PM
And this is why it's a good thing Evil is not one happy family. Good isn't exactly either, but they're more comfortable working with one another, whereas Evil, cosmically speaking, is very much opposed to the very idea of such cooperation.

Basically, the world is split between Good, Evil, and Evil. If it weren't for the Blood War, Good would quickly face extinction.

jguy
2012-12-04, 04:18 PM
This thread went from discussing sexism and cliche tropes to a philosophical discussion of good and evil. I really love the OotS forum for this.

Sith_Happens
2012-12-05, 02:37 AM
This thread went from discussing sexism and cliche tropes to a philosophical discussion of good and evil. I really love the OotS forum for this.

Just wait, by page eight it will be about the deeper ethics of Dwarf Tossing.:smallwink:

Morph Bark
2012-12-05, 04:34 AM
Just wait, by page eight it will be about the deeper ethics of Dwarf Tossing.:smallwink:

It's an inherently Chaotic act. No doubt about it.

Cikomyr
2012-12-05, 05:04 AM
It's an inherently Chaotic act. No doubt about it.

I am not sure. Technically, you are striking the ennemy with a Lawful-aligned weapon, shouldn't thu fall under the perview of Lawful act?

Striking a Daemon with a Good-aligned weapon is Good, right?

Traab
2012-12-05, 08:42 AM
I am not sure. Technically, you are striking the ennemy with a Lawful-aligned weapon, shouldn't thu fall under the perview of Lawful act?

Striking a Daemon with a Good-aligned weapon is Good, right?

True in a sense, except its such an unexpected and unanticipated action to use a good aligned dwarf as an improvised weapon that it could only be considered a chaotic action. I will however make an exception as to its lawful status when done during a dwarf tossing competition. Then you are following the rules.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-05, 09:03 AM
Gnome-punting, however, is Neutral Awesome.

Hate those little bastards...

Geostationary
2012-12-06, 02:08 AM
Self interest is a powerful motivating force. In fact, that may be the baseline behavior of people. Its not so much people are inherently evil, its that they mainly only care about whats best for themselves. See a nice item? You want to take it for yourself. That person making you angry? Beat them up or kill them to get them out of your way. You dont want to be eaten by packs of wolves out in the wild? Come to an agreement with a dozen other people and pool your efforts together so you end up better off. Self interest just looks evil because in reality its more amoral and as such the person will commit evil acts if they are in his best interest as he perceives them. That same self interest is whats harnessed to form society. People want to be safe and protected, and thats easier to arrange if you have a lot of people watching your back.

The problem is that self-interest and reciprocal altruism don't explain a lot of our interactions and relationships, such as friendship. This view also ignores a lot of the research into why we do what we do- we're already predisposed to cooperate, because we live longer and reproduce more that way. Note that I'm using the psychological definitions of things here, so misunderstandings may occur.


Its because evil is a natural state of being, while good is the denial of our natural state. We hear about the temptation to do evil. "Noone will notice if I take that money/cheat on that test/take a picture up her skirt" etc etc etc. You almost never hear about bad guys, both real and fictional struggling to not do the right thing. Evil is easy because its the natural way we act. Good is a false construct of morals put in place by people who dont want to have evil things done to them. We have to be raised to be good. Indoctrinated from birth. If being good was natural behavior, then we wouldnt need to learn right from wrong as we grow up.

Simple way to break this argument: Good and evil are not inherent to the natural world; nature has no moral valuation to it good or otherwise- it simply is. We call things "evil" because most of us are predisposed to find such things distasteful/wrong for evolutionary and cultural reasons, and we call things "good" because most of us find them to be preferable for the same reasons. Good and evil are both artificial, but they are rooted in how we naturally behave- even if we aren't very nice to each other, we're still wired to cooperate with each other.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-12-10, 12:01 AM
Just realized that my last game I DM'd here were the following women from order of appearance:


Innkeeper - Barkeeper's wife.(Generic information NPC)
Mysterious High Elf - Dragon Pact Sorcerer, not in control of her Dragon self. Think werewolf.
Whore - One of the female gamers hired a prostitute(as a guy character). Actually a thief in disguise trying to get into the Nobleman's manor.
Necromancer - Cleric that rebelled against the church to bring loved ones back to life(her parents).
Medusa - Need I say more?
Queen Imposter - Drow Impersonator trying to assassinate the King while replacing every noble with other Drow imposters.


Are these bad? (Hoping for a woman's opinion.)

Kaeso
2012-12-10, 02:23 AM
Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but what's so bad about having a treacherous, traiterous and unreliable female antagonist? Nobody would complain if such a villain were male, so why is it such a mortal sin to make such a villain female? :smallconfused:

Morithias
2012-12-10, 02:29 AM
Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but what's so bad about having a treacherous, traiterous and unreliable female antagonist? Nobody would complain if such a villain were male, so why is it such a mortal sin to make such a villain female? :smallconfused:

It's not that it's a female antagonist, it's that 99/100 if you meet a girl that is every described as anything more than either "gives you a job" or "Generic NPC" she's out for your head.

The bar maiden is a succubus, the princess just wants to hire you, and the shop owner is just there for you to sell loot.

It's basically just this.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail

My original question wasn't even if people thought this, it was about how well-written MY female characters were. I think the whole "all women are evil" thing is actually pretty dead as a roleplaying trope.

Kaeso
2012-12-10, 02:37 AM
It's not that it's a female antagonist, it's that 99/100 if you meet a girl that is every described as anything more than either "gives you a job" or "Generic NPC" she's out for your head.

To be fair, that would be a really cool campaign when taken to the extreme :smallamused:.
The sweet, charming barmaid? She's a succubus. That cute old granny down the street who loves her little kitty and feeds pidgeons every sunday? A necromancer. The warblade's loving and loyal wife who has been devoted to him for over a decade? Wants to sacrifice his soul to an evil demon god. The barbarians loving and supportive mother? She IS the demon god.

I'd play such a game, but it would be incredibly meta, tongue-in-cheek and taken to absurd, over the top ridiculousness.

But yeah, if somebody legitimately tries to make every single female character in the game evil without joking, something's wrong.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-10, 02:37 AM
Are these bad? (Hoping for a woman's opinion.)

Problem is the devil's really in the details: I can imagine both misogynistic and perfectly okay ways of playing all of those NPC concepts.

Take the sorceress, for example. If you played her as someone who knew the risks of her pact and is doing her best to deal with the consequences, that's just fine. It's not fine if you played her as an idiot who can't control herself because she's a woman, and that a man who made the same pact would be able to manage his dragon half.