I'm trying to get my own fantasy campaign off the ground. One of my prospective players wants to play a succubus...

>REEEEEEEE
>YOU HAVE TO PLAY IT MY WAY MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY

Fuck off.

Yes, but most of them don't let you play monstrous races. D&D 3.5 is kind of unique in letting you play almost anything.

Ask her if she knows that succubi don't need to sexual all the time.

Semi-redeemed succubus in that she isn't out to commit blatantly evil acts all the time for the sake of evil. She's more "selfish" than evil in that she's out to just have some fun adventures and work mostly towards satisfying herself rather than any demonic lords or masters.

>Yeah, why does the player want to play a Succubus?

She straight up told me because they're sexy and what being a succubus implies, even though I told her we won't be doing any blatant ERP during the campaign.

>Also, have you considered not playing D&D or a D&D clone?

There's a reason I didn't specifically identify which game we're playing. It's not D&D nor a clone. And for the sake of not getting sidetracked, I'm not going to mention which one it is.

Damn lad, you playing some FATAL? Just tell it, no bullying involved.
>because they're sexy
this isn't gonna end well
pray make another thread when things get sour, I wanna know how this goes

>what being a succubus implies
Manipulation of the thoughts and emotions of mortals so they do her dark bidding and forfeit their souls to hell?

Anything can be a sexy slut. Just tell her to play a cocksucking thong-wearing mage whore instead then. It's the same difference.

>Damn lad, you playing some FATAL? Just tell it, no bullying involved.
Nope. Would be damn weird to play FATAL and then straight up tell everybody no explicit sex acts at the gaming table.

>roll for anal circumference... under the table

enjoy your ride lad

If a player I knew and trusted asked for something like that I might let them, depending on the tone I wanted and a few other factors.

This sounds like someone you just met, so there are two main possibilities: she's just asking because it's a character she's wanted to try for a while and you might say yes, or she just wants the power fantasy aspect of it.

If she's been reasonable so far, it's probably the former, but I'd still be nervous. Consider asking her to play another character this time, and if she continues to seem reasonable her next character can be a succubus.

How do demons/succubus fit into your setting? That's another question you should be asking too.

Also, I've always considered players who HAVE to play this or that a bad sign. Seriously you should be asking the DM what the rules for making characters are (available classes, races ect), and then make a character within those boundaries. Not asking for some special snowflake bullshit.

No one can actually play FATAL.

>How do demons/succubus fit into your setting?

They fit. I'm trying to tailor my setting to be "dark" without running off the cliff into "edgelord" territory. There's a reason I used Nolan's interpretation of Batman (Begins, The Dark Knight, and Rises) as an example. I think it's that description of the setting I used is what tempted her to put forth the idea of playing a demon.

I meant fit as a PC. Like, are they elemental evil (demons are evil, can only be evil, because they're "made" out of evil.) or are demons remediable (most are evil because of where they're from, but they can see the error of their ways and not be evil.)

Also, being demons, they might be more spirit like, maybe they're like an extradimensional being or something else that might make them a difficult to deal with PC.

Select your master: Collective memes or personal judgement. It's either God or the Caesar, GM-user.

Redeemable but most are evil-aligned simply because the demons are a very powerful extra-dimensional faction that can easily lord their power over other mortal races in the setting. So they are more or less the "winning team", or else it appears that way. So that's why demons generally ally with other demons. But they can choose not to for whatever reason.

We're playing a game where alignment isn't a thing.

Hot

>CN half-redeemed succubus mage
>Y?
>N?

Ordinarily, I'd say no, but she seems to be actually involved in the rest of the party's thoughts and is willing to listen, so she might be alright.
Tell her it's fine, but let her know there's a lot of other ways succubi can have fun.

Morrigan thrives on positive emotions. She can feed by playing vidya with you, or the thrill of being a big damn hero.
Falls-From-Grace exists on mental stimulation, and each new experience is a "meal" for her, meaning she can't have repeats.
Succubi in one of the Heroes of Might and Magic games are played as closer to Hell. They need to bathe in fire and brimstone occasionally, and are not necessarily evil.
Another from the same series, Xana is like a voyeur. She latches onto a character and lives through them. Maybe have her being a Peeping Tom Succubus who can feed through others?
Have her Kiss be less-than-lethal, like Rogue's from X-Men. Then have her have no idea what sex is and how it works. You just kiss them, r-right? Cock goes where?

There's a lot of ways to make it work. Try pitching a few ideas that you would like at her. See if any stick.

Politely voice your concerns to her, making it clear that you don't mistrust her so much as you mistrust her character. If things start headed in a weird direction, it's your responsibility to fade to black when appropriate or handle it some other way. If you really can't avoid making it uncomfortable no matter what, talk to her about it, again politely voicing your concerns.

If she persists even after you've talked to her repeatedly, then you put your foot down and say that that shit isn't acceptable. Once it comes time to do that, make sure you have very specific rules to lay down, and make sure you spell them out to her clearly.

This is how you deal with any player or character who threatens to be disruptive to the group.

Is it voice or text based?

If voice, I would pass on the idea.

If text, allow it.

Why the difference based on communication medium?

>put a chastity belt on a horny sex demon
This is my fetish

Voice would be awkward and not sexy, text would be good.

It can work. If the player seems 'that guy' tier or like they're really going to make it weird, that's one thing, but from what you've said the player seems to know what they're doing at least. And if I understand you right, the players have all talked about their characters, if everyone else is cool with it, I don't see a problem.

I know you said you plan on keeping it PG-13, which IS doable, don't get me wrong, but let's not kid ourselves, with a succubus it's better to at least go R rated. Not saying NC-17 or anything, but maybe R. If the other players are all cool with it, I don't see any reason not to.

Keep in mind, with a succubus, it's easier and more comfortable to go into a bit of detail and roleplay with sex than a normal character. Roleplaying sex for sex's sake gets weird, that's where erotic role play comes in. But if a character is using sex to manipulate, assassinate, or do succubusly things, you can get away with a lot more in depth play-by-play without it getting weird.

Ah, so I'm guessing you're playing Dungeon World then. It's cool, it's cool.

I feel the opposite. Voice keeps things nice and above the table, restrained. Text only makes things feel a bit more actual erotic roleplay. Like I'd be worried about people starting to get too into it through text.

Maybe I'm just biased because the last relationship I was in we sexted through typing a lot, but never did anything in a call, so I have that mindset. But I still feel like it's a lot easier to get carried away and someone to get way to into it text-only.

A succubus on a quest to break a curse of chastity that was cast on her sounds like a hilarious side character. I might just use that some time.

I think she just wants to play catwoman

Which would be fine with me.

I wouldn't wish something like that on anyone. Extreme sexual frustration/deprivation is bad enough for a regular person, but for a succubus? She'd probably be completely insane after a week.

From what it sounds like, there's no feasible reason why the player has to be a Succubus. Consider this:

>I want my character to be a demon
Play a Tiefling, they're inherently demonic, but already have some root in the world. You get part of the "demonic prejudice" as part of the package too, if that's what you're looking for.

>I want my character to be sexy
Then make them sexy, build a Femme Fatale type character. Focus on high Charisma, use your looks to your advantage, and ACT sexy, don't just say you're a literal sex-demon and leave it at that.

>I want a key part of my character's abilities to be seduction
There's a million ways to alter the mind and charm people in D&D, Warlock, Bard, and Sorcerer all have a shitload of spells that can work. A particularly high CHA Rogue would even accomplish the task.

>I want to be able to literally fuck someone to death
Go play an ERP game, fuck.

And this is coming from someone with a pretty big folder of demon-girl porn. A Succubus is not a good player character.

Trust once and let her blow it on her own merit.

Introduce the player to Fall-From-Grace, a Succubus from Planescape Torment. If you and the player can agree on that archetype, just go ahead snd play.

Just let her. There's nothing wrong with a flirty 90s anti-hero who treats sex as casual boredom aversion, like chocolate or trashy TV. Its a fun character and there's nothing magical realm about it. If you goes over the line, you'll know, and you can fix it or dump her.

Have you tried talking frankly with her, telling her you're willing to work with her but you're uncomfortable with even the hint of explicit sexual content in your game, and trying to come to mutual ground over what would or wouldn't be acceptable?

I know, I know, crazy. I play a succubus in one of my games, but since it's a setting where aware, educated, or savvy people (i.e. anyone a PC would actually care to interact with) will know on sight/sense magic what she is, she doesn't actually spend a whole lot of time seducing anyone or even attempting to do so. Ironically, once they're assured they won't suddenly get asked to roll vs. a charm spell, a lot of people naturally let down their guard in other ways and simple manipulation, persuasion, or lying can get you a lot further than a charm spell that just makes them look for any way they possibly can break it while staying in the rules.

What if I want my character to be a sexy demon who uses charm as a key part of her abilities?

Sure a sexy bard tiefling femme fatale would work too, but at this point just saying succubus is actually easier and faster.

>Have you tried talking frankly with her, telling her you're willing to work with her but you're uncomfortable with even the hint of explicit sexual content in your game, and trying to come to mutual ground over what would or wouldn't be acceptable?

Yes. The conversation ended with me saying, "Let me sleep on this." And so here I am trying to get some outside opinions.

I'd be incredibly wary about this with a male player, but I'd let a female player, even a new one, do this.

A dude playing a female character, especially one that uses sex as a very literal weapon, tend to play their male fantasy and become massive whores that derail the experience. Girl players understand female sexuality and will apply it where they believe it makes sense.

A few years ago, I ran a Spycraft (I know, d20. Boo, hiss) and a girl friend of mine wanted to play a Lara Croft-esque explorer babe who used her amazing super tits to distract enemies and get information. She even did this in combat since Spycraft has a feat called Fanservice that lets you use your Impress skill to Distract enemies and lower their Initiative. She was very effective without having sex with a single person. Her secret agenda hidden from other players: Find her lost lover that had been captured by the Chinese government. First thing she does upon finding him? Drop panties and ride him right there on the interrogation table and roll to see if she got preggers.

It's worth mentioning that this girl is super-flat (and even told my girlfriend that this was a cause of frustration for her) and between boyfriends at the time. This character was prime wish-fulfillment but was portrayed very tastefully, all things considered.

I'd recommend saying she's a cambion -- a human with incubus or succubus blood. I think PCs that are actually fucking demons are problematic in the same way that a PC that's an actual fucking angel would be problematic. In many cosmologies, demons are the embodiment of cosmic forces (namely, chaos and evil) as much as they are sapient beings. Even a relatively weak demon like a foocubus would still be the embodiment of a cosmic force. If you want to run a whole party of characters that are each the embodiment of some cosmic force, then that's fine, but having a character whose concept is concept so radically different from the rest of party is going to cause problems. All Jedi or no Jedi.

In short, it depends on the setting.

>I'm trying to get my own fantasy campaign off the ground. One of my prospective players wants to play a succubus
Unless you have a lot of expirence with the player no
>I'm trying to keep my campaign at a PG-13 rating
Dont fucking do this trying to censor your games in this way leads to bordom and frustration.

>She
Abandon ship.

> And for the sake of not getting sidetracked, I'm not going to mention which one it is.

So, things that never happened. More baits at eleven.

A power fantasy is not inherently bad, user, unless the player is using it to shit on other people's fun.
This.
An actual demon means there is a list of setting based issues that WILL AFFECT THE PARTY. Any nonsense she gets into means the party will either find themselves stepping in, or letting her float/drown alone.

Let 'em do it.

here. Exactly the point I was getting across.

>Wants to play a succubus
>a woman

Yup, red flags ahoy. She's just looking for her jollies.

I mean, girls tend to be a bit more subdued than your average aspy neckbeard and might be happy just fading to the dark, but it's still going to be a chore to flirt with her all the fucking time.

Yes I speak from experience. Having to imaginary flirt with one of your player all the time sucks because you just want to get on with the story.

Why not? Not everyone wants a super gritty campaign of rape and gore

Why doesn't she just play fantasy Catwoman instead of a sex demon?

Is it because they can drain levels on touch?

There was one time when I had to play both my character and his fiance. That shit got REALLY awkward because she was characterized as super flirty.

I am more concerned about wanting to keep it pg13
I know badwrongfun and all that but it does not fuckinh work.

>fat greasy fujo wants to rp a magically seductive and impossibly attractive character
Gee, that won't be horribly awkward, tasteless or boring at all.

Can't you just hire a gigolo to make a woman out of her?

>I mean, girls tend to be a bit more subdued than your average aspy neckbeard and might be happy just fading to the dark
Because women like attention more than they like sex, obviously.

>girls tend to be a bit more subdued than your average aspy neckbeard
Pffffffffffffft

>Why?
Watching the entire Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy proved to me you can explore more "mature" themes without having to resort to explicit gore or sex to make a point or keep things interesting.

>I am more concerned about wanting to keep it pg13
>I know badwrongfun and all that but it does not fuckinh work.

The first 35 seconds of this scene got a PG-13 rating:

youtube.com/watch?v=5K3E5tLoado

Again, the whole movie alone proved to me that you can explore mature themes without dipping into edgelord territory about it. Granted, you can call it a "hard PG-13" as others have, almost going into "R" territory, but there you have it.

>redeemed succubus
>female player
Please tell me she's a qt. Or at least not a hamplanet, chubby is fine
See pic

Because fantasy catwoman isn't a literal demon with wings and stuff. Demons and wings are cool and people like having them.

>Watching the entire Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy proved to me you can explore more "mature" themes without having to resort to explicit gore or sex to make a point or keep things interesting.
Your fetishization of Nolan's Batman, particularly your fixation on its PG-13 rating, is baffling to me. The only reason those films aren't rated R is a lack of the word 'fuck' and collusion with the MPAA to secure a larger audience.

>Your fetishization of Nolan's Batman, particularly your fixation on its PG-13 rating, is baffling to me.

It's the most popular example I'm certain 90% of you will understand on mentioning it. Otherwise, outside of that particular trilogy, I wouldn't say I've ever been a big fan of Batman in general.

Why not just say, ok but your a vampire.

In many folk lore a succubus and vampire are almost interchangeable, both can seduce use emotions are demonic in nature and suck fluids out for power.

What about demons that don't seduce, but are more semi sexual sleep paralysis demons who look monstrous

Got that settled. Thanks Veeky Forums. Brought up some concerns you pointed out (mainly a Succubus supposed to be a demon born of chaos and evil literally born to be those things) and player has opted to play a "demon blooded" character (mother was a succubus) that oozes sex appeal instead.

Is she a qt, op?

Well, is she?

Your post is reeks of bias that's pretty inherent in our society, namely that men's sexual fantasies are creepy, insulting and bad, while women's sexual fantasies are cute, tasteful and innocent fun. Of course a lot of socially awkward male neckbeards tend to go way overboard with that stuff, but the thing is, the same goes for a lot of female neckbeards as well.

The character your player made sounds like utter cringe. "Using tits as a distraction" as a modus operandi and rolling for preggers after rescue scene... yeah. A character who just likes casual sex would be an improvement compared to this

Grace is LN leaning LG, which is important because I think for a Succubus the transition from Chaos to Law is harder than Evil to Neutral or even Good.

Anyway, I like your ideas, but someone will complain and argue that if you change things up that much you shouldn't even call them Succubi.

>girls tend to be a bit more subdued than your average aspy neckbeard
How many girls have you played with?

FUcking this.

OP, read this.

This.

>men's sexual fantasies are creepy, insulting and bad, while women's sexual fantasies are cute, tasteful and innocent fun
Hell, it's not just sexual *fantasies*. It's sexuality in general. Male sexuality bad, female sexuality good. It pisses me the fuck off.

>Male sexuality bad, female sexuality good. It pisses me the fuck off.
That's only in very niche communities, it's the exact opposite of that in mainstream society. Hell, it's the opposite of that in a places like here a lot of the time too.

Think you should allow it, just make sure that she doesn't make anyone uncomfortable with it.

Male sexuality is either dangerous and menacing ("rapist") or valiant and courageous ("stud").
Female sexuality is either alluring and winsome ("sexy") or degenerate and obscene ("slut").

Society is like a madman ceaselessly ranting contradictions and paradoxes to himself, steadily dragging him further and further into his insanity. Any attempt to speak to him with reason just adds another contradiction to his thought process.

>That's only in very niche communities, it's the exact opposite of that in mainstream society.
No, it's true everywhere.

Eh, I'd say that in most developed countries it's >men's sexual fantasies are creepy, insulting and bad, while women's sexual fantasies are cute, tasteful and innocent fun

While in less developed countries with a more religious populace, it's indeed the opposite.

Go outside.

What said is very true.

Men who don't have sex are considered pathetic virgins. Women who don't have sex are considered virtuous and pure.

Men who have lots of sex are considered cool and admirable, someone to be aspired to. Women who have lots of sex are considered dirty and slutty, not respectable.

I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen. Male sexuality is seen as aggressive, female sexuality is seen as desirable. But it should be noted that this mostly only comes form the opposite sex, and even then is very mixed. Some men appreciate sexually active women, but some men find it disgusting and look down on it. Some women like being flirted with and sexually aggressive men, and some are upset by it.

You're acting like male sexuality is always seen as bad and female sexuality is always seen as good, when it leans in the opposite direction.

I mean, for god's sake, watch a sitcom or something. Two and a Half Men, Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends, King of Queens, I don't know, whatever. Watch a fucking romcom. Watch a horror movie.

Mainstream media almost exclusively treats male sexuality positively and female sexuality negatively. It's in much more niche circles where the opposite is dominant. Beyond that it varies form person to person and where they come from.

>I mean, for god's sake, watch a sitcom or something. Two and a Half Men, Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends, King of Queens, I don't know, whatever. Watch a fucking romcom. Watch a horror movie.
Are you fucking serious? All those things treat male sexuality as a fucking joke. It's interesting that you brought up horror movies. Horror movies feature male genital mutilation *far* more than female genital mutilation, because society says it's funny when a man gets his dick cut off but not when a woman is impaled through the cunt.

>Mainstream media almost exclusively treats male sexuality positively and female sexuality negatively.
No. It treats male sexuality (and the male body, for that matter) as either dangerous and predatory or something to be mocked, and *never* as anything beautiful, sensuous, or erotic.

>All those things treat male sexuality as a fucking joke.
They treat a lack of male sexuality as a joke. Men who don't have sex are pathetic and funny, men who do have sex are cool, and the object of envy. Female sexuality is played as a fuckin joke.

>Horror movies feature male genital mutilation *far* more than female genital mutilation
And yet there's also the trope about the slutty girls dying and the pure and virtuous girl surviving.

>and *never* as anything beautiful, sensuous, or erotic.
Not beautiful, but definitely as a positive. Men who are sexy are strong and competent and cool, they are to be looked up to and admired.

>men who do have sex are cool, and the object of envy.
You forget how often an active male sex drive is mocked too.
>Oh ha ha, look at the silly idiot man! he can only think with his penis LOL!

That sounds crass and crude, the exact opposite of tasteful

Ah, the Veeky Forums "No actually YOU are oppressing ME," argument. Its funny because of how obvious it is which one is right, and how mindless the other one is in making themselves look stupid by denying or warping reality to try and make the opposite point seem legitimate when its clearly not.

I'm not saying which one is which because I'll get (you)'d into oblivion, but I think you all know.

>And yet there's also the trope about the slutty girls dying and the pure and virtuous girl surviving.
*Everyone* who has sex in horror movies dies, and more often than not, that includes a roughly equal number of guys, because they're the ones the girls in the movie are fucking. It's a stupid Puritan streak that runs through pretty much every horror movie, but it's egalitarian about it.

>Men who are sexy are strong and competent and cool, they are to be looked up to and admired.
So in other words, men have no inherent beauty or value and have to be a big hero to be considered desirable. And even then, they're still not as desirable as even an average woman doing nothing but showing her body and being sexually enthusiastic.

>And even then, they're still not as desirable as even an average woman doing nothing but showing her body and being sexually enthusiastic.
Yeah. That's part of the problem. The shows are made from a male point of view, and the audience is meant to relate with the male characters.

They're sexy because the plot says they're sexy, and characters treat them as sexy. Sometimes it's because they're just hot, maybe sexy and manly, often just being smooth and charming. It's a personality thing. Their ability to seduce is seen as a positive trait. There are sexy, physically attractive women for them to seduce, as accessories to their character, to show how sexy and desirable he is.

With female characters, if they're sexy, or sexually active, it's usually to be the object of male lust, not so that the audience will respect and envy them more.

If a female character is sexually active and it's not meant to be titillating for the audience, then it's almost always played as a joke, or as an undesirable quality. It is almost never portrayed as something cool or to be looked up to.

>oozes sex appeal
You're going to regret allowing a slut at the table. Shit's going to devolve into Magical Realm real fast

Question: would you say the Jessica Jones netflix show was a successful reversal of that "male gaze," dynamic vis a vis female and male sexuality? I remember thinking it was at least trying to. what with Sexy Man Meat Man Luke Cage feeling very much like an object of female lust and Jessica's "conquest," of him being a successful female variant of the standard sexual power fantasy, at least in the first third or so of the show.

ehhhhhh. Not really successful, and even then I wouldn't consider it a pure reversal, or at least, depending on what you mean.

Like, Luke still had character, he was a thematically important part of the show. He would have still been there even if she didn't fuck him. But a decent amount of his character WAS being sexy man meat for her to snack on.

But then, that's been true of the Netflix shows in general. I mean, even if you just look at Season 1 of Daredevil, Claire was very much a character, not just someone for Matt to fuck. But then, Claire was more of a character than Luke was in JJ.

So I guess, after that rambling, my point is, Luke was clearly used for that purpose, of reversing that dynamic. The problem is, Luke Cage is a developed character that they're adapting, one who's going to get his own show later on to boot, and his and Jessica's romance has nuance and complexity to it. So the show tries to flesh Luke out, while also just having him be the sexy man meat sexual conquest of Jessica. It doesn't do well with the serious, character aspects of Luke, which kind of confuses the whole sexual conquest aspect of him, but aside from that confusion, I'll admit that the thing of Jessica fucking him was well done in a vacuum.

Unfortunately they then went on to have a weird complex about Jessica having murdered his wife and was like stalking him which????? I dunno, maybe they were trying to do a deconstruction or something? But it was already a deconstruction so having layers like that just confuses it horribly? And it's still really weird and offputting but not in the way that Jessica's supposed to be?

Ultimately, Luke in Jessica jones is by far the worst characterized of the love interests in the Netflix series.

Well, I was mainly stressing the first third of the show. I feel like they added layers of complexity on after they had gotten that initial dynamic reversing story out of the way and did it successfully, thereby showing you COULD have that in a show without making any less of a smash hit success, which I feel was an important point to make.

I mean, in general, Jessica Jones was a show that had a lot of nice ideas, but just REALLY didn't have the writing, or often acting, chops to pull those ideas off.

There were some things I liked, Nuke was a cool character in the first half before going to absolute shit harder than almost any character I've seen in the second half. I know most people didn't, but I really liked the incest twins. In general I liked the support group itself, and seeing a lot of the depictions of really, I dunno, unfortunate people, but a lot of this is muddied in really shitty stuff.

The one thing the show really executed well was Kilgrave himself. Not the stuff surrounding him, or the events that happened to him, but just the actual character himself, how he was written, and the performance, really really well done.

Luke Cage handled it's stuff much better in general. Not perfectly, but MUCH better than JJ.

Have your character play a tiefling with minor succumbus-like powers.

The irony is that both are right and both are wrong, as and said.

This is a tangent, but I'm of opinion that the difference in the depiction of male and female sexual activeness stems from the notion that a man has to work to get a sexual partner, while a woman can have one anytime. Thus a man's sexual conquest is, well, a conquest, an achievement, a proof of his capabilities.

If you swap the achiever man for someone who does not have to work to seduce women - like an owner of a slave harem, or a rich man fucking his servants/employees, or a handsome chick magnet douchebag type - and their sexual activeness starts being percieved as sleazy and unwholesome, the same way as a promiscouos woman's would.