Succubi should be:

Succubi should be:

A) Chaotic Evil Demons
B) Lawful Evil Devils
C) Neutral/Any Evil Fiends

strawpoll.me/12266942

Other urls found in this thread:

1d4chan.org/wiki/Story:Holy_Opposites
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Depends on the setting.

They should be Lawful Hot

D) Convertible to good aligned waifus

get a fucking angle

D) Orbitting my dick

D) Flexible, if you know what I mean

D) is for my dick

Depends on the setting.
That is an angle.

E) Posted on the wiki.


1d4chan.org/wiki/Story:Holy_Opposites

warning: Someone else. says the upload is not done.

Succubi should be succubi.

Voted Any Evil.

t. alignment hater

Good morning Sergeant Angle.

My own take on them is actually in a sort of alignment with the Sundering material from Candlekeep: they started out lawful evil, but shifted en masse to chaotic evil during the end of the Blood War for no reason they've ever cared to share with their surprised Erinyes clademates and Asmodeus.

> get a fucking angle

I'd love to, as long as she's acute.

Oh! When did you start?

...

E. Well-illustrated but rarely used in-game.

Yes

>no "Depends on the setting" option
One. Job.

>I can't be arsed to think

It depends on what you want succubi to DO in your games.

Chaotic Evil Demon if you want them to be homewreckers without a purpose. They're just there to ruin lives, they have little or no overarching goal, but their chaotic ways makes them difficulty to predict or track down. After all, how do you stop a flawless shapeshifter armed to the teeth with magic who is literally hell-bent on causing mayhem?

Lawful Evil Devil if their antics are serving a greater cause, like a succubus who seduces her way to a high position so she can rule through a puppet and establish cults or pursue some other esoteric or arcane goal. The trick is to have all their conquests serve a purpose.

Honestly Neutral Evil doesn't make a lot of sense. Succubi are pretty extreme creatures. Neutral Evil is like Petty Evil, where they're evil because its easy and they see opportunity to do it, like thieves. I suppose you could have aimless Succubi just sort of opportunistically preying on people but that's kind of lame.

Non-evil if you're adding succubi for fapbait, a crime for which you will eventually be punished by the universe.

Reedemed Succubi if you're a colossal faggot and you need to express it somehow.

Don't you mean as long as she's right?

>armed to the teeth with magic
Succubi are usually weak as all shit in an actual fight (and by weak as all shit I mean "not ridiculously overpowered"), if you can pin them down long enough, get rid of their charmed human helpers, and anchor them so they don't teleport away.

>Neutral Evil is like Petty Evil
Neutral Evil is more like Selfish Evil, I'd say Chaotic Evil is more like Petty Evil
I mean you can be Neutral Evil if you're just a huge fucking ass and whirlwind your way through the world.

That's largely only works if the questions was "What are Succubi?" rather than "What should Succcubi be?"

Most settings that include succubi in one of those three roles already tell you what their alignment is. But, it's up to you to decided whether you agree with that classification or role.

Chaotic Evil Demons and inherently unredeemable.

These descriptions just sound like variations of personality. This is why alignments beyond good/evil/ambiguous are pointless, any detail beyond that is personality, which should be personalised.

Also demons should be evil.

It depends on the setting you nincompoop.

Some combinations are more or less appropriate to different settings and themes. Unless you believe tossing anything you think is cool into a setting without rhyme or reason is a good way to design a game, it depends on the setting.

well charm, perfect shapeshifting, illusions, some attack magic, usually invisibility is a pretty nice setup compared to a normal guy

But yeah, as tradition dictates, they're not usually strong combatants.

Alignment is supposed to capture the overarching structure of the being's personality. Don't hate it for doing its job.

Demons that aren't evil aren't demons, and succubi can fill any evil alignment pretty easily. Although I guess you could have non-demonic succubi, but it would less confusing to everyone if you didn't give them a name specifically associated with demons.

All you've done is shift your non-answer one step further in degrees of irrelevancy. While setting is a factor, saying that your answer entirely depends upon it is just a way to remove yourself from the discussion but in a passive aggressive way.

>Succubi should be:

Any alignment, but always made of elemental evil. So I can fuck with my lawful stupid paladin player when he smites fiends that are various flavors of good.

...

Depends on the setting.

Also, more importantly

>alignment

I kind of feel like a Neutral Evil succubus is just sustaining herself. She seduces people to eat their soul or whatever because that's what they eat. She's evil, but not really maliciously so. She just eats people.

I'm sorry you have such crippling lack of intent, user. Unity of design and vision is one of the most important things you can have in a setting. If you look, I think you will begin to notice it.

No it isn't. What are you even talking about? The idea that setting can have all the impact on the concept of alignment is fundamental to HAVING more than one setting. There are settings where creatures with free will don't have alignments, there are settings like the Forgotten Realms where everything does. user isn't making a non-argument at all.

Chaotic evil doesn't mean goalless or purposeless. It's not Chaotic stupid.

An intelligent creature of chaos, like a succubus, is more than capable of devising complex plans for their own advancement. While a succubus may very well enjoy ruining people's lives, that is likely secondary to their desire to gain strength and influence through their dealings.

As creatures of evil, they should always be more concerned with themselves than they are with anything else, and the risks, dangers, and costs of their efforts with mortals make it clear that they'd need to gain more from their outings than simple satisfaction of the misery they've inflicted.

This is an old game, where you pretend "depends on the setting" is a valid answer by then pretending that you are slaves to a single setting or are not allowed to have any preferences.

If you really need the question expanded to "What is [your favorite depiction of succubi]'s allignment?", you are being silly and passive aggressive, and might as well also say "it depends on my preferences" and then commit entirely to THAT non-answer.

Having different preferences is exactly why "depends on the setting" is a valid answer.
In some settings, alignment for beings like that is completely rigid. In other settings, it can be changed. In yet others, they might not even qualify to have alignments.
And then on top of that, you add all the possible origins and supernatural compulsions and potential organizations and there is no one answer that could possibly cover all possibilities.
Sometimes, succubus are lone wolves who just want to eat souls or vitality. Sometimes they work for an organized devil heirarchy that may or may not be trying to damn people or just serve its own ends. Sometimes they're related to leaderless hordes of unorganized demons. Sometimes they're just spirits that really like sex and vice but are otherwise harmless, and in all of these cases, they can sometimes be swayed away from it OR might be hard coded to only be one way.

>Having different preferences is exactly why "depends on the setting" is a valid answer.

Not at all. It remains a passive aggressive non-answer, because you pretend that you do not have any preferences when what's being asked is about preferences.

Saying what succubi sometimes are is nice, and while that may depend on the setting, offers more than just a simple meme non-answer.

Saying what you think they should be, however, is what OP is asking about.

Asking "What is your favorite depiction" is a question that will get you definitive answers. And probably a lot of them.

Vague questions get vague answers. If you want specifics, ask specifics. "How does this work in different settings?" "How does this work in this one setting?" "How do you like this?" all get good answers. "How does this work?" does not, because there's no context to it.

>Saying what you think they should be, however, is what OP is asking about.
If you follow the reply chain, that's not what this current conversation is about at all. OP just wants strawpoll answers anyway.

You make a non-thread, ask a non-question, don't bitch when you get a non-answer.

All you're really demanding is that people play to your autistic demands that what is obvious needs to also be spelled out. I'm glad that your "depends on setting" posts can be just ignored as passive aggressive neurotic behavior, but attempting to defend those non-answers just reveals the short-comings of the people who make them.

No it doesn't, the question itself makes it obvious the setting is the DnD cosmos.

You're being both argumentative and wrong.

You are one shitty reply hungry attention whore

And what you're demanding is that people post every possible variation of a thing. Questions without context get answers without context.

If they're made of evil then he's still smart to kill them.
Keep up the good work, paladin.

>Succubi should be: X, Y, or Z?
>not asking about what succubi should be

I should have known better than to engage with you trolls.

>my autism knows no bounds

It's a pretty simple question. I don't know what's triggered you to the point of calling it a non-question, but consider me to be done with you. You've derailed this thread enough.

>>Succubi should be: X, Y, or Z?
>>not asking about what succubi should be
Sorry, wrong answer, try again.

>asking for what you prefer means also listing everything you don't prefer

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Which are wrong.

You must not have done well in school.

Oh, I get it, you didn't read the conversation and assume we're talking about OP and their strawpoll.
Well, we're not. Follow the reply chain.

She was taking care of an orphanage jim, you can't retard logic your way out of killing her

Those crying lolis are on YOU

Answers using a different context from the questions are never correct. So if the question has barely any context, the answers must also have barely any context.

Neutral Evil is for the purely self interested.
They don't want some grand Tyranny, they don't want to see the world burn.
They only want to take care of themselves. They are greedy, gluttonous, and cowardly.
It's always me me me with these people.
Or monsters.
In this case, to add to your manipulative seductress, and home wrecking psychopaths, add to nuetral evil option of shameless dependapotamus. They are parasites. They pick someone who is apparently strong, affluent and capable, attach to them, and suck them dry. They are also likely sadists. Not in the kinky way, but in the way that they enjoy seeing others miserable, broken. The nuetral evil Succubus wants a sugar daddy she can isolate and then suck dry of money and passion. When he (or she) as a destitute, stationless, friendless, broken shell of a person the succubus moves on to find another victim.

>You've derailed this thread enough
>Pretending a slut-fiend alignment thread isn't stale bait
You must be new here...

No, she's literally Evil. Not even an evil person, but Evil Itself. She had to go.

Taking away heroin from an addict may make them cry too, but giving heroin to an addict does not make you a heroine.

Succubi being chaotic evil makes sense to me.

The 4e argument of "they make deals, only devils make deals" only works by dramatically rewriting the majority of pre-existing D&D lore, and doesn't really appreciate that the "deals" that succubi offer are most often rather straightforward temptations, not complicated contracts.

A streetwalker, even in a city where prostitution is legal, is rarely going to be lawfully aligned, because their business is taking advantage of people's emotions and desires. The same goes with higher class prostitutes, and even extends to artists. Emotions are the essence of their business, and that makes them lean toward chaos.

Chaotic Evil things don't need to be stupid evil. They can plot and plan and do great things, and are harder to predict during it. Glabrezu are a good example of this.

>i'm just a dumb troll with nothing better to do

Thanks for at least admitting that, even if you didn't mean to.

Not that guy but you are the one looking like a dumb troll here

Glabrezu are some of my favorite demons because of this. It's the whole murder-machine/subtle-manipulator duality that make them so interesting, and it's awesome how this is reflected in their two separate sets of arms.

They also can be some of the coolest looking demons.

I like that in 2E, the Glabrezu use these schemes safe in the knowledge that they are immortal to stretch them out to extreme lengths. And even if things don't pan out in the long run, they are still increasing the standing of chaos and evil in the multiverse by the corruption they nurture each time.

Mariliths hate them because they prefer direct warfare, tactical brilliance and strategy. The Mariliths would probably kill the weaker Glabrezu themselves but the Balor leaders actually like the Glabrezu and their ways more.

You got some mantis on your satyr

D) Lawful good who just wants to be a good wife with a happy husband, leading a quiet comfy life.

Do you prefer some crab on your dogman?

None of the above.

They should be misunderstood creatures of passion who actually just want to give everyone an amazing sex life and spread pleasure and love all over the world. Initiating virgins, helping soulmates get together, and curing all manner of sexual issues and dysfunctions are just a few of their methods, in addition to just giving people a good time.

I like this faggot, we need more of him.

Neutral evil male demons appearing as attractive women.

>A streetwalker, even in a city where prostitution is legal, is rarely going to be lawfully aligned
Or chaotic-aligned.

That's not nearly as funny.

This first and foremost but,

Chaotic Evil is Succubi
Lawful Evil is Erinyes
Not sure what the Yugoloth sex fiend is but I'm sure there's at least one.

FUCKING ALLIGNMENT SYSTEM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
STOP PLAYING BAD GAAMES!

Erinyes aren't sex fiends just because they're female, shitlord

They aren't not sex fiends just because they're female either
Also did you just assume their gender?
Check your Privilege shitlord

Or they're all just stammering virgins who suck men's dicks in their sleep because they spaghetti when they're awake.

Pretty much true to lore though

I know right?

The greatest parodies root themselves in just enough fact to be reasonable.

Ok,who is raising starving children then?

I think the idea is that killing evil is automatically a Good act as long as you don't destroy too much good or neutral in the process. Whether or not the starving kids are too much is...something else.

The Chaotic Good Illithids that prey on Evil humans obviously.

If the paladin was dumb enough to off a caretaker he probably declared the children evil and burned them all.

No ,killing evil removes evil,but it doesn't make you good. Now start thinking about the dying children ,Jimbo. Because if you won't,your party's warlock will. And he's a drow ,Jim.

I want to marry a Marilith!

But that's a natural act.Lawful,but natural.

And you should be heterosexual, but you just keep having to disappoint your family, don't you?

>And he's a drow, Jim.
Sounds like he's breaking character

I never really liked how compartmentalized the fiends of D&D are.

Demons, Devils, Daemons/Yugoloths?

What's the difference except alignment?

Relative acceptance of homosexuality and drug use.

Every fiend?

Devil likes the butt sex.

D) Lusty Titty Monsters

He will hold all of their hand ,Jim.And then force them to hold each other's hand randomly.

They're more like different terms for different fiendish acts
Demonic acts include exploding the qt princess into giblet for fun
Devilish acts include managing to get the princess to sell herself into slavery to fat faceless waifufuckers

Demons and devils make sense to me since they represent two different but very common fantasy fiends. On one side you've got the big nasty monster that exists only to spread chaos and destruction, and on the other you've got the "deal with the Devil" type of beings, which are bound by deals and contracts and are more likely to get you to sell your soul to them than stab you with a big flaming sword.

That's not really true because Demons cover a whole spectrum of behaviours, from Grazzt who is a narcissistic hedonist and the Black Prince of Pleasure, to Pazuzu who is outright helpful to those who summon him in exchange for the spread of his name, to Demogorgon whose schemes within schemes pit demon against demon, and even head against head.

I want something tangible to the difference. Like Devil is an ethnicity of Demon, since they come from fallen Celestials or something.

For example, what am I supposed to do if my world doesn't have all the planes of the Great Wheel? It has one Underworld/Hell and that's it. Where to the Demons and Devils fit?

>what am I supposed to do if my world doesn't have all the planes of the Great Wheel? It has one Underworld/Hell and that's it.
Invent your own lore for them? Not use all of them? This shit isn't hard.

Seems like a waste of resources given to me in the books.

So you use literally every monster every time you create a world?