It is a real shame that all of your hard work with the Demonomicon issues is untouchable by you guys in your published stuff. Especially concepts like Malcanthet that are going to fade away with the new 4e paradigm. :(
I have a feeling that a bunch of Malcanthet is going to be rolled into the new Glasya (sp?).
I have a feeling that a bunch of Malcanthet is going to be rolled into the new Glasya (sp?).
It is a real shame that all of your hard work with the Demonomicon issues is untouchable by you guys in your published stuff. Especially concepts like Malcanthet that are going to fade away with the new 4e paradigm. :(
Perhaps. Although that would be a shame, since while Glasya is undoubtedly hot, she doesn't really have a sex motif going on. That is more Fierna's game.
If only there existed a game world where I could retain my demonic succubi alongside infernal erinyes....where a succubus queen could plot against her demonic lover and spawn dark and terrible horrors from her womb....
Creative Director
|
Yeah... it's a bit disappointing to me that so much of the Demonomicon stuff I did is being invalidated. I put a lot of love into those articles, and took a lot of pains to make sure that they didn't contradict much established canon and were respectful to the authors who had done work on the demons in the years before. It's too bad that philosophy didn't stick around in 4th edition. Maybe 5th edition will be more to my liking...
Yeah... it's a bit disappointing to me that so much of the Demonomicon stuff I did is being invalidated. I put a lot of love into those articles, and took a lot of pains to make sure that they didn't contradict much established canon and were respectful to the authors who had done work on the demons in the years before. It's too bad that philosophy didn't stick around in 4th edition. Maybe 5th edition will be more to my liking...
And that love showed. Every one of those articles was fantastic. It was incredibly disappointing to find out that Orcus, Obox-ob and others weren't going to get their day in the sun with the cancellation of the magazines. It is probably a small consolation if at all, but that flavor lives on in my game, at least, even if my demon lords are a bit more mechanically powerful than the Demonomicon versions. The stories, cults, followers...all of it really built on what had gone before and fleshed it out in a new exciting way.
Thank you for your hard work.
And another thanks from me. I loved all those Demonomicon articles, and was sorry that I didn't get hard copy versions of every one (it's so much more satisfying to hold it in one's hands than to read it on a flat screen).
|
While I do prefer the succubus = demon approach, when I first heard about the 4th ed plans to change them to devils I thought about how to approach this change while keeping a coherent storyline for my campaigns (I didn't expect the complete overhaul 4th edition did and I still thought I might like the ne edition and eventually convert...oh foolish days of youth). So, what if Asmodeus, after achiving godhood called back his best spies from the bedchambers of oh so many demon-worshippers and even archdemons... Of course, since 4th ed. killed the blood war, too, and my thoughts of converting, I never used this Idea, but I still think it might have been interesting...
Yeah... it's a bit disappointing to me that so much of the Demonomicon stuff I did is being invalidated. I put a lot of love into those articles, and took a lot of pains to make sure that they didn't contradict much established canon and were respectful to the authors who had done work on the demons in the years before. It's too bad that philosophy didn't stick around in 4th edition. Maybe 5th edition will be more to my liking...
The Demonomicon articles were some of the very best stuff in 3.5. As you said, it's a pity that it's not going to be used.
But at least I still have copies of it all.
Erinyes in Golarion will always be female. So will succubi. We do have incubi in Goalrion, of course...
Will these be the (very well done) incubi who showed up in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet article from Dragon?
|
Erinyes in Golarion will always be female. So will succubi. We do have incubi in Goalrion, of course...Will these be the (very well done) incubi who showed up in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet article from Dragon?
Maybe in style, but like they said earlier, most of the work in Dragon is offlimits legally.
|
Creative Director
|
Erinyes in Golarion will always be female. So will succubi. We do have incubi in Goalrion, of course...Will these be the (very well done) incubi who showed up in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet article from Dragon?
The incubus I designed for the Malcanthet article is Wizards of the Coast's closed content. We can't use those rules. BUT the incubus is a creature of real-world myth, so we CAN do a new incubus that has similar stats. That said... I'd honestly probably just go with the incubus that appeared in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends; a product we couldn't use during the Dragon days and which, had I been able, WOULD have used in the Malcanthet article.
Keep in mind Succubi can use their Change Shape ability to appear male when it is necessary.
Erinyes are stuck with one gender, though.
Insofar as outsiders can have real gender.
Edit: Wait, Dragon actually was not allowed to use third party sources? That's a shame.
|
Creative Director
|
Edit: Wait, Dragon actually was not allowed to use third party sources? That's a shame.
When you use a third-party source, you have to honor the OGL and print the OGL and open up a portion of the entire book to being open content. I'd have LOVED to do that with Dragon or Dungeon... but that wasn't something Wizards of the Coast was interested in doing.
Actually, I tend to have succubi and incubi be the same. They can change their shape at will. Whether they wear a female shape and call themselves succubus or be male incubi is just a matter of mood.
|
Actually, I tend to have succubi and incubi be the same. They can change their shape at will. Whether they wear a female shape and call themselves succubus or be male incubi is just a matter of mood.
Which is also how the original myths worked. The succubus sucked sperm out of the helpless man, and then changed to an incubus to impregnate the chaste woman. After all, no good Christian could possibly have sex outside of marriage, right?
|
|
Which is also how the original myths worked. The succubus sucked sperm out of the helpless man, and then changed to an incubus to impregnate the chaste woman. After all, no good Christian could possibly have sex outside of marriage, right?
There's some freaky imagery for you.
It is amazing what some people came up with to explain things like unexpected pregnancies and nocturnal emissions.
For what it is worth:
I have long been contemplating a setting where women exist who are destined to be ancestresses of the Succubi, Erinyes, Valkyrie and Angels. Theory being that each of these are species that diverged as they went their separate ways through the Outer Planes.
But I have also been contemplating a scenario set in ancient Atlantis where Asmodeus is a human prince who is seeking to control great magicks, which will eventually result in making him the Duke of Hell. Some of his followers are women who are destined to be ancestresses of the Succibi and Erinyes. Perhaps the Valkyrie have already diverged and are working for another prince named Odin.
The change of Succubi from "Demon" to "Devil" makes a lot of sense given the new 4E multiverse. There is a lot that I do not like about 4E, but this change is one that I can endorse. OTOH, given the 3E multiverse, it makes more sense for Succibi to be "demons".
OTOOH I have decided to take the new 4E multiverse and make it a corner of the old 3E multiverse. This brings open the possibility of succubi who are demons encountering succubi who are devils, encountering one of their ancient ancestresses who is a sister to an Erinyes.
I don't like 4th Edition. Regardless of which is "True" D&D, 4th Edition is the first edition since 1st Edition where they went out of their way to destroy paradigms which had become classic in the game. What they came up with is rigid and difficult to expand upon and just does not support the sorts of stories that I want to generate. I am thrilled that Paizo is supporting the 3E philosophy of creating a framework that people can expand upon, rather than a set of gorgeously painted boxes for people to exist within.
Which is why I've been contemplating an adventure in which the bad guys are these wizards who live on the coast, who have cast a might spell so that the barbarians can not use their barbarian abilities without buying a new Masters of the Wild sourcebook, which won't do much good because most barbarians don't know how to read.
But my major question is: how do succubi fit in the Second Darkness storyline? I only have _Children of the Void_ and, noticing the science fiction elements, have been thinking about weaving that into a science fiction campaign.
Which is also how the original myths worked. The succubus sucked sperm out of the helpless man, and then changed to an incubus to impregnate the chaste woman. After all, no good Christian could possibly have sex outside of marriage, right?
I could swear I've read they were separate: Succubi would come to you and steal your seat, which they'd give to Incubi, who'd use it to impregnate unmarried women.
I could swear I've read they were separate: Succubi would come to you and steal your seat, which they'd give to Incubi, who'd use it to impregnate unmarried women.
The succubus would steal a guy's chair? And I really don't want to know how an incubus would use an armchair on some poor unmarried woman.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that typo! ;)
(Assuming that it actually _was_ a typo. If not, my apologies for poking fun at your post.)
Yeah... it's a bit disappointing to me that so much of the Demonomicon stuff I did is being invalidated. I put a lot of love into those articles, and took a lot of pains to make sure that they didn't contradict much established canon and were respectful to the authors who had done work on the demons in the years before. It's too bad that philosophy didn't stick around in 4th edition. Maybe 5th edition will be more to my liking...
Thank you very much for all this. I feel the same as you.
(Assuming that it actually _was_ a typo.
No, it wasn't. The whole sperm-robbery angle entered church teachings because of a mistranslation such as this. The original text said seat, but they thought this was wrong, and instead translated it into seed.
Succubi would indeed steal chairs, and incubi would then carry them into women's homes, to fornicate in a sitting position. The church, being very conservative on the whole sex thing, preached that intercourse was only permissable to sire children, and only in the missionary position. Incubi used chairs (and other sitting furniture) to show women other ways of having sex.
The church's ban on playing around during lovemaking stems from the Kama Sutra, which they of course condemned for not being Christian.
There's a link, but I post it in spoiler tags so you're warned and not just click something that may offend your beliefs
I wonder how many will fall for the nonsense I wrote above. I know I have the knack for making nonsense believable enough. Just the other day, I convinced my aunt that warm wasser was fattening - because of the photons that are used to warm it up, and as wel all know, photons have 2 - 2.5 calories per gramme, not quite as much as sugar at 4 cpg, but still. That's why you gain more weight when eating warm meals.
After that, I couldn't keep a straight face, but she totally bought it.
|
|
It wasn't an error in translation - the change from seat to seed was a necessity after the Merowingans were replaced by the Karolingans. Many people called the new dynasty ursurpers or "throne robbers" and since the church supported the Karolingans, they had to do something about the myths around "seat takers" or the Karolingan rule might have ended with torches and pitchforks...
<grins>
You guys are just as bad as some friends of mine, not to mention certain family members! Plus, deadpan humour can seem so much more convincing in the written medium. :)
Want bad family members? I have plenty. You can have them all. Or parts of some. I'd be all too glad to help you there.
God, I hate people some times.
|
Hi all -
I've always seen the succubus as the embodiment of sexual destruction. Tempting a partner in, and then draining his life away. Kind of like the stereotypical leeching wife.
And this is exactly why when I met the future Mrs. Theocrat, I called her my GirlFIEND and now WifeFIEND. She is a succubus. I was a stud living my life gaming and hooking up. Then her and her one night stand has turned into a Marriage. So with her, she is chaotic and messy. I'm the neat and germ freak. So I have always been LN and her chaotic girlie-ness screwed it all up.
I proudly paint the Sophie mini's for the WifeFIEND's Christmas Villages that invade during this time - all in honor of who she really is underneath all her "love" and "support." She's holding me back, I tell ya, "Holding me Back!"Back on topic, I recall the reference to the Pathfinder "wrong step" earlier this year, and when I re-typed out the handout 1 just this past weekend, I had to verify the "mistake" - and wondered if it was an intentional reference or if it was intentional to just be nothing more than something that would generate comments (as it has here).
Be Well. Be Well x-FIENDed.
Theocrat Issak
I saw a very ancient discussion on this during the 2nd edition days of Dragon magazine. It was about the succubus and the erinyes, both "sexual-themed" creatures. One guy was of the view that yes, both of these did use sex to achieve their goals, but they did so quite differently. He explained it from the viewpoint of what happened to a community where one of the creatures romped.
In the erinyes case, the community slowly found itself in more and more the grip of enforced prudity in public, while sexuality was channeled into (for the creature) more manageable locations. Secrecy grows, and yet behind closed doors, people surrender to their sexual urges and explore deviant tastes. With secrecy comes shame, and with shame possibilities for blackmail, always with the erinyes at the heart of the spider's web.
With a succubus, the community finds that sexuality is used to question society, and more rude behaviour becomes visible. Drunken revelries, sexual demonstrations against authority, orgiastic cults start popping up. Marriages are sundered and society is weakened. And when people turn away from the society they live in, they need different leadership... and a succubus always has things people can do for her.
At least, this is how I remember the argument. It's a bit hard to apply in the standard "adventuring party" situation, and in 3.0, the erinyes had already become a pure combat monster. It was harder to do that with the succubus, since the succubus always was sort of a synonym for sexuality.
I hope I didn't cross the line for the forums in this post.
I hope I didn't cross the line for the forums in this post.
Bah!
Anyway, I like 3e's/Pathfinder's succubi and erinyes. They fit well with the mythological roots of the Erinyes/Eumenides/Furies/Dirae. They're NOT the LE sex fiends, but something else. They happen to be quite hot and nearly naked, but that doesn't mean they have to use sex as a weapon.
check this article out. It is an old planescape article that tells the differences between the succubi and the enryies.
check this article out. It is an old planescape article that tells the differences between the succubi and the enryies.
Thanks for the link. It'll be helpful to get across jhust how the succubi/erinyes can manipulate and ultimately destroy a community.