Should he be evil?


Advice

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

So I am the GM of a campaign my party ran into a Succubus, now before any discussions or me introducing story hooks one of my players instantly shouts "I wanna have relations with her" I thought sure why not gave him negative levels for it but the party cleric had diamond dust already on him so the negative levels were not so much a punishment. My question is would him willingly having relations with a evil creature fully knowing she was evil as she was not hiding the fact she was a succubus give him an alignment change to evil, he is a Lawful Good ranger, and I know alignment has been argued to death but I am just looking to see if that would be considered evil or how often you GM people out there change alignments on your PCs

And as a note I started the campaign telling them if they turn evil their character is taken away and they have to roll up a new one. So i don't want to do this without some form of feedback, anything would be awesome.

Dark Archive

well no matter what that relationship can't last since its a LG with CE... I don't think it should make him evil straight away but slowly corrupting him from LG to CE over a long period of time...


Of course, the Ranger might try to turn the Succubus away from evil, but THAT is a challenge if I've ever heard of one.

Sczarni

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah...An alignment isn't a 1 time flip flop type thing. Its a way of life. Everybody makes mistakes or bad decisions, but that doesn't always make them a bad person.


I would have slowly revealed that succubi and the like have quite likely disgusting kinks

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

WrathW1zard wrote:

So I am the GM of a campaign my party ran into a Succubus, now before any discussions or me introducing story hooks one of my players instantly shouts "I wanna have relations with her" I thought sure why not gave him negative levels for it but the party cleric had diamond dust already on him so the negative levels were not so much a punishment. My question is would him willingly having relations with a evil creature fully knowing she was evil as she was not hiding the fact she was a succubus give him an alignment change to evil, he is a Lawful Good ranger, and I know alignment has been argued to death but I am just looking to see if that would be considered evil or how often you GM people out there change alignments on your PCs

And as a note I started the campaign telling them if they turn evil their character is taken away and they have to roll up a new one. So i don't want to do this without some form of feedback, anything would be awesome.

I don't think a single instance should ever turn someone straight from good to evil, he might become Lawful Neutral though. That's how I would run it. Given that he's a ranger, it won't affect him much, but if he pulls a stunt like that again, then you should feel free to dump him to Evil and make him re-roll.

Sovereign Court

When it comes to alignment I dont change them unless the character has a history of acting out of alignment. The context of acting out of alignment is important too. I really cant say what you should do here because I have no idea how this player runs the character except in this one single situation.

Is sleeping with a Succubus evil? I would say no. I would have it come back to bite the character on the ass as a GM though. I don't mean negative levels or an instant alignment change either. The Succubus would become a long running reoccurring character that would always be interfering with the PCs plans. Always playing head games with the PC who had relations. Unless they ended up killing her of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it becomes a patter on behavior over time then move him towards DC chaos then evil or evil then chaos. I think shifting slowly towads chaos works better.

Have her show up at night when he'd on guard duty and distract him. He doesn't have to betray the party and she doesntvhave to do anything but offer what he wants. Provide enough 'innocent' papas in judgement. Maybe then treasure starts going missing becausevhes making gifts to her.

Basically just provide him lots of opportunities to damn himself.. its really up to you if you want to tell him he's shifting alignment, though give the other cha acters chances to notice persdonslity changes as it happens.

Basically I'm saying don't use it as an alignment hammer, use it for story.


My gut feeling is that it is a fairly Chaotic act...


I think this is a great hook for you to use. I have to agree with everyone else that his relationship with her does not make him evil nor is it an evil act in and of itself. This could work out to be some great role playing for you and your player to delve into. He could try to get her to become good or slowly move towards evil himself. It's the acts that determine what happens and you can put a lot of different challenges in front of him to see how he'd react to them and whether he passes (staying good) or fails (sliding towards evil) them.

Don't get too caught up in the he's good she's bad thing to determine how his alignment should be moving. Give him the situations where his heart and morals will be tested.


Screw the alignment stuff, very rarely does one act cause a shift. This isn't one of them.

But plot hooks and chaos galore would make this awesome roleplaying opportunities. I would have him get pregnant with her demon babies.

The Exchange

oh that is brilliant all of these are awesome ideas cheers everyone


You shouldn't consider succubus as a creature with a giant libido, but as a creature who use sex as a tool. And as a demon, as in "a creature who enjoy spreading destruction".

Now, you have a PC who want to have sex with a succubus. That's great, and certainly not Evil (nor Chaotic, generally speaking - it can be Chaotic in some particular circumstances). The question is: what will he do to have sex with her? How can the succubus use this to make him fall?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I must reference Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series. You should check out book number six For Love of Evil. It might give you some really good ideas, and it's a great series either way.

As to if it should make him evil? I don't think so. But just from what you've described, he REALLY doesn't sound like a Lawful Good type of guy. I would go so far as to say that if he was LG, he wouldn't want to have relations with a succubus. You should maybe suggest he consider not being Lawful, at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never knew an alignment was an std people

Last I checked:

In d&d world sex isn't wrong no matter who its with unless you've taken an oath otherwise

Associating with people isn't wrong no matter their alignment, just being with them doesn't change your alignment unless you've taken an oath otherwise.

This being said I can't see any reason why you'd need an alignment change. It'd be like a lawful good fighter hanging out with a chaotic evil cleric. So long as the CE cleric isn't doing anything evil then short of an oath by that character there is nothing in game mechanics that I've found that merely being together changes alignment or even having relations changes alignment.

It has to be an evil action on his part (which sex is not in d&d), or allowing evil actions (which none were done in front of him or with his knowledge) Anything else would require a character specific oath as far as I know


as others have said, on its own, not worth aligment change, and personally I would put it on the law vs chaos scale, and not the good vs evil.

On another note, I thought I read somewhere that when a succubus has relations with a mortal they become bonded, and the mortal then owes the succubus a favor(s). It could have been that if the succubus grants a favor, they can be as cruel with it as they want, and take back payment however they wish unless explicitly stated beforehand, and if that is the case, I would see him seeking relations with her as asking for a favor.

let her suck him dry!

Dark Archive

I'd say no. Having sex with her once is probably not helping her further her evil plans or whatever; he is not hurting anyone but himself by having sex with the succubus. I'd argue that a neutral character would be just fine doing this. I'd be surprised if a LG character wanted to do this--and I might ask him twice to be sure he's really acting in character--but I would not dock his alignment for it. Unless he starts having a real relationship with her (though if he's trying to redeem her that's perfectly acceptable).

The only question I ask when trying to determine whether something is an evil act: "Will this hurt anyone other than you?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't necessarily think that wanting to shag a lust demon is inherently evil. Inherently stupid, yes and you should probably dock him 1d6 int points permanently. Or possibly wis. Or both.

More seriously, I think I'd use it as a role playing hook - there is no way that the succubus wouldn't intend to corrupt and use the character and given how experienced and skilful she's going to be after hundreds of years of practice it should take an absolutely awesome will save to not want to go back for another round. And that diamond dust gets expensive. Then when she suggests that it would all be more fun with the blood of innocents used as an aphrodisiac it's then that you turn his alignment towards evil.

Alternatively, you just kill him by negative levels, one per kiss, if the succubus is hungry. To be honest, this is probably what you should do - the character is being really stupid, the succubus is chaotic evil and he's effectively tying himself up and putting himself on an altar to an evil deity. After half a dozen kisses he has -6 on his will save and I don't imagine that he planned to have relations with her while the rest of the party stood around making sarcastic comments. I can just imagine the succubus standing there confused with a 'natural blond' look on her face - "ummm...you want to have sex with me? like, you do know I'm a demon don't you?" Or once his will save is down to 'pitiful' she can dominate him and have him kill the cleric. In fact, the rest of the party should be killing him for being so stupid.

Scarab Sages

I'd agree that it isn't an evil act, just a chaotic one. A single instance should not change alignment, however, so this one case should simply be noted for future reference. If the pattern continues, tell the player that he's actually playing a CG character. He can make the change to NG (at least) and keep playing the way he plays. If further actions are representative of a chaotic character, then make the shift to CG.

I also agree that the real evil in sex occurs when it violates an oath -- such as a Paladin's oath or the oath of marriage. There are other possible oaths, too, such as a vow to destroy evil outsiders, that could come into play here. If there was no such oath, then there is likely no evil.

This is a chance to have some plot twists, too. The succubus should become a recurring NPC, following the weak-willed ranger and trying to turn him to evil or chaos. Note that charm magic could work well here if the demon does not use it right away. After the character knowingly associates with the succubus for a while, then the consequences of that relationship, even if charmed, become the character's responsibility. After all, he knows exactly the kind of creature he is dealing with and yet continues.

Finally, consider the possibility that a child is born. An alu or cambion child of the character could become a major plot hook, depending on how long the campaign runs.


evil no though using the time to give him a profane gift sounds fun


I fail to see how this is even chaotic guys.

Are there laws restricting people from having sex with demons that I have not yet heard of?

Are there laws that say all non natural creatures MUST be killed on sight?

Has he made it a part of his own moral code to never have affiliations with evil creatures?

Has he taken oaths that say that he cannot do this?

If there is not a single yes in the above questions then it 1) cannot be chaotic because it is not going breaking laws or working against the established order because the established order has not stated a position on the matter (no laws to reflect it) 2) cannot be chaotic because he has made no statement or oaths or anything in character, binding or not, that says he will not associate evil creatures

As far as I'm concerned a characters alignment should be shifted upon lots of little actions or a truly monumental one that
1) breaks a personal vow to the contrary (chaotic)
2) continuously goes out of their way to help other people (good) or continuously commits acts ignoring the rammifications to those around them (evil)
3) They go out of their way to keep their word as much as possible (lawful)
4) Ignore actions being done around them that harm other people (evil)
5) Ignore actions around them that work against the established order (chaotic)

In short its easier to move torwards chaotic evil than lawful good because I would say watching evil or chaotic actions happen and not stopping them causes an alignment shift. However none of those is being done here so far as our knowledge, so unless there is more in game material we don't know about I see no reason for this to impact alignment in any way


No, he shouldn't shift to evil but he should have to atone for his sins against his god as a LG character, I might have him lose an ability for a time period. His character should know better. "I shouldn't be hitting on the lady with demon wings, tail, and horns."

My issue would be the character freely jumped into bed with a demon, wings, tail, and all. A group of creatures his mother mother most likely told him would steal him in the night if he didn't behave well. To me it seems as though he just wanted to say in his best Butthead voice, "I did it with a demon, huh, huh," out of character.

Is it an attractive demon baddy, yes as per the rules written. He might have been talking to her with a halfy even. It uses sex as a weapon. Perhaps you should force him to do something for the demon now, gease/quest him?

Dark Archive

The Shogun of Harlem wrote:
No, he shouldn't shift to evil but he should have to atone for his sins against his god as a LG character, I might have him lose an ability for a time period. His character should know better. "I shouldn't be hitting on the lady with demon wings, tail, and horns."

Rangers don't get powers from a god, so there's no need to atone. Ranger powers aren't affected one iota by alignment, so there's no need to atone.

I would be pissed off at him as a party member that he was frivolously wasting resources for restoration, but there's no need to punish him as the GM. He didn't do anything wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long wrote:

Are there laws restricting people from having sex with demons that I have not yet heard of?

I'm pretty sure most societies pass laws against consorting with evil outsiders, as they don't want people sending batazu into the market square and slaughtering people.

While i have never seen a D&D suppliment called "laws of the realm" most settings are supposed to be pseudo European, and most european countries did have laws against witchcraft. I think the US still has some on the books.


Mergy wrote:

Rangers don't get powers from a god, so there's no need to atone. Ranger powers aren't affected one iota by alignment, so there's no need to atone.

I would be pissed off at him as a party member that he was frivolously wasting resources for restoration, but there's no need to punish him as the GM. He didn't do anything wrong.

True, he does not get his powers from a "god" but he venerates nature and is a divine caster, but that is beside the point. I would certainly punish him, the other players/characters should too. You are absolutely right, it is a waste of resources (and time)and he should hear about it. Now if it serves the plot and furthers the game, get all the demon tail you want.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Long wrote:

Are there laws restricting people from having sex with demons that I have not yet heard of?

I'm pretty sure most societies pass laws against consorting with evil outsiders, as they don't want people sending batazu into the market square and slaughtering people.

While i have never seen a D&D suppliment called "laws of the realm" most settings are supposed to be pseudo European, and most european countries did have laws against witchcraft. I think the US still has some on the books.

If this were true every witch, wizard, scorcerer, druid, oracle, and ranger would be burned at the stake as soon as anyone figured out what they were.

If you go by European model they condemned "all" magic.

As far as I know however, they likely wouldn't even have had laws against it because most people wouldn't think of that. Furthermore I haven't encountered one game where its even against the law to summon them. That seems much worse but I've never even seen it brought up as a problem.


ossian666 wrote:
Nah...An alignment isn't a 1 time flip flop type thing. Its a way of life. Everybody makes mistakes or bad decisions, but that doesn't always make them a bad person.

This is one of the best things I've ever read in a messageboard alignment discussion. +1


First of all, there's no reason the succubus wouldn't just eat him (unless she has even better plans -- which is even more fun -- a few negative levels + profane gift + return visits, and off you go...), even if she "promised" not to (*cough* demon?)

However, in terms of whether or not it's an evil act, I would say that it depends on your view of the cosmos, and what you think happens to the life energy that negative level represents. It could certainly be argued that willingly helping a demon (by making her stronger, especially at the cost of a piece of your very soul) is an evil act -- doubly so if the succubi then turn over some or all of that energy to even darker things in the Abyss.... But even then, I wouldn't say it's enough to make the dude fall (on its own).

It does, however, work as an excellent starting point for a fall, though, especially when there's a succubus with her hooks in him -- a demon who's very job is to corrupt and turn people just like him (but, usually, smarter). But then, I'm an evil GM.


WrathW1zard wrote:

So I am the GM of a campaign my party ran into a Succubus, now before any discussions or me introducing story hooks one of my players instantly shouts "I wanna have relations with her" I thought sure why not gave him negative levels for it but the party cleric had diamond dust already on him so the negative levels were not so much a punishment. My question is would him willingly having relations with a evil creature fully knowing she was evil as she was not hiding the fact she was a succubus give him an alignment change to evil, he is a Lawful Good ranger, and I know alignment has been argued to death but I am just looking to see if that would be considered evil or how often you GM people out there change alignments on your PCs

And as a note I started the campaign telling them if they turn evil their character is taken away and they have to roll up a new one. So i don't want to do this without some form of feedback, anything would be awesome.

I don't think wanting to have sex with someone just because they are hot is a chaotic or evil act. I'd argue the impulse (as well as following up on said impulse) is neutral. He might have problems if he continues interacting with her over a great deal of time, but that depends on how he plays it.

As for how often I change alignments, I use a table that charts everybody on a 100 point scale in the law/chaos and good evil axis.

1 to 30 is evil/chaotic, 31-69 is neutral, 70-100 is lawful/good.

I start the player at neutral/neutral (or LG if playing a paladin). When ever somebody makes a decision I feel should affect their alignment, they shift one point on the scale. Over time, this gets the character to be in the alignment that the player is playing. I remove alignment restrictions on most classes in order to not screw people, but it works pretty well.


thomas long wrote:
If this were true every witch, wizard, scorcerer, druid, oracle, and ranger would be burned at the stake as soon as anyone figured out what they were.

Judging from the iconic witch's bakground "burn the witch" is a possible reaction from the locals.

Quote:
If you go by European model they condemned "all" magic.

Its modified. If you are the dominant church no one is going to complain if you're mending broken bones with cure light spells wounds or saving people from the plauge.

Quote:


As far as I know however, they likely wouldn't even have had laws against it because most people wouldn't think of that. Furthermore I haven't encountered one game where its even against the law to summon them. That seems much worse but I've never even seen it brought up as a problem

Why wouldn't you ban (or at least heavily regulate) summoning evil outsiders? Especially when they can get out of the circle.


Maybe I'm over-simplifying, but who says she wants him? Being a succubus doesn't mean she just sleeps with any dude who wants her. That would be counter-intuitive to her real goals. She uses sex to corrupt goodness. I'd make her offer forever but never really deliver. Maybe she will keep asking for bigger and bigger favors, promising the whole time, never really delivering, while he sinks further and further into depravity. She's evil, like primordial evil, not a stripper with daddy issues.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its modified. If you are the dominant church no one is going to complain if you're mending broken bones with cure light spells wounds or saving people from the plauge.

True but how many druids go around helping people? Rangers might be more often but oracles? And wizards and sorcerers last I checked wouldn't be even close to that so they should be burned too.

Quote:
Why wouldn't you ban (or at least heavily regulate) summoning evil outsiders? Especially when they can get out of the circle.

Same reason no one bans summoning a huge dangerous beast in the middle of town square. True you could provide more stringent rules but unless the gm says such a thing I'd be inclined to say they don't have 1 for 4 reasons.

1. summoning, though more likely animals, is still probably pretty common at lower levels.

2. Last I checked, one of the classic familiars for casters was the imp, also an evil outsider that can be gotten at low levels. And frankly who doesn't use them as an extra pair of hands when they go grocery shopping?

3. So which one of you is the brave soul that's gonna walk up to the 19th level wizard that just summoned a pit fiend in town square and yell "You cant do that!" Not smart or good etiquette

4. Precedent mostly. I played video games before d&d and they had no problem there, then I went through about 5 campaigns of d&d and I've never had a single issue of it come up there either, even when we had the guy traipsing around with a freaking undead manticore carrying his brand new television set! (nah just groceries and stuff)


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


True but how many druids go around helping people?

A fair number. Its not that uncommon to see a small rural community in an adventure with a druid helping out.

Quote:
Rangers might be more often but oracles? And wizards and sorcerers last I checked wouldn't be even close to that so they should be burned too.

Sorcerers mayby. People seem more likely to put up with wizards because wizards need/like society and organizations. They benefit from meeting with others of their own kind and discussing arcane matters

Quote:
Why wouldn't you ban (or at least heavily regulate) summoning evil outsiders? Especially when they can get out of the circle.
Same reason no one bans summoning a huge dangerous beast in the middle of town square.

... EVERYONE bans summoning huge dangerous beasts in the middle of town square. The same way they ban people hacking down other people with greatswords in the middle of town square.

Quote:
2. Last I checked, one of the classic familiars for casters was the imp, also an evil outsider that can be gotten at low levels. And frankly who doesn't use them as an extra pair of hands when they go grocery shopping?

The imp can (and should) disguise itself as something else.

Quote:


3. So which one of you is the brave soul that's gonna walk up to the 19th level wizard that just summoned a pit fiend in town square and yell "You cant do that!" Not smart or good etiquette

The paladin. His funeral will be lovely.

Meanwhile someone else will send a message or sending spell off to the capitol where they can get in touch with a team of 4 16 th level adventurers who will have a "talk" with the demon summoner.

Quote:


4. Precedent mostly. I played video games before d&d and they had no problem there, then I went through about 5 campaigns of d&d and I've never had a single issue of it come up there either, even when we had the guy traipsing around with a freaking undead manticore carrying his brand new television set! (nah just groceries and stuff)

Did the video game call you out on riffling through peasants houses and raiding their bookshelves and chest for treasure? Or for fireballing the inns?

Video games are a bad source of precedent for a campaign world run by a DM. DM's are there specifically to add the realism that a computer game can't.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
A fair number. Its not that uncommon to see a small rural community in an adventure with a druid helping out.

In an adventure maybe because your pc's play characters and druid is one of the possible ones. But how many non pc's do so? Last I checked druids didn't like any civilization as a general rule.

Quote:
Sorcerers mayby. People seem more likely to put up with wizards because wizards need/like society and organizations. They benefit from meeting with others of their own kind and discussing arcane matters

Why would how dependent wizards are on society swing it either way? You're comparing it to Europe last I checked medieval Europe going to the mart for spell casting stuff or wearing a pointy hat just made it easier to decide who to burn. Point being you might be able to get away with church. But anything not church affiliate is dead, dead, dead.

Quote:
... EVERYONE bans summoning huge dangerous beasts in the middle of town square. The same way they ban people hacking down other people with greatswords in the middle of town square.

People ban hacking people down with greatswords because that's called murder. Is summoning harming anyone else? Until you let it get out of control you haven't harmed anyone.

And if you're trying to regulate dangerous things walking around town why haven't you put magical collars and irons on every single caster above level 6 walking around town because frankly they're more dangerous than the things they summon.

Quote:
The imp can (and should) disguise itself as something else.

That's dm discretion and campaign specific right there that is. What are you going to do about the dire cats walking through town with the druid? Do you also make large scary looking martial types forfeit their weapons at the gate?

Quote:

The paladin. His funeral will be lovely.

Meanwhile someone else will send a message or sending spell off to the capitol where they can get in touch with a team of 4 16 th level adventurers who will have a "talk" with the demon summoner.

And tell him "being evil isn't a crime for you, but for him it is." Because last I checked, being of the alignment evil itself is NEVER against the law. Doing things to hurt people is. This is why blatantly evil people can walk down the streets alongside good people and not go to jail for it.

Quote:

Did the video game call you out on riffling through peasants houses and raiding their bookshelves and chest for treasure? Or for fireballing the inns?

Video games are a bad source of precedent for a campaign world run by a DM. DM's are there specifically to add the realism that a computer game can't.

Did I once say the dm's ran it like a video game? thieving and murdering was still wrong unlike many old d20 video games. They still put reality into the games. However you seem to be under the lawful good assumption, "its kin are generally evil, it will be shot on sight."

I've seen orcs walk through town before and accepted it because so long as they're not a local enemy of the town and they're not hacking at random people, their gold is just as good. Things are not banned for being personally evil and most of the time they aren't banned for being racially evil so far as I've seen.

Unless you plan to run a lawful good campaign where the instant anything thats uncommon to normal towns shows its face its shot. But once again thats your discretion. It's dm discretion to determine how common magic is, how common summoning in particular is, and how well races deal with outsiders and other races.

Cause frankly you could go the extreme route and say "OMG HE'S CASTING A SPELL, EVERYONE GET DOWN" and have 6 guards tackle your caster for generating a floating disk to hold their crap because spell casting in general can be dangerous


I'll have to agree with everybody else and say that it isn't evil. Possibly chaotic, but even so it shouldn't result in an immediate alignment change. I would say, however, that willing doing this would indicate a pretty low Wisdom score.

I would introduce consequences in other ways. If she just drains him a bunch and starting dominating him to attack the party or what not, then you just have a fight on your hands and the fun is over so soon. The most fun would be to have the consequences be more long lasting, make this a long term story arch where the succubus uses the PC to cause all sorts of problems. In fact, have the succubus not drain his energy, she holds back to avoid hurting him. Have her tell him how awesome he is and how she loves being with him and spending time with him. Have her become a reoccurring character, she visits some times to see the ranger. She then tells him about some plot hook, a dungeon with a valuable magic item, something like that. Or she asks for a favor or offers something in return for going on a quest for her. The quest or mission shouldn't be something obviously evil, but should serve evil in some way or is perhaps a small part of larger plan.

Ultimately, she should want to turn the character and the party evil, not just kill them or drain their life forces. If she can get the party, or the character, to start moving towards evil then you can change their alignments. Even without openly evil deeds though, she can use them to serve her purposes better if she plays it cool avoids tipping her hand too soon.

Also, a question - how does the rest of the party act towards the succubus and the ranger's desire to have sex with her?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


In an adventure maybe because your pc's play characters and druid is one of the possible ones. But how many non pc's do so? Last I checked druids didn't like any civilization as a general rule.

Big cities no, but rural and agrarian people live with nature on a daily basis. A druid can help them do so sustainably.

Quote:
Why would how dependent wizards are on society swing it either way? You're comparing it to Europe last I checked medieval Europe going to the mart for spell casting stuff or wearing a pointy hat just made it easier to decide who to burn. Point being you might be able to get away with church. But anything not church affiliate is dead, dead, dead.

Or church sanctioned, or at least church allowed.

Quote:

People ban hacking people down with greatswords because that's called murder. Is summoning harming anyone else? Until you let it get out of control you haven't harmed anyone.

Its like yelling fire in a crowded theatre or pulling out an AK 47 in times square. You're going to cause a stampede where someone will likely get hurt. At best you're disrupting local business.

Quote:


And if you're trying to regulate dangerous things walking around town why haven't you put magical collars and irons on every single caster above level 6 walking around town because frankly they're more dangerous than the things they summon.

Because people don't have levels floating above their names advertising "i can level your town". A giant three headed fire breathing demon does.

Quote:
That's dm discretion and campaign specific right there that is.

Its pretty standard, the rule rather than the exception.

Quote:
What are you going to do about the dire cats walking through town with the druid? Do you also make large scary looking martial types forfeit their weapons at the gate?

Depending on the town yes. One of the advantages of the mechanically inferior horse, pony, or dog is that they're more acceptable in town.

Quote:
I've seen orcs walk through town before and accepted it because so long as they're not a local enemy of the town and they're not hacking at random people, their gold is just as good

Its a loooong cry from an orc to a literal incarnation of evil and fire made flesh.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Big cities no, but rural and agrarian people live with nature on a daily basis. A druid can help them do so sustainably.

Gonna have to agree to disagree here. Every time I've come across them they try to keep civilization from moving in. Last time I checked they were defenders of the wild not, "I try and make civilization and the wild live together in harmony" Generally they don't even live around towns and such, they're described as living "in the wilds"

Nowhere are they described as "that crazy old hermit that lives 100 yards from the edge of town in a tent"

Quote:
Or church sanctioned, or at least church allowed.
How many medieval europe churches did you know that said "hey we're fine with witchcraft or sorcery"?
Quote:
Its like yelling fire in a crowded theatre or pulling out an AK 47 in times square. You're going to cause a stampede where someone will likely get hurt. At best you're disrupting local business.

2 answers

1. depends on how common magic is. In some settings magic is so common that high level mages walk around with magically bound servants of all kinds in large towns

2. You do realize that some places, even in large cities, you can get these permits from the government to carry very dangerous weapons in public places? just teasing though it is true :P

Quote:
Because people don't have levels floating above their names advertising "i can level your town". A giant three headed fire breathing demon does.

I lol'd at the first part, though I'll give you that one. Still depends on how many high level mages this society has though. If everyone and their mother can cast spells probably a few are going to have major summonings.

Quote:
Its pretty standard, the rule rather than the exception.

maybe for you. Like I said, I've played with a brand new gm a few times, a few inexperienced gm's, and a few that have played since 1E. I've only ever had it once come into play and that was with my 4 charisma Troll barbarian waltzing around the capitol of traditional northern lands

Quote:
Depending on the town yes. One of the advantages of the mechanically inferior horse, pony, or dog is that they're more acceptable in town.

Generally when I bring large saber cats into town and hand them to the stable boy he shuts up and takes my money and just hopes it isn't hungry.

Quote:
Its a loooong cry from an orc to a literal incarnation of evil and fire made flesh.

Generally orcs are evil, and are assumed to be evil. All you need now is to break out the red paint for those awesome flames on their axes that all the young teens love and you're set :)

Liberty's Edge

Definatley no to negative levels.


Unless her lady bits have new magic properties I don't think that'd change his alignment. Though if she becomes a reoccurring influence on the player he's at risk. But then so is everything and everyone around him.

So she could totally offer him gifts and help and such.

Pan wrote:
I would have it come back to bite the character on the ass as a GM though.

Yes, Succubi will do that if you ask them...


to use the real world as an example; I know a lot of guys who've fallen for a hot(pardon the pun) girl that had nothing but bad intentions toward him. Giving her a bunch of SLA and a true demonic agenda. He wont be evil at first, but she'll try to manipulate him into becoming evil. Should make for good RP


A lot depends on what rating (G/PG/R/etc) your gaming group is. If you're up for the roleplaying of it, I suggest that the succubus should make a call as to whether she wants to corrupt the ranger or just drain him. If she drains him, she ought to reduce him to 1st level and drag him off to the Abyss where he'll be her slave. The reason you don't drain them totally is because someone who isn't dead can't be resurrected or the like. Draining to zero is for peasant snacks and chance encounters, not for someone who might actually get raised.


This is a little bit of a tangent, but a few of the comments in the thread have made me wonder about the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of a Succubus.

I was intially thinking that Succubi should be sexuality personified. Constantly aroused, filled with lust and perverse desires, completely hedonistic, having an insatiable appetite for pleasure, etc. Combine this with cruelty, sadism, and the desire to create chaos and mayhem, and you essentially have a creature which causes trouble to have fun - where it's life involves the constant pleasure seeking of sex and destruction. The for the Succubus, existence is fun and games.

Then I thought about it a bit and an alternative idea for the Succubus came to me. This incarnation of the Succubus doesn't have fun, it doesn't like sex at all or even its demonic existence. The Succubus hates sex, even the thought of sex or attraction fills her with complete revulsion and hatred. For her, every sexual act is an act of utter degradation and humiliation, filling her with loathing for her partner and for herself. When ever she sees someone else enjoying sex, expressing attraction or desire, or even falling in love; it fills her with disgust and bitterness, it makes her want to make those people suffer. The Succubus must, however, utilize her sensuality else her demonic power fade and she be forced back to the Abyss where her essence will be devoured by other demons or she becomes reduced to a dretch or manes. For this Succubus, her existence is hell, and she seeks to make others suffer as she does.

I'm not sure which of these ideas I like more, I maybe mix and match a little the next time I have the issue come up in a game. Maybe the first should be the Abyssal CE Succubus, while the second could be an equivalent LE sex devil from Hell.

Anyway, back on topic, you might want to decide what the motivations of the Succubus are and what she wants to ultimately gain from the party or the player.

Sczarni

A push towards LN at best. He hasn't DONE anything evil himself (except of course consorting with evil demons). If she made no effort to hide her nature I would say a continued relationship would result in a LN or even (if he ever did do something against another good creature) LE change. But - and this is a relative large but - if it is legal then there is no problem there; why is it a big but? Because MOST medievil realms have laws against cohorting and sleeping around with demons. Thus he may even be pushing against the L part of the alignment. And if the reason for him to do so doesn't contain a GOOD aspect, then you can hardly say he is LG at all in the end.

All prefaced with saying: A one time fling does not make one change alignment. I'd give him three strikes or something, letting him know each time that SHE wants him to do more and more things for her. If he doesn't see the "error" of his ways, then yeh, he isn't LG alignment - he has rationalized himself over to something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

definately an impulsive, chaotic act, positively stupid, most likely somewhat immoral.

Not by itself enough to change anything about the ranger's character though, consorting with fiends on a regular basis should corrupt you in my opinion though.

I have no idea what the motivations of the succubus are when and why you introduced her but a succubus should have a thousand ways to turn this to her advantage, she could easily kill the ranger by draining him of his levels, but that might be unwise with a number of powerful allies nearby, perhaps she indulges him somewhat and bestows a gift on him instead, accepting the gift should be a chaotic act, but otherwise fairly innocent.

She might have other party members compete for her gifts, consorting with them on a regular basis manipulating them to her ends, ofcourse she wouldn't hesitate to betray them if it suits her but having powerful allies is never a bad deal, if she can corrupt them over time all the better. Turn her into a whimsical ally rather than an enemy, though likely to turn the table around when they are getting comfortable.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I won't comment on alignment, but sexually transmitted diseases from Hell are not going to be pleasant!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Of course, the Ranger might try to turn the Succubus away from evil, but THAT is a challenge if I've ever heard of one.

From the description of the OP, Redemption doesn't seem to be one of the priorities of said Ranger. Then again this doesn't look like it's a campaign or characters of deep complicated roleplaying grist, so I'm not sure how much it's worth mentioning that the descent to evil can be gradual and subtle instead of just reaching out and stamping EVIL on the character sheet.


meowstef wrote:
evil no though using the time to give him a profane gift sounds fun

That could really screw him and the party over, she is now in his head 24/7 and can cast her at-will Suggestion ability through it anytime she wants.


ulgulanoth wrote:
well no matter what that relationship can't last since its a LG with CE... I don't think it should make him evil straight away but slowly corrupting him from LG to CE over a long period of time...

This.

You are not evil for associating with Evil. But it's likely she will try and bend him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BltzKrg242 wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
well no matter what that relationship can't last since its a LG with CE... I don't think it should make him evil straight away but slowly corrupting him from LG to CE over a long period of time...

This.

You are not evil for associating with Evil. But it's likely she will try and bend him.

You may not be evil for your first association. But as the saying goes, lie down with pigs long enough, don't be surprised to wake up covered in mud. Succubi are corruption incarnate. It's their whole reason for existing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Transylvanian Tadpole wrote:
I won't comment on alignment, but sexually transmitted diseases from Hell are not going to be pleasant!!!

So doc, what do i do for this itching burning sensation?

Holy water...

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Should he be evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.