| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea for a main bad guy who is a literal mother of monsters.
Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.
Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?
I for one would not have any trouble accepting that as a main bad guy. The whole idea of the primary antagonist is that they are, if not mildly offensive, at least very discomforting, and this seems to fit that description quite well. Unless your particular players would have a specific reason to be unusually uncomfortable with the concept, it sounds like a rather interesting concept for a main bad guy. Very few villains have overly pleasant stories and tactics, and really this isn't that unpleasant compared to some villains I've seen elsewhere in games and literature, so as long as it doesn't trigger anything particularly bad in your players, it should be managable.
To a mortal (or semi-mortal) duplicate of Echidna. Considering I've used Echidna herself as a villain and this was basically her MO - that and having her monstrous spawn age to adulthood swiftly so she could put them near immediately to work - I wouldn't call it too over the top, no. Definitely disturbing, but that's okay with a villain.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar idea ages ago, with the Mother of Monsters alternate class ability.
A Summoner who births their Eidolon could be a different take on it. (To prevent them from having to do this every day, perhaps they would have a persistant Eidolon that remains 'out' even when they sleep or are unconscious.)
What *would* be offensive, would be having a male BBEG who uses female captives to birth his creations. That would push all sorts of buttons, and should be avoided.
Why would a male ... be offensive?
I think it's a very disturbing, and therefore, very great idea.
The female version is almost "normal" aka classic.
Offensive would be when mimicing or otherwise refering to real ethnical, religious or (socio-)political believes.
Creating an all-time evil society, saying they wear turbans and pray to the cruel god Halla. THAT would be offensive.
It's not all that different from Sin in John Milton's Paradise lost, who sprung out of Satan's head, gave birth to Death, was impregnated by her "son", and then gave birth to a pack of dogs.
Or the half serpent monster lady, Error, from The Faerie Queen by Edmund Spencer, whose snake children devoured her body until their stomachs burst.
Or even Grendel's mother from Beowulf.
Ladies been birthing monsters for centuries. (No offense to the lady gamers out there.)
Offensive? Maybe. Unsettling? Definitely. A good villain? Absolutely.
I'm rarely offended by any work of fiction; this doesn't bother me.
Why would a male ... be offensive?
I think it's a very disturbing, and therefore, very great idea.
It would really depend on your group. Some groups could handle the BBEG being an insane rapist who uses his female captives to birth monstrosities to fill his armies. They'd probably take great pleasure in tracking down and exterminating the bastard. Other groups would see the villain as too far over the line and not fitting for their games.
If you get a chance, look at the Blight Elves put out by Reality Deviants. It's True d20, but really interesting material. I am plannig a full-scale conquest by Blight Elves in my campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had PC's who did worse things than this, so no.
Though in hindsight, that probably says more about me than your idea!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite a few people ended up running this as a similar plot for rune lords issue one. It wasn't exactly written that way, but it was close enough that a few people reached similar conclusions.
Unsettling or disturbing, perhaps, but not offensive. The queen of demon kind should be disturbing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:
Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.
B> The concern is probably being sparked because of various recent discussions on sexism in gaming, and the unfounded fear that a male GM creating a female villain is automatically exploitative and sexist.
A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:
She's not. I was responding to Set's thing saying that if it WAS a male villain it WOULD be offensive.
A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:She's not. I was responding to Set's thing saying that if it WAS a male villain it WOULD be offensive.
What's offensive about a guy in the privacy of his doom fortress jerking off into a magical cauldron in order to create an army of abominations?... atleast that's kinda how I'm picturing it.
|
One of the players in my Kingmaker game is doing this with their PC right now. There's a magic item related to Lamashtu that lets you do that - I don't know if it's Pathfinder or 3.5 but it was definitely published by Paizo.
And without going bluh bluh epic campaign story the PC in question had their biology modified by the fey of the First World. They are now trying to figure out what to mate with first, and there are some pretty (potentially) creepy options for her.
On to your question:
I don't think it is as likely to be offensive as you may fear - you are talking about creating a villain who is female, and certainly uses the fact that's she's female in her villainy, but...
You don't seem to be exploitative.
AND
She's empowered, in a way.
Don't make her beholden to some other (male) entity or individual, don't make her only about sex, don't justify things about her just because she's female. Just make a memorable, creepy villain that your players will never forget.
And make sure that she's not the only notable female NPC, and follow your sexism checklist on other ones. Try to make your world believable, including in its gender dynamics, but don't relegate female characters to the background. Make them have their own lives, viewpoints, and agendas.
Oh I could go on...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you asking us instead of your players?
Just mulling it over, I expect, and wanted some opinions.
As a player, I'd enjoy such an enemy, and would find it quite satisfying to kill her, if I ever got that far. Evil is evil, and the more twisted, the more fun it is to fight. She sounds like the sort who has to be stopped, or thousands, or even millions of innocents will die. Perfect! :)
What's offensive about a guy in the privacy of his doom fortress jerking off into a magical cauldron in order to create an army of abominations?... atleast that's kinda how I'm picturing it.A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:She's not. I was responding to Set's thing saying that if it WAS a male villain it WOULD be offensive.
I think it was the more "he has a bunch of female captives as breeding/experimentation stock" method.
Also, BLUH X_X
Why are you asking us instead of your players?Just mulling it over, I expect, and wanted some opinions.
As a player, I'd enjoy such an enemy, and would find it quite satisfying to kill her, if I ever got that far. Evil is evil, and the more twisted, the more fun it is to fight. She sounds like the sort who has to be stopped, or thousands, or even millions of innocents will die. Perfect! :)
Pretty much this. I sometimes find it good check myself and the forums seemed like a good place to do that.
There is a feminist thing floating around that the "mystical pregnancy troupe" is offensive, and this qualifies. Youtube "mystic pregnancy" to hear someone complaining about it.It is offensive, but RPGs have a long history of having problematic concepts and most RPG players are more or less okay with them. This is why I say to ask the players and not a bunch of random people on the internet.
The key is that most of those problematic concepts are actually quite effective for bad guys if handled properly, and RPGs aren't the first to utilize most of them. Story tellers have been using them since humans began telling stories. Now it is possible that individuals might have personal reasons to dislike the use of any given concept, and the DM needs to be aware of such things as much as possible, but in general, this concept is pretty light on the offensive meter. It's most certainly discomforting, but any good villain is.
The idea for a main bad guy who is a literal mother of monsters.
Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.
Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?
It is good. Heavy Lamashtu spawn of chaos ideas here. Birth is not all good and wholesome kiddies, no some birth monsters. I like it. Make birth, death, madness and deformity a big thing in your game. Maybe she can cast give birth to monsters spell-like abilities. Pass that save or welcome to Alien.
There is a feminist thing floating around that the "mystical pregnancy troupe" is offensive, and this qualifies. Youtube "mystic pregnancy" to hear someone complaining about it.It is offensive, but RPGs have a long history of having problematic concepts and most RPG players are more or less okay with them. This is why I say to ask the players and not a bunch of random people on the internet.
C'mon, you can't give away the magical reveal. That is SPOILERING. If they can't take a bit of freakiness or the idea of tainted major evil spawning out more of them, they shouldn't be in a game about fighting the good fight against the dark (or being the dark, lol).
What's offensive about a guy in the privacy of his doom fortress jerking off into a magical cauldron in order to create an army of abominations?... atleast that's kinda how I'm picturing it.A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:She's not. I was responding to Set's thing saying that if it WAS a male villain it WOULD be offensive.I think it was the more "he has a bunch of female captives as breeding/experimentation stock" method.
Also, BLUH X_X
Let's flip this round, she has a bunch of male captives as breeding/experimentation stock, and it isn't pretty, no sexy times, only horrible parasites... horrible horrible parasites.
Time to watch The Thing again!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key is that most of those problematic concepts are actually quite effective for bad guys if handled properly, and RPGs aren't the first to utilize most of them. Story tellers have been using them since humans began telling stories. Now it is possible that individuals might have personal reasons to dislike the use of any given concept, and the DM needs to be aware of such things as much as possible, but in general, this concept is pretty light on the offensive meter. It's most certainly discomforting, but any good villain is.No. If the concept offends someone and is genuinely problematic, then no, there really isn't a "proper" way to handle it. Being offended by sexist overtones in a game is not a "personal problem", or, at least, it's not the offended person's problem. If you're going to do something you know is problematic, then you need to talk to the players first, or else you risk becoming this GM.
Part of handling it right is making sure that not every female in the game comes across in this manner. If someone gets upset because the DM dares to invoke a potentially sexist concept on one of many dozens of females while handling the others in more balanced ways, it is their problem, not the DMs. That person probably should rethink playing RPGs because if they play long enough, it is virtually guaranteed they will be offended. Now if the player has something in their personal history that makes such a concept genuinely painful, that is another matter entirely, but not expecting the main villain to be at least partially offensive is to completely misunderstand the role that villains play in the story. Good stories require some kind of conflict, and conflict requires discomfort and disagreement; to this end, many concepts that would make terrible heroes make excellent villains and bad guys. Anyone who can't figure that out shouldn't be playing a roleplaying game; you can't have heroes without villains for them to fight.
Well put, do guys complain how male ogres are presented and what this signifies about the dms negative portrayal of men?
No of course not, they are ogres, let's have fun and kill the vile b****r** wh* ***k th*** *w* m****r*!
Evil can be male, evil can be female. Evil can be beyond such things and something else entirely. Roll initiative.
|
You ask if your idea is ofensive in a world where orcs rape maidens, rakshasa have several sex slaves, bugbears torture their victims to ensure the most pain they can get out of them, demon lords eat babies on sticks like they where cotton candy, and dretch live in the sewers of the abyss and throw poop at you?
If so I think you need to read a little bit more into the bestiary. Might find something more horrifying than the picture of a main bad guy you got in mind.
If not, read a little bit of dark fantasy and leave a scar on your soul forever XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roll initiative.
I ROLLED A 4!
What's offensive about a guy in the privacy of his doom fortress jerking off into a magical cauldron in order to create an army of abominations?... atleast that's kinda how I'm picturing it.A> I don't think the OP's bad "guy" is actually a male:She's not. I was responding to Set's thing saying that if it WAS a male villain it WOULD be offensive.I think it was the more "he has a bunch of female captives as breeding/experimentation stock" method.
Also, BLUH X_X
Let's flip this round, she has a bunch of male captives as breeding/experimentation stock, and it isn't pretty, no sexy times, only horrible parasites... horrible horrible parasites.
Time to watch The Thing again!
I don't think either offensive personally, disturbing definitely but that's good for a villain if that's the response you want.
But I'm also extremely hard to offend due to how much vitriol I get flung at me on a regular basis over other things. So I don't generally count myself a good judge of what's offensive and what's not because nine times out of ten my response is "deal with it".
By my interpretation of your initial post & others interpretations and suggestions I would say your concept potentially combines two of the more 'disquieting' of the five tropes mentioned in the 'Tropes vs. Women' Kickstarter Campaign, the 'Mystical Pregnancy' & the 'Demon Seductress'. The 'Mystical Pregnancy is overt, the Demon Seductress is more a matter of interpretation. I mention it because some of the suggestions seemed to recommend your BBEG using a 'male harem' for 'material', which treads on part of that trope in that the female is only 'using' her sexuality, not 'being' a whole person who happens to be a sexual entity as well as other kinds of entity.
All that said, in answer to your question, I can't tell you. I can say, ask yourself if the response you are intending with this character could be achieved with another character who didn't fit as overtly into those tropes. The answer is probably no, but if it is yes, you might consider making some changes & if the answer is yes, then consider discussing with your players that you are taking the game in a direction that may move outside their comfort zones and asking them if they have any hard boundaries. By hard boundaries, I mean lines that, if crossed take the game from borderline squeamishness to outright emotional assault, intentional or otherwise. While having this conversation, consider if you might wind up outside your comfort zone as well. Case in point, in a Vampire game I played in many years ago I played a pre-pubescent girl who wound up being turned into a vampire by a child molester. We played through the turning & the GM, who had a young daughter, wound up having to excuse himself from the scene because it played so much on his fears.
By my interpretation of your initial post & others interpretations and suggestions I would say your concept potentially combines two of the more 'disquieting' of the five tropes mentioned in the 'Tropes vs. Women' Kickstarter Campaign, the 'Mystical Pregnancy' & the 'Demon Seductress'. The 'Mystical Pregnancy is overt, the Demon Seductress is more a matter of interpretation. I mention it because some of the suggestions seemed to recommend your BBEG using a 'male harem' for 'material', which treads on part of that trope in that the female is only 'using' her sexuality, not 'being' a whole person who happens to be a sexual entity as well as other kinds of entity.
All that said, in answer to your question, I can't tell you. I can say, ask yourself if the response you are intending with this character could be achieved with another character who didn't fit as overtly into those tropes. The answer is probably no, but if it is yes, you might consider making some changes & if the answer is yes, then consider discussing with your players that you are taking the game in a direction that may move outside their comfort zones and asking them if they have any hard boundaries. By hard boundaries, I mean lines that, if crossed take the game from borderline squeamishness to outright emotional assault, intentional or otherwise. While having this conversation, consider if you might wind up outside your comfort zone as well. Case in point, in a Vampire game I played in many years ago I played a pre-pubescent girl who wound up being turned into a vampire by a child molester. We played through the turning & the GM, who had a young daughter, wound up having to excuse himself from the scene because it played so much on his fears.
A fair point. Now to ponder...
The answer is probably no, but if it is yes, you might consider making some changes & if the answer is yes, then consider discussing with your players that you are taking the game in a direction that may move outside their comfort zones and asking them if they have any hard boundaries.
I realized after the fact that that sentence should have read as this:
The answer is probably no, but if it is yes, you might consider making some changes & if the answer is , then consider discussing with your players that you are taking the game in a direction that may move outside their comfort zones and asking them if they have any hard boundaries.Change bolded for clarity. You probably already read it that way, but I get nit-picky about being as clear as possible.
I don't think it's inappropriate for players to be warned if a campaign might have unsettling content, but it will ultimately fall on them to decide what they find offensive. As the DM, it's your job to respect that and work with the players for an optimal gaming experience. Movies and video games have a rating system that gives you some idea of what you're getting into, so I'm sure a heads up certainly wouldn't go unappreciated.
Sounds like it to me.
So many times I've encountered people deliberately working themselves up into a state over something that offends them. They complain, they posture, they quickly scramble up a mountain they just made to get the moral high-ground. Victim politics follow, attacking the other side as not progressive as I, it all happens.
I've done the feminism units (found a lot worthwhile in there, go Marxist feminism), gone to a leftist uni. Not sure this latest "that's sexist!" wave going through gaming is a good thing. It is as if, suddenly, feminism is being re-discovered and the band-wagon is growing.
I just want to roll dice and kill the demon monster-spawner, if she is a demon seductress, I just don't care. D&D is a game with demon seductresses.
I don't think it's inappropriate for players to be warned if a campaign might have unsettling content, but it will ultimately fall on them to decide what they find offensive. As the DM, it's your job to respect that and work with the players for an optimal gaming experience. Movies and video games have a rating system that gives you some idea of what you're getting into, so I'm sure a heads up certainly wouldn't go unappreciated.
Ah, but the fun and frivolity can be drained by such warnings.
This game has unsettling content, you may be offended.
This game was traps which may offend you if your char is killed.
The attack bonus of some monsters may be unsettling.
You won't be able to play every type of char you want or use every feat you ever read. You may be offended by this.
The spells and tactics of some monsters may be offending, especially if your char dies or performs poorly.
There are horrible sorts in this game, evil really is evil, murderers, rapists and torturers are out there, for you to smite. You will probably be offended and unsettled by some of them.
This game has... Ogres... offensive bags of unsettling.
Aaaaand the fun is gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?
my Internet-Fu is pretty good, I'm still stuck wondering who exactly would be offended, apart from some sandal wearer someowhere with an axe to grind and only first world issues to try grind it on.
This reminds me pf a past DM who ran rise of the runelords. The party was into the hook mountain massacre. The elven wizard in the party got over enthusiastic and charged into the fort. To put it short, he got captured and raped by afemale ogre before the party could get to him. I know it really unsettled him and afew other players but thats what ogres do. There are other creatures who would do the same things or are more creative with their methods. Its a fictional world with alot of dodgy individuals. Different races, beings, planes, the works. I don't think the issue is mainly about being offended by game material. I would say it stems from the possibility of certain events putting the one or more PCs in a very bad spot. Bad in the sense of they get captured, tortured etc. Very rare for PCs but still happens. Hence the characters and therefore, the players take offence from the possibility of this happening or something similar.
He broke the battle plan going in solo! Urgh, we lost a char saving that guy.
Shifty is onto something. Our world is really dark in parts, fantasy has a potential to be a hell of a lot darker. First world problems offended people.
Leaping Gnome, an initiative of 4 means the ogress rapist goes first. Grapple check time.
I fail to see the problem.
Have we degenerated far enough that disembowelment, tearing living humans into pieces and boiling hapless victims alive are considered good entertainment (fantasy-wise), but anything even remotely concering reproduction is so eeeew-gross that it needs to be sanitized and hidden away from the players' minds?
You know your players; you should know if there is someone among your group who might find you are pushing his (or her) buttons in a very wrong way... other than that, the game's all yours.
Its like how movies can show all sorts of gore-porn and thats perfectly ok when Rambo shoots up a village, but if Janet Jackson gets a nipple out people FREAK.
Cracked has gone on about this.