Honestly, I think maybe both? But then people would probably be complaining about romance bloat. :p
Joking, of course. But I was serious about the both. Or at least, increase the male romance options, as well as more non-human options. Not everyone plays a human (or human-compatible race), and not everyone plays a dude (or straight dude).
Design Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some of the points made by the OP-
I'd note that in the APs most NPCs who use the romance systems are all generally bisexual, to accomodate the preferences of whomever happens to playing, and usually include both male and female love interests.
As a writer myself, I've actually tried to create characters and situations where you have male figures as the dark seducers or where the men occupied the same sexual framework as some of the more sexually villainous women, and....
It's hard. It's difficult to not create something that is going to offend more people than it intrigues or pulls in, and frankly, people get pissed when you portray a male character who is essentially a rapist in a sympathetic light.
Because succubi are often regarded as "cool" by both genders. You've got this wicked sexually empowered temptress who wraps people around her little finger, plays with the minds and hearts of others from a position of power, and does it with style. When you "flip that switch" and replace a succubi with an incubi, people get mad though, they get upset.
For most of the women I've played with, that incubus didn't just beguile and seduce their character, or even that NPC, he raped them with magic. And presenting that in a way that makes the incubus look good, even if only in that he's attractive and smart, does not fly with a lot of people. I've had female players not just leave a session, but never play the game again because of things like that.
There's a social undercurrent and a very powerful perception in society that a sexually powerful woman, even if you express disdain for actions that seem wanton or cruel, still deserves a certain amount of respect, and maybe even applause. There's this belief that a male in the same situation is a monster of the worst sort, and if a writer/GM/company/etc. can paint him in a positive light, then it must reflect on some deep flaw within them as well.
This is just a fact. I wrote up a class for a future release where the mechanics keyed around Desire. Everyone who read it was like "Dude, that is way to rape-y, you cannot release that". So I tried something. I replaced all of the male or gender neutral references with female (he and they to her and she). I let people look it over again, and suddenly no one had a problem with it, men and women both.
This isn't a fault of Paizo for creating a sexual imbalance between men and women, that is a flaw of the world we live in, but it's one that they, and all fantasy companies, have to deal with. I think Paizo does a better job than most of trying to create strong and realistic female figures to balance the "staple" caricatures that are part of fantasy history. I think that trying to create male equivalents would, in some cases, be the metaphorical equivalent of Paizo putting a gun to its head and pulling the trigger. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I don't understand the issue, or maybe because I'm a guy I just don't "get it". But based on the original post referring to the fact that the succubi et al are okay and great, but it's not right that there isn't a true male equivalent, I don't think I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in fact, that would seem to even more appropriate for an incubus kind of creature. Seduction is luring you down the path of Lust. Rape is just a thing being done to you.I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
Exactly. And, look, I get that succubi and incubi exist in a historical and literary context of a lot of problematic assumptions about male and female sexuality and inaccurate beliefs about how they differ.
But coercive sexual encounters (and even pregnancy) aren't the only way that sex can be dangerous to women. The idea of your desire being used against you is equally relevant to men and women; assault doesn't have to be involved for someone to use someone's attraction to them to bring about their downfall, tempt them into bad decisions, etc. And those dangers aren't gender-bound.
And male seduction-based monsters could exploit that just as easily as female seduction-based monsters, without ever laying an uninvited finger on anyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of these posts are very defensive of the status quo. "This is based on mythology!" (despite this being a fantasy game, where new monsters can easily be created to balance out what already exists), "This is done to appeal to the target demographic!" (despite Paizo staff specifically saying that they aren't aiming for any demographic in particular), etc, etc.
This is very understandable. The OP is challenging the status quo, which is rooted in a pre-established inequality. This inequality is perceived as normal by those benefited by it, and therefore any attempt to redress it is seen as an attack or injustice. A poster earlier in the thread summed it up quite well. "I got mine. I don't see what the problem is."
If the OP had not provided specific examples and instead had chosen to speak in general terms, there would have been an outcry for specific examples to sustain his claims. Foreseeing that, he has done so, and what do a lot of posters do? Quibble about specific APs. Nitpick in an attempt to exclude/disprove/minimise the examples given. These are examples of derailing. A diversion from the main topic in an attempt to avoid actually dealing with it. Likely unintentional, but unproductive to the conversation nonetheless.
This subconscious resistance is to be expected. To raise awareness of an inequality generates defensiveness on behalf of the benefited parties. They feel accused, persecuted. There's no need. Nobody wants to point fingers or make anybody feel guilty. People just want a more egalitarian representation of romance and sex appeal in Paizo's RPGs. There's no need to interpret it as an attack or witch hunt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a question of derailing. The OP brings up several poorly thought out arguments. I am not saying he doesn't have any sort of point, but it's fair game and not derailing to answer arguments, isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with OP on the issue that the bestiary lore describes monsters as x, but in APs they only act as Y.
I also agree that its odd we have so many "all female" races and so few "all male"
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. And, look, I get that succubi and incubi exist in a historical and literary context of a lot of problematic assumptions about male and female sexuality and inaccurate beliefs about how they differ.But coercive sexual encounters (and even pregnancy) aren't the only way that sex can be dangerous to women. The idea of your desire being used against you is equally relevant to men and women; assault doesn't have to be involved for someone to use someone's attraction to them to bring about their downfall, tempt them into bad decisions, etc. And those dangers aren't gender-bound.
And male seduction-based monsters could exploit that just as easily as female seduction-based monsters, without ever laying an uninvited finger on anyone.
I don't think that's really accurate Jessica.
Look at the world we live in. The definition of rape is very broad, and I assure you that many people don't see the difference between using magical abilities to tempt and seduce you and make you do somethign you wouldn't otherwise do and slipping drugs into your cocktail.
I recently watched a movie about the Arthurian saga that included a scene where Uther is magically disguised so that he walk into another man's castle and sleep with his wife, siring Arthur. If I were to walk down the street and ask 10 women whether or not that was rape, I'd be amazed if less than 10 said yes. But that's a very seducer/incubus thing to do.
I think it's dangerous and difficult to create the kind of equivalencies suggested by the OP, because real people in the real world frankly don't look at things from a perspective of equality. Whether or not they should is beside the point. There is a very real skew in the perception of the average person where it comes to matters of sexual predation, regardless of actual consummation, and I think it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create a "male seduction-based monster" and present him such a way that people aren't immediately enraged and leap to viewing him as a rapist.
Again, I could be wrong and maybe my perspective on this isn't the most valid, but I would say that my experience would indicate that the dangers and perceptions tied to a sexual predator are very much gender-bound, at least in the eyes of almost everyone I've ever known.
To be clear, I think that you can have villainous and sexual male characters, but I do not believe that it is possible to convey them in the same manner as female predators without creating a very upset readership, and I think many people would view rape to be more than just a physical act.
Most of the women I know wouldn't call that Arthur thing rape.
My guess is that the women in your area subscribe to the SJW philosophy while the women I know do not.
It is not a question of derailing. The OP brings up several poorly thought out arguments. I am not saying he doesn't have any sort of point, but it's fair game and not derailing to answer arguments, isn't it?
Quibbling over how he phrases his arguments instead of what is actually being argued is, in fact, derailing, because it shifts the focus of the conversation towards a superficial issue instead of the core of the matter.
Which was not what I was doing. I made a point that discussing this, mainly based on succubi, is useless, because succubi are creatures of prejudice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
I'm not sure if this was directed at my comment on the potential pitfalls of a theoretic male Runelord of Lust - it's hard to tell with posts that refer to "people" in general. In case it was, I was primarily thinking of the link between a Runelord of "Lust" and Enchantment spells, since enchantment spells frequently hinder or take away the target's ability to make an informed decision. I would expect a Runelord of Enchantment (male or female) to use such spells frequently and without discrimination in order to satisfy his cravings.
Personally I'd consider using Charm or Compulsion spells to get someone to sleep with you the magical equivalent of a date rape drug, so very much sexual assault/rape. In that sense I get a rape vibe rather than a seductive vibe from, for instance, satyrs.
I had to look up "Date Rape Drug" and "Sexual Assault" on wikipedia to make sure I got my terms right (this terminology didn't feature in my English classes) - pretty sure I'm on a watch list now. :(
Most of the women I know wouldn't call that Arthur thing rape.
My guess is that the women in your area subscribe to the SJW philosophy while the women I know do not.
Have you asked them, or are you just assuming you know what they'd say?
I can't see any way in which that scenario involves genuine consent. Sex without consent is rape, always. Do you consider believing that sex without consent is rape to be a supposedly invalid "SJW" philosophy?
An argument about what is and isn't rape really isn't appropriate for this thread.
As far as Ssalarn's point, though:
Look at the world we live in. The definition of rape is very broad, and I assure you that many people don't see the difference between using magical abilities to tempt and seduce you and make you do somethign you wouldn't otherwise do and slipping drugs into your cocktail.
That's not what succubi do. Look at the Bestiary: a succubus's special abilities are energy drain and the ability to bestow a profane gift.
A classic succubus doesn't slip you a magical mickey or take away your free will to get you to sleep with her; she seduces you -- that is, she convinces you to consent to sleep with her -- and then drains your energy.
And a male version of that -- a male demon who gets you into bed by being handsome and charming and charismatic and, y'know seductive -- isn't a rape demon.
So I go back to my original point, which was that the conflation of seduction and assault if the target is female erases the idea of female consent in a way that is really disturbing.
Kudaku -- wasn't addressed at your post in particular, just as the general sentiment I've seen pop up a few times that the male equivalent of a succubus can't be used because it would be seen as sexual assault.
A classic succubus doesn't slip you a magical mickey or take away your free will to get you to sleep with her; she seduces you
As I've seen the role playing game ones used, its usually more of a dominate person effect (for which there are mechanics) rather than a slow seduction (for which there aren't). They DO take away your free will and then level drain you.
If someone wants to argue that PF had already established that all incubuses are rapey, fine. But claiming that because of some kind of historical RW mythology, they have to be that way is incredibly silly. I mean, do you think the medusa in PF is identical to the Medusa of Greek myths (e.g. PF medusas are attractive, historical Medusa was hideous)? PF (and D&D before) use mythology for inspiration, not for a direct translation.
In that case, 'consent' is the word that we use to determine rape, and 'genuine consent' is a poorly modified version of the term. You start getting into the details, and lots of people have different ideas. Some people, if you've had so much as a single sip of alcohol, you are now judgement impaired, and cannot give 'genuine consent'. Or that if you ask a partner more than once to engage in some act, you are coercing them. Other people, as long as a clearly stated 'no' is not heard (whether or not it is asked for), they consider the encounter entirely consensual. Most people will fall somewhere between those two extremes, some people even outside one of those boundaries.
Who's correct? For the most part, I consider the more reluctant/conservative of the two (or more) partner's positions to be the one you should consider and work around.
In the Arthur case, she gave perfect consent to the person she thought she was sleeping with. It's pretty easy to see why some people would be appalled (and call it rape), some people disapproving (but not call it rape) and others not consider it a problem at all. In one context, it is tricking (not forcing) someone into having sex with you. Is that any worse than obtaining consent under other less than honorable circumstances, like feigning long term interest in a relationship?
@ Jessica Price: well, the regular succubus has charm person and suggesion at will, and dominate once per level, with DCs high enough that a regular Joe or Jane Schmoe does not stand a chance. So sure, she might try to seduce you... but if you say no, and she doesn't want to take no for an answer, she has a whole lot of magical mickey. Whether charm person takes your free will or not is debatable, but against a low-level mortal the outcome is hardly in doubt. Dominate is pretty obvious, but even charm person allows you to order someone around and make them do something they normally wouldn't on an opposed charisma check. Against most of the (demi-)human population that is sort of a win by default
I get the idea that seduction isn't the same as essentilly forcing it (whether by might, magic or other unresistable methods), but I think that the whole succubi being ok vs incubi being rapists is not a very defensible statement. Succubi have a lot of magical tricks to make consent a non-issue, and it isn't like they have anything to hold them back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A classic succubus doesn't slip you a magical mickey or take away your free will to get you to sleep with her; she seduces youAs I've seen the role playing game ones used, its usually more of a dominate person effect (for which there are mechanics) rather than a slow seduction (for which there aren't). They DO take away your free will and then level drain you.
*shrug* Can't control how people choose to play it. And this is irrelevant to the main point, which is that creatures that use sex to hurt you aren't limited to "beautiful seductress" for female creatures and "rape demon" for males.
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
|
I'm with Jessica on this one. Seduction doesn't equal rape, even when the person doing it is Evil. An evil seducer might (or might not) also be willing to stoop to rape, but the two actions are entirely and definitionally different.
Using magic to compel sex is pretty clearly either rape or too damn close for comfort (I'll avoid an in-depth discussion of which)...but seductive male villains don't need to utilize any magic whatsoever any more than seductive female villains do.
Now, some GMs aren't necessarily gonna pull off a good seduction in-game (and might thus have those 'seducers' who can do so fall back on magic)...but that's true regardless of who's seducing who (and, if they fall back on magic, really stops being seduction).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which was not what I was doing. I made a point that discussing this, mainly based on succubi, is useless, because succubi are creatures of prejudice.
Again, focusing on a hyper-specific example to the detriment of the general subject being discussed. In what way is it important whether the use of succubi in PF is productive/accurate or not, when it's merely part of a larger issue? Trying to discredit or minimise a specific example instead of arguing the actual topic at hand is a classic form of derailing.
Hmm, mea culpa, I guess - I got sidetracked by what I perceived as "succubi are ok, incubi are not" train of thought. Overall, I try to treat it as mostly a matter of agency (are female NPCs as active as male NPCs in such matters, and is there a reasonable and fair explanation if they are not) and balance (are there enough opportunities and reasonably fair representation of both genders). I'm definitely getting at least some of it wrong, so I try to be open to feedback from my players.
I imagine a bit of taste, balance and empathy help avoind that problem in most cases. Though I wonder, do we have a PF version of the Hawkeye Test? :)
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An argument about what is and isn't rape really isn't appropriate for this thread.
As far as Ssalarn's point, though:
Look at the world we live in. The definition of rape is very broad, and I assure you that many people don't see the difference between using magical abilities to tempt and seduce you and make you do somethign you wouldn't otherwise do and slipping drugs into your cocktail.That's not what succubi do. Look at the Bestiary: a succubus's special abilities are energy drain and the ability to bestow a profane gift.
***
I am. They have charm monster, suggestion, dominate person, they're formed from the souls of rapacious mortals...
There is a difference between seduction and rape, but you can't just slap a penis on the stock succubi, call it an incubi, and expect it to be fine. It is, mechanically, a rape machine.
Why shouldn't there be a mechanically capable male seductor who doesn't have these abilities to take away your free will? That would be better (on both fronts actually). The mechanics are crude, and don't support the creature not using magic to influence or rob your will.
If you're going to create analogues, it would be better to emulate a more classic seduction demon. Give them abilities that actually reward the player for doing what the seductor wants them to do. The path to hell and all that. The underlying mechanics are rape-y. Addressing that is the path to being able to express gender equal evil. Saying "It has all the tools for rape and everything in its entry would indicate that it would use them but we're not responsible for people who interpret or play it that way" isn't right. Go to the source, which in this case is the mechanics.
You've currently got female mind-rape demon and male physical-rape demon. They aren't actually seductor and seductress, but making them that would actually help the issues described by the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which was not what I was doing. I made a point that discussing this, mainly based on succubi, is useless, because succubi are creatures of prejudice.Again, focusing on a hyper-specific example to the detriment of the general subject being discussed. In what way is it important whether the use of succubi in PF is productive/accurate or not, when it's merely part of a larger issue? Trying to discredit or minimise a specific example instead of arguing the actual topic at hand is a classic form of derailing.
It isn'a "hyper-specific example" if it is a very large part of the OP's point. Read the first post again. It is surprisingly focused on succubi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between seduction and rape, but you can't just slap a penis on the stock succubi, call it an incubi, and expect it to be fine. It is, mechanically, a rape machine.
Why shouldn't there be a mechanically capable male seductor who doesn't have these abilities to take away your free will?
Dude, that's exactly what I'm advocating for.
People were saying "you can't have a male seduction monster, because it would be sexual assault."
And I'm saying, No, you absolutely could have a male seduction demon that doesn't commit sexual assault. The succubi-incubi "equivalence" is bad.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between seduction and rape, but you can't just slap a penis on the stock succubi, call it an incubi, and expect it to be fine. It is, mechanically, a rape machine.
Why shouldn't there be a mechanically capable male seductor who doesn't have these abilities to take away your free will?
Dude, that's exactly what I'm advocating for.
People were saying "you can't have a male seduction monster, because it would be sexual assault."
And I'm saying, No, you absolutely could have a male seduction demon that doesn't commit sexual assault. The succubi-incubi "equivalence" is bad.
The problem is that the succubus as written isn't a "seductive machine". It has a host of charm and compulsion spells specifically and intentionally used to override the target's free will, which I think most people would consider useful for coercion rather than seduction.
If you "slap a penis" on the succubus and call it a male seduction demon, that doesn't really make sense when the logical approach for the demon (female OR male) is to use its SLAs to remove free will from anyone it wants to seduce, bang or otherwise interact with.
All that said, I think we're getting a little too caught up in the succubus here.
Can we come up with some other creatures, preferably ones that have a "seduction" theme but don't have access to charm or compulsion SLAs?
@ Kudaku The Nymph doesn't, as far as I can tell (dryads and satyrs do, apparently). I guess it is also a matter of how willing a creature is to use them. Being able to mesmerize or charm an enemy into leaving you alone can be seen as self-defense, even though the same ability can be used for less savory outcomes. And if we are going by mythology, well, when mythology was coined people had somewhat different sensibilities, so it is tricky just adopting the views that worked for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come to think of it, the disconnect for me might in part be that I just don't have the same view on seduction as the team who wrote the Bestiary. Quoting the satyr description:
Though their bodies are almost always those of attractive and well-built men, much of the satyrs' talent for seduction lies in their talent for music. With the aid of his eponymous pipes, a satyr is capable of weaving a wide variety of melodic spells designed to enchant others and bring them in line with his capricious desires.
Pipes (Su) A satyr can focus and empower his magic by playing haunting melodies on his panpipes. When he plays, all creatures within a 60-foot radius must make a DC 18 Will save or be affected by charm person, fear, sleep, or suggestion, depending on what tune the satyr chooses.
To me that reads a bit like someone saying a guy is a great seducer because he has a sleeve full of roofies.
@Shaman
Great catch on the Nymph! I agree that simply having access to Charm spells by itself shouldn't disqualify a creature, context should matter. I hope we can come up with some other ones too :)
|
Design Manager
|
There is a difference between seduction and rape, but you can't just slap a penis on the stock succubi, call it an incubi, and expect it to be fine. It is, mechanically, a rape machine.
Why shouldn't there be a mechanically capable male seductor who doesn't have these abilities to take away your free will?
Dude, that's exactly what I'm advocating for.
People were saying "you can't have a male seduction monster, because it would be sexual assault."
And I'm saying, No, you absolutely could have a male seduction demon that doesn't commit sexual assault. The succubi-incubi "equivalence" is bad.
Cool, so we're on the same page.
Kudaku makes some good points here regarding the fact that currently, there isn't anything available (I could be missing something) that fills the seductor/seductress role without being backed by rape-y mechanics (I really hope I'm not offending anyone by saying "rape-y" I'm not attempting to make light of a serious offense). The nymph may be the closest, so perhaps looking at her key ability could lend some "inspiration" to ways to create monsters that fill that niche?
"Inspiration (Su) A nymph can choose an intelligent creature to inspire and serve as a muse by giving that creature some token of her affection (typically a lock of her hair). As long as the nymph retains her favor for this creature and as long as the creature carries the nymph's token, the creature gains a +4 insight bonus on all Will saving throws, Craft checks, and Perform checks. A bard who has a nymph for a muse in this way can use his bardic performance for an additional number of rounds per day equal to his nymph muse's Charisma modifier. The nymph retains a link to her token and its carrier as if she had cast a status spell on the carrier. The nymph can end this effect at any time as a free action. A single nymph may only inspire one creature at a time in this manner."
Is there a way to spin that premise into a creature that actually seduces? I think there needs to be mechanics supporting the idea, but I think that any mechanics that include "robbing someone of their free will" cross the line.
Also worth noting: A succubus wants to taint people's souls. She wants them to do bad things. Dominating someone doesn't do that, simply because the target is not the one doing these things. If a pure hearted person is dominated into killing his family, it will torture him, but it won't taint his soul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically I found what I think is a good example of a creature that does "temptation" well right next to the Succubus. The Glabrezu comes with Veil to hide its rather off-putting true nature, 1/month Wish to grant mortals their greatest desire, Telepathy to hit the target's weak spots, and a flavor description that goes into great detail on how the Glabrezu will gleefully screw over anyone stupid enough to make a wish from it.
The only thing I miss with the Glabrezu is an illusion SLA (to vividly illustrate the great riches, power, or women it could grant whoever it is trying to convince, Aladdin style) and perhaps a more frequent use of the Wish (Efreeti get 3 a day) so it can do its thing more than once every month.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a monster that doesn't seem to rely on enchantment magic to seduce their partners, might I suggest the faun? Chaotic Good, the result of a willing pairing between a satyr and humanoid, and described as being a 'gentle hedonist' and enjoying 'wine, music, dancing, nature and carnal pleasures.' The only spell-like abilities they have are ghost sound (at will) and hideous laughter and sleep (each once per day). It goes on to say that they aid hard-workers who are at peace with the land and sometimes warn their neighbors of danger.
Of note also is that the text says "the vast majority of fauns are male, although unlike satyrs, females of this species do exist - they're simply less common than male fauns."
I sort of wish this is how most races presented as being composed of a single-gender were handled. Most are of the specified gender, but it allows for exceptions to exist.
Ironically I found what I think is a good example of a creature that does "temptation" well right next to the Succubus. The Glabrezu comes with Veil to hide its rather off-putting true nature, 1/month Wish to grant mortals their greatest desire, Telepathy to hit the target's weak spots, and a flavor description that goes into great detail on how the Glabrezu will gleefully screw over anyone stupid enough to make a wish from it.
The only thing I miss with the Glabrezu is an illusion SLA (to vividly illustrate the great riches, power, or women it could grant whoever it is trying to convince, Aladdin style) and perhaps a more frequent use of the Wish (Efreeti get 3 a day) so it can do its thing more than once every month.
....When you put it that way.......
I like it :)
People were saying "you can't have a male seduction monster, because it would be sexual assault."
And I'm saying, No, you absolutely could have a male seduction demon that doesn't commit sexual assault. The succubi-incubi "equivalence" is bad.
I believe they were using seduction monster as a politer way of saying what the succubus actually does. A succubus style dominate person "seduction" is right out.
Even an actual seduction has a good chance of coming off as uber creepy. Possibly even worse than the dominate person because the dm would likely have to play it out.
|
|
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle. The Mind Control Mojo is for if none of that works (and so she fulfills a particular combat role), not a first option.
Evil monsters being able to magically compel people to do things if seduction doesn't work, seems reasonable enough. It should probably not be the norm among non-Evil seductive creatures, certainly, but it's not inherently a bad idea for Demons to be, well, pretty damn awful.
|
|
Even an actual seduction has a good chance of coming off as uber creepy. Possibly even worse than the dominate person because the dm would likely have to play it out.
This really depends on the group. I've had several PCs get seduced by NPCs in various games I've run. Including villains, actually. It's very rarely come off as creepy (okay, there was that one time...but everyone agreed that was mostly the player's fault).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an honest question: What would you be looking for to feel something had met this criterion? Would a non-evil female orc ally that doesn't mention romance in any capacity could if she could serve as a love interest? Would it need to call her out as potentially available? Would some description need to mention she's specifically interested? Would the plot need to revolve around her romantic status? Would she have to have art?
To be clear, any of those is a perfectly reasonable metric, depending on what it is you're looking for. I'm just genuinely curious.
I'd actually say just the first would do the trick all on its own. Some of the best love interests in the AP line aren't even called out as potential love interests, but rather because they were just appealing, interesting, and well-developed characters.
Although...I say that, but it's been mentioned repeatedly in many of the threads related to this subject that not explicitly mentioning that characters are romantic issues is a problem for many, at least in the context of making more appealing male love interests available to players looking for them. I'm not so sure this would apply here, but...I think I just wound up at two minds about the matter. For me personally though, "appealing, interesting, and well-developed" is generally enough.
Also, art is always welcome. :) I don't know if I'd say it's necessary, but I think some GMs and players fall into the trap of thinking "if they don't have art, they don't matter". It's a form unconscious metagame that can really be a downer. It's also why I'm assigning an individual portrait to each and every NPC I can for maptools/token-using games and giving even the nameless sapient mooks names to call out to each other. :)
|
|
For a monster that doesn't seem to rely on enchantment magic to seduce their partners, might I suggest the faun? Chaotic Good, the result of a willing pairing between a satyr and humanoid, and described as being a 'gentle hedonist' and enjoying 'wine, music, dancing, nature and carnal pleasures.' The only spell-like abilities they have are ghost sound (at will) and hideous laughter and sleep (each once per day). It goes on to say that they aid hard-workers who are at peace with the land and sometimes warn their neighbors of danger.
Of note also is that the text says "the vast majority of fauns are male, although unlike satyrs, females of this species do exist - they're simply less common than male fauns."
I sort of wish this is how most races presented as being composed of a single-gender were handled. Most are of the specified gender, but it allows for exceptions to exist.
Seconding the superiority of fauns over satyrs. :)
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle.
Succubi yes. The DMs that play them....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh there have been some AMAZING depictions of dudes! The fossegrim (especially compared to his 3.5 art) and Cernunnos are both hands-down amazing. Compared to the sheer volume of male-gaze eye-candy, however, it's really disappointing! The rare gems like the (male) planatar lord of prostitutes in Chronicle of the Righteous (no artwork) and attractive cambions like Mustafen (nice artwork) are the unintentional exception, rather than the rule. And again, I can't help but feel that - with the exception of the fossegrim, the inclusion of which still blows my mind to this day - the artwork used is not meant to be "attractive". Rather it simply happened to be the artwork given, and the fact that someone might consider that man to be good-looking is a complete accident. How else can it be explained that there are nearly limitless female seductress monsters with stunning artwork, in multiple poses, while the male seducer monsters have the blandest and most forgettable looks?
And while there are all-male races, I think there are... maybe two? Satyrs and cambions, both of which have all-female race equivalents (nymphs or dryads and alu-fiends, respectively, both of which also have also made significantly earlier AND more frequent appearances in PF material than their male counterparts). It's still a ration of like, 99% in favor of male gaze/male fantasy, and somehow I just can't believe that 99% of paizo players are straight males.
Are there other small examples that you can think of? I mean, I can name a few, but as a bi dude I don't know that my opinion really has as much weight as the female gamer.
You can thank me for that Fossegrim.
If I had not made that wish in every topic I posted in, it would probably have ended up as ugly male like in 3.5 D&D's game + it would have been Good or Neutal and not Evil like it should be.
If my (many) wishes come true there will be a new pretty male in Bestiary 5 as well, namely the Gancanagh. And maybe the pretty moon-guy from Japanese mythology as well. (forgot the difficult name tho)
I really wish the Incubi was better looking and more of a sexual male creature.
My ideal male has short hair tho, I find guys with long hair not really attractive even when they have the perfect face... but that's just me, I rather see militairy men with good builds and very short hair.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Hoplophobia:
I'm pretty sure romance and sexuality have come up in every game I've ever run and the vast majority I've played in. It's really not that hard to avoid offending people by just, y'know, not saying offensive things, or things you know are sore spots/triggers. Being friends with the other people in the game definitely helps, as does not going past PG-13 or so in terms of sexual content...but it's really just not nearly as difficult to integrate as you imply.
As to how to handle sexuality...uh, you just do? When you describe people, mention their appearance, or have a picture, and have NPCs proposition/ask out/whatever PCs when appropriate...or more generally let PCs make the first move and have the NPC respond in the way you think they would. It's really not any more or less difficult than any other form of (potentially emotionally charged) social interaction. At least, IME.
|
|
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle.Succubi yes. The DMs that play them....
Part of the reason they may get the "blunt instrument" treatment is their placement and implementation.
If they're encountered in some random room in a dungeon, it doesn't matter if the place is filled with throw pillows and a hookah, the tone is probably going to undermine their ability to seriously play the seduction game.
But a succubus encountered outside danger zones? Like the city streets or high society balls, or "dens of iniquity"? That's where a succubus can really shine as intended, and where they are most frightening.
It could also the favored territory of "sexy draculas", tying this back to male seducers. ;)
|
|
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle.Succubi yes. The DMs that play them....
True, true. But that'll be a potential point of failure for any seduction by NPCs in an RPG...and isn't a problem inherent in the monster.