A bit of a rant about the new succubus


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that confuses me somewhat with this entire discussion is....did people miss the part where succubi can shapeshift? Anyone who isn't fully asexual can be attracted to a succubus because a succubus can choose a form that is attractive to that individual. A succubus will turn into a big muscular man to seduce a gay man who has a thing for buff warrior types, or an androgynous leafy tree person to seduce the agender ghoran who has a fetish for big leaves. No succubus is stupid enough to assume one form fits all.

And if the succubus is in the presence of 3 people who are sexually attracted to 3 different things, she would take the form most attractive to the one she wants to seduce the most, and the other 2 people in the room won't take the -2 penalty. If a character is completely asexual (or a child way too young to have sexual attraction, or a beast that's just not attracted to humanoids) then that -2 just won't apply. A succubus isn't something that show up every session of a campaign, and I doubt many players will intentionally make asexual characters JUST to defend against that one ability on one monster.

And if every PC in your party is asexual for whatever reason, just don't use the succubus. There are plenty of other demons in the Abyss.


scary harpy wrote:

scarletrose, I understand the sentiment. My favorite monsters are hags…but not the way they are designed now.

While they are described as “monstrous witches”, I find there is very little ‘witchy’ about them outside their covens. They are more like Ogresses with a few special abilities. They can’t even cast a spell to heal themselves!

I used think the Adept NPC class was a perfect fit for hags: they gained a familiar, a few low level spells and some skills…and they only had to meditate on wicked philosophy (no particular deity needed)! This let them fit the Halloween Witch Archetype nicely.

They should also be Fey (save the night hag).


Rysky wrote:
Well you said "now" so it was taken to mean you were referring to the 2e version.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

No need to shout. You said '…but not the way they are designed now.'

This implies they were, at some point, designed some other way. When? By who? My comment was along the lines of 'Wait, when have hags been designed differently?' as well as noting for those watching this thread that PF2 has not radically redesigned Hags as compared to PF1 (an important thing to note, since not everyone has the books).

Inasmuch as it makes your comment confusing and sound like it's specifically criticizing PF2's design, yes it's relevant.

A phrasing like 'I've never liked the way D&D/Pathfinder has designed Hags since 3.0' would have not provoked the response I made, but you implied (probably unintentionally) that this was a new design decision. Which seemed worth noting as not precisely correct, given the context of a new edition which not everyone has access to all the monsters from yet.

You should obviously redesign monsters if that makes you happier with them and your players are cool with it, yes.

okay.

To clarify, I have never like the way hags were designed.

THEN, I had the Adept class to fix what I thought was wrong with hags.

NOW, I do not have the Adept class.

SO, I will have to redesign hags.

I understand scarletrose's frustration.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for the clarification.

In terms of solutions to your issue, you could pretty easily give them levels in Hag Bloodline Sorcerer or, once it's out, Witch. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the latter is canonically common in-universe.

I think that works fine to give them some occult stuff to play with, and the Occult list is great for the themes witches and hags aim for. It's a little bit of a kludge, but workable.

Once the monster creation guidelines are out, I suspect it'll be even easier to just tack on some casting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Funnyhat wrote:

The thing that confuses me somewhat with this entire discussion is....did people miss the part where succubi can shapeshift? Anyone who isn't fully asexual can be attracted to a succubus because a succubus can choose a form that is attractive to that individual. A succubus will turn into a big muscular man to seduce a gay man who has a thing for buff warrior types, or an androgynous leafy tree person to seduce the agender ghoran who has a fetish for big leaves. No succubus is stupid enough to assume one form fits all.

And if the succubus is in the presence of 3 people who are sexually attracted to 3 different things, she would take the form most attractive to the one she wants to seduce the most, and the other 2 people in the room won't take the -2 penalty. If a character is completely asexual (or a child way too young to have sexual attraction, or a beast that's just not attracted to humanoids) then that -2 just won't apply. A succubus isn't something that show up every session of a campaign, and I doubt many players will intentionally make asexual characters JUST to defend against that one ability on one monster.

And if every PC in your party is asexual for whatever reason, just don't use the succubus. There are plenty of other demons in the Abyss.

Alternatively, have it manifest differently. Portray her as seeming very friendly and cheerful. Someone you want to be around more than anything. There's more kinds of lust than the sexual, even if that's what most people think of. I could see a succubus going, "okay, they're not into sex. Guess it's plan B."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:

The thing that confuses me somewhat with this entire discussion is....did people miss the part where succubi can shapeshift? Anyone who isn't fully asexual can be attracted to a succubus because a succubus can choose a form that is attractive to that individual. A succubus will turn into a big muscular man to seduce a gay man who has a thing for buff warrior types, or an androgynous leafy tree person to seduce the agender ghoran who has a fetish for big leaves. No succubus is stupid enough to assume one form fits all.

And if the succubus is in the presence of 3 people who are sexually attracted to 3 different things, she would take the form most attractive to the one she wants to seduce the most, and the other 2 people in the room won't take the -2 penalty. If a character is completely asexual (or a child way too young to have sexual attraction, or a beast that's just not attracted to humanoids) then that -2 just won't apply. A succubus isn't something that show up every session of a campaign, and I doubt many players will intentionally make asexual characters JUST to defend against that one ability on one monster.

And if every PC in your party is asexual for whatever reason, just don't use the succubus. There are plenty of other demons in the Abyss.

Alternatively, have it manifest differently. Portray her as seeming very friendly and cheerful. Someone you want to be around more than anything. There's more kinds of lust than the sexual, even if that's what most people think of. I could see a succubus going, "okay, they're not into sex. Guess it's plan B."
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Well you said "now" so it was taken to mean you were referring to the 2e version.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

No need to shout. You said '…but not the way they are designed now.'

This implies they were, at some point, designed some other way. When? By who? My comment was along the lines of 'Wait, when have hags been designed differently?' as well as noting for those watching this thread that PF2 has not radically redesigned Hags as compared to PF1 (an important thing to note, since not everyone has the books).

Inasmuch as it makes your comment confusing and sound like it's specifically criticizing PF2's design, yes it's relevant.

A phrasing like 'I've never liked the way D&D/Pathfinder has designed Hags since 3.0' would have not provoked the response I made, but you implied (probably unintentionally) that this was a new design decision. Which seemed worth noting as not precisely correct, given the context of a new edition which not everyone has access to all the monsters from yet.

You should obviously redesign monsters if that makes you happier with them and your players are cool with it, yes.

okay.

To clarify, I have never like the way hags were designed.

THEN, I had the Adept class to fix what I thought was wrong with hags.

NOW, I do not have the Adept class.

SO, I will have to redesign hags.

I understand scarletrose's frustration.

Yeah, I always liked them better as the "ugly old witch," usually took away their ogre-ish traits and gave them more spells, when I didn't just make a really old changeling witch and call her a hag.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
If the GM tells me that my character is attracted to a male character, whether it be because I failed a will save or any other reason, I am going to leave that campaign. The GM does not get to decide I have to play a straight character for this session.

This feels like such a weird response. If an enemy dominated your PC and made them attack one of your allies, insisting that your character would never attack their friends would probably just get you some weird looks because, yeah, that's why it's magic making you do it. Even moreso if you left the campaign because of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I do agree that our redeemed succubi (it's actually both Arueshalae and Nocticula) being dressed less provocatively has unfortunate implications that should be addressed.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler:
scary harpy wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:


I'm… slightly annoyed that it's always the pretty ones that get redeemed.
Arueshalae, Nocticula, and now Sorshen all have that in common. A succubus, the succubus queen, and the runelord of lust.
It's time that Zon-Kuthon gets turned back into Dou-Bral. Preferably while keeping his scars.
I think Zon-Kuthon and Dou-Bral should become separated beings; Dou-Bral should seek redemption...with some scars. I want Thron back too.

We actually did something like this in our home game. There's an obscure entity that popped up, known as the "Echo of Dou-Bral" which is the 'sane' part, what used to be Dou-Bral. Of course it's also stated that he's actually the craziest part of Zon-Kuthon that thinks it's still the original. So he's kind of both the original remenant, and a manifestation by Zon-Kuthon's madness. It's weird, but gods, they're like that. Especially insane ones possessed by a Cenobite.

ps. Mixing spoilers and quotes is a lot of work.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If the GM tells me that my character is attracted to a male character, whether it be because I failed a will save or any other reason, I am going to leave that campaign. The GM does not get to decide I have to play a straight character for this session.
This feels like such a weird response. If an enemy dominated your PC and made them attack one of your allies, insisting that your character would never attack their friends would probably just get you some weird looks because, yeah, that's why it's magic making you do it. Even moreso if you left the campaign because of it.

A) Dominate gives you another save if you try to order the creature to do something against their nature

B) Dominate is a magical compulsion that turns the creature into a meat puppet that follows orders. If a succubus casts Dominate on you and you have sex as a result, that isn't seduction, it's rape. I feel it's reasonable to not want to play in campaigns where my character gets raped.


Previous Zon-Kuthon discussion:
scary harpy wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

I'm… slightly annoyed that it's always the pretty ones that get redeemed.

Arueshalae, Nocticula, and now Sorshen all have that in common. A succubus, the succubus queen, and the runelord of lust.
It's time that Zon-Kuthon gets turned back into Dou-Bral. Preferably while keeping his scars.

I think Zon-Kuthon and Dou-Bral should become separated beings; Dou-Bral should seek redemption...with some scars. I want Thron back too.

Continued Zon-Kuthon discussion:
I could see whatever originally corrupted him staying around and choosing a new scion (in fact, that's pretty much what I'd expect), which, I guess, would be kind of similar - but the "Redeemer Queen" (née Succubus Queen) didn't get split either, so apparently that's not standard.

Apart from "The outside influence that caused Zon-Kuthon to exist still exists, so there will be a new Zon-Kuthon" (which wouldn't really be a split, more like an inheritor), I don't see a reason for a "split".

Doktor Weasel wrote:
ps.:
Mixing spoilers and quotes is a lot of work.

But fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.

Except of course all the non-pretty people you could redeem in PF1E AP's. But people steadfastly ignore those, because that wouldn't fit into the agenda.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.
Except of course all the non-pretty people you could redeem in PF1E AP's. But people steadfastly ignore those, because that wouldn't fit into the agenda.

There've been a variety who you could redeem, sure. But of all the NPCs you could redeem in WotR (or any Paizo AP, really), Arushalae was by far the most obvious, Sorshen is the only redeemed Runelord we've got, and Nocticula is the only redeemed formerly Evil deity.

It's not that there are none, but the unattractive are underrepresented comparatively. As are men, for that matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.
Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.

On the other hand, with some luck, we might get to redeem a gold dragon soon, so there's that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.

Especially Alderpash, right?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?

He's one, where are the others?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Especially Alderpash, right?

- Not mythic of any kind,

- lost his Runelord title long ago, already had two successors,
- non-evil lich doesn't have the same impact as non-evil demon (or demon lord)
- is his redemption actually canon, or just optional? Sorshen's and Nocticula's redemptions aren't just official canon, they also have a huge impact on the world, one in the form of a new country, the other in the form of a new deity, placing both front and center.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?
He's one, where are the others?

Azaersi, she obviously made it, without enacting her doomsday scenario.

Reta Bigbad, she was an integral part of one of our campaigns and a PFS favorite in our area.

Dark Archive

Besides that bestiary entry mentions that succubi's true form can be male, I remember succubi from Wrath of the Righteous whose true form are agender and intersex as well.

(the agender one's seduction strategy is intellectual seduction in form of philosophical conversations iirc. So yes, succubi can target asexual people too, its just... Really different type of lust :p)

If Alderpash gets redeemed, it would actually be unusual in multiple ways though:

1) He isn't attractive. He is feeble and uber thin creepy old man.

2) He is old man appearance wise. You'd be surprised at how ageist society can be, I'm not kidding, old people often get screwed.

3) He is a lich which are virtually all evil beyond redemption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?
He's one, where are the others?

Wrath if the Righteous has several evil dudes you can possibly redeem. Return of the Runelords lets you redeem Xanderghul, although for some reason that wasn't canon, instead they let Belimarius live... who isn't even really redeemed. It's just the default assumption that somehow she gets away being a complete douche to the PC's.

Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Especially Alderpash, right?

- Not mythic of any kind,

- lost his Runelord title long ago, already had two successors,
- non-evil lich doesn't have the same impact as non-evil demon (or demon lord)
- is his redemption actually canon, or just optional? Sorshen's and Nocticula's redemptions aren't just official canon, they also have a huge impact on the world, one in the form of a new country, the other in the form of a new deity, placing both front and center.

Alderpash is an ancient evil who is not at all lustful. That was the criteria, not the ones you just made up.

Also: Xanderghul (who fits your criteria) and Belimarius, although the latter really doesn't redeem, as already pointed out a bit above in my post.

Dark Archive

Xanderghul's redemption is kinda interesting option though.

Like its not about convincing him that his ways are wrong, or showing him kindness, its beating him into submission into situation where he realizes he is actually about to die for good and force him to break his prideful personality and beg for his life.

Like, you literally start his "redemption"(note: as written its up to GM whether he actually gets redeemed or just allies with PCs genuinely and bides his time) by humbling the most prideful person :P

I suppose being humble is such big shock to him that he might change his ways for good. Or at least lose his overwhelming confidence.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I was asking for evil male characters being redeemed, with the book actually calling out the possibility.

Dark Archive

Xanderghul is actually pointed out as possibility iirc, like as I said its up to gm, but text actually gives it as option to gm as what to do with him if he survives.

I think there was one guy in Wrath's book 2 but I might remember that one wrong There was definitely a second one who was corrupted into evil by demons and starts out possessed by them, but he still stays evil until atoned or helped after being depossessed.

In Shattered Star there is that elf guy in fullplate armor who wanted world to end who can be redeemed iirc.

(in shattered star there is also whole tribe of xulgaths you can redeem with first one named one you meet being male, but that is a group redemption so dunno if it counts)

Rest of aps I have hard time remembering from top of my head.

I think there was someone in War for the Crown? Or at least tragic romance with someone you can keep as ally in form of "house arrest" after they are convinced to surrender.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It was Ardathanatus for Shattered Star, the tribe was actually Troglydites in module two. You can redeem quite a lot of people in War for the Crown, lots of male ones included.

So male, redeemable:

Some spoilers:

Spoiler:
- Alderpash
- Ardathanatus
- Xanderghul
- Baron What's-his-name in War for the Crown module two
- Other dudes in Wrath of the Righteous (the gay siege engineer whose boyfriend was a priest of Shelyn comes to mind)
- Unnamed Troglodytes in Shattered Star

Very probably more, but I ain't got a photographic memory.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Was the engineer actually evil or just possessed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think he was just possessed or led astray by the really evil person (who was female and middling attractive, IIRC), but with a very real danger of going evil for realz if the PC's didn't intervene. So, half-redemption? ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Doktor Weasel wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
But fun!

Fun? Really??


Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.

On the other hand, with some luck, we might get to redeem a gold dragon soon, so there's that?

Rysky wrote:
I was asking for evil male characters being redeemed, with the book actually calling out the possibility.

I all for redemption...but will this option be popular among most players?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.
Except of course all the non-pretty people you could redeem in PF1E AP's. But people steadfastly ignore those, because that wouldn't fit into the agenda.

There've been a variety who you could redeem, sure. But of all the NPCs you could redeem in WotR (or any Paizo AP, really), Arushalae was by far the most obvious, Sorshen is the only redeemed Runelord we've got, and Nocticula is the only redeemed formerly Evil deity.

It's not that there are none, but the unattractive are underrepresented comparatively. As are men, for that matter.

Waifus have harmed many a man's creative output.

magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?

You should have seen him in his prime! Wowza!


magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?

- Not mythic of any kind,

- lost his Runelord title long ago, already had two successors,
- non-evil lich doesn't have the same impact as non-evil demon (or demon lord)
- is his redemption actually canon, or just optional? Sorshen's and Nocticula's redemptions aren't just official canon, they also have a huge impact on the world, one in the form of a new country, the other in the form of a new deity, placing both front and center.

Alderpash is an ancient evil who is not at all lustful. That was the criteria, not the ones you just made up.

Also: Xanderghul (who fits your criteria) and Belimarius, although the latter really doesn't redeem, as already pointed out a bit above in my post.

Okay, since "exceptional" redemption (and "powerful" wizard - Sorshen is wizard 20, mythic 10. Alderpash isn't even Wizard 20, lich or not. Xanderghul originally fitted, fair enough, though at his point of (possible) redemption he was weakened, and anyway, the Runelord of Pride, having created a cult to himself under the alias of "the Peacock Spirit", would probably be insulted if you didn't consider him "pretty".) is obviously to fuzzy, how about this fixed line:

Any canon redemption important enough to change the setting as a whole, affecting even those who haven't played the respective APs.

That excludes Arueshalae (outside of "Wait, demons can be redeemed?", but that was a deus ex machina with Desna giving her a starting push, and when gods get involved, anything is possible - and anyway, it is dwarved by Nocticula's redemption), but Sorshen changes the map and a good part of the setting, and Nocticula changes the world as a whole.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Again, you just made those criteria up. The original criteria (singular) was:

"Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far. "

Alderpash is an acient powerful wizard. Xanderghul certainly is as well, even moreso than Alderpash.

Hence, criteria met. Twice to three times with Sorshen, Arueshalae and Nocticula. The original argument was that only hot female evil gets redeemed. This has been conclusively proven wrong by now.

I will admit, though, that those three female redemptions are canon, while Alderpash and Xanderghul are optional. That could have been handled better, IMO.

Dark Archive

Umm, Xulgaths ARE trogdolytes


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Umm, Xulgaths ARE trogdolytes

Tsk, you and your fancy new-fangled names. :p Troggos it is. ^^

Dark Archive

But they were Xulgaths in 1e too D:

(in general though, we need more redeemable monsters. And I mean outside of romance options like that one harpy :P)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Umm, Xulgaths ARE trogdolytes
Tsk, you and your fancy new-fangled names. :p Troggos it is. ^^

From the office of pedantry:

I invented the word "xulgath" as a name for a lizard humanoid back in the late 80s. And put it in print as a name for troglodytes as early as "Into the Darklands." We've been doing a soft roll out of this name for about a decade. So it's technically not "new-fangled." But I will accept the fancy side of things. Cause what's fancier than a slavering, demon worshiping, foul-smelling cave-dwelling lizard person? :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dammit, foiled again! :D Well, then, Xulgaths it is. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

12 people marked this as a favorite.

And as for the redemption topic... As folks point out, we've had a LOT of redemption possibilities for various NPCs in numerous adventures over the years... some small scale, some large scale. I do agree that we should get some ugly and/or male redemption possibilities into the game as "cover characters" or the like who are out there in full view in the way we did with Arueshalae and Sorshen, and that's something we're working on...

BIG Age of Ashes spoiler

Spoiler:
For example, the redemption of the male gold dragon Mengkare is one of the core plot points of this whole Adventure Path, and is one we'll be assuming occurs canonically going forward, since it represents the best "PC's Win" outcome of the adventure.

And I suspect Age of Ashes will be seen by a lot more eyes than ever saw most of our other adventure paths, just by the fact that it's the first 2nd edition Adventure Path and we'll be having a lot of new eyes on the setting, so by this point next year I'd suspect this spoiler element will be more widespread knowledge than any we've done in 1st edition.

The whole "Some villains are the way they are by accident and if the PCs treat them like people and are understanding, can be redeemed" plot is something I've always been fond of, and I usually include some of these characters in adventures I write and try to include them in adventures I develop.

Burnt Offerings spoiler

Spoiler:
The character of Nualia in this one is a great example of a tragic villain who, if the PCs give her a chance and talk to her, could potentially be redeemed. She is what she is, after all, due to her pretty awful adopted father and some pretty awful treatment by a town who didn't understand that fawning over an aasimar isn't going to make them happy, it's just gonna depress them and creep them out.

Of course, Nualia doesn't have a built-in expectation that she's going to be redeemed in Burnt Offerings; the expectation there is that she'll be defeated/slain by the PCs. In hindsight, I kinda wish I'd built in more of a stronger redemption arc for her, but that said... having her soul get a chance at redemption is something I'm interested in exploring, potentially, in a future adventure or story. And THAT said, Nualia then becomes yet another "beautiful succubus-related villain to redeem, which is a trope that's long appealed to me for personal issues, I guess, but as of folks pointing out all of those elements back in Wrath of the Righteous is one I'm aware of so going forward I'll be handling those elements in stuff I write less subconsiously and more critically.

But that's not why I brought up Burnt Offerings.

There's a whole BAND of bandits in that adventure. Tsuto, Orik, Bruthazmus, and Lyrie are all their own unique characters, and all part of Nualia's gang of bandits who move in to Thistletop and start doing their thing. For this band of bandits, I wanted them to have a pretty complicated interpersonal relationship. Love triangles, secrets, betrayals, and tragic histories all around. The idea being that a group could just sweep through them all and fight them to the death, but an "easier" solution would be for the players to pay closer attention to these NPCs' personalities, so that the PCs would realize that they could be handled diplomatically or via trickery rather than fights.

Specifically, Orik Vancaskerkin was set up to be a person to be redeemed... arguably the FIRST person to be a redemption target in any Adventure Path.

But the feedback is still feedback. We'll continue to expand the redemption diversity as we can.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yessssssssssssssssss


That is great News - Overall I have to say, that Paizo even includes redeemable Opponents and built them into the foundation of your world is already really appreciable and puts them above large parts of the stories out there.

But we are getting way off topic here, even though it's in a good way. Looking Forward to torture my Players with more Moral Problems than ever before!


magnuskn wrote:

Again, you just made those criteria up. The original criteria (singular) was:

"Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far. "

Alderpash is an acient powerful wizard. Xanderghul certainly is as well, even moreso than Alderpash.

Hence, criteria met. Twice to three times with Sorshen, Arueshalae and Nocticula. The original argument was that only hot female evil gets redeemed. This has been conclusively proven wrong by now.

I will admit, though, that those three female redemptions are canon, while Alderpash and Xanderghul are optional. That could have been handled better, IMO.

All criteria are made up, the question is at what point they were made up.

My original "only pretty ones get redeemed" was exaggeration for dramatic effect, but I don't think anyone was surprised by that. However, since I'm both (occasionally) argumentative and (often) bad at actually arguing (while also still trying to fit jokes in), I didn't manage to get the actual problem phrased properly: That "pretty" redemption gets all the screen time.

That being said…

James Jacobs wrote:
[Cool stuff]

I am content for now.

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / A bit of a rant about the new succubus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.