A bit of a rant about the new succubus


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Premise. I love succubi. I played them a lot, and I featured them a lot in my games. I understand it, many people are absolutely unable to portray them decently, and many people are justifiably scared of the average moron handling themes around sexuality in their games.
But once you decide to put them in your bestiary, do them justice.

In the previous episodes:
D&D switches succubi to devils and lawful because... they literally don't know how to deal with a demon that doesn't punch things for a living.
In the first edition of pathfinder you made a decent succubus. actually the profane gift and profane temptations were amazing, great way to make them into a smart demon that tempt you and can give you powers.
Then you wrote a "Redeemed succubus" named Arueshalae who becomes Chaotic Neutral for wrath of the righteous.
Note: Arueshalae is always depicted fully clad in armor, like, quite conservative looking armor.
I have no problem in succubi with armor, I have no problem with succubi without armor, I have no problems with succubi who are not evil, as a matter of fact I like all of the above very much.
When you have only one succubus in armor and only one succubus who is not evil it starts to feel like a case of "If you dress like a slut you are clearly evil".

But let's go to pathfinder second edition where we have 2 new entries in the succubus traits.

Rejection Vulnerability: Succubi take metaphysical mental damage upon being rejected.
No, this is not a joke.
You are a manipulative mastermind demon corrupter that used to have the charisma levels of a demigod but a succubus that gets rejected can cry herself to death over the rejection of Boblin the Goblin now.

Seductive Presence: Any creature in the area that could be sexually attracted to a succubus etc..etc...
that could be sexually attracted.....
Like it's a choice
I am sorry, were you to do fear effects from a giant spider monster you would never ask if people are arachnophobic, or any other thing like that, you just go "Nope, this is a monster, this is an incarnation of fear given form, you are afraid no matter if it fits your phobias".
Aside from the fact that the attraction to humanoid vague equivalent to this monster when it's literally the incarnation of lust from the demonworld should NOT be a factor, is not like a succubus have literally every illusion and shapechanging power in the world to make you perceive whatever you would be attracted to anyway right?

I am 100% sure that nobody but me gives a f%~@ but really, this is the usual mix of being a coward, being awkward as f*#* with the theme and not having any clue on how to handle it.

I get it, it's a damned if I do, Damned if I don't situation.
But at that point just give up. You don't actually have to have a Succubus entry in your bestiary.

So, If I will ever run Pathfinder 2e I am going to rewrite this mess entirely, and I am going to run succubi the way they should (which by the way, includes incubi. Somehow the awkward misstep toward political correctness not only includes slut shaming, but also has no space for male demons that make the CisHet question their heterosexuality, because gays are gross, but we all love lesbian porn right?)

But hey, what a victory. Now every muchkin will play asexual characters, not because they give a f!@+ about asexual representation but because it just became a way to become immune to powers for free, while nothing will stop DMs from playing their amazing goblin rapist horde with their rape survivors friends because guess what, the secret to run inclusive games is for the one who runs it to become aware of their players comfort level and respect it rather than put some mental gymnastic in your powers.

The rant that nobody will probably give a f*~$ about it's over
Go in peace.

p.s. Silver lining: The succubus illustration in the book is very good. Classy sultry red dress that looks great but doesn't necessarily shows too much and is not "Hey, I am half naked. that is the only way to be seductive right?" but neither is "We can never possibly hint at the fact that sexuality is a thing. think of the children"

Liberty's Edge

30 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly disagree with almost all of that.

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.

I disagree with pretty much everything else.

As literal incarnations of lust, succubi are harmed by those who reject that lust. Likewise, Glabrezu as incarnations of deceit are harmed by those who see through their lies. That's very reasonable and on-brand for succubi. They also have 100 HP and this does 2d6 damage to them. If a weak creature brushes them off, that's just enough to piss them off and cause them to crush said creature, rather than being debilitating. Which is, again, very on-brand for succubi thematically.

As for the 'could be attracted' bit, the Succubus can make you attracted. That's what their Diplomacy, Deception, and spells are for...but people who are already attracted get a penalty. That, again, seems utterly appropriate for succubi thematically. It also encourages them to assume forms best suited to seducing particular targets, something that is very much part of succubus lore and I'm very glad to see mechanical support for.

In short, I think your complaints about the actual PF2 succubus (as opposed to an art issue with redeemed succubi) are basically unfounded.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm not playing an asexual character, ever (not that there's anything wrong with it, most of my family are ace, it's just not who I am or how I want my characters to be) irregardless of mechanical advantage.

And I have zero tolerance for shaming of any kind.

Honestly, it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Good for you for making your game how you want though!

Have a great week!


I disagree.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I have literally played in games where "Roll for Kinsey score" was a thing done at chargen - d8-1, rolling an 8 means you're asexual. We even had racial mods (e.g. non-asexual elves were shifted towards bisexuality, dwarves away from it.)

So if "people are min-maxing by playing asexual characters" that is always an option.

Nonetheless, if someone is just disinterested in their character's sexual orientation, it's probably not a good idea to force it on them. So if "I'm asexual because it doesn't matter, I'm not interested in exploring that part of my character" is a choice people are making, perhaps just leave the succubus out of it.

I mean, the "could be attracted" language is kind of necessary since people are going to play a bunch of different sorts of things. So saying your Iruxi, Cecaelia, Astomoi, Ghoran, Gathlain, Leshy, or Android must be sexually attracted to someone who lacks scales, lacks tentacles, isn't an ambulatory void, isn't a plant which does not reproduce, isn't a fae creature that grows from seeds from a tree, isn't a plant which reproduces through magic, or isn't a robot from space, etc. is kind of weird and is going to encroach on some people's comfort zones.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Honestly, it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

oh no. I am definitely and admittedly making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I care a lot about this particular bestiary entry more than any other, and quite frankly more than the vast majority of people should.
I assume everyone has their pet peves, this is mine.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I have literally played in games where "Roll for Kinsey score" was a thing done at chargen - d8-1, rolling an 8 means you're asexual. We even had racial mods (e.g. non-asexual elves were shifted towards bisexuality, dwarves away from it.)

I can't imagine having to roll randomly for determining something so identity defining for a character but if it worked for you..

PossibleCabbage wrote:


Nonetheless, if someone is just disinterested in their character's sexual orientation, it's probably not a good idea to force it on them.

That absolutely you see, that is the job of the considerate DM. Like, I feature succubi a lot as I said, but that comes with my players being comfortable with it. In the cases they are not, I don't.

Just like, I have friends who lost loved ones due to suicide, therefore I am not employing that in plots if I know that someone has a personal issue with it.
This has always been and will always be what considerate DM should try to do.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So saying your Iruxi, Cecaelia, Astomoi, Ghoran, Gathlain, Leshy, or Android must be sexually attracted to someone who lacks scales, lacks tentacles, isn't an ambulatory void, isn't a plant which does not reproduce, isn't a fae creature that grows from seeds from a tree, isn't a plant which reproduces through magic, or isn't a robot from space, etc. is kind of weird and is going to encroach on some people's comfort zones.

but see that is the thing when it comes to succubi.

Is not that they are objectively and universally attractive (although many illustrations sure try to push that)
Is more that they invoke lust and passion in people.
While in mythology there certainly are examples and stories of "Groomed" hot pinup succubi there is just as many if not more that empathize their inhuman nature, like being goatlike from the waist down and stuff like that. The point was never "That chick the hottest thing ever and since is so attractive to my hetcis tastes I am unable to control myself" but rather "this demon is robbing me of my sense of judgement and filling me with urges that my common sense tell me I shouldn't have" and now is demoted to "I guess succubi are hot if you are into that sort of thing"

The succubus was supposed to have tentacles, or not, have scales, or not, look like a plant, or not hell literally all that you listed as weird and belonging to another alien kind of attraction are things succubi have been depicted having one time of the other.
The theme has always been "It doesn't matter what you are usually into, I control your desire and you definitely want me"

again, as I said before, this is my pet peeve. Doesn't have to be the thing about anyone else. I am sure that someone else that doesn't have collections of mythology about succubi from the dawn of time to today in his collection but focuses rather on ... I don't know, Werewolves, or mermaids probably have similar rants about their focused creature.

I am not here to say "Hey paizo. Change it to appease me and only me" but this is general discussion, so I am just having a general discussion on how I think Paizo is missing the point on what a succubus is supposed to be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Any creature that could be sexually attracted " is probably written that way to exclude creatures like constructs or mindless undead.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

If there's a succubus in the room with two people and one of them is only attracted to men and one is only attracted to women, the succubus isn't going to be able to seduce both of them and telling either player "sorry, your character is immediately horny for this creature regardless of their orientation is going to piss that person off.

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.

Shadow Lodge

Detect Magic wrote:
"Any creature that could be sexually attracted " is probably written that way to exclude creatures like constructs or mindless undead.

I mean, I can see that and I am definitely going to play it like that, although does not seem the intention as it is already listed as emotion mental and that by itself would already exclude them.

Honestly that part is not how it should be and is a flavor issue but, mechanically, if you want to doctor that out is a very simple process.

The one that is a bit more iffy mechanically is the "I take damage out of rejection" one which I mean, I suppose they balance tested the entry when considering that a succubus can be hurt by feelings. which is probably also the source of the beefiest succubus we have ever seen with 100 hp.
Like, is also built like a tank with absurd Hp, more Con than dex, and just as much as int.
a Barbazu, infantry of hell, is less of a front line fighter than the succubus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

If there's a succubus in the room with two people and one of them is only attracted to men and one is only attracted to women, the succubus isn't going to be able to seduce both of them and telling either player "sorry, your character is immediately horny for this creature regardless of their orientation is going to piss that person off.

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.

Of course a succubus can, it's a succubus, that's the whole point. It's lust magic, or whatever. Doesn't need to be explained. Just like you don't have to explain why X is scary, or why Z drives you insane (like basically all the Cthulhu creatures ever, who're supposed to fracture your sanity by just looking at them but, yknow, you see their art and they aren't anything scarier than other monsters.)

As for the second part, that's fine. I don't see it as anything more dire than the GM saying you're now a cowardly man/insane/dumb/amnesiac/whatever for failing a Will save, but we all have our lines in the sand. It's why speaking to your GM is important.

On topic though, I do find the "damage on rejection" part very dumb. The other I did read more as stuff immune to mental shenanigans would be unaffected, but I guess it could be read either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I strongly disagree with almost all of that.

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.

I disagree with pretty much everything else.

I think the general idea here is supposed to be that they have different motivations. The entire point of the provocative dress is to use sex as a weapon for their own ends. Those two have rejected that in favor of other things. So they no longer have any need to do that. In Arueshalae's case it's more an active rejection of her former self, while I think Nocticula is simply moving on to new things. I can certainly see that this could get into unfortunate implications land, it also seems clear that the intention wasn't sexy=evil.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


As literal incarnations of lust, succubi are harmed by those who reject that lust. Likewise, Glabrezu as incarnations of deceit are harmed by those who see through their lies. That's very reasonable and on-brand for succubi. They also have 100 HP and this does 2d6 damage to them. If a weak creature brushes them off, that's just enough to piss them off and cause them to crush said creature, rather than being debilitating. Which is, again, very on-brand for succubi thematically.

As for the 'could be attracted' bit, the Succubus can make you attracted. That's what their Diplomacy, Deception, and spells are for...but people who are already attracted get a penalty. That, again, seems utterly appropriate for succubi thematically. It also encourages them to assume forms best suited to seducing particular targets, something that is very much part of succubus lore and I'm very glad to see mechanical support for.

In short, I think your complaints about the actual PF2 succubus (as opposed to an art issue with redeemed succubi) are basically unfounded.

The "could be sexually attracted too" language is pretty common in PF1 for various seduction based abilities as well. It's better than saying "of the opposite sex" which I believe is how these kinds of things were often handled in the past, because it doesn't assume heterosexuality. And as PossibleCabbage stated, takes into account different races. And it's fairly easy for the succubus to get around, because they're shape-changers and can take whatever form works for their target. It might take some investigation to find out what that is, but succubi are subtle, and seduction is often a long-game anyway.

There's also room for some GM interpretation of the phrase "could be sexually attracted to." You can easily take it to mean if they've got a biological sexual urge, they can be. So in this interpretation it's less about orientation than actual ability to be sexually attracted to anything.

And besides, it's not like that sexually attracted clause is part of one of their main abilities, and not being attracted makes you immune to everything they do. It's simply a penalty to resisting their other abilities. So it's more that if you think that demon is hot, it's easier for it to seduce you than asexuality as armor.

Scarletrose wrote:


So, If I will ever run Pathfinder 2e I am going to rewrite this mess entirely, and I am going to run succubi the way they should (which by the way, includes incubi. Somehow the awkward misstep toward political correctness not only includes slut shaming, but also has no space for male demons that make the CisHet question their heterosexuality, because gays are gross, but we all love lesbian porn right?)

As for male demons, the entry states "Most succubi have a feminine true form (incubi, which usually have a masculine true form, are a different kind of demon)." The word 'most' being pretty vital here. So male succubi and female incubi are totally a thing, just less common. And knowing Paizo, I'd expect a hunky male succubus to show up before too long. And an incubus is a bit different than a male succubus anyway. Incubi were introduced in Bestiary 3. Succubi are about seductive lust, incubi are about violent lust. I'm unsure if these will get coverage in PF2 though, because literal Rape Demons might be considered to be a bit much. But they were mentioned in the Succubus entry, so maybe they'll show up, but it'll be kept mostly implied than outright stated, even the PF1 entry doesn't outright state they are rapists, but it's pretty clear that they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

May or may not be related, but this eerily echoes off that rant about "Puritan regression" on an another thread...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

If there's a succubus in the room with two people and one of them is only attracted to men and one is only attracted to women, the succubus isn't going to be able to seduce both of them and telling either player "sorry, your character is immediately horny for this creature regardless of their orientation is going to piss that person off.

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.

First of all. The GM needs to be upfront, is not just when it comes to the succubi, it's when it comes to anything that could be sensitive to the players.

Then, if there is something the players are not comfortable with the GM should NOT run that. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun for everyone, if a GM makes it into something upsetting the Gm just failed their players.

The concept of a succubus has nothing to do with being straight or gay.
Like, it's not a "HAHA, he cured you from being a lesbian, hurrah!!" first of all because there is no such thing as curing a sexual orientation no mater how much people want that to be a thing.
the point is you are not attracted, hell in some cases you are repulsed even. Some succubi are being of utterly alien appearance.
The thing is that your senses are overwhelmed.
Nobody is questioning the siren song or saying "what if I am not attracted to the siren though?" or "What if I am not into that kind of song?" because that is not the theme.
It's not what you are attracted to, it's about the supernatural compulsion that overrides your own desires.

Then someone can say "Hey, I am not comfortable with this theme and I would ask my DM not to feature this into our games" That is 100% legit.
But somehow I am quite irritated that for decades it was ok because most players were assumed male and heterosexual, and the succubus was depicted as hot and we try to never mention incubi, in some cases we make an entry for incubi but somehow we remove all the stuff that a succubus has and make it into a warrior because.... seduction is for girls, men likes to fight or some b%&@$~#@, and that gets pushed again with the line "incubi though are a different kind of demon" because we all know what is going to happen. They are going to build them with less seduction and more hitting things because seduction is not masculine enough.
Honestly that entirely intro line is all sorts of f~@*ed up with "the concept of gender is totally fluid to a succubus" But they are girls, we assure you they are actually girls, as a matter of fact they are so girls that is they are not they don't even belong in this bestiary entry.

Like really, this has nothing to do with trying to force people to play in situation they don't like to be in (which is never right)
and all about how once again we cannot treat the concept of lust as mature adults.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
May or may not be related, but this eerily echoes off that rant about "Puritan regression" on an another thread...

Perhaps. It is obviously a bit difficult to say being the one talking and directly involved.

I think is more about "I feel strongly about this topic and these both relate to it"

Like, I am a bit disturbed when I see a society that, especially in these last few days, is super comfortable talking about death, justify and glorify killing and the way they do it but somehow hold sex as a greater taboo than murder.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Incubi were introduced in Bestiary 3. Succubi are about seductive lust, incubi are about violent lust. I'm unsure if these will get coverage in PF2 though, because literal Rape Demons might be considered to be a bit much. But they were mentioned in the Succubus entry, so maybe they'll show up, but it'll be kept mostly implied than outright stated, even the PF1 entry doesn't outright state they are rapists, but it's pretty clear that they are.

That is kinda the entire point. Why do we have the

Female demon = you want me
Male demon = I'm just going to straight up rape you

Is like people attracted to male cannot possibly have agency on their desire. If you like women, you must want them, if you like men, you cannot really want them, they will have to force themselves on you.

Isn't it kinda f#~$ed up?


Scarletrose wrote:

Rejection Vulnerability: Succubi take metaphysical mental damage upon being rejected.

No, this is not a joke.
You are a manipulative mastermind demon corrupter that used to have the charisma levels of a demigod but a succubus that gets rejected can cry herself to death over the rejection of Boblin the Goblin now.

When a succubus takes mental damage, there is nothing that says they are sad. You can just as easily call it pain, shock, anger, psychic feedback, whatever. There is no reason to assume 2d6 damage and MAYBE 2d6 more is crying themselves to death.

A succubus scorned is more likely to castrate somebody for daring to reject such carnal perfection than go sulk about it.


Arguably the best course would be to remove both succubi an incubi from the game. I think succubi only keep making it in because tradition and They are from lore and incubi don't make it in because they are rape demons. Which is also based on the lore. Its not like they were made up just for D&D they are as they were in myths. but yes those myths are pretty well messed up. I think its a hard decision for a game designer to decide to keep them or not. Your gonna upset people either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:
Premise. I love succubi.

They are pretty cool.

I think the line you object to "could be sexually attracted to a succubus" mean that it doesn't apply if it doesn't feel to your verisimilitude that it should apply. If you've established in the lore of your story that Jack the wizard is not into girls, then some DMs would rule that he's immune to the lure of the succubi, while another DM doesn't feel that way. If a DM thinks rock monsters wouldn't care, then they are immune. But if in one campaign I DM in, I rule that Golems are immune, I might rule in a later campaign that Frank the golem druid is not, because that player has been having his character hit on female NPCs (in a non-creepy way.) It's not "are you afraid of spiders" but "do you have an ability to avoid fear effects?"

Shadow Lodge

Stone Dog wrote:

When a succubus takes mental damage, there is nothing that says they are sad. You can just as easily call it pain, shock, anger, psychic feedback, whatever. There is no reason to assume 2d6 damage and MAYBE 2d6 more is crying themselves to death.

A succubus scorned is more likely to castrate somebody for daring to reject such carnal perfection than go sulk about it.

the crying themselves to death part is obviously hyperbole on my part but still. being rejected deals an amount of damage to a succubus equal to a two handed sword.

Like, the rage you describe (although, maybe more focus on the pride than on anatomical bits)is a reaction that I can see.
If I play a succubus, and my character gets rejected, It depends case by case and on the context and circumstances and magnitude of the rejection, but I can see her reacting to it, even lashing out although again, I feel like there are better ways than "Castration because I'm hot", especially when you are a demon of machinations and corruption.
But the "Not everyone is necessarily attracted to you" paired with "if you fail to enthrall people you are going to take potentially lethal consequences" I think makes a succubus, a creature that use to be a ego monstruosity that can manipulate desire at will, into something that has very serious reasons to act way more insecure.

Again, to many people the succubi are monsters not often played and in the bottom of the bestiary bin. I, for how often I feature them and I play them and I love to play with the themes they bring to the table is as if to many others they said: "The dragons now cannot be bigger than small dogs, they climb the wall like any common lizard but they can't fly. they don't care about gold and they cannot speak any human tongue"
If you were used to feature dragons prominently and make them a big part of your games you would be less than excited about the way the new game features them right?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Arguably the best course would be to remove both succubi an incubi from the game. I think succubi only keep making it in because tradition and They are from lore and incubi don't make it in because they are rape demons. Which is also based on the lore. Its not like they were made up just for D&D they are as they were in myths. but yes those myths are pretty well messed up. I think its a hard decision for a game designer to decide to keep them or not. Your gonna upset people either way.

The myth of incubi as rape demons come from the old fashioned notion that women can't enjoy sex so can't possibly fall for the seductive male demon right?

But there is plenty of space in the mythology that deny that idea and actually makes women being seduced and willingly consort with demons into a thing (which let's face it, it didn't certainly mean that women were treated better, quite the opposite)

you are absolutely correct in saying that, no matter what, you are going to upset people, but that is the point. I am upset.
I am not going to open a petition online to say "Paizo needs to cater to me", I am not going to picket paizo HQ in protest.
I am just (I think civilly) voicing my complaint.

I think the entry has issues, and is an entry that has always had people that see issues in it and they have always voiced their opinions about it. I am merely doing the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose if you didn't mind reinventing the myths you could have succubi be both male and female and be seduction and incubi be both male and female and well you know.

I personally use sucubi in a more general seductive sense. More like trying to convince you to do things you shouldn't then a direct sexual nature.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I suppose if you didn't mind reinventing the myths you could have succubi be both male and female and be seduction and incubi be both male and female and well you know.

I personally use sucubi in a more general seductive sense. More like trying to convince you to do things you shouldn't then a direct sexual nature.

oh absolutely.

Succubi are sustained by energy they steal through sexual means, but are creatures of desire and manipulation. that goes above and beyond just using sex for everything and they generally have the tools for it

It's like saying that Humans can eat and need to eat so everything they do have to relate to eating.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

"It's like saying that Humans can eat and need to eat so everything they do have to relate to eating."

Who told you about my personal life?


Scarletrose wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Incubi were introduced in Bestiary 3. Succubi are about seductive lust, incubi are about violent lust. I'm unsure if these will get coverage in PF2 though, because literal Rape Demons might be considered to be a bit much. But they were mentioned in the Succubus entry, so maybe they'll show up, but it'll be kept mostly implied than outright stated, even the PF1 entry doesn't outright state they are rapists, but it's pretty clear that they are.

That is kinda the entire point. Why do we have the

Female demon = you want me
Male demon = I'm just going to straight up rape you

Is like people attracted to male cannot possibly have agency on their desire. If you like women, you must want them, if you like men, you cannot really want them, they will have to force themselves on you.

Isn't it kinda f@*@ed up?

Oh yeah it is. But the entire ideas of these kind of demons came out of all sorts of weird cultural hangups around sex in the first place. Well, that and sleep paralysis. They're always going to have baggage.

But it's also just general trends. Male succubi and female incubi are already a thing. But yeah, there is certainly some unconscious bias at work with the whole "Women are hot, even to other women. Men aren't." vibe. Like how we got Succubus porn as treasure items throughout different adventures, but only one piece of homoerotic art that I know of in an adventure (in Ironfang Invasion, "... and an erotic onyx statuette of two hobgoblin men embracing (worth 630 gp)").


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Succubi in pathfinder can look like any gender and tonnes of different races. They're not just female.

Also, as an asexual myself. I legitimately don't get the issue that they had the demon of lust actually interact with the idea of sexuality and that one of the ways to defeat a succubus is to resist it's temptations.

"Seductive Presence: Any creature in the area that could be sexually attracted to a succubus etc..etc...
that could be sexually attracted.....
Like it's a choice "
Uh, where does that at all suggest sexuality is a choice? Seems like you're just reading into things past what the text actually says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Incubi were introduced in Bestiary 3. Succubi are about seductive lust, incubi are about violent lust. I'm unsure if these will get coverage in PF2 though, because literal Rape Demons might be considered to be a bit much. But they were mentioned in the Succubus entry, so maybe they'll show up, but it'll be kept mostly implied than outright stated, even the PF1 entry doesn't outright state they are rapists, but it's pretty clear that they are.

That is kinda the entire point. Why do we have the

Female demon = you want me
Male demon = I'm just going to straight up rape you

Is like people attracted to male cannot possibly have agency on their desire. If you like women, you must want them, if you like men, you cannot really want them, they will have to force themselves on you.

Isn't it kinda f*!$ed up?

Well from the succubus entry I glean several things. The most relevant are:

1. Some succubi are male.

2. Male succubi are not incubi because incubi are totally different.

It does say that most succubi have a feminine true form, but most is usually between 60-75 percent, so there's plenty room for male succubi that seduce people, and there will probably be room for female incubi that shove people down and sit on their faces till they suffocate.

So I don't think it's as bad as you think.

Also, I sort of took the rejection vulnerability more as "vows of chastity and such are unfathomable to succubi" like the idea that someone lusting after a succubus would then reject them is incomprehensible to said succubus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:

That is kinda the entire point. Why do we have the

Female demon = you want me
Male demon = I'm just going to straight up rape you

Is like people attracted to male cannot possibly have agency on their desire. If you like women, you must want them, if you like men, you cannot really want them, they will have to force themselves on you.

Isn't it kinda f##*ed up?

If you ignore that Succubi can change their shape completely to whatever they want and the only thing that makes them "female" is that the baseline form is most often feminine, then maybe it is messed up? But not really because the shape is only a suggestion and not indicative of what the creature actually is.

If you like women, a succubus has you covered. If you like men, a succubus has you covered. If you like anything else that a fantasy world has to offer regardless of morality or propriety or ethics, a succubus still has you covered so long as it is humanoid and a size it can manage. You'll be damned, but it will find something you want.

And the incubus is the same way, it is just what they do that is different. Neither of them care about gender except in how it can be used to destroy you. An incubus is just more direct and overt. It doesn't seduce, it ravishes at best. A whirlwind of depravity and indulgence.

The succubus scoffs though. There is no art there. The succubus will carefully tailor your destruction to your individual weaknesses. The incubus overwhelms.


Milo v3 wrote:

Succubi in pathfinder can look like any gender and tonnes of different races. They're not just female.

Also, as an asexual myself. I legitimately don't get the issue that they had the demon of lust actually interact with the idea of sexuality and that one of the ways to defeat a succubus is to resist it's temptations.

"Seductive Presence: Any creature in the area that could be sexually attracted to a succubus etc..etc...
that could be sexually attracted.....
Like it's a choice "
Uh, where does that at all suggest sexuality is a choice? Seems like you're just reading into things past what the text actually says.

she's saying that someone could just say "my characters asexual so her seductive presence doesn't work." I don't think that was the intent, but that entry leaves too much to interpretation, and it's not the first time they've made that mistake.

In pfs, I believe the ruling is that any intelligent creature can be attracted to anyone, so I'd go with that.


I see the damage upon rejection as an extension of the other emotion based demons. Vroks taking damage from having their emotions calmed.
It is a small amount of damage and kinda works as a motivator to drive that creature to always do what they are meant to do.

Also it only applies if they are using their abilities, only if they are rejected by a target.
Someone not being attracted doesn't mean that they are rejected if the succubus has shown no interest in them. Nor is your characterisation of "having a cry" indicative of what 2d6 mental damage will usually represent.

War of the Righteous was using heavy armour as an extreme contrast and rejection of self imo.

And regarding the asexuality thing, it says any creature that COULD be sexually attracted. So asexuals humanoids aren't excempt unless their races are actually asexual. I could be wrong, but I am 90% certain this is here so the succubus cannot effect constructs, insects, elementals, vrocks, plants and other similar creatures.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason a succubus exists is because of indulgence in lust. Being rejected isn't a blow to its ego, it is being exposed to something that is anathema to its very reason for being. It has nothing to do with the emotions it might feel, though it is likely to have them and have reactions already described in this thread.

It isn't particularly dangerous to a succubus either. It isn't like you can run around saying "I'm just not into you!" and have them sizzle like a vampire in sunlight. If anything it is a sign that their target is someone who will take special handling... and be all the better when they do fall.

Scarletrose wrote:

I think makes a succubus, a creature that use to be a ego monstruosity that can manipulate desire at will, into something that has very serious reasons to act way more insecure.

And I think it makes a succubus into something that has very good reasons to be the confident, cunning, crafty beast of the abyss that it is supposed to be. It isn't going to just run around trying to hook up and get a headache whenever somebody doesn't want to. By the time the conditions of the Rejection Vulnerability is a possibility, any succubus worth their sexy outfit isn't going to need to be afraid. The client is going to think it is their idea to walk right into that web and the succubus won't even have to roll.

If they hurt themselves, well, they were just clumsy that one time. They can be more careful. Work on their client slowly... gently... make them want it so that they WON'T resist.

They have all the time in the world.

Or maybe just rip this particular toy to shreds and find a prettier one. There are options.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I suppose if you didn't mind reinventing the myths you could have succubi be both male and female and be seduction and incubi be both male and female and well you know.

I still think of the incubus as described in AD&D: "a succubus shape-changed into male form".


13 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Side Rant:
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.


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 **

I had a redeemed Glaberizu in one of my games. I mean redeemed sort of in that no murder of innocents. Their was still a lot of other bad things he did but he ended up sort of friends with the party and helped them banish a Balor (granted partially to save his own rear) It was an odd game all and all.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.


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

Yeah, there is a cool Redeemed Mindflayer Monk in the 3rd Ed BoED I always liked.


I've played a mindflayer before. Not redeemed but he did like to tell bad jokes that the party had to laugh at if they wanted to keep their brains.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I've played a mindflayer before. Not redeemed but he did like to tell bad jokes that the party had to laugh at if they wanted to keep their brains.

Telepathic jokes, I like it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m glad to see people grappling with this issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
I’m glad to see people grappling with this issue.

Is their a druid involved?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the side rant, while true, they are Kind of linked.

I personally really like both the new flavor and Anathema to all demons. It makes them way more linked to the Sins they represent, showing that those aren't just some normal Monsters, These guys are the incarnation of lust. And they of course get hurt by chastity.

And the bonus working on people that can get attracted to them makes perfect sense as well - it will always be easier if your target is already predisposed to be charmed. It's just like my Players get a circumstance Bonus to persuasion if they do some Research into what their counterpart is actually interested in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Hawk wrote:


I think the line you object to "could be sexually attracted to a succubus" mean that it doesn't apply if it doesn't feel to your verisimilitude that it should apply. If you've established in the lore of your story that Jack the wizard is not into girls, then some DMs would rule that he's immune to the lure of the succubi, while another DM doesn't feel that way. If a DM thinks rock monsters wouldn't care, then they are immune.

I think it may come down to something like this. Paizo has spent some effort making sure they validate everyone’s gender/sexuality identities and preferences from the game’s perspective. They don’t want some monster in the Bestiary ignoring that effort. How do you think a player would feel if they’ve established their character isn’t into women yet the DM rules, “Yes, you’re still attracted to her?” Kind of invalidates that choice when it’s actually important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is interesting to me from its mythological and sociological perspectives, but as far as the mechanics of the monster go, one of the things I like best about the design approach of PF2 is how easy it is to completely disregard mechanics that are not fun, or contradict the world that the GM wants to create. Hopefully, it will be fairly easy to replace any specific aspect of the demonic feedback mechanic that you want to change, in order to express a different tone and purpose for the Succubi. As a GM, I fully intend to change all the abilities of monsters that don't fit the theme and campaign I am specifically running. For example, I think the maze stuff of the minotaur that Jason included is a great idea, and makes me want to to play a labyrinthian adventure, but I also love "minotaurs at sea" (inspired by the Dragon Lance campaign setting) and if I decided to build that up as an adventure, I would make some minotaurs that have a nautical themed power instead.

Maybe part of the problem here is that Paizo has done such a thorough job of exploring its own metaphysics, and situated demons in such a specific place within that metaphysics, that we feel compelled to see "The Succubus." Instead of different ways Succubi could exist and interact with the campaign setting?

As an aside:

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 **

YES, Please!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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:
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.


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.

If you’re dissatisfied with the Succubus write-up, then definitely rewrite when the Gamemaster Guide arrives in January. I assume you will use the previous edition’s Succubus as guide. I’m not even buying the Bestiary until I can get the Gamemaster Guide (because I have several monsters that I want to rewrite also).


(Heh, your post made me laugh a little x))

I do agree with you that the Rejection Vulnerability made me shake my head. Like come on : succubi are temptresses. If you are trying to tempt someone as strong-willed as a PC, it won't be done immediatly, you have to try again and again until they lower their guard.


Almarane wrote:
If you are trying to tempt someone as strong-willed as a PC, it won't be done immediatly, you have to try again and again until they lower their guard.

which can be done through roleplay and they don't have to fail any rolls or force any saves.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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!

Uh...this is not new. This was as true in PF1 as it is now, very possibly more so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Almarane wrote:

(Heh, your post made me laugh a little x))

I do agree with you that the Rejection Vulnerability made me shake my head. Like come on : succubi are temptresses. If you are trying to tempt someone as strong-willed as a PC, it won't be done immediatly, you have to try again and again until they lower their guard.

A succubus that approaches temptation like a drunk guy at a bar isn't going to get very far. There isn't going to be a clear proposal until the succubus is pretty sure she has you, and if it turns out she doesn't that's a fundamental denial of her very reason to exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

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

Uh...this is not new. This was as true in PF1 as it is now, very possibly more so.

Did you see the part about understanding the sentiment?

I still don't like the 2ed version of hags. Is whether it's new or not really relevant?

I understand scarletrose's frustration. I agree she should redesign the Succubus.

Silver Crusade

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

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

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Did you see the part about understanding the sentiment?

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).

scary harpy wrote:
I still don't like the 2ed version of hags. Is whether it's new or not really relevant?

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.

scary harpy wrote:
I understand scarletrose's frustration. I agree she should redesign the Succubus.

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

1 to 50 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.