D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Rosemary's Baby

[gyor]

Well, there's always the ubiquitous disclaimer that internet comments and online polls don't necessarily mean anything.

That said, I personally think it's ill-advised because - even leaving aside the knee-jerk dismissal of tradition as a legitimate factor - if you follow with the idea that "devils are corrupters, demons are destroyers," then succubi make much better demons than they do devils.

The idea that succubi - or at least, D&D succubi - use sex and temptation to lead mortals down a dark path always struck me as being misguided. Succubi are there to kill people using sex; that's why they energy drain you with a kiss (or any other carnal act). Most people in the game world are 1st-level, which makes even a single instance of passion with a succubi deadly, and even most heroes won't be able to withstand very much before being reduced to a dead, withered husk.

True, succubi do often use deception to accomplish this, but that's a question of methodology; "destruction" and "corruption" are goals, and are silent as to how those goals are achieved. You can use subterfuge and lies to get into a position to put a knife in someone's back, and they'll be just as dead as if you'd torn their head off; that's the lesson in destruction that succubi showcase.

To me, they've always been quintessential demons; they want you to pucker up and die.

That's only one possible Succubus agenda. One could say the sex isn't just to kill, its to claim a mortals soul, a valueable commodity amoung fiends. Collect enough and the succubus can be transformed into a more powerful form. Also soul stealing, life draining, aren't the onky uses for Succubi, just thier main specialization. There is also concubines for powerful fiends, spys, pact dealers, evanglists for fiend cults, and so on.

It really depends on the Succubus and her goals and inclinations. Some could do it out of hateful spite, murderous rage, ambition, twisted kinkiness, fear of more powerful fiends, instinct, orders from her suppiors, hunger and so on.

Which just supports the idea of Succubi as mercs and thier own race.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I just have a hard time picturing a succubus wanting to get "promoted" to Nalfeshnee or the like.

 

[babomb]

there needs to be a gender-neutral term for these creatures if they're their own species, but for the time being I'll revert to just using "succubi"

In Nethack, the term foocubus is often used, foo being a common term in computing meaning something like "fill-in-the-blank".

* I'm not too certain of my punctuation there. What is the plural possessive of Succubus?

Since you asked, the rule in English is that if a word forms a plural not ending in s, you add 's to form a the plural possessive: women's, geese's, succubi's, etc. (Since succubuses is also an acceptable plural, you could also use succubuses'.)

 

[Atomo]

Since you asked, the rule in English is that if a word forms a plural not ending in s, you add 's to form a the plural possessive: women's, geese's, succubi's, etc. (Since succubuses is also an acceptable plural, you could also use succubuses'.)

Well, when English borrows Latin or Greek words, often it keeps the original plural. Hence arcanoi/arcana (from Greek), alumnum/alumni (from Latin). In this case, we have succubus/succubi.

 

[Alzrius]

You're equating the playtest surveys with "online polls"? Come on now, that's not fair at all. Online polls suffer greatly from repeat voting by individuals to swing a poll result. The playtest is far less likely to suffer from that. The playtest also uses weighting data. It's a much more accurate method of collecting data, and that data shows what I mentioned earlier.

If you go to the WotC page where the actual polling on this issue is taking place, it's just another online poll - there's no login mechanism there to stop repeat voting. There's certainly nothing to weight the data. It's just another online poll.

I'm failing to see why they couldn't choose to work for e

You're ignoring what I pointed out - if you want to set their type by their thematic element, they're much more like demons than devils. Now, you can just change any monster to "make it choose to work for everyone," but that's beside the point. The point is that they're a much better fit for where they already were in the first place.

That's only one possible Succubus agenda. One could say the sex isn't just to kill, its to claim a mortals soul, a valueable commodity amoung fiends. Collect enough and the succubus can be transformed into a more powerful form. Also soul stealing, life draining, aren't the onky uses for Succubi, just thier main specialization. There is also concubines for powerful fiends, spys, pact dealers, evanglists for fiend cults, and so on.

It really depends on the Succubus and her goals and inclinations. Some could do it out of hateful spite, murderous rage, ambition, twisted kinkiness, fear of more powerful fiends, instinct, orders from her suppiors, hunger and so on.

Which just supports the idea of Succubi as mercs and thier own race.

This reasoning is predicated on the idea of "well they could choose to act differently, so why not rewrite them based on that?" The problem with this idea is that it postulates that they could have a motivation, and then says that since that reasoning isn't explicitly denied, it's just as valid as what is explicitly stated.

Leaving aside that a lack of a denial isn't the same as an affirmation, this reasoning can be applied to anything. One could say that a pit fiend might want to destroy the enemies of Hell entirely, allowing for greater subjugation among the remaining mortals, etc. and that it depends on the individual pit fiend in question, whether based out of hatred for mortals, personal ambition, orders from higher-ups, etc. and that this individuality of motives is a chaotic quality, and so they're better off as demons. Which is ridiculous.

The basic thematic differences between demons and devils (e.g. destruction versus corruption) are what they do, not why they do it. Playing to questions of motives is avoiding that issue, not reconciling it.

I just have a hard time picturing a succubus wanting to get "promoted" to Nalfeshnee or the like.

I do too, that's the point. Devils have rigid "promotions" as part of their hierarchy; demons just change into stronger forms in no particular order, without set criteria for advancement. A demon isn't going to be worried about a promotion, per se. It's just going to want to gain more personal power, since that's all the better to causing havoc. A relatively weak demon like a succubus is (in my opinion) going to want to gain more power (which means changing forms) so it can stop pussy-footing around (see what I did there?) and get to a place where it's strong enough to level entire cities by itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This compromise of "they're both!" ignores another possible compromise:

"They're either one, it's up to you."

I see the logic of making them corruption-loving devils, sure. I personally like them as destruction-loving demons, who corrupt the act of passion into an act of destruction, of primal loss of control, of an act driven by a cruel subconscious rather than by a calculated need for power. That all speaks to demonic intent to me. There is no interest in rulership and control. They want to bang while Rome burns.

So to me, they're demons.

But I don't object to others seeing them as devils, really. Don't hurt me one bit, as long as they can be demons in my games.

This is a prime example of where WotC could embrace the contradiction, and say "They might be one. They might be the other. They might be neither, or both. It's up to you, DM. Here's how that choice might tell you something about the demons or devils in your world, and about the goals of the succubi specifically. All the PC's know about them is what YOU, as a DM, tell them, so here's a place we can empower you to do whatever you like best."

But they seem to be drinking mightily from the well of One True Way these days, so instead we get multi-page internet threads about mutually exclusive One True Ways instead of a rational position of: "Man, do what you want, and lets make the game support BOTH ways!"

 

[TwoSix]

This compromise of "they're both!" ignores another possible compromise:

"They're either one, it's up to you."

I see the compromise position as "They're neither", rather than "They're both!", but I admit that's splitting hairs.

Ultimately, cosmology is pretty much up there with healing rates in terms of "Everyone has their preference and will have their feelings hurt if it isn't embraced," so I hope WotC continues to go with the most inclusive and easily modified options possible while still retaining some feeling of specificity.

 

[Mistwell]

If you go to the WotC page where the actual polling on this issue is taking place, it's just another online poll - there's no login mechanism there to stop repeat voting. There's certainly nothing to weight the data. It's just another online poll.

I am talking about the survey data, not the polling data.

You're ignoring what I pointed out - if you want to set their type by their thematic element, they're much more like demons than devils. Now, you can just change any monster to "make it choose to work for everyone," but that's beside the point. The point is that they're a much better fit for where they already were in the first place.

No, YOU are ignoring the people in this very thread, and the survey responses, who all disagree with your view of where they fit best. Now, you can just change the monster to "make work for your game," but the majority of people seem to disagree with your view, so why are you telling them the official version shouldn't meet with the approval of the majority view and should instead meet with your minority view?

 

[Alzrius]

I am talking about the survey data, not the polling data.

And I'm talking about the polling data, hence the phrase "internet poll."

That said, I'm honestly not sure what survey you're referring to, since the article only mentions that they asked a year ago if people wanted succubi as demons, devils, or something else, and that internet poll was split. Other than that, all that's mentioned is that they "revisited the conversation" last week; indeed, the word "survey" never even comes up.

No, YOU are ignoring the people in this very thread, and the survey responses, who all disagree with your view of where they fit best. Now, you can just change the monster to "make work for your game," but the majority of people seem to disagree with your view, so why are you telling them the official version shouldn't meet with the approval of the majority view and should instead meet with your minority view?

I'm not ignoring the people in this thread, I'm disagreeing with them, which somehow seems to offend your sensibilities. Likewise, I'm telling them that the official view shouldn't meet with the majority's approval - presuming that you trust the internet poll and this thread to accurately represent the majority, which is highly doubtful - because I think that the presumptive version (it's not official yet) is a worse version than a previous version; I stated why this was so, which is a line of reasoning you STILL (to use your emphasis on caps) haven't addressed.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not ignoring the people in this thread, I'm disagreeing with them, which somehow seems to offend your sensibilities.

Not offending me in any sense. I'm responding to you claiming I am ignoring your reasons for why you like them fixed as demons.

I stated why this was so, which is a line of reasoning you STILL (to use your emphasis on caps) haven't addressed.

I have not addressed it because I don't see the point. Others have expressed why they think they fit best with devils, and their reasoning is as valid as yours. So, bottom line, given two lines of reasoning which are equally valid, they should go with the majority view that it can fit with either and be it's own thing so you can adapt it in your campaign however you like.

I just never understand the one-true-way view that says we should decrease options for people "because this is my preference for my games". My default is always going to be, "more options for the most number of people".