What personality do you give to a succubus/incubus so she/he is an interesting character, and not just fap/schlick bait?
>>47749832
If you have to ask this, it's too late.
>>47749832
huge tits
>>47749832
I fail to mention it's an incubus or succubus and focus more of the demon's description on the sheer amount of magical energy it has at it's disposal.
The demon is on a mission to spawn a demon baby, and in fact has a strong maternal/parental interest. They are selective in who they mate with, and they have an eccentric set or criteria with which they evaluate who would produce the best demon baby.
>>47749842
This.
You're asking us to take a literal SEX DEMON, the anthropomorphic personification of lust, the physical manifestation of the collective impure thoughts and desires of mortal beings...and somehow make it non-sexualized.
PROTIP: If you don't want sex to be a major theme or motif of your campaign, don't include succubi at all. There are plenty of other types of demons if you just want a demonic villain. I don't understand why we have this thread nearly every goddamn day when this should be common sense knowledge. Don't want sex in your campaign? Then don't put a LITERAL SEX DEMON in your campaign either.
I run them as subtle manipulators. The last time I put one in my game the party didn't even realize it was one until after the warrior almost killed the cleric and the sorcerer had part of his soul eaten.
>>47749832
>it's a being whose entire existence is devoted to sex
>how do I make it non sexual?
You don't. The best you can do is introduce other elements, like making them manipulative in other ways. Maybe they have ambitions beyond sucking and fucking, maybe they masquerade as a mortal and weasel their way to power through intrigue and flattery.
But in the end they're still sex demons. If you don't want magical realm don't introduce succubi.
>>47749832
Straight forward about what they want and how they get it.
>>47749832
Make them psychic vampires instead of succubi. They don't drain your life force through sex, they drain it when you give them attention and love. The more attention you give them the further they draw you in, and eventually you become their thrall. It's similar to a succubus but not necessarily sex-related.
>>47749832
One of my major characters is an Incubus who is a complete, massive ham.
He hid himself in the human world at first as a stage magician, who incorporated real magic into his acts.
Later he became a classic rock musician who styled himself off of Elvis as he reconnected to his traces of divinity.
But at the end of the day, he still tended to enter EVERY situation hard, loud, showy, and flashy.which hid that he was actually pretty damn clever, and despite being squishy as hell compared to every supernatural entity in the verse, he had tricks like basically The Dead Ringer up his sleeve.
>>47750106
As in the TF2 Spy Dead Ringer watch?
>>47749832
They are sex demons. Their only purpose is to do sex. They are not interesting, hence their only purpose is to do sex. If you want interesting demons, don't include the sex one.
>>47749951
>You're asking us to take a literal SEX DEMON,
But, it's not LITERALLY a sex demon. In fact, modern mainstream roleplaying/video games have gone quite far into scrubbing away a fair amount of the explicit sex, to the point where D&D succubi barely need more than a hug and a kiss while video game succubi are often just pretty warriors.
If anything, they're more lust demons than sex, and it's a common mistake to assume that lust refers to sexual desire. Lust is actually any extremely strong, passionate desire that overrides reason, which includes concepts like bloodlust (the desire for battle).
One often-cited example of a Lust-but-not-sexual succubus is Fall-from-grace, who instead focuses on the lust for knowledge.
>>47749832
She was so nice, she didn't deserve to get raped that hard
>>47750120
yep. So people would shoot him in the head and watch his head explode, and then realize later he was still alive and well, and some semi-random distance away.
>>47749832
Make it a lore thing. A succubus/incubus, in order to attain true power, must find a completely wiling mortal that will take on their abilities. Otherwise, they will die after a certain timespan. The strongest succubi/incubi all have the combined memories of dozens of mortals and the experiences and abilities that come with that.
Make it to where the succubus/incubus is not out on a quest for hunger, but they must find someone willing to make a contract. They might even hire the party to assist them.
>>47750192
>One often-cited example of a Lust-but-not-sexual succubus is Fall-from-grace, who instead focuses on the lust for knowledge.
So she sneaks into scholar's bedrooms while they're sleeping and reads shit like Stephan Hawking to them instead of riding their dick?
Fuck me, this is why you change the goddamn name of things when you make a variant. This shit is just retarded.
>>47750250
She operates a library and tempts scholars with promises of knowledge rather than sexual pleasure.
Think of it this way. Imagine the dedicated scholar, near the end of his aged life, without a drop of sexual desire left in his loins, and no great vices besides an obsession with his studies. Writhing flesh holds no attraction to him, but the promise of some forbidden lore might be all it takes to tempt him into a passionate and rash decision and to claim his soul.
>>47750250
Ideas evolve, why are you against evolution?
>>47750360
What you're talking about isn't an "idea evolving". Glory be, you're a retarded little self-righteous douchebag, aren't you.
See, what you're doing is like taking the word "pitbull" and then insisting that weiner dogs are now "pitbulls" because you're too dumb to realize that there's already a name for them and want to insist on using the name of something else because it's soooo cool and you want to be a special snowflake version of that.
>>47750330
Which isn't the domain of a succubus. There are plenty of kinds of demons out there who specialize in exactly this sort of thing.
I mean with your whole "lust not just meaning sexual lust deal" you're literally removing everything that makes a succubus/incubus stand out. You can twist literally any desire or goal into being a "lust" for some little hyperspecial *cubus to go feed on making the entire idea retarded.
>>47750424
Methinks that you've got a lot of unnecessary hostility, and it's largely misplaced.
You have a set idea about something. That's fine for you, but other people are free to reimagine and to remix ideas. A knowledge-based succubus is a variant succubus, but still a succubus, and hardly as bizarre as you're hoping to pretend it is.
>>47750250
Everyone always talk about Fall-from-grace in succubi thread. You all fail to realize, that Fall-from-grace is a shitty character. She's bad at everything she does, including at being a fucking succubus.
Succubi are not interesting. If yo uwant to play as one because, go ahead, play as one. But they are still shit, no matter the special type of snowflake that you inject on them. Specially the worst one: "Yes, I am a succubus, but I'm not like the other succubus! I'm different!"
It's dumb, and not even original.
She's a redeemed paladin.
>>47749832
Just play it straight.
The succubus is just a lewd demon girl who wants nothing more than to tempt men into sin/damnation and receive the D. She isn't tormented by feelings of guilt, she isn't pining for a lost love, and she certainly isn't interested in being redeemed.
The players would never see it coming.
>>47750461
>you're literally removing everything that makes a succubus/incubus stand out
Not really. What makes a succubus stand out is her attractiveness (with most demons being ugly), followed by their ability to understand and control human passions. They are by far the most human of all the demons, or rather, the most like mortals, which is highlighted by their roles as infiltrating agents that must disguise and act as mortals.
>You can twist literally any desire or goal into being a "lust" for some little hyperspecial *cubus to go feed on making the entire idea retarded.
What makes it retarded? Succubi that explored different forms of lust doesn't seem all that strange to me. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if their were succubi that specialized in particular types of sexual lust, so I don't really see why succubi that tried expanding their focus rather than narrowing it should be so strange.
>>47750496
>A knowledge-based succubus is a variant succubus,
No, it's not, the entire point of the succubus is the sex
>>47750609
Succubi aren't about a general concept of "lust", but explicitly carnal desire.
>>47750629
>>47750620
[citation needed]
>>47749832
>succubus
>interesting
>>47750424
no it's like calling both a pitbull and a weiner dog "dogs" even though they are different, you're too fucking retarded to understand that though
>>47750645
"A succubus is a demon in female form or supernatural entity in folklore (traced back to medieval legend) that appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity. The male counterpart is the incubus. Religious traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with a succubus may result in the deterioration of health or even death.
In modern representations, a succubus may or may not appear in dreams and is often depicted as a highly attractive seductress or enchantress; whereas, in the past, succubi were generally depicted as frightening and demonic."
There's your citation. It took me 0.23 seconds on google.
Make them not want to have sex but realize that they must do it to live.
>>47750656
No, calling a pitbull a dog is akin to calling a succubus a demon. Which is itself valid, but not what you were talking about.
>>47750620
>>47750629
The point of the succubus is seduction, not necessarily sex.
There's actually a 12th century story about a succubus named Meridiana that helped Pope Sylvester II achieve his rank in the church. I doubt she had sex with him so hard that he became Pope, though I'll admit I'd be interested in seeing that feat if it was possible.
>>47750496
I like succubi as much as the next guy, but I disagree.
A variant succubus would be one that behaves like a ghost, possessing random women to collect men's life energy that way. Or one that uses magic to make other women super-hot, thus inspiring more lust in the community as a whole. Or one that's ethereal and simply visits men in their dreams. Or one that doesn't actually have sex with men, and simply traps them in an illusory prison where they experience their fantasies while she feeds off of the emotion.
There are so many different ways you can set this up.
A succubus at it's core involves stealing the essence of men, and dealing with sex in general. Trying to twist it as a keeper of forbidden knowledge is like calling an Elf a Dragon. Yeah, they both live a long time, have keen senses, and are known for being magical, but there comes a point where you're just making up something new and calling it something that exists, rather than altering it in a way that it resembles the original, but has it's own spin.
>>47749951
>somehow make it non-sexualized
He never said that. He said, and I quote:
>an interesting character, and not just fap/schlick bait?
Take particular note of the words "not just". While you're at it, learn to fucking read.
>>47750645
Medieval era succubi/incubi weren't even necessarily sexy. They were demons who fucked people usually while they slept, too either steal their seed or inject others' seed into them.
It was literally "no I swear I've been faithful. A demon did it!" Plus a handy explanation for wet dreams.
Lustful seductresses are a relatively new thing, made to appeal to horny teenagers.
>>47749951
>I don't understand why we have this thread nearly every goddamn day when this should be common sense knowledge.
We have a pretty virulent strain of shitposter that just likes to post lewd animu pictures and try to keep it "/tg/ related" by putting something in about succubi, rogues, adventuring parties, etc.
Having a conversation was never their intention. They just like shitting up /tg/
>>47750688
>the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity
Are you illiterate?
Seduction is not synonymous with sex, and the rejoinder ("usually") in the passage you linked is in line with this sentiment.
[citation needed] for definitive statements like what you wish to explore; "explicitly" was your word of you choice (assuming you're 1/2 of anon)
>>47750496
>misplaced
Nah, you're exactly the kind of person who is killing culture and communication because you don't realize that while ideas and terminology are plastic, they can only stretch so far before meaning is lost.
>You have a set idea about something.
I'm far from the only person who has this particular idea.
>but other people are free to reimagine and to remix ideas
Let's take a cow, make it taller, faster, thinner, and can run faster. You're wrong if you claim it is no longer a cow!
Sex is literally a defining characteristic of a succubus -- the name is Latin slang for mistress and means "to lie under". Remix and reimagine all you want, but you're a retarded tool if you think that you can completely change the conceit and providence of something and have people follow along. In this case, it's akin to changing the time signature of some Viennese Waltz to 4/4.
> A knowledge-based succubus is a variant succubus, but still a succubus,
Except it's plainly not.
>and hardly as bizarre as you're hoping to pretend it is.
I never even began to intimate it's bizarre. I have outright stated its the same sort of reasoning failure that you see in young children who learn the word dog then proceed to call everything with four legs and is brown a dog.
Names and words matter. Yeah, twist ideas around and try out new ones, but entirely ignoring what came before is self-centered ignorance at best.
>>47750706
no that would be even higher up, calling a succubus a demon would be equivalent to calling a dog a canid, that anon is just medically diagnosably autistic (not meme autistic) about having his fantasy creatures be exactly as he catergorizes them
>>47750736
>Seduction is not synonymous with sex, and the rejoinder ("usually") in the passage you linked is in line with this sentiment.
Oh fuck off, seduction in reference to a succubus IS ABOUT THE SEX. It's not seducing a man with blasphemous ideas, it's fucking sex. Any lust that's inspired is of the "stick your penis in something" variety, not your purple prose for being desirous of something.
>>47750709
>A succubus at it's core involves stealing the essence of men, and dealing with sex in general.
That's really only one type of succubus though. The succubus myth is actually quite broad, with many variations, especially if we were to include modern day interpretations.
At it's core, a succubus is demonic, female, and concerned with seduction/lust. Those are the main traits that seem to be essential, with the other trappings being often consequential but not ultimately necessary, including both the dream visits and sex in general.
I also want to remind everyone that succubi are not the only demons that have sex, though it tends to be violent rape in the case of most.
>>47750688
To be fair, the second portion shows that the idea is mutable.
>>47750803
>The succubus myth is actually quite broad, with many variations, especially if we were to include modern day interpretations.
No it's not "quite broad". It's actually a pretty damn specific to Judeo-Christian apocrypha...and note that you can't find any sources backing up your expanding of "lust" or use of "seduce" in a nonsexual manner. Dear fuck, do they not teach you kids about precision of language any longer?
>I want to remind
Why the fuck would you bring up other demons that have sex? Good for them. They're getting more than I am right now. Whether or not they do has exactly nothing to do with what we're talking about.
>>47750864
Of course it is mutable. This shit don't exist.
>>47750864
B-B-BUT DREAM SUCCUBI ARE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES I DON'T LIKE GARBLE GARBLE
>>47749832
A cold-blooded, vicious villain
>>47750877
How did I imply that it was?
>>47750877
the autistic anon insists ideas and definitions can't change and have to fit into the narrow boxes he carves for them though
>>47750742
>Nah, you're exactly the kind of person who is killing culture and communication because you don't realize that while ideas and terminology are plastic, they can only stretch so far before meaning is lost.
Actually, I'm a person who's done some research on the topic. You must be the other guy.
You also should be aware that the latin name is rather late to the Succubus myth, which predates the language by stretching all the way back to Babylon with Lilitu. Later scholars would refer to the hebrew Lilith and her children as succubi, but they existed long before the actual term was applied to them.
Overall, you'd be right to say that succubi and sex are closely linked, but you are definitely wrong in saying it is a "defining characteristic", because there are stories of succubi that don't involve sex, such as in the case of Meridiana.
>>47750937
The autistic anon is autistic. Tell him that all succubi are nonsense and even if he claim to have seen them, he actually did not.
>>47750872
>and note that you can't find any sources backing up your expanding of "lust" or use of "seduce" in a nonsexual manner.
As they say in common parlance, eat a dick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust
>>47750946
Jesus fucking christ, you done extensive research in succubi? What are you? A fucking wizard?
AD&D 2e's Planescape and 3.5's planar lore contained a few interesting succubi.
Chiryn, from 2e's "Well of Worlds" adventure anthology, is a succubus who is genuinely in love with a cornugon and exchanges love letters with him. This is looked upon so harshly by both the baatezu and the tanar'ri that they send elite strike teams to intercept the letters, up to and including a balor and a pair of molydei for the tanar'ri side. She is also organized enough to have an office full of bookkeeping documents, unusual for a demon.
Nari, from 2e's "Harbinger House" adventure, is a succubus ambitious enough to try to create a god (not herself, another person) within Sigil and reap the ensuing power and influence for herself.
Red Shroud, a succubus with many mentions in various 2e and 3.X products, is a succubus who has leveraged her massive Charisma into the leadership skills necessary to rule over a town. It is not just any town, however, but Broken Reach, one of the most hospitable (even to visitors) settlements in all of the Abyss. As a member of the Fated faction, she has political connections in Sigil and in Ysgard, as as succubus sorcerer 11/fatespinner 4, she is no magical slouch at CR 19.
Xinivrae, from Paizo's quasi-official Dragon and Dungeon Magazines, is one of the three succubus lords who had competed with Malcanthet for the title of Queen of the Succubi. What makes Xinivrae special is that she specializes in lesbian seduction, and also that she is currently imprisoned in Abyssal layer #230, the Dreaming Gulf. That layer is the home of the bodiless demonic race known as the loumaras, born from the corpse-dreams of a dead pantheon. The loumaras are a growing force in the Abyss, but they have suffered a major setback: their first and only lord, Sifkhu, has been kidnapped by Malcanthet. Might the loumaras seek the aid of the prisoner who has lived alongside them for ages, Xinivrae? In turn, might Xinivrae call out to adventurers to strike out against Malcanthet?
>>47749832
A flaw, and nymphomania doesn't count.
I regret of being a fallen angel, wishing she could setting down; something.
>>47750974
One of the few cases in which throwing "fucking" into a sentence adds meaning and not just tone.
>>47750192
>One often-cited example of a Lust-but-not-sexual succubus is Fall-from-grace, who instead focuses on the lust for knowledge.
Grace is a "fallen" demon. She's not really concerned with the normal purpose of a Succubus any more.
She's a good example of a non-evil demon character, but a bad example of a succubus with an interesting personality because 99% of that personality involves actively denying her nature as a succubus.
>>47750937
>derp, I get called out for my bullshit claim that a succubus can subsist on the fact that I really, I mean really like Taco Bell's Mild sauce, so the anon is autistic
>>47750946
>I did research, no way you could have
>rather late
More that the Witches Hammer is what defined succubi for us. What was around before was rolled into 15th century mythology and given a twist. The daughters of Lilith were a similar idea that was adapted, and here's the thing NAMED. Amusingly around this same time, there were a host of other creatures also NAMED who covered different vices. Marbas, for example, did his thing with diseases, wisdom, and knowledge!
>my exception that proves the rule can't possibly be an exception!
>>47750964
>because I was referring to common usage and not specific usage when speaking about succubi
I guess I shan't take that you can follow the context of a conversation for granted any longer.
>>47749832
Why do you even want to make a succubus/incubus that is not just fap/schlick bait? It is a lot of trouble for nothing. "She's a succubus, but not that SUCCUBUS"? That's silly. Your character coudl be anything, despite the fact that it is a succubus, but it's too much information for so little benefit. Is this an NPC or a PC?
>>47749832
Where is this gif from?
>>47751029
>She's not really concerned with the normal purpose of a Succubus any more.
She is in a distant fashion, considering she is the founder and proprietor of the Brothel for Slaking Intellectual Lusts.
>>47750988
I actually think the concept of a succubus discovering genuine love and romance is adorable, especially if it encourages her to either be Redeemed, or figure out a way to keep herself from hurting her lover.
>>47750688
>>47750803
>appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity
>USUALLY through sexual activity
This would imply that it isn't always sexual activity, though that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't something lewd, or that it might expand into a broader idea of lust or seduction.
Since they take the form of a woman and only seduce men though, that likely has something to do with it.
Again, expanding upon things is fine, but you're basically saying that to make a succubus interesting, you have to make it a sexy librarian, but make her chaste and have her give out evil books. At that point, why is she still a sexy woman? Why is she still called a succubus? Why is Greed a separate sin from Lust if Lust just refers to wanting things badly?
You might as well call Pit Fiends succubi, and say that they're a representation of Bloodlust.
Go read the manga, Demi-chan wa Kataritai. There aren't a lot of chapters translated, so there's not much to get through, but one of the characters is a succubus. It's an interesting and mature take on the idea, 'though, obviously, she's not a demon in the fantasy sense.
>>47751045
>More that the Witches Hammer is what defined succubi for us
Do you even realize how late that is? The term succubus was in use at least four centuries before Malleus Maleficarum was put into print, and you really have an extremely high opinion of how authoritative that book is. It provided a definition a succubi, but one that contradicted many earlier myths and stories and would later be contradicted by further ones. It is, after all, a book that was almost immediately condemned by the Catholic church and is hardly as influential as you might have imagined it to be.
>>47750526
kek
Good eye, bro
>>47751100
The Brothel isn't really a place of seduction or lust, even looked at from the perspective of "lust for knowledge". It's very orderly and tame.
>>47751067
These people do not actually make anything but bait threads.
>>47751178
Retard, it's pretty clear you're furiously googling and copy+pasting shit, so yes, the term "succubus" was in use well before the Witches Hammer but, and this is a HUGE thing: it referred to a mistress/paramour. Witch's Hammer is what applied that name to the daughters of Lilith.
>>47751137
>Why is Greed a separate sin from Lust if Lust just refers to wanting things badly?
Well, greed is actually another particular type of desire, which is excessive desire for things beyond your needs (outside of food and drink, which falls into gluttony). It can be completely cold and rational, and typically involves long term planning. Lust is more immediate, passionate, emotional desire, which is why it's less heavily punished in Dante's Inferno.
It's one of those things where it's a lot easier to explain lust and greed as the desires for sex and money, but that's not quite accurate.
>>47751221
I do hope you're joking at this point.
The Witch's Hammer is hardly what you imagine it to be, and succubus was used in reference to female demons as early as the 1100's, though likely earlier. More importantly, the term "succubus" is hardly as important as you consider it to be compared to the concept it is attached to that predates it.
You seem like a generally ill-tempered person with a bad attitude, so let me just tell you that in this particular topic, you are really out of your element, and you might want to sit down and learn a few things before spouting out your opinionated but highly incorrect ideas.
Play up their predatory nature. They aren't just sexy people who want to fuck, they're creatures that either devour people to survive or rape and impregnate them to propagate. You want a Succubus who isn't fapbait? Look at Alien.
>>47751232
>using common meanings instead of ecclesiastical meanings
It's like you're not even trying to make sense. You're making the same logical error as
1) Nothing is better than God.
2) A potato is better than nothing.
3) Therefore, a potato is God.
Greed is desire of money.
Lust is sexual desire.
That's literally why these two words for two different kinds of desire exist.
>>47750979
Another example of an interesting "succubus" in AD&D 2e Planescape can be found in pages 26-27 of Planes of Conflict: Liber Benevolentiae.
In the plane of the Beastlands, in its eternally moonlit layer of Karasuthra, in the region known as the "Labyrinth of Fiery Doom," there live a rogue erinyes baatezu (devil) and a similarly rogue agathinon aasimon (angel).
They are currently expecting their first child.
The book points out the poetic beauty of this:
>A berk may ask how two such antithetical being could be in love. Well, it's really just a simple matter of their respective natures. Both've fulfilled their purpose, and both did their jobs admirably. Nalura seduced a paragon of purity, and Janarr turned a baatezu's lustful nature to true love.
An erinyes is not quite a succubus, but in AD&D 2e, they are close enough.
>>47751137
>This would imply that it isn't always sexual activity,
Yes, very much so.
>though that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't something lewd,
Yet, more importantly, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS something lewd. The key thing to keep in mind is that this isn't hypothetical. There are stories involving succubi that are non-sexual in nature, with examples that are centuries old as well as countless modern ones.
>>47751346
Alright. Name some.
>>47749832
I can't really give you a solid way to make one of these an interesting character. Although, I suppose you can start by assigning personality first, race second.
You can also 'interpret' what being a succubus or an incubus means. In a campaign I ran, I decided to make succubi the 'feminine' element and incubi the 'masculine' element. Not neccesarily in a sexual way either.
I had a succubus diplomat, who used every trick in the book to get her way. She could be motherly, bitchy, flirtarious or whatever, as long as it got what her employers wanted. Basically, she was playing social 'chess'. I remember one player joking that he felt fucked enough after talking to her to not try and hit on her.
As for an incubus, there was one, who cared for his mind and body in the way ancient greeks were supposed to. Also, just for fun, I gave him blonde hair and blue eyes and made sure to describe he has them.
>>47751287
Literally cannot find a single source that claims usage to refer to the demon prior to Witches Hammer.
>out of your element
It's cute how you keep making claims like this to deflect from just how terribly wrong you are.
>>47751346
>>47751368
She's going to use the Meridiana story that she mentioned earlier (while stating she didn't know the story) while leaving out she doesn't know the story and is just claiming there was no sex involved.
>>47749832
Yall need to get classical. Succubi are literal semen demons. As their primary goal was to get semen from mortals, so that other demons could use it to impregnate mortal women.
They're quite literally walking sperm banks. If you wanna give them a personality, give them the personality of a woman who wants kids for herself, but her her oven was replaced with a refrigerator.
>>47751346
>Yet, more importantly, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS something lewd.
But, if it isn't something lewd, why do they always appear as women and seduce men?
>>47751399
Oh no, lust means so much more than just sexual stuff!
>>47751408
Well tempting men to commit adultery with them, and commit lust based sins is what gives them their bonus pay.
They're there to get the baby juice, but if they damn a soul or two that means they get upgraded to the platinum meal card at the commissary.
is /tg/ the most sincerely autistic board?
>>47751317
What you are doing is making the mistake of thinking that language is static.
We are literally talking about words and ideas that have spanned centuries, with the modern ecclesiastic meaning having developed over time from broader greek and latin roots.
In this case, we are discussing principally Luxuria (lust, which included sexual lust but also drunkeness and other excesses), which is separate from Avaritia (greed, concerned with wealth, power, and status).
>>47751431
Can't you see though, they can help build a lust for knowledge and that's just as good!
And lust for petting puppies!
And lust for being kind!
>>47751408
How many times do we have to do this?
Yes, lust, as a general word in the English language, can mean a lust for a variety of things.
No, that doesn't mean the Sin of Lust (which Succubi are concerned with) can refer to anything.
There's a reason why the lust for money, the lust for food, and the lust for someone else's things are separate sins. Should Greed, Gluttony, and Envy not be sins, since they're just Lust? What about Wrath? Isn't that just a lust for pain? Why not Sloth as a lust for sleeping? Or Pride as a lust for power and fame?
Is Lust the only Deadly Sin now? Are succubi the most powerful demons because they function off of literally any excessive want? Is this the road you want to go down?
>>47751432
yes
not the most comically autistic, though
>>47751432
>is /tg/ the most sincerely autistic board?
As a whole, no. The average /a/non, ponyfag, or robot is way more autistic.
/tg/ does attract the most autistic individual posters, though.
>>47751449
yes, you can get the lust of that and what not.
But Damn it, the Incubus is shooting blanks and The succubus has a storage compartment between her legs just for this sort of situation.
The forces of hell cannot create. They can only corrupt. By stealing the semen of mortal men, The succubi corrupt and convert it for demonic use to rape mortal women.
How else would chaste nuns suddenly turn up pregnant? The Lord certainly hasn't come upon them.
>>47751451
Lust is the only Deadly Sin now because modern technology, medicine, and methods put the others out of business, or at least controlled them.
I remember reading (I think it was in Daemonologie) of succubi being referred to as demons that steal semen from corpses or something, though I think in his case king James was saying he thought it was nonsense, but it showed some people believed it.
If you just make them freaky necrophiliacs that makes it a little less fap bait (unless you're into that) and more dark and monstrous.
>>47751368
Are you willing to include stories of Lilith and Lilim under the heading of succubi? There's several stories that don't involve sex or really anything lewd.
There's some actually involving them as protective spirits, but that's just good old fashioned myth weirdness.
>>47751436
Yup, you can't find a legitimate source for a fucking thing you're saying because it's not true.
>language is static
Nope, not one bit. Jargon; however, is generally pretty static and we're using a jargon term, but outside of that, if you really want to go down the route of dynamics in language, you still lose because all popular (emphasis on popular) usage still explicitly links succubi and sex.
You're trying to foist change, kinda like forcing a meme.
>In this case blah blah blah
Look, if you're going to bother using wikipedia for your information, only use the sourced shit. Lust in 7 Deadly Sins refers to sexual lust, period. Otherwise there's literally no need for the other six.
>>47751528
>There's some actually involving them as protective spirits, but that's just good old fashioned myth weirdness.
No those are only cited on fucking bullshit assed New Age Wiccan jerkoff sites.
>>47751528
>There's several
And yet you're having a really hard time pulling out a specific one.
Succubi are commonly seen as powerfully sexual temptresses who attempt to seduce men to evil using physical desire. This stereotype is so common that any variation can be memorable.
The cute, plucky barmaid from the countryside, seemingly attracted to the PC due to the romance of adventure, can also be a succubus. The darkly-handsome man who needs the female PC to do some questionable things to get justice for his family can be an incubus, tempting her to corruption and destruction. If you do this, people will be surprised, and they will remember.
>>47751534
>Jargon; however, is generally pretty static
Sure, but "pretty static" doesn't really mean much when we're talking about something like a centuries old institution like the Catholic Church.
And, holy fuck, stop right there. Get back to you being whipped so solidly that you had to dismiss bold facts?
Ecclesiastically, Lust originally was Luxuria, which was well understood to be more than sexual lust, and this remained the case long past the original use of Succubus.
>Otherwise there's literally no need for the other six.
There is if you actually understand what the other six are. Really, you're so sure of yourself, but all your knowledge is built up from several layers of being wrong and not recognizing WHY you are wrong.
>>47750645
No it isn't you contrarian faggot
I had an idea for a succubus who almost always appears as a female Orc, and constantly tries to incite tribal chieftains to war against the other races, to vie for her affections.
>>47751551
It's actually from Aramaic incantation bowls, but you're right in that it sounds like bullshit Wiccan stuff which is why I hesitated to mention it.
>>47751626
just don't do it too often, or otherwise yeah they'll remember - and they'll just stab the next barmaid to ask them for help because chances are the DM's trying to pull a fast one on us again.
>>47751692
If it goes beyond the basic Greek myths taught in schools (which have largely been recognized a incorrect or at the vry least incomplete by any scholars), /tg/ doesn't believe it.
>>47751641
>doesn't mean much when talking about Catholic Church
...you're being serious, aren't you?
>you being whipped
Again, you claiming this shit doesn't make it true and is rhetorically weak as fuck.
>dismiss bold facts
No, what I'm dismissing is an uncredited assertion that has no canonical basis. There's what one might call a "slight" difference. Lust, the capital sin, is sexual desire. Let's see what they say:
>Lust, the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/lust
>>47751768
Oh, and before you even fucking try: carnal and sexual are the same damn thing in this case.
>>47751768
You are getting a definition from a modern dictionary for a word that didn't even exist in the time that we're talking about, you fucking moron.
Luxuria was a complex sin, alongside the others, and the modern ecclesiastical definition of lust has little bearing on it.
>>47750192
Read the system content for whatever game that you're playing for a definition of what succubi are. If you go off of just other examples instead of using the source material, you and those other fellows are all in the wrong.
>>47749832
The trick is that a Succubus is a demon of lust, but lusts are fickle and tricky things.
A simple and relatively common twist is to have the Succubus appear in a royal court "obviously" going after a rich noble. The noble's soul is worth nothing however, based on his habits of debauchery and infidelity; she's angling for the devout wife who is coming to believe she can find honest love in forbidden fruit.
As a matter of course, the "long-game" succubus is a great toy for a GM. You meet a character who's a touch flirty and a hint demonic, but she's surprisingly cold. They pass her over, only to discover later she's changed her mind since she got the soul she was working on before.
Trying to avoid fap/schlick bait is impossible however: The demon needs to titillate, regardless of the target. You can minimize it by keeping the party off the "Hit then quit List"
>>47749832
>>47750504
Hmm...
>"Yes, I am a succubus, but I'm not like the other succubus! I'm different!"
>"I'm not like the other girls."
Hmm... I think we might be onto something here...
>>47751094
>Where is this gif from?
Otameshi Douga Pretty Peridot Dounyuu Hen
>>47749832
What's her motivation?
How does she do accomplish it?
You need to give more details than just succubus to make a personality
>>47751904
HAHAHA, oh god.
>NO, we can't stick to what succubus meant then because language is living. Modern meaning encompasses sooo much more!
>A Latin word didn't exist in the 15th century
>DO NOT USE A MODERN DEFINITION YOU MORON
Lust was not a complex sin: if you did shit because you wanted to get your dick/pussy wet, it was lust. It's a sin when you indulge this desire too often or directed at someone to whom you aren't married. Actions born from or to fulfill this desire are sinful if they meet this criteria even if not explicitly sexual. See like how you earlier failed to differentiate between lust and greed? Here's the easy way: if you want money for money's sake (or to buy more shit) it's greed, it's not "lusting for money" -- which would be some weird paraphilia. If you want money because money gets you laid, it's lust. Sex is the essential driving component of lust no matter how much you strain language to make this not be the case it is.
/tg/ is so incredibly boring these days.
>>47752052
You really are just an idiot.
Succubus meant more than what you think it meant, because you are trapped in sticking to a worthless definition in a book of no consequence. Lust, generally and ecclesiastically in the time when the word succubus was coined (which is several centuries earlier than you seem to think it was) was more complex than simply sexual desire.
You're basically an idiot. Not merely a moron, but a willing idiot who finds a single nugget of information, and clings to it despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Ultimately, it all comes down to this. Succubi need not be sexual. Demonic, female, and concerned with seduction and temptation, but there's enough in both myth and modernity to support the notion that sex does not define the demons, even if it is a commonly included thanks to obvious synergies and misinterpretations. In fact, succubi need not even be demonic, or concerned with seduction or temptation, but I'm pretty sure that idea would pop the last blood vessels in your narrow skull.
A succubus could be really annoying, constantly tempting characters into acting out of anger or frustration instead of approaching situations rationally. The traditional succubus powers of teleportation and invisibility are great tools for this.
>>47752150
Aren't you glad the non-mod board police got rid of all the creative people in their work to make /tg/ a safe space?
>>47752277
Now, if only you left, it would probably be a great place.
>>47749903
Thing the worst possible example of a tiger mom, now make her apply those same standards to any potential mate, he better be the best or he dies
>>47750004
Standard, but a good way of handling one
>>47750068
>She wants your heart
>Quickest way is through your chest
>>47750136
Seduction, not just sex, it can be a part of it, but it doesn't necessarily need to
>>47750461
>"lust not just meaning sexual lust deal"
That's the case though, the sin of lust is literally defined as passion/desire overriding reason, NOT sexual lust, if a succubus is a demon of the sin of lust then she's not just a demon of sexual lust, though if in setting they are demons of sexual lust then you are right in this case, but as with many things it depends on setting
>>47750791
I'd argue that it's about seducing men into sin, not necessarily sex
>>47751067
>>47751187
Use it to spout out ideas then instead of bitching, it's more productive that way
>>47751232
>outside of food and drink, which falls into gluttony
Minor correction, Gluttony is WASTING food/drink beyond your need, both gorging yourself and throwing out food because you're a picky eater fall under Gluttony, and Greed also encompass wasteful spending/living beyond your means
>>47751317
>Greed is desire of money.
>Lust is sexual desire.
Horrendously simplified to the point it's incorrect
>>47751432
Yes
>>47751451
Technically going by the priest who originally codified the seven deadly sins, all of the sins were an outgrowth of the original sin, pride, so if you swap lust for pride you're kinda right
>>47751534
>Look, if you're going to bother using wikipedia for your information, only use the sourced shit. Lust in 7 Deadly Sins refers to sexual lust, period. Otherwise there's literally no need for the other six.
Jesus, you stupid nigger he is literally using the textbook definition of the sins as codified by Pope Gregory I in 590 from the works of earlier priest and which are still used by the church to this day
>>47752162
>worthless
It's the one that won the memetic game...although I guess some people do use it to refer to a woman who is sleeping with a married man, but that's more a call back to the sex demon than the original meaning of the word.
>Lust was more complex
No it wasn't. You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? Repeatedly asserting something doesn't make it true. I will give you that it's more complex than "simple sexual desire" because as I explained in the post you're replying to it also encompasses acts which serve the desire of sex. Where you keep retardedly fucking up is attempting to divorce lust from sex because you're stubbornly clinging to an unsourced line in a wikipedia article despite provided evidence to the contrary.
>all the evidence to the contrary.
Which you still haven't provided. Imagine that...even after being specifically asked for it.
>Succubi need not be sexual
>seduction and temptation
>somehow still not realizing that these are meant in the specific sexual manner and not general, popular manners
>enough in both myth
Oh yeah, that New Age WIccan shit...masterful research darling. You'll do well.
>modernity
Outside of rpgs and New Age feminist drivel, succubi are roundly and pretty much universally still considered sexual.
>sex does not define the demons
Not by the longest of long shots
>misinterpretations
Literally what?
>need not be demonic or concerned with seduction and temptation
Holy shit, you're deep in the New Age Wiccan hole.
>>47752277
>implying that the one trying to turn succubi into "female demons who just help people like things" from "evil sluts who try to devour a man's essence through raping him in his sleep" is the one trying to make this into a safe space that ignores obvious, simple, and plain history
>>47751551
Read up on neoplatonism and the renaissance era beliefs on spirits and demons
>>47751685
That's a good example, use it in a game one of these days
>>47752320
>"female demons who just help people like things"
I think you are seriously downplaying what a demon who specializes in manipulating people via desire can do
>>47752320
Dude, you're a moron.
Luxuria, which eventually developed into the word lust, applied to more than just sexual desire. Gregory I knew this. Thomas Aquinas talked about this at great length.
You're just a crabby idiot who hates things being different from a single idea he has that he got from a book that was considered so laughably incorrect that the Catholic Church banned it as utter falsehood.
>>47752361
>St. Thomas Aquinas[edit]
>St. Thomas Aquinas defines the sin of Lust in his Summa Theologia Question’s 153 and 154. Aquinas says the sin of lust is of “voluptuous emotions,” and makes the point that sexual pleasures, “unloosens the human spirit,” and set aside right reason (Pg.191). Aquinas restricts lust’s subject matter to physical desires specifically arising from sexual acts, but Aquinas does not assume all sex-acts are sinful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust#St._Thomas_Aquinas
>>47752378
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Lust
>Lust, or lechery (Latin, "luxuria" (carnal)), is intense longing. It is usually thought of as intense or unbridled sexual desire,[21] which leads to fornication, adultery, rape, bestiality, and other immoral sexual acts. However, lust could also mean simply desire in general; thus, lust for money, power, and other things are sinful. In accordance with the words of Henry Edward, the impurity of lust makes one "a slave of the devil".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust#Christianity
>The Latin for extravagance (Latin: luxuria) – was used by St Jerome to translate a variety of biblical sins, including drunkenness and sexual excess.[5] Gregory the Great placed Luxuria as one of the seven capital sins (it is often considered the least serious of the seven deadly sins), narrowing its scope to disordered desire,[6] and it was in this sense that the Middle Ages generally took luxuria, (although the Old French cognate was adopted into English as luxury without its sexual meaning by the 14th century[citation needed]).
>What is cherry picking?
>it's a two anons spend 100 posts arguing semantics episode
>>47749832
>what colour do you make your oceans so they aren't wet?
>>47752411
Three, I joined in about 15 minutes ago
47752411
all I really know is that my dwarves are antlike but they are the dwarfiest motherfuckers around
>>47752410
You do realize that only that first quote supports your position, and the part of it that does is the entirely unsourced position, right?
>>47749832
>What personality do you give to a succubus/incubus so she/he is an interesting character, and not just fap/schlick bait?
Sometimes, they feel the fear of uncertainty stinging clear, and they can't help but ask themselves how much they'll let the fear take the wheel and steer. It's driven them before, and it seems to have a vague, haunting mass appeal, but lately they're beginning to find that they should be the one behind the wheel.
Or at least that's how *I* would do it.
>>47752416
>>47752417
Actually 4, but yeah, it's been mainly two. I am probably going to go to sleep soon, so if you want to get digs in, do it quickly.
>>47752421
heh
>>47752416
Fuligin
>>47752410
>Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2351.htm
And just to be clear, here's the Catholic Church's understanding of the word lust.
>>47752416
Yellow, sand oceans are fun
Red if you want to make it out of magma
>>47752422
>and the part of it that does is the entirely unsourced position, right?
Nope, it's in the source, [21], as intense longing for something not just something sexual as well
Second one places drunkenness as lust also. And the source [6] explicitly calls it out as disordered desire (i.e. desires that lead away from God) which was the definition of luxuria as used by Gregory the Great, not just sexual desire
>>47752436
>Actually 4, but yeah, it's been mainly two. I am probably going to go to sleep soon, so if you want to get digs in, do it quickly.
Same here
>>47752517
>st charles borromeo church
I'm not sure a Mississippi church's website is a good place to cite when disputing the history of official catholic doctrine
>>47752517
Right
Because the Catholic Church can be relied on for unbiased and accurate records. Especially on the issue of morality.
About the only thing the church has been good at supporting is Architecture and In-Vestment Banking.
>>47752558
>In-Vestment
nice!
tl;dr Focus on temptation instead of lust.
I play succubi/incubi as masters of temptation. Not just sexual but in all forms.
I ran a campaign where a succubus named Rosa was hidden in the first dungeon. She trades a mind swapping ritual for an elven wizard's soul so she and her human husband could spend her long lives together. Eventually the wizard is nearing the end of her lifespan and her husband has been reduced to a madman. The wizard starts gathering the materials needed to become a lich. Rosa doesn't want this to happen; she might not be able to cash in on the wizard's soul if this happens. So she manipulates things such that a group of adventurers gets called in to investigate the situation. Enter the PCs.
Eventually the PCs find the wizard's summoning circle. They decide to perform the most recent summoning they can find notes on, because they are PCs and of course they did. Rosa gets summoned, and offers indirect help in the fight against the wizard if the PCs release her from the circle. They comply, and she follows them, using Bardsong to empower them and dispelling the wizard's debuffs. Without her help the wizard would have likely wiped them out.
Rosa appears here and there throughout the campaign, offering the PCs information and guidance for seemingly small requests. They KNOW it's wrong, she's a FIEND and obviously intelligent, so she's playing at SOMETHING bigger. But it would be so easy, so simple to just give her this small thing. A few potions here, a bit of blood there, a favor to be called in later here.
Some of the PCs resist. Some of them dive in whole heartedly. Some eventually give in. The whole game, she is in the background guiding them with small touches. And yes, she does end up sleeping with one of them. The way it's done isn't a stereotypical porny thing though. It's at the end of a long conversation, a verbal fencing match. The PC has fended her off well, but he is tired now, and she's offering herself. It's just so easy.
>>47752545
>disputing the history of official catholic doctrine
Wait.
I thought we were talking about what personality to give a succubus so she is an interesting character.
What the fuck.
>>47752517
I question how official that is anon
>>47752495
Umm, yeah, it's not included in the citations. 21 is the dictionary definition and 4 is just the citation for that quote at the end.
The second one actually muddies the waters some because it goes down the road of disordered desires which is a great big can of worms to unpack.
not that guy but googled the line and
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
scroll down to 2351
>>47752550
>>47752545
You're double posting...also that's a direct quote of the catechisms. I could link you the same one (or just google ccc 2351) and you can read it word for word on the vatican's website, but it's got an eyebleeding background.
>>47752558
Catechisms aren't historical record. They're the avowed interpretations of central ideas to the Church....kind of a long, detailed statement of belief.
>>47749832
Play it entirely straight, like a demon in a horror story. It is a traditional Succubus, going around preying upon men at night, beguiling them, stealing their seed and manipulating them into harming their wives and daughters. Once it has enough seed, it becomes an Incubus and becomes the savior of those poor harmed women, giving them a smile during the day that gives them hope; only to inhabit a little area of their mind. When he visits them at night he cultivates that fear and lust and puts a hellspawn child into their bodies.
It is a horrific creature that plays on the weak, the innocent, and those who feel unloved. It gives nothing but takes everything. It disrupts the neighborhood, turns man against his neighbor and man against his wives and daughters. It turns the flock of the shepherd against one another so in a moment of weakness it may take from the village priest his seed and perhaps tempt away his soul.
Just don't pay it as anything other than the horror it deserves to be; and have the player stumble upon it after it has already torn a town apart. It is just someone in the background as the first couple fights in the streets, and eventually after a few more disturbances and unexpected pregnancies the party can begin to suspect something hellish is about. But that means a witch hunt. And the Succubus at this point has become an incubus, so the tempting woman they may have suspected is gone and now here's a man of vastly different appearance.
>>47752612
>>47752599
see, fucking eyebleeding
>>47752612
Quote the source then, not something that doesn't cite it
>>47752627
You got shit eyes then
>>47752634
>Quote the source then, not something that doesn't cite it
Eh, I figured a page that gave the catechism and number was enough that anyone would be able to find it, but in retrospect I was overestimating people's familiarity with the Catholic Church.
>shit eyes
eh, more like I have taste. I'd have also sent you to a different site if they had a plain white background but used comic sans
>>47752634
I haven't really been following so I don't know who's arguing what side so if you guys are making me side with autism-anon I'm gonna be pissed, but it is a copy of the catechism, it's citing itself
>>47749832
>Let's make a pixel art hentai about a cute, sexually agressive girl who actively hits on and flirts with her faceless boyfriend
>Then let's RANDOMLY have faceless men burst into their room and rape her
>>47752697
That just sounds unpleasant.
>>47752677
Which side are you considering autism anon?
>>47752677
Not who you were replying to but, honestly what does the catechism even matter?
The catholic church is not the authority on what words actually mean nor are they the arbiter of truth, thank god (heh).
What the word lust actually has meant in the past and does mean now is not limited to their incredibly limited definition. While succubi may have root in catholic demonology the modern incarnation has just as much root in other mythology, including japanese porn.
All he has done is repeatedly batter us with the fact that:"Yes, the majority of people view Succubi as beings of sex and want to bump uglies to suck out your soul through your dick."
Well thank you anon for that enlightening message, we would never have guessed.
Now can we talk about the minority that choose to use their ability to infiltrate and blend in with humanity to tempt those who dont think with their dicks into damnation?
>>47752722
I don't know for the church argument, but the anon that doesn't believe ideas or meanings can evolve and definitions have to stay how his autism defines them
>>47752727
>thank god (heh)
wait....youre>>47752558
arent you?
>>47752727
>All he has done is repeatedly batter us with the fact that:"Yes, the majority of people view Succubi as beings of sex and want to bump uglies to suck out your soul through your dick."
dammit you fuckers made me side with him then
Honestly, this idiot pedant show up in every thread nowadays and claims "my (usually incorrect) opinion>all other arguments" and I've since ignored every post he has ever made since, because all he does is destroy threads.
Just like this one.
>>47752740
I don't understand why you people keep insisting it's
>how his autism defines them
or that I'm denying that words can somehow change meaning. What I'm stating is that the meaning hasn't changed and insisting on your extremely minor (as in size of those who adhere to it) change as being founded in something greater or even a valid change is idiocy.
Btw, be pissed, because you were supporting me, sorry.
>>47752727
In this conversation it matters quite a bit because the other person started trying to rely on the Church's understanding to establish a historical basis for succubi being nonsexual.
>repeatedly batter us
Not just the majority, practically universal opinion that succubi are innately linked to sex.
>now can we talk about the minority who change literally the defining aspect of succubi and still insist they are succubi instead of the literal legion of better suited demons to the role of general manipulator and temptor
The defining aspect of sexuality is what gives succubi flavor. Removing that and replacing it with whatever other desire removes the flavor from both the succubi and whatever demon whose folio you're plundering.
It's also specialsnowflake to the max.
>>47752811
>Honestly, this idiot pedant show up in every thread nowadays and claims "my (usually incorrect) opinion>all other arguments" and I've since ignored every post he has ever made since, because all he does is destroy threads.
>Just like this one.
Hilarious because I'm correct, and yesterday was my first time back on /tg/ in two years.
>>47752783
Can you explain why? That was a result of me reading through the thread and losing patience-
I actually thought this might discuss something interesting rather than have a huge discussion on why the other dicussion shouldnt be had at al..
Did anyone in this thread actually read the "not just" part in the OP?
>>47752697
Made it better tbqhfam
>>47752838
Yeah, you destroyed the other thread you were in too.
>>47752855
The only other thread I've dicked around with this topic is one that I specifically made, so I can't see how I "destroyed" that.
>>47752838
Every time there is an argument like this, they always say "this is my first time back in years".
The say the same thing whenever there's a thread about something that made them mad enough to leave /tg/ too. Seems awfully convenient.
>>47752855
>>47752876
This thread to be specific:
>>47725827
Sorry if others are unaccepting of you raping the poor, defenseless English language. I do apologize. That said, you are entirely free to continue to do so, but people like me and this other anon(s) will likely keep doing God's work.
>>47752897
*shrugs* I'm the kind of guy that'd own it if I were being a holy terror on tg, but believe what you will.
Speaking of fapbait, if anyone wants source for OP's pic, here it is.
pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=510953403
Oddly enough, it's porn.
>>47752823
>I don't understand why you people keep insisting it's >how his autism defines them or that I'm denying that words can somehow change meaning
if you could actually accept that change happens you would not be so adamant that it isn't happening, sometimes evolution is slow but that doesn't mean it isn't happening or is invalid evolution like you claim
>>47752841
not quite sure what you're asking sorry, but in my opinion autism-anon was correct about the church stuff but not about his legitimately autistic need to have everything fit his rigid definitions
>>47753395
>Oddly enough, it's porn.
It was slightly a joke character to make fun of the slutty "demon" ERPers in the game but I made a succubus that was kicked out of hell for being too nice.
She wasn't killed outright because she was the eldest daughter to a noble family in hell but had to live in the mortal world.
She made sure to feed on mortals only when she absolutely had to and would take care of them until they felt better and she would mind-wipe them of the night to forget her.
Otherwise she was a cheerful, bubbly, busty pyromancer in a world of superheroes.
>All these magical realming faggots desperate to include """""succubus"""" in their games under the guise of "B-BUT MY SEX DEMONS ARE DIFFERENT! THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT SEX!!"
Why not just call it something else?
You wouldn't take away a dragons ability to breath fire, wings, legs, ability to fly, intelligence, arms, scales, and make it the size of a worm and still call it a dragon would you? Oh wait I'm on /tg/, you fuckers totally would.
>>47753674
While I agree,
Chill nerd.
>>47751785
if words have single inviolate meanings (like you claim succubus does) surely if they meant sexual and only sexual they wouldn't have used a different word
>words mean what they mean, except when that wouldn't suit my argument
>>47753674
http://www.beardeddragonguide.com/
>>47753488
Was just wondering why you were suddenly siding with him as a result of my points.
I was mostly trying to make the point that the churches opinion should not be considered completely trustworthy or most relevant. And that in acutallity things are a lot less rigidly defined and we should get back to discussing OPs question.
If it was poorly worded I apologize, it was a quickly rambled response.
>>47753718
That's not a dragon though, it's a -bearded dragon-.
If someone asked you what it was, you wouldn't just call it a dragon. Completely different terms.
>>47752411
>sementics
>>47750609
Succubi aren't 'attractive'. They are more monstrous than 90% of Hell. The entire point of them seeming attractive is that they basically mindrape men into thinking they are hot. Same as incubi.
Japan didn't invent succubi at all.
>>47753719
>I was mostly trying to make the point that the churches opinion should not be considered completely trustworthy or most relevant.
ah okay I gotcha, in most things I would agree but in this case you're discussing the rules of a particular religion(s) so the opinion of the churches of that religion(s) are absolutely relevant. whether gregory or aquinas actually did or didn't include non-sexual lust doesn't matter when the church has evolved the meaning of it in their rules so it's solely sexual lust now, emphasis on in their rules
>>47753674
>You wouldn't take away a dragons ability to breath fire,
Did Shenlong breathe fire? Putting aside him were the Chinese dragons known for breathing fire? What about Tiamat or any of the other dragons of legend that were never known for breathing fire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat
>>47754181
Agreed.
Just look at Tolkiens Dragons? He made destinctions between land and air borne dragons and those who could breath fire and not. They might have each had their own names but they were all "Dragons".
>>47749832
...she loves traditional games?
>>47754181
>What is a Blue Dragons breathweapon?
>What is a White Dragons breathweapon?
>What is a Green Dragons breathweapon?
>What is a Black Dragons breathweapon?
>>47754246
So basically the girl whos hows up to table top games to pick up guys, cause she likes the nerd/geek thing and doesnt like to socialize in more traditional settings?
>>47754235
oh god don't bring tolkien into this thread, he's the one person autistic-anon will allow to evolve fantasy creatures, it's rather hypocritical of him
>>47754181
Scandinavian dragons exhaled lightning.
Norse dragons and Celtic dragons averaged poison.
As a matter of fact, it was Christianity that introduced fire-breathing dragons in the bible (the serpent the Whore of Babylon rode).
In my post-Wrath of the Righteous games I run in Pathfinder on a heavily modified Golarion, Nocticula was 'redeemed' or at least, had her disposition moved from CE to CN. Her succubi are now creatures of pleasure, but more than just the pleasure of the flesh. They seek to please all senses by devoting themselves to art, music, cosmetics, cuisine, and so on. They're more or less artistic savants that are still down for a bang.
>>47754259
Or she just shows up because all she really wants is to play.
A dragon that doesn't breathe fire =/= a succubus that doesn't have sex
It'd be more like a succubus that doesn't do anal, or blowjobs, or something like that
>>47749832
Make it a not succubus.
Seriously, there are dozens of other types of demons and devils in D&D alone, including female ones. If you don't want to make it sexual, use a demon which is not sexual. It's simple as that.
>>47754516
>If you don't want to make it sexual, use a demon which is not sexual. It's simple as that.
So, you can use a succubus then, because succubi need not be necessarily defined by being sexual, even according to myth and folklore?
>>47754541
>>47754545
To start, the D&D succubus is not explicitly sexual. It tiptoes around the idea, but even goes so far as to say that the Succubus can seduce "or befriend" it's victim, which is a little silly but there it is.
By and large, if you don't want a D&D succubus to cross the PG-13 line, you really don't have to.
>>47754457
whuh?
how can you differentiate between:
one thing that has a key characteristic altered
from the other thing that has a key characteristic altered?
how about...Dragons that dont try to randomly eat people for shits and giggles?
Metallic Dragons
Dragons that dont horde treasure?
Skyrim Dragons
Dragons that doesnt have wings?
Tolkien and Chinese dragons
Dragons that doesnt have scales?
Seath and Luck Dragons
Dragons that just arent lizards?
St Georges Dragon, the Jabberwocky and also Luck Dragons again
>>47754611
>even goes so far as to say that the Succubus can seduce "or befriend" it's victim, which is a little silly but there it is.
>befriend
BEFRIENDING with hand holding and headpats is the lewdest thing imaginable
>>47749832
A cold-blooded predator who doesn't actually like sex as an act in itself but only likes killing or exploiting people. She says that she loves you, she says you're special, she may even say that you're the one who can save her from evil, but it's all a lie. You are not special and everyone knows it but you.
>>47750609
>succubi that specialized in particular types of sexual lust
/ss/uccubusp
>>47752430
Whatever tomorrow brings they'll be there, with open arms and open eyes, yeah.
>>47755045
>>47754611
I would operate along the assumption they're just dancing around it since people get weird whenever sex is directly addressed before assuming that succubi are diverse creatures.
A succubus was a myth that supposedly tried to explain wet dreams and some of the reasons people die in their sleep. If you just want to make demons sexy, but not something that uses sex or seduction I don't see why you couldn't just have balor's be naked ladies that still do the same shit. But then again gorgons are metal bulls in the monster manual so who the fuck knows what they're thinking
>>47754545
What people think D&D succubi are: A naughty monstergirl that feeds off sex.
What D&D succubi actually are: The pod people. A very mean combination of mimic and doppelganger.
They shapeshift into whoever they like, reading everyone's thoughts so they can blend in, and are fully capable of charming everyone in a small village too. They are doppelgangers on crack.
Their life draining kissing/sexing doesn't do much for them, its more of an attack, and optional. That's how they are like.
They can leave half the people charmed and half the people undead. The moment they notice something is amiss, they can just teleport away.
This, coupled with their flat, sociopathic personalities, makes it very difficult for PCs to ever beat one.
>>47749951
>You're asking us to take a literal SEX DEMON, the anthropomorphic personification of lust, the physical manifestation of the collective impure thoughts and desires of mortal beings...and somehow make it non-sexualized.
In what fucking RPG are they something like that?
>>47754680
Maybe a better way to say it is that a succubus that doesn't have sex is more like a dragon that doesn't gather wealth than one that doesn't breathe fire
>>47755125
>>47754611
>every game is DnDDnDccubus is fun though, always make them assholes that jaunt/teleport away.
>>47755121
That's a fair assumption, but there also folklore of a succubus politically assisting a priest until he became Pope, which involves no sex, and really couldn't even have had any offscreen sex outside of painful oral because the succubus took the form of a brass head.
>>47755173
>>every game is DnD
Misclick or bad reading comprehension? Better luck next time, friend.
>>47750979
Cool info.
>>47755159
A lot of the time succubi don't have to actually get to the sex part, though. Presumably they do occasionally allow a sex act to be completed, which is where cambions come from, but a succubus never needs to get further than first base before sucking someone's soul out and killing them. So a succubus who doesn't have sex is more like a dragon who doesn't enter into trade agreements - it's tangentially related to what they do, but it's really not necessary because it usually makes more sense for them to take a more direct approach to getting what they want.
>>47751399
>give them the personality of a woman who wants kids for herself, but her her oven was replaced with a refrigerator
That's really sad
>>47749832
>>47751944
>"I´m not like the other girls."
Thanks anon, now I'm thinking about fat succubus dyeing her arm pits and protesting about monster equality
>>47755159
>dragon that doesn't gather wealth
Scandinavian and Chinese dragons. Most kinds of dragons really desu.
>>47755137
In what aren't they?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus
>>47755465
>>47751944
I'm imagining more of the Lower Planes' version of a Twilight fan, someone with an inexplicable fetish for being stalked and abused but who isn't even worth it.
>>47755465
I was just thinking of a Succubus going: "Hey! Watch the hands! Im not THAT kind of Succubus....now how would like this wonderful Camero? Only slightly used and barely any bullet holes! I´ll even cut you a deal and give you 80% off the price in return for your immortal soul, whattaya say?"
>>47755669
Then why a succubus?
If the demon is going to sell used cars, why would it be a succubus?
>>47755678
It's exploiting your lustful feelings for 'fixer-uppers' to get at your soul.
>>47755691
That's not lust, that's pride.
>>47755691
Then that's pretty much just a regular demon playing at the avarice and hubris of people. Not a succubus.
>>47755715
"No, pride is what you feel when you show off your super awesome fixer up Camero with convertible roof and all leather interiorwith almost not blood on itor when you brag to your friends you banged the local demon slut. Lust is what makes you want that swanky car with the chrome hubcaps or the bitch in the bikini top and stupidly high heels......no im not fucking bitter, now buy the dam car!"
>>47755747
You gonna trust the toad man who smells of brimstone or the Balrog staring you down?
Or you gonna trust the new sales girls with the rocking tits?
Sex doesnt have to be a part of it, but the fact they can and do look like very attractive humans is the whole point, people dont see them and think "demon" but rather "oh, the pleasant attractive lady"
>>47755748
>>47755784
See, if the salesccubus ogfered to demomstrate how great it would be to fuck a hot demon slut in your fixer-upper, I'd buy it. But as is, it's just a demon playing on pride/greed, not lust.
Now I have an idea for a succubus I can use, though.
>>47755784
But why does it have to be a succubus? Why not a pleasant attractive man as the disguise? That works even better because they're more likely to know about cars. Why not a different demon type focused on greed or pride?
Why are you having a succubus sell used cars?
>>47755847
See this is the difference i think we just have in opinion on what makes Succubi special, for you its that they will use sex to tempt mortals in to hell.
For me its that they can blend into human society and tempt you without you even realizing you are being tempted by a demon. While the car sales approach is silly, I would see a non-sex focused succubus, subtly encouraging mortals into damning actions, not just fucking them to lucifer.
>>47755784
Succubi being the only demons that can shapeshift seems sort of lame, but even if that's the case, plenty of others should be able to get the job done by pulling the ol' demonic possession shtick on some mortal schmuck.
>>47749832
I always think of using sex as a mechanism to show how evil they are. Think to Saya no Uta when she sayshow she can change humans into monsters with something like "that stuff you've been giving me every night is like a blueprint for people"
>>47755913
Except if they're not focused on sex, then why are they a hot woman?
You keep trying to use Succubus as some sort of catch-all term for demons that can shapeshift, but only into hot chicks for some reason.
Having Succubi be dedicated spies and infiltrators could work, but they have a very clear preference for how they do so, otherwise they wouldn't appear as sexy ladies all the time.
>>47754341
>Succubutt wants to play traditional games
>Always ends up causing drama without meaning too and causing the group to disband
>>47755481
Huh, weird. I did a ctrl+f for rpg or "role" and found nothing, looks like you didn't understand the post you were responding to. That's tough... I recommend rereading the post you responded to very carefully. Don't worry, even the slowest readers will eventually get it!
>>47755678
>>47755747
Succubi are experts of manipulating and reading people, they are THE most car salesman-ish of demons.
>>47756114
>then why are they a hot woman?
Because its a big advantage? Seeing a hot woman instantly depletes a man's long term thinking capabilities for awhile.
They never were just sex demons. They were first excuses for sleep paralysis and wet dreams. This later became demons of temptation and excuses for infidelity and the children born from such trysts. I prefer them as demons of temptation, first visiting you in your dreams to plant the seeds of desire, and when the time is right they actually manifest themselves in some sort of disguise to make that temptation happen. I like the "Three Betrayals" idea from 5e, where they tempt their victim to commit betrayals of thought, word, and deed. Once this is done, the victims soul is theirs and they probably then kill their victim to collect on that. Succubus/Incubus are also likely the most common source of cambions (no-half fiends in 5e) who in turn are the most common source of tieflings. Also I like that Succubus/Incubus are the same demon and essentially can switch as they need.
>>47751029
w-what is that between her legs?
>>47756206
But it only works against men, and can be a detriment in other ways.
What if you need to seduce a woman first? Do they have to call in an incubus? Why not just have a singular omnibus that can turn into anything unless there's some weird sexual aspect tied to their core nature?
>>47755045
Basically this
Although I would add that at its core their still a demon and can be as angry and shortsighted as any other demon
Weather killing a useful minion in a fit of rage, disposing of a useful tool they no longer see a use for or random acts of evil for the pleasure of it
It's important to remember they not an emotionless schemer and they can Fuck themselves over as much as any person
>>47755898
>But why does it have to be a succubus? Why not a pleasant attractive man as the disguise? That works even better because they're more likely to know about cars.
They could disguise themselves as a man, it would still be a Succubus. However I can tell you first-hand that the biggest wet dream of every /o/tist is a cute girl who legitimately understands and appreciates cars. Why wouldn't s Succubus use that to her advantage?
>Why are you having a succubus sell used cars?
Because at the moment it is beneficial for her; she's probably using it to manipulate a mortal as part of a larger scheme.
>>47755913
>For me its that they can blend into human society and tempt you without you even realizing you are being tempted by a demon. While the car sales approach is silly, I would see a non-sex focused succubus, subtly encouraging mortals into damning actions, not just fucking them to lucifer.
That's literally just: demon.
To you what makes succubi special is literally the characteristics they share with other demons. It's like you're saying the Navajo Tribe is special because they normally are born with two eyes.
>>47756163
>brazenly doesn't read article
>bitches when someone doesn't read post
Wow.
>>47756394
>But it only works against men,
A form that gives you an advantage half the time is still big, and its certainly more than half when you remember that attractive people (regardless of gender) get a better deal through life.
>omnibus
Succubi are definitely omnibi. The original medieval take on them had them extracting seed and then planting it, presumably via shapeshifting. D&D ones can take on either sex too. If they can't, its probably some Japanese things.
That being said, succubi and incubi may be fundamentally different creatures on some level (not in the original myths I don't think, but certainly in D&D for example), and its entirely plausible that they do have a modus operandi. Seducing women is so much different than men that probably most different demons focus on one at a time.
>>47756469
Oops, you seem to have gotten confused again! Sorry anon. I recommend taking a deep breath, focusing all your mental might, and trying one more time, to answer the question:
In what fucking RPG are they something like that?
>>47749832
>>47749832
This is porn, isn't it?
... Source?
heh
>>47749832
Depends. You could make them full on cougar, but that's a good way to get busted by everyone and everything before the PCs get there.
A bubbly or even shy demeanor would work equally well depending on what her intended target is...or just play a version of Esabella from DA 2 if you want her to be the village bicycle and get as many as possible.
>>47749832
Step 1: Make a demonic BBEG, all the powers of hell, heavy armor, the works
Step 2: Make sure they have a properly fiendish motivation
Step 3: There's a rumor that the strange white fluid they fill their glass with every day sustains their life force, but they don't get it themselves.
Done
>>47749832
>What personality do you give to a succubus/incubus so she/he is an interesting character, and not just fap/schlick bait?
Whatever makes you fall genuinely in love with her/him, of course ;)
>>47757839
Catherine a shit
Katherine a best
**They are not a foocubus, and merely behave like one to mislead others.**
>>47752697
>when the rape starts hit play on
>Combichrist - Shut Up ad Swallow
I fucking died, shit was so hilarious.
>>47756147
Truly hell.
>>47754341
>enjoy traditional games to relax after a hard day fucking guys
>everyone at the table flirts with me nonstop
>have to fuck them all before we play just so they focus on the game
>>47753395
I thought it was a game? And there's no sound?
>>47751449
>>47751451
...Lust for floor tiles?
