Succubus;
Chaotic, Lawful, or Neutral?
>>45475640
Depends om the setting.I like mine with an alignment of any sexy.
There's no way to justify them being lawful without misconstruing the entire creature or the nature of allignments.
>>45475778
Not really, if you play up the seduction aspect by making it so they only drain your soul if they get you to willingly sleep with them instead of forcing themselves on their victims. Make them about deals, offering a night of immeasurable pleasure in exchange for eternal damnation.
>>45475778
Well even angels and devils can change alignment in very rare circumstances. So why not demons?
>>45475640
always chaotic
succubus: Hey want to sleep with me?
guy: I can't i'm married.
succubus: That's ok, she can join in to.
> implying this is fucking lawful.
>>45475867
Because Evil is easier than Good. That's the whole point. Falling is easy, ascension is not.
Succubi are Evil, regardless whether they are Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic and need to be killed on sight.
>>45475843
That's still chaotic. Deals are not the exclusive domain of Law, especially when those deals rely on taking advantage of people's emotions, being horribly one-sided and impossible to conduct with anyone thinking rationally.
It's actually harder to come up with a more chaotic exchange than a portion or all of your soul to sleep with a fiend.
>>45475924
One of the textbook examples of Lawful Evil is someone who takes advantage of unfair deals for their own benefit.
>>45475902
I didn't say ascension was easy but sources such as book of exalted deeds says it is possible. And in one PF adventure paths there is a good aligned succubus that worships Desna.
>>45475640
Chaotic Evil
Because ya'know SOUL STEALING
>>45475969
Unfair deals, yes, but deals that can be approached rationally. Your soul in exchange for a kingdom, or sacrificing a child in exchange for a monstrous servant? A person can think through that scenario and weigh the benefits and the costs, and even knowing it's unfair and will result in their ruin, they can accept the deal rationally. They might get ruined by the minor details of the contract, but it's still a bargain that they had an opportunity to understand and reject.
On the other hand, chaotic deals are the kind where your paladin father was just slain and a demon offers you the power to avenge him at the cost of becoming everything your father hated. Or a pretty lady promises you unearthly pleasures in exchange for your soul. You are overwhelmed by emotion, and the demon can't really allow you the chance to think about the situation rationally.
>>45475640
Better question: Was Descartes an Incubus?
>>45475640
Is this a retard trick question?
They're always Chaotic. End of line. All sexual is Chaotic. Lawful is Japanese marriage sex.
>>45476156
They're Lawful devils in 4e, and Neutral fiends that serve both devils and demons in 5e.
>>45476102
That's kind of an arbitrary distinction.
>>45476102
I don't see it that way.
Deals aren't chaotic period. CE entities just take what they want by force unless put in a bad position, like if they are trapped somehow and need to make a deal to escape.
Even so they won't necessary hold their end of the deal unless compelled to.
>>45475640
Depends on the settlement she is hunting in and who she wants to eat.
>>45475778
>not having succubi being just another group of beings working for the celestial bureaucracy
There are quotas to meet to maintain karmic balance in the world, and if that means tossing down some succubi to increase the amount of sex going on(while draining some power from people who aren't supposed to have it), or a few angels to bolster an army that's supposed to win, so be it.
>>45476216
>They're Lawful devils in 4e
Too bad that no edition after 3.5 matters to people with taste.
>>45476219
Subtle and nuanced, rather than arbitrary. I think the best way to explain it is the moment of regret.
With a lawful deal, you the regret is subdued and slow burning. You regret going into the deal, but you push past that and still make the choice, and can justify the price you pay as you continue to live.
With a chaotic deal, you rush into it without a thought of regret, but as soon as you achieve your objective, you're hit with that "Oh damn, what the fuck did I just do?"
>>45476222
Chaos =\= stupid. Both Lawful and Chaotic Evil take what they want by force, and both make deals. While Chaotic Evil might err more on the side of rape and slaughter, the upper-tiers of demonkind are rather intelligent and can see the value of making bargains when appropriate/
>>45476219
>That's kind of an arbitrary distinction.
so are alignments
>>45476359
The distinction you're making between the two has a lot more to do with the good/evil axis than it does with the lawful/chaotic one. "Taking advantage of people" isn't a lawful or chaotic thing, it just comes from the evil part of their alignment, and it's preposterous to imply that lawful evil entities have to offer "fair" deals to people whose decisions won't be influenced by emotions or circumstances.
chaotic.
What is it with this catholic demon that people love so much?
I've only seen that creature mentioned in a story about King Solomon staying up one night and it appearing in his chambers.
>>45475640Ruru~
>>45476439
Lawful creatures have a greater understanding of societal, philosophical, and intellectual pressures. They're not restricted to offering deals that appear fair, but rather that they are keenly adept at constructing these deals. They play to their strengths, and those strengths include bureaucratic contracts and evaluating the objective worth of the sides of a bargain, creating deals that seem good even when put under careful consideration and scrutiny, since the loopholes and sub-clauses are skillfully masked.
They have difficulty understanding rash decisions, because they themselves are not prone to them.
On the other hand, chaotic creatures are more in tune with emotions, and can seduce and manipulate mortals by using that knowledge. They know what sounds good, what people want to hear, and how and when to pressure a person, because they themselves act primarily with their instincts guiding them
>>45476627
>creating deals that seem good even when put under careful consideration and scrutiny, since the loopholes and sub-clauses are skillfully masked.
Which only matters up to the point it gets their victim to agree to the deal. If the victim has regrets after all, if they feel cheated or abused, that's no skin off their back. They are still crafting these deals for their own personal benefit, offering an illusion of fairness while making sure they come out ahead in the exchange. The main difference between chaotic deals and lawful deals is that lawful evil entities will respect their deal even when there is no real benefit to doing so.
If the Lawful Evil devil loses a fiddle battle, he'll admit defeat and give you a golden fiddle.
If the Chaotic Evil devil loses a fiddle battle, he'll still eat your soul because he's the fucking devil, what are you going to do about it?
Devoted wife to a paladin, 6months pregnant
>>45475640
Lawful Hot
>>45476471
It's job is literally to steal semen. What do you think?
>>45475640
Report Alignment Threads
Hide Alignment Threads
Do Not Respond to Alignment Threads
sageis dead, isn't it?
>>45477051
What's wrong with them?
>>45476996
>No anon, you can't put that down as your alignment.
>No anon, you cannot seduce the guard. He is a warforged.
>No anon, we don't roll diplomacy or related skills against players. You have to convince the paladin to break his oaths in-character.
>>45477200
He doesn't like them, so no one should.
>>45475640
Why not just tag on a subtitle if you're going to be autistic about it?
If they're Lawful, call them Solicitors.
If they're Neutral call them Courtesans.
If they're Chaotic call them Tempters.This corrected repost brought to you by caffeine.
>>45477336
>Then the paladin rolls against her anyway and they RP the results
>>45477714
>The succubus convinces the paladin to sleep with her, but only after she marries him within his church
...What happens now?
Time to end this meme.
Succubi suck. Not only in general, but they also suck your soul from you with each kiss/touch/thrust of your penis.
You want Erinyes
+LE, so never gonna give you upunless you break the contract.
+You can have sex with her without any fear for your soulunless you'd want to make a contract for it, it's up to you. No pressure though.
+No ugly demon legsunless you find them hot. That's negotiable.
+-Not fit for you if you actually like menbut we have many other different options for that, just call 666-666-ASMODEUS.
>>45477740
She dies in holy flame, as paladin's god smites her with sacred energy, cleansing everything that is sinful about her. And if we're talking about succubi, there are no chaste parts.
They can be any of the above, because the alignment system is shit and no one pays attention to it anyway.
>>45476620
That's not a succubus. That's a devil. Or is it demon. Which one is lawful evil again?
>>45476329
3.5 is bad and so is your taste.
>>45477822
Devils are lawful. Technically Erinyes are fallen angels that moved to hell and allied with devils
>>45477789
Underrated pot here.
>>45477740
Romance
>>45477772
Not if she's a good succubutt
>>45477714
If he really wanted it, he could just RP it. It'd be even easier than having to work with a roll.
>>45477888
Roll can tell you what to RP
>>45475890
Lawful doesn't necessarily mean you have to abide by every single judicial guideline in whatever place you happen to be at the time. It means you adhere to and strive to uphold a certain concept of order, which may or may not overlap with whatever humans happen to have agreed on among themselves. So if the concept of demonic order includes "humans need to have their souls and genitalia sucked regularly, because they get weird if they don't.", then succubus could be perfectly lawful in following that.
>>45477873
All the first devils were fallen angels, and some of the oldest still hold that claim to fame. Except they harken from a time when 'angel' referred to pure law, those who sought to impose order on the universe. Asmodeus himself was the first and greatest of the angels, wielding Punishment itself as a weapon.Unless you talk about post 3.5 fluff. 3.5 devils are best devils
While we're on the topic, has there ever been a setting that went with the concept of having something like succubi, but essentially of a Good alignment? Like, I don't know, have them be the representatives of a deity that's about life/love/virility, that just flounce around the world spreading the love as a way of worship?
They're women
They're chaotic evil
>>45478096
There are probably CG sex angels in DnD/PF.
>>45476851
Kind of a hot idea
Some paladin literally fucked the heresy out of her
>>45478096
Depends on what you mean by succubus but good
Do they spread love, lust, or sex?
I mean we sorta touched on that withLiliumand you have the old cupid trope, and there's always the divine temple whores that some old religions had, or you could just have angelic midwives that also set couples up
You gotta be more specific
>>45477822
It's clearly a demon, because the whole joke is that the Demons and prim and proper and follow the rules as a subversion of expectations, while the angels are rule-breaking delinquents who are genuinely awful people but it's okay because they're hot.
>>45478096
Well in Pathfinder there are CN succubus like beings with bee wings that serve Calistria the goddess of trickery, lust and revenge.
>>45477902
Just make a choice, dammit. Is your character so bland you need to roll for everything they do?
>>45477743
Those Erinyes are shitty succubus-lite and have nothing to do with actual Erinyes who are spirits of vengeance. They do not seduce, they avenge.
The Erinyes of D&D punish those who break contract with devils.
>>45478096
So like nymphs?
>>45478239
While for the most part I agree with you, doing something like that can lead to hilarity like the succubus hitting on the paladin only for him to roll really poorly so they have to RP him trying only to spill his spaghetti all over her
>>45478096
Apsaras in Hinduism are divine dancers and seduce people on command of the gods. They tend to marry their targets, though.
>>45478291
I guess if you're going for a sillier game with friends, that makes sense, and the idea of someone rolling up a succubus who literally does nothing but try to fuck people suggests that. But then that's just not the game I'd want to be in.
>>45478512
It's fun and makes a good way to cause shenanigans, you just gotta have people that are good with rolling with the results and know when to not take it too far
Though i do agree that a succubus that literally does nothing but try to fuck people is a bit too one note, I was assuming she would be trying that because reasons
>>45476018
Or some other kind of evil
Because ya'know SOUL PURCHASING with nights of ecstacy
>>45475640
Depending on the setting and how you want to roll with it, I could see any flavor of evil working pretty well.
I could see arguments being made for CN if she's just out to sow chaos and uses sex (and sexiness) to make it happen.
Personally, I prefer settings where demons and the like merely represent emotions or sins or the like and so any given variety of demon isn't "always [something] evil." But, at that point, you might as well just throw out alignments alltogether and just say demons are 99% likely to be malicious in some way or another.
>>45478290
I guess nymphs fit, but they're more natural and not necessarily sexual. Maybe something a character will get in trouble from the tsundere ranger for staring at.
>>45478931
>but they're more natural and not necessarily sexual
They have sex all the time. Either satyrs are thirsty for them, or they're thirsty for pretty men.
Nymphomania, addiction to sex, is named after them for a reason.
>>45475640
I've kind of felt that succubi would make mroe sense as devils (lawful evil) instead of demons (chaotic evil), and they actually did change them to demons in DnD 4th edition, but on further thought chaotic probably is better.
See, succubi's operate by using subtelty and tempting mortals, which would at first glance seem more in line with devils than demons, as the former are big on tempting mortals to sign away their souls to them and the latter tend to be more "killmaimburn" and less about any form of subtelty. But the pacts of devils are of a very different nature than what succubi do.
Devils make a contract with you where they'll perform a service in exhange for payment, with every clause laid out in excacting detail. It's all very bureucratic and thought out. They'll usually let you read through the contract and think about it before signing, so once you do they'll have claim that you willingly and with full knowledge of consequences gave them the legal ownership of your soul (granted most mortals tend to hear the "phenomenal cosmic power" part and stop listening when they get to the terms of payment, or missed the fine print explaining that by fulfilling clauses A B and C you forfeit the ownership of your soul to the contractor).
Succubi, on the other hand tempt people by manipulating their emotions. They get you through appealing to your carnal urges rather than through presenting a concius choise in accepting a deal. They don't make you sign a contract that lets them take your soul in exchange for sex, they just fool you into having sex with them (probably withou you even knowing they are succubi before it's too late) and then suck your soul out through your dick. That kind of behaviour would fit chaotic beings more than lawful ones.
>>45478885
>But, at that point, you might as well just throw out alignments alltogether and just say demons are 99% likely to be malicious in some way or another.
That's how alignments are handled in D&D though
Always means 75-99.999999999% of the population has that alignment
The only way you get 100% is if it's just something like "LE", not "always LE", or "usually LE", just "LE"
>>45478931
What >>45478987 said, nymphs are thirsty hornballs in the myths, they're going to want to fuck pretty much no matter what
>>45476783
>If the Lawful Evil devil loses a fiddle battle, he'll admit defeat and give you a golden fiddle.
>If the Chaotic Evil devil loses a fiddle battle, he'll still eat your soul because he's the fucking devil, what are you going to do about it?
This.
Both sides can and do make deals, but beings made of metaphysical law (ie: devils in the D&D cosmology) stick to the deals they make, even if it's just them technically following the letter of the agreement. Other beings may or may not stick to their deals, with beings made of metaphysical chaos (ie: D&D demons) being very likely to abandon a deal as soon as it stops suiting them.
>>45479087
>That's how alignments are handled in D&D though
No, I meant at that point you might as well throw out good/evil and law/chaos as metaphysical structures and just say "demons are usually malicious and so people call them evil. Angels are usually benevolent and so people call them good," and so on.
>>45479139
Oh, I don't really see how one excludes the other, though it would be the same as saying certain concepts are good or evil, but that's not really too different for setting with objective good/evil
>>45479188
They're not mutually exclusive, but if you go without alignments then there aren't these stupid arguments about what is or is not an example of any given alignment.
>Lawful Succubus
If it went in a hole, I get your soul.
>b-but it was only ana-
IF IT WENT IN A HOLE, I GET YOUR SOUL
>>45475640
Sluts can't be lawful.
>>45479239
so paizuri is perfectly fine then? Good to know.
>>45475640
>>45479239
>Lawful Succubus
Appears before you and presents her official certified Succubus license, explaining that she trades sexual favours for payment. Hands you a form with boxes you tick to determine what exactly you want and don't want to do (we call that your personalized Succubus-experience, trademark owned by Asmodeous and co. ltd), which also reads in small print that she'll get your soul as payment. If you're unhappy about losing your soul, you can argue that the terms of the agreement were not fulfilled to your full satisfaction, although you'll probably lose (infernal law system is heavily stacked in the favour of the defendant in these cases, plus even if you win you probably had to sell your soul for a devil lawyer anyway).
>Chaotic Succubus
Disquises as an attractive mortal and/or hits you with a charm spell to get you to have sex with her, then eats your soul when you do.
>Neutral Succubus
I don't know; she eats your soul if you decide to have sex with you, but doesn't really actively try to get you to have sex with her?
>>45479621
And then just as you're about to cum she rules-lawyers that paizuri counts as a hole in her cleavage and slurps up your soul
>>45479239
>>45479621
Makes me picture a premature ejaculator summoning up a succubus time and again, each time promising that it will be different, and that she'll totally get his soul before he orgasms this time.
Even if they arn't soul stealers.
Chaotic entities are hedonistic and enjoy defiling traditions and customs.
Succubi are the perfect representative of chaotic.
They dont care who theyre fucking, how old they are and they prefer to seduce the holier in most cases regardless of how resistant they are or whatever customs (marriage for example) prohibit it.
>>45476783
>If the Chaotic Evil devil loses a fiddle battle, he'll still eat your soul because he's the fucking devil, what are you going to do about it?
You'd assume that a deal wouldn't be made without some sort of way to enforce it.
>>45478987
>>45479087
They aren't really portrayed that way in most fantasy settings though, not as far as I know. D&D especially tones down anything sexual, despite still having them be pretty.
>>45480744
Figured that picture was a little too raunchy for a blue board - it's just the nymph from the 3.5 manual, so you can look it up easily.
>>45480739
A CE demon would likely just claim to be following the rules, relying you to either confuse it for one of those devils that actually do stick to the contract, or being foolish enough to believe it would keep its words.
Another difference is that the LE devil would have to set up a fiddling contest or something in order to get your soul, since they want to obtain it via legal means (ie. some kind of deal with your soul as a price), while the CE demon probably though it'd be fun to have a fiddling contest before taking your soul by force.
>>45480781
Yeah, you're right. The nipples visible through clothes have aroused me and almost made me start pleasuring myself, but the butterface kind of killed the enjoyment. It really is on the edge of appropriate/lewd.
>>45480935
Hey, don't call her a butterface, she's beautiful. In a weird fae elven way that I don't think anyone has used before or since, like trying to make anime real complete with overly long ears.
I prefer the neutral variety myself.
They are what they are and they do what they have to do.
I would also pose the idea that perhaps the alignment is down to the individual in question rather than the entire race as a whole, given they have human levels of autonomy and sentience, give or take.
>>45482365
Neutral Evil or true Neutral? Because those have a pretty big difference.
Speaking of that, I've never really "gotten" NE as an aligment.
The good counterpart is pretty easy to get: do what's most good in the situation, regardless of other matters. A LG character will want to stick to a code or abide the law if possible, while CG ones often dislike taking orders or working with authority, but NG one doesn't care either way. One day the best thing to do might be to steal from an evil noble to give money to the poor, while another it may do most good to work with the local authority to help solve a crime.
But what exacly is NE, then? Do the most evil? That might work for fiends, who are literal manifestation of evil and exist to perpetuate evil, but not for mortals.
>>45482568
You gotta look at it on evil terms - if LE is being evil, but with certain restrictions depending on the law or on morals, and CE is completely out for themselves to the point where they can't organize effectively without brute force, NE must be evil for the sake of evil, with some organization and ability to control themselves but without any moral code or law holding them back - or they just don't care enough to devote themselves to law or doing whatever they want, being more neutral than evil.
As 3.5 puts it, "[A Neutral Evil person] has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has."
>>45482568
NE is self-profit above all else and at any cost.
>>45482699
>>45482726
So, while the LE succubus would probably try to make you agree to sell your soul for sex and the CE one would get off on having sex and eating people's souls, the NE would be just interested in eating souls, with the sex being purely a convenient way to do it?
>>45476308
Now even as a guy who prefers them chaotic that's retarded.
Fuck balence of good and evil and fuck balence of law and chaos and fuck that mordikom fucker that promotes it he's the worst part of greyhawk.
Neutral Evil
Treat them like any outsider race like the Keytons (chain devils) they arn't exactly tied to Bateezu but they live there the same could be said for Succubi, they live in the infinite abyss but arn't entirely a part of it like most of the other demons there
>>45483352
My take
LE - There are Rules and Agreements about how she gets your soul, and she's very good at getting both to work in her favor, she may enjoy sex/nomming souls, but the CORRECT sex/soul nomming is what is best
NE - She likes souls, she likes to fuck, bitchy and self interested, but not unreasonable so, still out to screw you over if it benefits her though
CE - She likes to fuck, she likes to nom souls, and she likes to cause havoc, any order is fine for her, catty and spiteful she'll screw you over just for the hell of it
>>45476996
>bright blue skin
>probably warning coloration
>peasants see a bright blue woman kiss a guy
>guy dies almost instantly
>"omg she must be able to suck a man's soul out with her lips!"
>it's just that she has a high concentration of toxins that she can secret from her mucous membranes (located in her anus, vagina, mouth and nostril)
>toxins so deadly they can kill other, more physically powerful, fiends even from skin contact.
>too weak to take ground, but too deadly to have ground taken from them by other fiends
>while all the other fiends are smashing each other over the head to assert dominance, succubus communes are developing technology and a relatively peaceful society in the middle of the hells.
>get hired as diplomats, couriers and caravan guards by other types of fiends
>>45485139
Succubi probably don't care about fucking, one way or another. It's just a part of the job, a function of existence.
>>45486768
Higher ranking ones probably just use illusions to do the fucking for them while they go piss about anyway, once they gottne to the fucking part of the seduction their job is mainly done, they just have to wait until their target falls asleep after fucking their illusionary doppleganger and suck their soul out
>>45486768
Depends, even if it's just soul nomming to them it probably tastes good, though if it's just business then any pleasure they get from it is probably abstract
Of course that assumes they can't breed and likely get pleasure from sex for the same reason humans do
>>45475890
>implying this is lawful fucking
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Evil!
>>45486768
They hate it. That's why you never get any sympathy from them and they won't haggle with you. Imagine shoveling somebody's shit out of their backed-up outhouse and then when you're done they're like, "uhh, actually, do you think I could pay you next Tuesday??"
It's just that they're otherworldly, bizarre minds that can pretend to enjoy it perfectly until the act is over.
>>45486417
>located in her anus, vagina, mouth and nostril
>nostril
So, since it's only one nostril, the other one should be good right? Now do I take the 50/50 chance that this round of nostril-sex may be my last?
>>45488963
>>45486417
I call Dibs on the ears
>>45488963
>>45489089
If they can kill other fiends just through skin contact, I don't think it'd be worth it to even try either of those. Otherwise I'd just suggest hands.
Though the anon's idea is interesting, I have no idea where they'd get the sexual connotation then. Most people wouldn't even last long enough to get in the bedroom, if they're so deadly.
>>45478176
I started the first Lilium thread. I lost control and unleashed a great horror on to the internet.
>>45489329
Eh, some good ideas came from it
And it would have died a forgotten death after one thread without the shitstorm, you have nothing to be blamed for
>>45482301
>she's beautiful
No she isn't.
>>45475992
>Good-aligned succubus
Doesn't exist. It's an act. Smite and cleave.
>>45489147
>I have no idea where they'd get the sexual connotation then
BIG OL' TITTAES
VISIBLE ANKLES
WHORESWHORESWHORES
>>45475640
Succubi are a manifestation of lust. Lust breaks taboos. Lust is not always in direct opposition to law, order, tradition, etc. Lust just doesn't really give a shit.
Now, in some cases that might be neutral. But lust can also include fetishes. Lust doesn't just ignore taboos, it gets off on breaking taboos. The fact that something is illegal only makes it more attractive.
So, I think you could play succubi as either neutral or chaotic.
I mean, you could have a special lawful succubi who rejected their nature and now just wants to settle down and become lawfully wed for life. But that's like a dwarf who shaves their beard, hates dirt, and gets sick after 1 drink.
>>45489329
Oh please. The original thread was pretty standard dumb waifubait. I was the person who made the joke about her growing big enough to eat the world, so I'm more to blame.
Although the true offender is the one who made the assfat joke and/or the guy who made the subsequent threads and collected all the most fetishy stuff on the OP.
I always liked the concept of a succubus needing that soul-sucking sustenance but having the option to be bound to magic-casting dudes/dudettes and feeding off their mana in some form of pact.
I also role played a succubus who was kicked out of hell for being too nice. Obviously not too serious of a character but it was fun regardless.
>>45475640
Neutral Evil. Anyone who says anything else is a shitter
>>45483446
Karmic balance isn't about a balance between good and evil, nor between chaotic and law. It's about balancing the various aspects of yourself or the world to maintain peace and develop the spirit.
I heard that the poster below me is actually a succubus and she's trying to lure you guys into her bed.
>>45493297
Swiggity Swooty
>>45493337
nice overbite
>>45491913
>filename
Oh my goodness.
>>45492026
>guy who made the subsequent threads and collected all the most fetishy stuff on the OP.
I think it was more this than anything else really
It would have died very early on if it wasn't for that
>>45475924
You're thinking about Law like a person, with feelings
that things that are damaging or strictly unfair are unlawful
... that's not how law works
>>45493337
Is this supposed to be attractive?
>>45486417
That's why we got them guns in America. What is succubus bitch gonna do? I'm gonna shoot her with ma' dad's shotgun with a cross on it! That's how we treat all coloreds down here in Dixie, yessir!
>>45475867
>>45475902
Imo it's easier to shift alignment in the axis of good and evil (if you really want to) rather than changing in the lawful chaotic one. Because one is about giving a fudge about people or not, which may happen even if you're somewhat of a psycho; but the other one either adopting discipline, structure and form or conversely leaving the security of a well structured life to embrace uncertain freedom.
So I'd find it that a succubus wanting to be LG would first have to become or wish to become good, THEN changing her whole life to switch and confirm towards a lawful model.
Lawful evil soul suckers we have eryinyes for that.
>>45476143
Incubus learned from HIM
>>45495819
>Imo it's easier to shift alignment in the axis of good and evil (if you really want to) rather than changing in the lawful chaotic one.
What.
>but the other one either adopting discipline, structure and form or conversely leaving the security of a well structured life to embrace uncertain freedom.
It's like you've never seen My Fair Lady.
Or Dances with Wolves.
Or Tarzan.
Or Fern Gully.
Or She's All That.
Or Avatar.
It's such a common theme, that it's considered even more cliche than redemption or fall stories.
>>45475640
NeutralHungry
>>45496258
>NeutralHungry
Best succubutt alignment
There needs to be more like thatA lot more
>>45476329
>3.5
That's not how you spell B/X
>>45491913
>>45493416
I THOUGHT THAT WAS HER KNEE!
>>45497040
Probably was supposed to be a knee, but for some reason the artist altered the position of the leg and didn't change the dress to match it.
>>45497040
Yeah, /tg/ had a field day with that one
Personally I just think the artist forgot halfway through where he put her feet
>>45497148
>>45497157
I still don't understand why that can't be her holding the fabric. I mean it would be awkward as fuck, but she's a vampire with (supposed) super-dexterity and it looks elegant as shit.
>>45496258
i think you mean chaoticThirsty
>>45497272
It doesn't deform right, even if she had sticky hands the fabric isn't shaped right to fit in her grip
It does look like something (namely a knee) is pushing up from it though
>>45497315
Nah, gotta agree with the other anon, unless she candrink peopleor something like that
Though I still say neutralhungryis best
>>45497272
If that was the artist's inention, it's still badly drawn, since the position of the hand and the way the cloth folds doesn't look like she's holding it, but that there's something under the cloth and her hand is resting on it.
>>45497354
Dunno. To me it seems like she holds the fabric between her thumb and her hand just below the index finger. Maybe between the pinkie and the ring finger too. Like I said it's awkward but not unfeasible.
>>45497468
Fabric curves too much around the palm/wrist of her hand for that
>>45497354
>Nah, gotta agree with the other anon, unless she can drink people or something like that
She's one of those Japanese succubi with a mouth-tail she uses to suck up people. I don't think that counts as drinking, though.
Chaotic Angry is best aligment, however, although not for succubutts. Lawful Stupid a worst.
>>45498255
Really, what the fuck is wrong with you. Do you actually try to be the worst poster on this board?
>>45498255
>She's one of those Japanese succubi with a mouth-tail she uses to suck up people. I don't think that counts as drinking, though.
Depends on if she swallows them whole with her tail or drains them like Cell
>Chaotic Angry is best aligment, however, although not for succubutts. Lawful Stupid a worst.
Eh, I like chaotic hungry myself
But a "redeemed" hungry good succubutt is fun too
>>45477743
I thought Erinyes hate men?
>>45498366
Why, cause I made a dumb reference to made-up aligments?
Chaotic Angry (and incidentally, Neutral Hungry as well) is a fake aligment from that one pretty well known "things I can no longer do in an RPG" list (I think it was called "Things mr. Welsh can no longer do in an RPG"). Lawful Stupid (and Stupid Evil) is a well-known term for badly played LG (or badly played any evil aligment for the evil version).
>>45498546
Huh, I didn't know they were fantasy feminists.
>calling succubi succubutts
Why?
>>45501383
Cause it sounds funny. Plus, succubi usually look sexy so they have nice tits and ass, so it sort of makes sense. Succuboobs would also work as a nickname I suppose, but I quess succubutt just came first.
Maybe the "assfat" meme might also have something to do with it, but I'm pretty sure calling succubi succubutts is considerably older than that.
>>45501383
>>45501522
Also /tg/ generally seems to have a habit of calling variations of succubus as x-(cu)bus or succu-x. Succubutt, succubuff, succuMILF, lolicubus, vorecubus, succugoddess etc.
>>45501522
>>45501948
I wish you would wear a tripcode.
All I know is this thread has me extremely hot and bothered right now.
Phwew lads I need to cool off.
>>45502027
Although the general wisdom is that there's only three people on 4chan, you included, I wasn't the one who posted >>45501948, only >>45501522.
>>45502035
What's your favorite variation of succubutt?
>>45502854
Not him, but I like the kind that steals people's souls bydevouring them whole and alive
>>45503644
Same here
There's something that feels right about it
>>45503644
>>45503847
Seriously, put on a trip.
>>45504024
Only one of those quotes has a (You) mate
>>45475640
Chaotic should be the default, but it mostly depends on the setting. Any of them can be justified by clever worldbuilding.
>>45503847
There is a certain poetic appeal to being literally AND figuratively consumed in the moment of passion.
>>45504024
There's a bunch of vorefags on /tg/, we can't all wear trips.
>>45504271
>>45504272
I'm asking you, that even if you lack the decency to use some of that atrophied slime sloshing around in your otherwise empty skull, to at least have the decency to adopt a trip and spare folk the awful process of beginning to read one of your posts only to realize it's just the same shit from the same guy who has been making the same stupid post ad nauseam with only mild alterations on his quest to prove that now matter how you try to remix it, a stupid idea remains stupid.
>>45504272
>There's a bunch of vorefags on /tg/, we can't all wear trips.
The three of you really could.
>>45504272
>There is a certain poetic appeal to being literally AND figuratively consumed in the moment of passion.
Yeah, something oddly erotically horrifying about the idea
>>45504424
I'm pretty sure there's more than three, off the top of my head I can remember 5 or so different pastebin accounts of /tg/ writefags that'll do vore
>>45480744
>>45480781
>>45480935
>>45482301
I'm firm in the camp that a nymph's features should never be absolutely depicted, their beauty being too impossible to even illustrate.
That said, 2.5 nymph is just a bathing elf.
>>45476329
>using the default campaign setting
Do you even TTRPGs?
>>45504521
There's a sharp difference between /tg/ writefags and /d/ writefags that mistakenly and militantly keep trying to force their shit on this board.
>>45504554
>2.5
3.5
In my setting, there aren't angels or demons. They're all the same "species" or supernatural creature.
Demons are just them going through a nihilistic, rebellious phase. As they get older and mellow out they become a lot nicer to be around and more sociable.
And
>Slutty, teenage demons
>Loving, angel MILFS
>>45476329
>after
>>45506422
I take it in this setting Demons don't usually do a lot of really evil things, then?
>>45506780
Oh no. They're still quite evil.
>>45506918
How evil?
>>45506951
Evil enough to rip out your soul and not even do anything with it.
>>45506965
And they just sorta grow out of that?
Like, "guess my soul ripping days are over, time to settle down and become a good guy"
>>45475640
I normally go for chaotic, but the occasional lawful and manipulative one can make a nice social/political encounter
>>45504559
From my experince most people, even when making a homebrew setting for playing DnD, don't really massively alter the universal cosmology of the game (ie. devils are still LE, demons CE, angles LG). Probably because it's usually isn't really necessary (unless you have some particular reason why succubi shouldn't be CE, why bother changing it?) and some of that stuff does have mechanical implications in the game (such as aligment restrictions on certain classes, or certain types of monsters all being certain aligment).
>>45507482
I want to say I've seen that done somewhere, but I can't recall where. Closest I can think of is the Naaru from WoW who keep changing between the embodiment of the Light and embodiment of the Shadow over their existence, but that's not the same (they aren't really evil in the shadow stage, even if they automatically draw the souls of the dead to them and consume them, and the transformation of cyclic).
In any case, it wouldn't strike me as all that odd for an immortal being, especially one that thinks considerably differently from mortals, to swing from absolute evil to absolute good over millenias of existence.
>>45507482
Yeah, I find it a bit odd too
Maybe if you heavily emphasize inhuman thought processes it makes sense
