|
What if when we played RPGs we didn't do gross poo poo and we also didn't talk about doing gross poo poo.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
My friends would play porn vids during our lan parties. I'm not particularly surprised that someone thought there was a market for it. I can see the Ew Sex rule books being nifty for like, an actual D&D liking couple to play with but then again why not just be needlessly raunchy during a normal game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:My friends would play porn vids during our lan parties. I'm not particularly surprised that someone thought there was a market for it. Lol at couples being the target audience and not incels
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
dreadmojo posted:the genuinely horrific nature of the charm and hold person spells is underrecognised imo. Wasn't that a subplot in Dragonlance that the party wasn't sure if obviously evil wizard Raistlin had charmed them all? Raenir Salazar posted:My friends would play porn vids during our lan parties. I'm not particularly surprised that someone thought there was a market for it. Because of the types of people where everything has to be put in hard rules or they can't play. Like yeah they can just do raunchy stuff but the rules dont tell them how
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Len posted:Wasn't that a subplot in Dragonlance that the party wasn't sure if obviously evil wizard Raistlin had charmed them all? Not quite - when they encounter a clan of gully dwarves in the first novel, Raistlin uses a charm spell on them to make them friendly to him. Sturm and Tanis are both horrified by the implication that he could have done that to the rest of the party at any time if he'd felt like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Archyduke posted:What if when we played RPGs we didn't do gross poo poo and we also didn't talk about doing gross poo poo. The troll graciously lets you pass unpissed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The troll graciously lets you pass unpissed. THE COPRO-DRAGON DEMANDS TRIBUTE: WHO WILL PROVIDE
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
dreadmojo posted:THE COPRO-DRAGON DEMANDS TRIBUTE: WHO WILL PROVIDE
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
I was thinking that horrible Vore-master build from a few days ago in the Murphy thread would be the best person to take down the COPRO-DRAGON. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
I never really understood why Necromancy was the big bogeyman school for so many. It's easy to flavor it as basically recycling with something people would culturally object to(disrespecting the remains of the dead) but ultimately can be spun as 'you don't care about social norms as much as getting results'. One of my high-concept character ideas I've wanted to do is a 'good' necromancer who wants to do the most good for society but is strangely obsessed with showing that necromancy is a helpful and efficient tool for heroism. Stuff like offering contracts to people who might die for permission to use their body as materials in his projects. Whereas Enchantment spells(mainly dominate/charm line)? It's... um... very much always struck me as pretty evil. You're suppressing free will, denying them choice, and basically enslaving them. Even if you're intentions are good, you're still forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. It's Evil Steve's right not to not want to run into a burning orphanage to save the day - at best, you come off as some sort of twisted control freak. Not to mention there are more real world parallels here that can make it even more uncomfortable - which may be why it's more traditionally tolerated than necromancy - supernatural evils are taken as worse somehow. Hold spells never struck me as particularly super loving evil beyond just the horrors of paralysis. I can buy Hold spells being some sort of magical taser for non-lethal subdueing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:It is. Someone once posted excerpts from an "adult" splatbook which contained a series of spells designed for doing sexy things as well as suggestions for what else you could do with spells like Dominate, Suggestion and Black Tentacles. There were multiple sex slave spells of varying power levels, and I'm like 80% sure one of them was literally named Brain Rape. So D&D had two books all about sexy times. The first was a licensed official one for 3.0 D&D "The Book of Erotic Fantasy." And clearly there was an intention that it was marketed towards couples or people who were sex positive and wanted rules to introduce such topics into their games. And with that in mind, it does cover those topics about as well as an RPG source book tends to do. After all, if a player wanted his character to go about building an army of flowers to fight wars, there was a book about mass combat. If someone wants to become an adventurer who so crafts epic magical weapons, there is a source book for that. This book was the book where they would have rules to answer the question of "how likely is it for a giant and an elf to get pregnant?" Or "can I get a magic spell to let me keep in touch with the princess I'm secretly boning so the king won't know." The interesting part about it was it was tasteful, given this is a hobby that often falls to the juvenile. Like the spells in the book weren't pages after pages of spells to hypnotize whole villages into being your sex slaves. The vast majority of spells were all stuff that was not problematic but still erotic. And even if you like your D&D to be about combat and optimisation, some of the stuff in the rule book was excellent. A low level spell that let you travel any distance to visit any place you had been too, so long as you had a mirror to walk through? That's cool.(So you can always travel to your lovers bedroom.) A prestige class that gives a free +2 bonus to Cha? That's great for some classes. How about a prestige class that lets you refresh someone's Spells Slots? That's actually pretty game breaking. (It was a Divine Prostitue, so by having sex, you have them all their spell slots back.) Now the second unofficial sex splat book was Nyphology: the Book of Blue Magic was more juvenile. But that one was at least funny. Allowing you to summon animated sex objects ("I summon D4 Sex Tables!") Or play as a Mystic Pimp (The prestige class all about summoning sexy monsters.) As with all games, just don't bring in stuff that other players are going to object to. But don't flat out ban the stuff because you don't want there to be any sex or romance in your imaginary story game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So D&D had two books all about sexy times. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
And then we had the Book of Vile Darkness--
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:I never really understood why Necromancy was the big bogeyman school for so many. It's easy to flavor it as basically recycling with something people would culturally object to(disrespecting the remains of the dead) but ultimately can be spun as 'you don't care about social norms as much as getting results'. One of my high-concept character ideas I've wanted to do is a 'good' necromancer who wants to do the most good for society but is strangely obsessed with showing that necromancy is a helpful and efficient tool for heroism. Stuff like offering contracts to people who might die for permission to use their body as materials in his projects. Annoyingly, some editions of D&D explictly put [Evil] tags on a lot of necromancy spells, so if you play as written it's impossible to use necromancy as a good thing because merely casting the spell is cosmically immortal, regardless of your use of it. One book about evil characters (Vile Darkness maybe?) even had some kind of breakdown about what got you into evil afterlifes, and casting an evil spell gives you evil points on that scale. So you're going to hell for making a skeleton ox to save a town of peasants from starving to death, you monster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:And then we had the Book of Vile Darkness-- Yeah. I mean, say what you will about the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but at least it tried to tackle a subject that shows up in stories and is a part of human life. The Book of Vile Darkness was Edgelord stuff about how to be "Really Evil." I mean it even had a Feat where you character had to be molest undead to qualify for it. The opposite book (The Book of Exalted Deeds) was the Furries book, but I can't remember if it had anything as tone deaf as the Lichloved stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Yeah. I mean, say what you will about the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but at least it tried to tackle a subject that shows up in stories and is a part of human life. Mostly I was being glib because yeah, it's got stuff like Tsukiko's favorite feat in it. I had feared when you mentioned "two books" at the start that that was going to be the second one because I don't think I'd heard of Nymphology before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Yeah. I mean, say what you will about the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but at least it tried to tackle a subject that shows up in stories and is a part of human life. Nothing is worse than discovering tsukiko was a canon build.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
The actual text of the Lich Loved feat is bafflingly awful:quote:Type: Vile Not just, "you have to sleep with an undead creature", you have to repeatedly commit perverted sex acts with an undead creature before you get this sweet, sweet +1 bonus to saving throws. Like, a loving vanilla relationship with a vampire isn't enough, you need to ruin a wight's balls or piss on a ghost before you get any of this action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
I sure hope Rich is okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:The actual text of the Lich Loved feat is bafflingly awful: Would MacGruber qualify for this feat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:I never really understood why Necromancy was the big bogeyman school for so many. It's easy to flavor it as basically recycling with something people would culturally object to(disrespecting the remains of the dead) but ultimately can be spun as 'you don't care about social norms as much as getting results'. One of my high-concept character ideas I've wanted to do is a 'good' necromancer who wants to do the most good for society but is strangely obsessed with showing that necromancy is a helpful and efficient tool for heroism. Stuff like offering contracts to people who might die for permission to use their body as materials in his projects. I think the idea with necromancy being evil is the metaphysical implications. In a world with a confirmed afterlife, reanimating/desecrating someone's remains might affect their soul somehow. It is explicit for plenty of undead that the soul is affected, corrupted, or trapped. And even for basic skeletons, it's enough of a change to make using Raise Dead impossible. Basically imagine Antigone, but also she has to fight her brother's corpse first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Otherkinsey Scale posted:And even for basic skeletons, it's enough of a change to make using Raise Dead impossible.  Just put a two-week hold on reanimating any corpses, then cut off and preserve an ear or a finger before you cast the spell. I mean, a necromancer's gonna end up with a back room full of labeled jars of human body parts in formaldehyde, just on the off-chance someone wins the lottery and wants to Resurrect Grandpappy, but that's not evil, just kinda ghoulish.
girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Gwyneth Palpate posted:I sure hope Rich is okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Otherkinsey Scale posted:I think the idea with necromancy being evil is the metaphysical implications. In a world with a confirmed afterlife, reanimating/desecrating someone's remains might affect their soul somehow. It is explicit for plenty of undead that the soul is affected, corrupted, or trapped. And even for basic skeletons, it's enough of a change to make using Raise Dead impossible. Also in standard D&D cosmology stuff, undead are fueled my negative energy, which makes them hate life and want to snuff it out unless otherwise restrained. They also leak out negative energy and slowly pollute and kill anything around them. Basically after a necromancer/lich hangs out in an area long enough, it turns into a barren wasteland/evil swamp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Whereas Enchantment spells(mainly dominate/charm line)? It's... um... very much always struck me as pretty evil. You're suppressing free will, denying them choice, and basically enslaving them. Even if you're intentions are good, you're still forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. It's Evil Steve's right not to not want to run into a burning orphanage to save the day - at best, you come off as some sort of twisted control freak. Not to mention there are more real world parallels here that can make it even more uncomfortable - which may be why it's more traditionally tolerated than necromancy - supernatural evils are taken as worse somehow. Dominate and Charm are different effects. Dominate is, as you said, explicitly overriding someone else's free will and forcing them to do what you want them to do. And it's not inherently evil in and of itself; it's how you use it that determines whether it's evil. Yeah, forcing Evil Steve to run into a burning orphanage against his will to rescue a bunch of trapped infants is still evil, because you're forcing him into a life-threatening situation against his own wishes. But by the same token, dominating Evil Steve into quietly surrendering and turning himself over to the town guards to be imprisoned for setting an orphanage on fire would be okay, assuming you release control over him once he's safely in custody. Charm just makes the victim think of you as someone that they really like and trust implicitly, making it easier to cajole them into helping you out. Ideally, a DM would still make the player actively convince a charmed character to do something that they otherwise wouldn't do for a complete stranger, either through actual role-playing or just letting them make a diplomacy check at a much lower than normal difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Both of those are equally messed up, I feel like. Like, if you Charm someone who doesn't like or trust you, suddenly they like and trust you. Charm doesn't just work on strangers - it also works on people who already know you, and may have very good reasons to dislike or mistrust you. That's fine in the context of a game where all the characters are made up and you're just trying to get past Horace the evil guard or barter for a better price on your Boots of Striding, but it's a pretty big violation of individual rights when you start thinking about it a bit more seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
But how do we feel about Diplomancers? Those characters who can talk real good, so much so that NPC's will do what they say? Or the Examplar who uses Knowledge: Quotes from the Simpsons to turn people to their cause?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Well that's just good old-fashioned reasoned debate. Nothing supernatural about it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
How about Appellomancy? (NSFW site, this particular page has dirty language at worst)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Where does this fall on that scale?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Or the part when she walks over the line in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:How about Appellomancy? (NSFW site, this particular page has dirty language at worst) I read that originally as Appleomancy. And thought it was a Wizard who gained their powers from Apple's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Don't forget to pick up your new iSpell L4, only at Sprint Action. Order today and get a free Summon Angry Birds spellbook case! Edit: Personally, I prefer Golem spellbooks, myself. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:But how do we feel about Diplomancers? Those characters who can talk real good, so much so that NPC's will do what they say? I liked em better when they were called Truenamers, but then they mechanically stopped working after like 3 levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:I liked em better when they were called Truenamers, but then they mechanically stopped working after like 3 levels. Except the splatbook that allows the Diplomancer came out before the Tome of Magic. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:I read that originally as Appleomancy. And thought it was a Wizard who gained their powers from Apple's. That’s either Chuck Wendig or Steve Jobs
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
How is necromancy any different from Dominate? You're just dominating a disembodied soul and shackling it to a corpse. It's still a being that you're enslaving with magic. It's not like you're just telekinetically moving bones around in some morally neutral manner. And if you were, then why would the spell even need a corpse in the first place? It would be just as easy to animate any non-living object. ...Which is literally what a golem is, except even golems involve enslaving earth spirits. I mean, it's fantasy so you could easily imagine a corpse-puppeteering style of magic that doesn't mess around without souls or anything, but that's not really necromancy at all, as D&D imagines it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
It's a universe where you can measure Good and Evil. They measured it. Necromancy was Evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
Most necromany spells don't have the evil subtype.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Vecna did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:51
|
|
