Talk:Angelic Succubus (5e Race)

Image

I thought we were beyond removing images that were offensive? What is wrong with the removed image? No one answered these questions at the bottom, which I would ask on this talk page. Then there's this (Wikipedia:Offensive material) for reference. I thought there would be a "stub" placed or some bit of discussion before images were taken down? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (MDT)

As per deletions logs for [1], the image was deleted from the wiki for Copyright violation. However, I see no reason we couldn't reinstate it through external image hotlink. I'll do so now, unless there are objections. --SgtLion (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2018 (MDT)

hmph, I guess I missed the copyright issue. :/ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2018 (MDT)

Yeah, I marked it back when I stubbed the page BSFM. Sarg, I'm going to have to object to that statement. Firstly, the image doesn't fit the page as stated in the stub. Secondly, per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including an image in an article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" which this image fails to do given the first point about imprecision. Thirdly, as stated in my response to the acceptable content policy discussion, the example Wikipedia uses in regards to humans body is an excellent and one that I based my initial concern on, which is something along the lines of, "Don't have something be sexually provocative for the sake of it being so", so a succubus page that's has turned away from the stereotypical succubus way of doing things should not be presented with a sexually appealing image which this page does so. As such, I believe the image should be changed/removed. --ConcealedLight (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2018 (MDT)

I know it got marked but there wasn’t mention of copyright issue. I don't agree with point 3, I don’t see this as provocative, but on the other hand I can see some truth to this not helping readers’ understanding, at which point that creates another discussion (which iirc we need to stay focused on each individual topic separately). What would an appropriate image for an angelic succubus be then? I’ve seen very scantily clad angels depicted so I don’t think modesty is a quality to expect. What features would be appropriate for this race? To be fair, I’m with you on this pages existence, but who am I to judge why people create such things. So if it’ll exist, and have an image, can we help/discuss what the image should be? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2018 (MDT)

I don't see any sexually gratifying qualities about the image. Core D&D Books have had images of succubus who are topless, so this one is actually better. I think that as long as the image does not actually reveal any sexual organs, what are gratifying, then I don't see a problem. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2018 (MDT)

Edits

I really like this race! So I changed the image to make it less devilish and also beefed up lore to make them distinct from their fiendish origins, as well as shaved down the traits section. I think the only question left is the balance aspect but I think it looks ok. Maybe lower the ASI if need be.--Yanied (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2019 (MST)

I'll give my 2c then. I think you should adopt a more neutral/accurate name, instead of calling them "sex fiends". They are demons after all so calling them demons of pleasure or demons of desire would be more appropriate I feel. Next, the lore seems to assume an abyssal creature of pure chaos and evil manifest would have the same mindset as humans and is redeemable in the eyes of celestials. While the case could be made that a creatures nature could change over time given that they are NE and possess higher mental stats to that end they wouldn't be granted celestial like abilities which should probably be left to class features. As for why they have angelic wings and aren't shapechangers, part of it could be that by renouncing their origins and locking their form to this (kinda like Corellon and the elves) they lose their shapechanging ability. Finally, mechanics, three creature types is one too many. Healing kiss can be brought up to be like cure wounds and add an ability modifier but I think it should be taken down to a long rest only as having a heal in the back pocket almost every encounter is pretty strong. Swapping Dexterity out for Wisdom. As per the lore bit above, dropping resistance to radiant damage. I'd drop flying altogether for a feather fall type effect on themselves so I could work in some more benefits like: the kissed creature has advantage on their next attack roll, ability check or saving throw for the next minute; As an action, you can telepathically communicate up to 10 words to a creature you can see within 60 feet; A choice of skill proficiencies. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2019 (MST)

Hm, noted. I called them "sex fiends" since it seemed more to the point if not a bit abrasive and using their creature type rather than "demon." For the redeemable lore part, I mostly drew from the preexisting overhead text since I felt it was good lore and didn't want to change it. But I did add two other ways through which they could be born so perhaps it can be deleted? I neglected to actually include anything about the shapechanging and will add something to that effect.--Yanied (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2019 (MST)

I'll keep an eye out for those edits then. —ConcealedLight (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (MST)

Would the lore part about redemption actually be very egregious to keep?--Yanied (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2019 (MST)

How so? —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2019 (MST)

I was just wondering about your point in your two cents about them being able to be redeemed being one of the ways they can be made as detailed in their history--Yanied (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2019 (MST)

I know this doesn't help but it is up to you. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2019 (MST)

No, that actually helps. I like that bit of original lore from the OP. I removed the fire resistance because I was wondering if there were too many traits. It looks playable as a race now though I think?--Yanied (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2019 (MST)

Yup should be good to go with the touch-ups I've added in. You could keep the fire resistance if you wanted as it is thematically appropriate. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2019 (MST)

Cool, thanks--Yanied (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2019 (MST)

I Was asking myself, but why would an angelic succubus/incubus would not be able to fly? it doesn't make much sense in my point of view, so would propose that it has like a 20ft flying speed or has a 40 ft flying speed only when not wearing medium or heavy armor and the armor is made to accommodate flight. Poltrique (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2019 (EST)

Flight was taken out mechanically to put other traits in.--Yanied (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2019 (MST)

fallen angel

Would the angelic succubus become a regular succubus if the alignment becomes evil? Redrum (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2024 (MDT)

It could be an interesting variant rule, yeah.--Yanied (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2024 (MDT)