Creepiest D&D Content

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah. Well, I do think that it's in poor taste for D&D to malign a relatively reasonable kink like that. I mean, they don't use Catfolk or Dragonborn to bash on furries or Changelings to bash on transformation fetishists, so why should S&M be singled out like that?

This also reminds me of the Yuan-Ti from my setting {:coughshamelessplugcough:}, who routinely mutilate themselves to practice their own brand of blood magic and whose god is a giant skinless snake with nails pounded into his muscles and hung up by hooks on the celing, dripping luminescent blood...

And they just so happen to be the good guys, using said blood magic to keep the Tarrascon (Essentially the Ur-Tarrasque, the being upon which all Tarrasques across the multiverse unconsciously base themselves and who could make Tharazidun pee his pants in fear) sealed within the setting and being willing to teach their magic to those hardy enough to withstand it and unselfish enough to use it for others sake and not their own.

Sadism is singled out like that because addressing that particular kink with an unwilling partner -is- evil, whether there's sexual contact or not. Masochism was included for its relationship to sadism. There's nothing inherently evil about having either trait, and the book never says otherwise. Many evil characters are sadists =/= many sadists are evil.

The book gets maligned constantly because of the notion that having any of the traits or committing any of the acts described therin makes you automatically evil, when what the book actually says is that those traits and acts are common amongst evil characters.

Evil characters do (X). =/= Characters that do (X) are evil.


Those yuan-ti sound interesting BTW.

[Serpentine]

I find Gnolls horrifying, not because I'm scared of Hyenas or anything, but because of how purely evil and morally disgusting my first DM portrayed them as. Plus the their cackling, which evokes pure terror.

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

[DigoDragon]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

I bet you always score high on "You don't Know Jack" :3

The one time I created a Gnoll tribe, it was matriarchal. Can't say I knew about the other part... or really I don't think that would have come up in PC conversation with them.

[some guy]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

I don't know if RAW Gnolls are matriarchal, MM 3.5 just states that they are ruled by their strongest member. If gnolls follow real-world hyena's, their strongest member would be female.
But yeah, in my games gnolls are just like real-world hyena's. That gets awkward sometimes. Other fun-facts; displaying an erect pseudo-penis is a sign of subordination; daughters are less agressive to their fathers than to other males; Cubs of the highest dominant female outrank adult females.

[Serpentine]

Can you imagine what an impact it'd have on gnoll society?

Spoilered for hyenas and some squick. Also rape, so trigger warning.

Spoiler

Show

What sort of an impact would it have on their society that, say, rape is completely impossible? What would they think of that phenomenon amongst other races? For that matter, what would they think of the more obvious sexual dimorphism in other races?
Or what about how incredibly painful childbirth must be? What sort of rituals and myths could they have around it - would there be a confinement, as is common for humans? Or would they rally together to support the new mother? Would protective rituals be a feature, or would they be more fatalistic? Then there's the fact that the pseudo-penis often splits during childbirth, and can take weeks to heal; mark of pride and adulthood, or a sad, painful inconvenience? Could it (not to go into a very heated and dark real-world issue) be a sort of cultural analogue to female circumcision? Considering everything the females go through, could femininity be revered by them? Or might there be a sort of "no point getting attached to them, they're just going to die when they give birth anyway"? Or maybe both: few strong connections being made with female gnolls until they've survived birth, when they are revered as the epitome of gnoll toughness?
And the high mortality rate during birth, for both mother and child: considering, again, how downright difficult mating is, "accidental" pregnacies seem fairly unlikely, and in an intelligent* being, with how awkward sex itself is and how terrifying the birth is, just what motivation is there for breeding? Do they have an extra-intense breeding instinct? Is their sex actually absolutely amazing? Or is it culturally reinforced, as a solemn duty to the clan^? I found it interesting, incidentally, that hyenas apparently prefer to do it privately, alone, without other hyenas watching. Modest/prudish gnolls?

I'm thinking, with the intensity of childbirth as well as the awkwardness of sex and their apparent secrecy with the act, maybe they would make a big ritual out of sex, make it a big community thing. Maybe a sort of solemn sacrifice type thing, like the classic old "young virgins sacrificed for the good of the tribe" situation. I'm sure they'd make a big deal of the birth. Maybe, even, their god of Death would be merged with their god of Birth, seeing as they converge so often (and I'm pretty sure it has precedence in certain pantheons, where you've had a God of Life and Death or of Beginnings and Endings or somesuch). I think there'd be a particular ritual set up for if the mother and/or baby died, and a big celebration if they both lived, as well as lots of protective rituals during the birth itself.
I think I'd make the veneration of mothers a big thing. I mean, obviously there's the matriarchal factor, but I think there'd be a spiritual aspect, too. I think the first birth would be a huge coming-of-age for female gnolls, even more than various human ones - and one that, quite dramatically, males do not have. Would they have some sort of substitute, or would it just be yet another example of male inferiority? I'm not sure which I'd prefer.
As for the rape aspect, again, I'm not sure. I could see it ranging from mere ignorance ("He did what? How? Why didn't you just, you know, not let him?"), to all-out contempt ("If you are weak enough to allow a mere male do that, then you deserved it!").

I think it's kinda interesting that, with all of the above and the rest of hyena stuff, you could make gnolls truly awful, nasty and icky, or extremely sympathetic, or anything in-between. I've never really thought about gnolls all that much, but now I think I really want to work out exactly what they're like in my gameworld...


*and apparently they do better than chimpanzees on some intelligence tests.
^actually what they call hyena packs, apparently.

edit: Putting it here so I don't forget the idea later.

Spoiler

Show

Gnoll Death/Birth god: pregnant dominant female. Myths about the cub she carries devouring the world when it is born.

Can't think of much actually on topic, I'm afraid. Haven't flicked through my books recently. There's that worm what looks like a naughty bit that squirts out things that look like what comes out of naughty bits, though...

[Lapak]

You know what would make Gnolls even better/more terrifying? If they actually used more stuff from actual, real-world hyenas. Like the fact that female hyenas have to mate and give birth through a pseudo-penis, and as a result have an extremely high mortality rate :I Are gnolls even matriarchal?

Since I'm always glad to have the chance to plug Digger, I'll go ahead and point out that it's got a pretty excellent presentation of a matriarchal hyena culture, complete with creation myth to explain both why the women are bigger and stronger and why childbirth is so difficult for them.

[Serpentine]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though

[Ravens_cry]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though

Well, it's not seen, but we do see loin cloths, so it could merely be behind the loincloth.

[wadledo]

Ooo, I like that. May have to have a proper look at that comic. Still no pseudo-penis, though

Digger is absolutely fantastic.

[Arbane]

Since I'm always glad to have the chance to plug Digger, I'll go ahead and point out that it's got a pretty excellent presentation of a matriarchal hyena culture, complete with creation myth to explain both why the women are bigger and stronger and why childbirth is so difficult for them.

Well, drat, you beat me to suggesting Digger.

So I'll just agree. It's an awesome comic, and well worth reading.

[Ravens_cry]

Pathfinder Goblins.

Imagine a player that plays their character Chaotic Stupid as much as they can with an unhealthy fascination with fire. Now make a whole race of them. First encounter with PF Goblins, they were in the rafters, with cover, and a good supply of fire bombs.

*Shudders* It's 'cause of this that my next character is gonna be a Peri-Blooded (Aasimar) Fire Mage for that sweet 15 Fire Resist at lvl 1.

Stat-wise, the Wonderland themed Tane from Pathfinder. Jabberwocky, Bandersnatch and JubJub Birds, oh no!

The trouble is they are just so darn cute looking. Like evil green teddy bears.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The trouble is they are just so darn cute looking. Like evil green teddy bears.

Teddy bears? The one on the pathfinder SRD website looks like some kinda mutant bipedal chihuahua.

They're no tsochar, but that is a little creepy to me.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Well, drat, you beat me to suggesting Digger.

So I'll just agree. It's an awesome comic, and well worth reading.

I never found Pathfinder goblins to be very threatening. The adventure We Be Goblins, while awesome, kind finished the process of turning them into a joke.

Its Pathfinder ogres that are chilling.

[Arbane]

I never found Pathfinder goblins to be very threatening. The adventure We Be Goblins, while awesome, kind finished the process of turning them into a joke.

"I don't mind when people laugh at me, it just means they look more surprised when I kill them." - NPC in City of Heroes.

Its Pathfinder ogres that are chilling.

Oh, yeah. Take the hillbillies from Deliverance, add the cannibal family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then make them eight feet tall and strong as an ox. No fun.

[Mary Leathert]

Couple of spells in the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide caught my attention yesterday.

One of them let you turn all of your soft tissue into a swarm and control it. Your bones would be left behind. The spell would only end when you returned all of the swarm to the bones, or the swarm was destroyed. But if your bones were destroyed, you would be stuck as a swarm.
Another was vomiting swarms. First spiders then with level up other insects. Yucky.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Couple of spells in the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide caught my attention yesterday.

One of them let you turn all of your soft tissue into a swarm and control it. Your bones would be left behind. The spell would only end when you returned all of the swarm to the bones, or the swarm was destroyed. But if your bones were destroyed, you would be stuck as a swarm.
Another was vomiting swarms. First spiders then with level up other insects. Yucky.

I once played a character with Vomit Swarm. He also had the Child Scent ability, that allows him to smell children from a way off.

I was trying to creep out my DM.

[Water_Bear]

Sadism is singled out like that because addressing that particular kink with an unwilling partner -is- evil, whether there's sexual contact or not. Masochism was included for its relationship to sadism. There's nothing inherently evil about having either trait, and the book never says otherwise. Many evil characters are sadists =/= many sadists are evil.

Many slaves to darkness are consumed by addictions and perverted tastes. Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse.

Look, I like the BoVD, but it has a very very problematic (though unfortunately common) stance on kink addiction and mental illnesses. That they are fundamentally wicked traits, though you can still be good in spite of your sinister nature as long as you follow <insert random philosophy>.

The BDSM stuff is particularly bad because there was never really any need to put in a judgement on any sexual practice in D&D, because that's not really something there are rules for. Drugs have already shown up mechanically and, for better or worse, so has insanity. It's just there for a bit of pointless "ooooo.... eeeevil" shock value, which makes the offensive character of it that much more offensive.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Look, I like the BoVD, but it has a very very problematic (though unfortunately common) stance on kink addiction and mental illnesses. That they are fundamentally wicked traits, though you can still be good in spite of your sinister nature as long as you follow <insert random philosophy>.

The BDSM stuff is particularly bad because there was never really any need to put in a judgement on any sexual practice in D&D, because that's not really something there are rules for. Drugs have already shown up mechanically and, for better or worse, so has insanity. It's just there for a bit of pointless "ooooo.... eeeevil" shock value, which makes the offensive character of it that much more offensive.

Horrible =/= evil.

You've got to remember that to most people those traits and behaviors are considered pretty squicky, and they -are- common amongst evil and/or perverse characters.

That doesn't mean that all characters that have those traits or indulge in those behaviors are perverse and/or evil.

A transitive property is being added where it doesn't exist here.

BoVD does -not- say that those behaviors are evil, just that they are common amongst evil characters.

[Marlowe]

Deities and Demigods implies that Clerics of Freya are sworn, as an act of devotion, to have intercourse with anyone who's willing. Whether or not they're actually attracted to the persons concerned doesn't seem to come into it.

[Lanaya]

Horrible =/= evil.

You've got to remember that to most people those traits and behaviors are considered pretty squicky, and they -are- common amongst evil and/or perverse characters.

That doesn't mean that all characters that have those traits or indulge in those behaviors are perverse and/or evil.

A transitive property is being added where it doesn't exist here.

BoVD does -not- say that those behaviors are evil, just that they are common amongst evil characters.

Bleh? I can't say I have any statistics to back me up here, but are you really more likely to be into S&M if you're evil? I don't think alignment has any impact on what turns someone on.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bleh? I can't say I have any statistics to back me up here, but are you really more likely to be into S&M if you're evil? I don't think alignment has any impact on what turns someone on.

The book doesn't say that either. Neither did I. Sadism and masochism's commonality amongst evil isn't necessarily greater than it is amongst neutral characters. But given the nature of sadism, I'd be surprised if anyone were to say it's just as common amongst good creatures as anyone else.

And you're right, your alignment doesn't have anything to do with what turns you on, but what turns you on can have an effect on your aligment. If you get off on hurting others, choosing to go without because you can't find a willing partner can be harder than simply victimizing someone. The sex-drive is an incredibly powerful pyschological force in most people.

Sidenote: BDSM is an acronym for a lot more than just sadism and masochism. It's not at all uncommon for people whose kinks fall in the BDSM category to be neither sadistic nor masochistic.

Edit & sidenote 2: Your alignment doesn't have any effect on any of your behavior. Your alignment is determined by your behavior. That the reverse is true is the single most common misconception regarding the alignment system and that misconception is quite likely the biggest reason the alignment system is so frequently derided.

[Arbane]

Edit & sidenote 2: Your alignment doesn't have any effect on any of your behavior. Your alignment is determined by your behavior. That the reverse is true is the single most common misconception regarding the alignment system and that misconception is quite likely the biggest reason the alignment system is so frequently derided.

So, Helm of Opposite Alignment...?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, Helm of Opposite Alignment...?

specifies that it changes your behavior to match the new alignment. If it didn't the item wouldn't have any long term effect at all. You'd just immediately go get an atonement or continue to act as you always have, causing your alignment to change back in short-order.

Your alignment is a result of your thoughts and behavior. Magic can temporarily or permanently alter your behavior to that of another alignment and changes your alignment to match in the cases of certain spells and items.

Repeated exposure to enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects can cause the changes in behavior necessary to generate a more natural change in alignment and atonement can change your alignment without changing your behavior.

There does exist a correlation between alignment and behavior. That doesn't make them one-and-the-same or interchangeable.

Bottom line:

You're evil because you do bad things.

You don't do bad things because you're evil.

[tbok1992]

Well, there's the goddess Evening Glory from The Book Of Bad Latin (AKA The Libris Mortis) who is creepy for a different reason than everything else in the book. Namely in how she represents "Undying Love", which in her case means resurrecting your dead spouse as a zombie for creepy necrophiliac lovin'.

Though she's neutral, most other religions kick out her clerics when they realize what she represents. She also has "Alluring heart-shaped holes in her palms," which I think is developer code for "Yes, those are meant to give a horrible new meaning to the phrase 'H*ndjob'."

[Lost Demiurge]

Oh... What's the name of that undead diety fetus in the Epic Level Handbook? Yeah, that thing's just loaded with triggers...

[Water_Bear]

And you're right, your alignment doesn't have anything to do with what turns you on, but what turns you on can have an effect on your aligment. If you get off on hurting others, choosing to go without because you can't find a willing partner can be harder than simply victimizing someone. The sex-drive is an incredibly powerful pyschological force in most people.

Spoiler

Show

So... being kinky makes people more likely to be Evil because they'll just go nuts and start whipping people or something whenever they're horny and single?

By your logic, no-one should ever be trusted with an unconscious person of their preferred gender; after all, the sex-drive is apparently so inescapably powerful that liking rough sex can warp your entire moral character towards Evil. Or maybe you just mean only people with "bad" kinds of sexual desires are incapable of acting like reasonable human beings.

Believe it or not, it is much much easier to decide to take a cold shower than to sexually assault someone. That's just as true whether you're talking about someone with vanilla preferences or not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Spoiler

Show

So... being kinky makes people more likely to be Evil because they'll just go nuts and start whipping people or something whenever they're horny and single?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I -am- saying is that if your brain feeds you a positive chemical response every time you inflict pain on someone, you're going to want to inflict pain on people. Choosing not to act on that desire is exactly what any non-evil character should do, but for some the urge to fulfill their own desires can be overwhelming. In any case, the desire to hurt people creates a hurdle to remaining neutral, much less good, that most people don't have to jump.

By your logic, no-one should ever be trusted with an unconscious person of their preferred gender; after all, the sex-drive is apparently so inescapably powerful that liking rough sex can warp your entire moral character towards Evil. Or maybe you just mean only people with "bad" kinds of sexual desires are incapable of acting like reasonable human beings.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

It is possible, even common, for people to resist whatever sexual urges they have, but that doesn't change the fact that those urges play a significant role in their overall behavior on both the concious and unconcious levels. To try and deny this is simply being naieve or purposefully dense. BTW, it -is- generally a bad idea to leave someone alone with an unconcious member of their preffered gender if you don't know them and don't have reason to believe that aloneness will be short-lived.

Believe it or not, it is much much easier to decide to take a cold shower than to sexually assault someone. That's just as true whether you're talking about someone with vanilla preferences or not.

Of course it is. That doesn't change the fact that having the urge to do something that, in the right context, is evil will cause a tendency toward evil.

Constantly thinking about hurting others will make you ping on detect evil whether you ever act on those thoughts or not, regardless of the reason you're having those thoughts, because in D&D rules, if not necessarily in your personal view on morality, harming others without just cause is evil. If however, you also regularly commit acts of good, you will revert to neutrality, and if you do good more often than you think evil, you can even register as good to detect spells.

Answered in bold above, left in the spoiler for being off-topic at this point.

Spoiler

Show

Also note that the quote of my response says that denying those urges -can- be more difficult than victimizing someone. Some people are sadists and some people have poor impulse control. Sometimes there's overlap.

Also, a sadist doesn't have to sexually assault someone to feed their sadism, a simple physical assualt followed by a round of furious self-gratification works too.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh... What's the name of that undead diety fetus in the Epic Level Handbook? Yeah, that thing's just loaded with triggers...

Atropus is the one you're thinking of.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Atropus is the one you're thinking of.

I think that's "atropal."

Atropus is the elder evil.

[Water_Bear]

Spoiler

Show

Of course it is. That doesn't change the fact that having the urge to do something that, in the right context, is evil will cause a tendency toward evil.

Spoiler

Show

But there isn't any more reason to assume sadists won't obtain consent than to assume anyone else wouldn't; after all, most sex crimes are committed by "regular" guys. Doing anything sexual to someone non-consentually is capital-E Evil, so I don't see how sadist's "urges" are any more evil than anyone else's libido. Again, by your logic everyone who isn't asexual will have a tendency towards evil because they might be tempted to commit rape.

Well, there's the goddess Evening Glory from The Book Of Bad Latin (AKA The Libris Mortis) who is creepy for a different reason than everything else in the book. Namely in how she represents "Undying Love", which in her case means resurrecting your dead spouse as a zombie for creepy necrophiliac lovin'.

Though she's neutral, most other religions kick out her clerics when they realize what she represents. She also has "Alluring heart-shaped holes in her palms," which I think is developer code for "Yes, those are meant to give a horrible new meaning to the phrase 'H*ndjob'."

Bwah!

That's worse than the Lich Loved feat, which still kind of weirds me out. The strangest thing is trying to imagine why someone thought they could get away with writing that feat, and then the reason why they were right.