So, how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings /tg/? Honestly I'm not a big fan and keep the monsters less than average looking to butt ugly.
Attractive Monsters?
So, how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings /tg/? Honestly I'm not a big fan and keep the monsters less than average looking to butt ugly.
My physical descriptions tend not to be detailed enough to make it explicit how attractive or unattractive someone is unless it feels especially relevant
I make them all hot, because iPCs to hesitate to kill hot enemies.
Unfortunately true. My party tried to rob an elven MILF and she charmed the player (not his character) into working together just by being described as sexy. She has a whole ass murderdungeon under her manor for people who MILDLY ANNOYED HER AND HER DAUGHTER
Describe this dungeon. Is it just people in cages or is it a trap laden maze?
Why?
Is the daughter attractive?
I notice it doesnt work on players that are in relationships or steadily get laid. The only exception to that would be one of my players who is married but we think he only plays with us to get away from his wife so that could be a reason why he is an exception.
I truly despise "people" who tolerate evil people or creatures just because they are physically attractive. I make sure to frick them over as much as possible
BILLIONS MUST DIE
literally me, just don't like em
In most of my games, monsters are ugly and/or animalistic. However, in one game that revolves around making a team of monsters and battling competitively with them, there are a significant amount of cute and/or sexy monster species; the weaker monsters developing such traits to make humans want them on their team.
If I feel a monster is becoming too attractive I just make them a PC race. If I want to keep the monstrous part of them around, I will either split them into two distinct subraces or just come up with a new look to slap the old monster vibe onto.
>I will either split them into two distinct subraces
Like city goblins or half goblins or just a sub race that always existed?
"Civilized" goblins who can be sexy shortstacks and "feral" or "wild" goblins that can be ugly exp pinatas.
It was determined with the entire table that all women in the setting are sexy. It's just a setting rule. They're all sexy. This somehow came about Dwarven women. My default is bearded, but when I started describing my first Dwarven women I stopped and asked the table what they preferred. Being the c**t that I am, I worded it as "bearded Dwarves or sexy Dwarves", because it's definitely a question about sex appeal. This ball kept rolling until we arrived at the above ruling. Now everything is sexy. Pic related. Asked for a drawing of a sexy Locathah in the drawthread, because no such pictures existed before then.
>Draw a sexy fish lady
>Don't give her big fish lips for sucking dick
attractive like not-grotesque/less anthropomorphized or attractive like coomer b8?
Yes, that's what OP's asking
>how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings?
Its always a weird concession to me, because when it becomes too blatant it makes a setting feel more fake to me unless its a very specific thing meant to prey upon and abuse human sensibilities. Otherwise, it just brings up the question of why would an inhuman creature develop to be sexually appealing to humans when it isn't human? Sexual selection is one of the most out there things in nature, to the point where one can safely say most cases are very specific to the kind of animal it originated from.
The peawieners tail for example is to us, most likely really dumb and outrageous, bordering on inscrutable and impossible to understand why. Same deal with human female breasts, which by practical accounts are worthless mounds of fat that don't actually improve anything, and large ones do not even produce more milk.
>and large ones do not even produce more milk.
but being pregnant makes your breasts bigger
Right, but that is the normal function, and not related to the excess most people promote when not pregnant. Only human women have breasts that stay large and fatty at all times. Other mammals have breasts that deflate outside pregnancy.
Yet we still see the peawiener's tail as beautiful, and their mating displays are mesmerizing. Most such displays are a kind of genetic excess, difficult structures to grow and maintain, which signal how healthy and strong the individual is.
Symmetry is beautiful to the eye because it's very difficult for an organism to fake it, and illness or poor nutrition can ruin it, so creatures with pronounced symmetry are more aesthetically pleasing regardless of their species. Some species spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy on such displays, others can't afford them and are unappealing as a result.
There are species that prey upon this, like the cuckoo who makes its eggs biggers, more brightly colored, and more perfectly shaped than other species, so that the other birds will toss their own eggs out of the nest to care for the obviously better cuckoo egg.
>peawiener's tail as beautiful, and their mating displays are mesmerizing
Yes, but they were not made for us to appreciate, they were made for their own kind. Whenever people try to promote sexual dimorphism and appeal in non-human races it is always to serve human biases. Nobody stops to think how the actual creature's inhuman culture and views might arrive at such a point or even why they find something appealing, it is always hollow and self serving.
>So, how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings /tg/?
I'm big on naturalist takes:
-If a creature/monster has to have sex in order to reproduce it's going to be attractive enough to do that. Attractive doesn't necessarily mean attractive to 'us', but even a stranger would understand an 'aesthetically pleasing' beast: healthy skin, symmetric face, clean looking horns/antlers/fangs/tusks, good colouration, that kind of thing.
-If a creature/monster *specifically* predicates itself on having sex with other species as some weird niche (plants do this extensively in our own world): it can be a bit more outrageously sexy. That might sound backward, but in our own world organisms that have to frick 'others' enter into an almost arms race of bimbofying themselves because they have way more sexual competition. There's a species of orchid that produces a flower that's just a wasp sex doll: male wasps *always* frick it.
-If a creature/monster is explicitly fricking ugly it's probably a paranormal creature and most likely *deliberately* doing that for two reasons: 1. It doesn't sexually reproduce (probably proliferating through magic) and 2. Given it's paranormal nature it's probably meta or narrative-driven and concerned with causing fear/stress.
Maw
Slimy
Tentacles
Big round belly
Soft skin
I run an erp campaign with
>2 ladies into noncon stuff that can be anything from monsters to just abusive jerks
>3 guys into cute girls, possibly of the monster variety
So it ends up with sexy monster ladies and monstrous males
Depends on the monster. If they are not supposed to be attractive then no, but like Dryads and Succubi etc. of course they are attractive.
I have sort of admiration/fetish for certain type of creature, so I'm making them all girls.
I'm brainstorming on how to make it have sense, might just handwave it with "don't question supernatural creatures" thing.
Posting my truth
That said I know some people prefer work like this
oh boy, do I have a treat for you
Regardless of the case, this rules must still apply at all time.
And a reminder that this one is no different.
Oh no, my chaotic evil oathbreaker paladin committed bestiality, guess we should cancel him on Twitter
What a horrible person I am for having my evil character do evil things
I don't think the problem is your character doing amoral things, the problem is your table now knows you're someone who plays a horsefricker lmao
As long it's role playing EVIL character I don't care.
I actually long for a video game letting me play a lowly evuk cultist, then gradually work his way up, sometime sacrificing people to sacrifice to the dark god, eventually becoming an arch-demon and having a major victory against the force of "good".
Oath of Conquest is probably better suited for this sort of shenanigans - slay those that dare oppose you, lay those that know their place and submit willingly
Consent based society and its consequences
I make them all frickable. No reason not to and the art is easier to find for the tokens.
They look like the tokens.
Xenophiles should be tortured to death with knives and blowtorches. I don't believe in aliens so it isn't a preventitive measure, I simply hate you and want to rip your teeth out with a pair of pliers and then bury you alive in an oil drum.
I actually hate furries less, at least they want to BE those disgusting nonhuman creatures, that is offensive but less so.
>Xenophiles should be tortured to death with knives and blowtorches. I don't believe in aliens so it isn't a preventitive measure, I simply hate you and want to rip your teeth out with a pair of pliers and then bury you alive in an oil drum.
>I actually hate furries less, at least they want to BE those disgusting nonhuman creatures, that is offensive but less so.
Do Kobolds and/or Goblins follow the Cat/Dog rule of fat distribution? (Where you are meant to be able to feel their ribs at the good weight)
Or are these two just slightly gangly?
I dislike killing pretty things a lot, so monsters must be ugly.
I will also invent elaborate and ruthless comebacks for players wanting to frick with my specific view on this abstract concept.
Lucifer is a fallen angel and described as beautiful. Just because something is beautiful, feminine, etc. does not make it good or not-evil. It is conveying that one ought not to underestimate evil. When a lion for example is at rest, it is regal and majestic, but when it is attacking and tearing into its prey, human or no, it is terrifying and fearsome but it is also the same animal still.
Monsters supposed to look and behave monstrous
>So, how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings /tg/?
It is not something I "keep" or consider at all, because I'm not both moronic and disgusting.
>how attractive do you keep your monsters in your settings /tg/?
each one blessed be Slaanesh xerself
Even if you try to make them ugly, I will want to frick them
Pathfinder Goblins looks like aliens
They are literally gremlins from the 80s movie
Depends on the monster. I don't have a habbit of making most common monster all that ugly, just not what I would call attractive (though if one of my friends get to have a save that is apparently not true). The most common one tends to be more beastial or feral, but I wouldn't call them ugly. I reserve ugly and grotesque to the rarer and more dangerous monsters. The freakish creatures, the aberrations, the mutants, the things that goes bump in the night.
As an example, goblins are kind of weirdly proportioned as they have very long arms, big ears, small eyes, and large mouths, all due to how they evolved. They look weird and off to most civilised humanoids and player races, and one would definitely call them more beastial in look. Kobolds are another fine example, where they look like vaguely humanoid lizards, their looks often depending on their surroundings. The common forest and swamp kobold are often seen as bestial while desert and plain kobolds are actually seen as being a bit cute in looks, but in the same way people might find bearded dragons and geckos cute. Vast majority of people would not consider either one kissable, but then again, some people are just freaks.
Then there are monsters like unicorns and faerie dragons that are considered quite beautiful, but again, not what one would call attractive. Then again, I've seen the threads about monsters both here and the red boards, so I could be wrong.
Then there are the monsters that are attractive as a tool to lure in pray, like the näck, whom often appear as very attractive, using bardic magic to lure people close in order to drown them before eating them. Another example is huldras and true vampires, who are also often seen as very attractive, and often use magic to enhance this effect to draw in prey.
If you want butt ugly or horror, we look to things like you need to start looking towards things like driders, medusas, basilisks, beholders, and sahuagins.
Who the frick are y'all playing with that this is a thing to consider? I've only had one horny bard meme character ever in my games and the DM made him make a dc20 con save to not throw up at the sight of the kobolds barbed genitals, then a dc30 one to resist the smell. We all laughed and nobody was aroused. Not even in character.
Monsters aren't supposed to be attractive so you won't feel bad about killing them as they are trying to kill/eat/rape you.
What about sirens, harpys, succubi, etc? The whole point of them is looking beautiful in order to trick men into no longer seeing them as monsters to prey on them.
Depends on what you mean by monster. Demihumans and humanoid monsters can be attractive, but a human is unlikely to be attracted to even the most beautiful of Minotaurs, for example. Ghosts and other humanoid undead could have been attractive and usually display visual signs of their death (a la Ghostwalk 3.5)
Mostly though, no, because they're monsters. The whole point is that it's morally justifiable to kill them, so most species that can't integrate into society are likely to be ugly.