Submissive Lola: The Resubmission LE/SE

[CaptainJ03]

I regard to YPS fashion - I don't see that any of this belongs into this mod. Maybe I'm not qualified to answer here, because I don't see the point in any of these makeup and look like a cheap fuckdoll mods. If you like it, that's okay, but for Mistress I'd say she only cares if you're submissive and fuckable. I have set the hairdo to shaved, because I can't be bothered to open racemenu, find a nice enough hairdo in the 1k KS hairdos yield (had to install that for another mod, not my choice) click the right button in the MCM, open it another time and try to find that same hair I had before. That hair change event is about humiliation and showing you who's in charge - and that's definitely not you.

 

3 hours ago, kapibar said:

I was thinking about score threshold with an MCM setting. Limiting player's choice and forcing to change the plans would actually be a nice addition IMO. You plan to be powerful sword wielder? Well, it's too bad, because you're a sub now, and subs do what their masters allow them to do. You agreed to this, remember? On the other hand it would be nice to have the option to turn off such handicap if the PC is owned by an NPC that is less adept at fighting, or if this kind of gameplay is impossible for any other reason.

Same as I said above - Lola is a fucktoy, I don't think that Mistress cares much which kind of fighting style Lola prefers.

And with Skyrim being Skyrim, you simply cannot rely on any of your followers to get you out of a tight situation. I remember a scene when I was in heavy bondage, but didn't care much, because I had Mistress and another follower in tow. They were down faster than I could sy "bugger!" and I had to fight Ice Wraiths with high kicks.

[BigOnes69]

7 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

If you all haven't looked at it yet, consider enhancing your submissive roleplay with Dynamic Animation Replacer (there's also a SE version).  No esp file.

 

All you really have to do is find and use alternate standing idle animations (mt_idle.hkx) for your character and/or the owner.  That one idle animation can make a noticeable difference.  You can keep it simple.  Don't bother with conditions.  Just drop in different idles when you think it's appropriate.  Give your character a shy, awkward idle, and your owner a bold, confident one.  The body language will convey the nature of the relationship.

 

Be aware that alternate idles can cause minor clipping with Devious Devices or other items.  And you may waste a lot spend a significant amount of time browsing idle animation mods.

Any recommendations on animations?

[kapibar]

20 minutes ago, CaptainJ03 said:

Same as I said above - Lola is a fucktoy, I don't think that Mistress cares much which kind of fighting style Lola prefers.

And with Skyrim being Skyrim, you simply cannot rely on any of your followers to get you out of a tight situation. I remember a scene when I was in heavy bondage, but didn't care much, because I had Mistress and another follower in tow. They were down faster than I could sy "bugger!" and I had to fight Ice Wraiths with high kicks.

 

I don't think I agree with your opinion on how mistress treats Lola only as a fucktoy. First of all this kind of relationship has to be build upon mutual trust, it wouldn't make much sense if Lola was nothing else than a toy. Afterall, the mistress gives Lola a name and doesn't call her Slaveslut Cocksucker, that itself is an indicator of the attitude towards the sub. If there was nothing besides fucking, the mistress would humiliate the slave by giving her the most dehumanizing name possible.

Then there's the fact that the mistress says she "trains" Lola. She puts actual effort to fulfill subs desires, guide her with a strong hand. If she only cared if Lola was fuckable she wouldn't follow her around, but instead put her on a short leash and walk her around the city like a pet. She wouldn't bother to do anything at all. Then the owner could be any NPC, not follower specifically. It's also inconsistent with the fact that the follower risks his/her life to protect the PC. It wouldn't make much sense if Lola was nothing else than a set of holes and yet the follower takes arms in her defence.

 

Making PC more dependant on an NPC actually makes sense when you aknowledge that Lola is cared for by her dom - the owner would like to show Lola that she's not the center of the world, she doesn't need to take responsibility for the survival of Skyrim, that she's nothing special and other people can take care of shit without her walking around in a set of Daedric armor and casting spells that make half of the city explode. What's the point of servitude when either way it's Lola who has to save everyone's bacon? This obvious superiority undermines any illusion of submission. Yeah, you're dominating me, I'm your slave, etc., but where do you run for help when a fucking dragon attacks?

Sure, Skyrim is Skyrim, the NPC's can be stupid as fuck, but when they're properly equipped and the player provides competent support and chooses battles wisely they get the job done. I've played weak character for weeks now and I plow through with not much else than illusion and restoration alone. My character can't fight for shit, but I try to be smart and use the tools at my disposal to my advantage. So it's doable, but harder. On the other hand most mods we're dealing with are supposed to make gameplay harder.

[bigschwabbel]

Not sure if the following is a bug or if I'm doing something wrong.

 

As long as Mistress is below "Owner's poverty threshold" she will try to take money from her pet every 20 seconds, even if her pet has no money in her inventory or is still below "Player's expense money".

That results in the message "Your Mistress takes 0 gold from you." every 20 seconds. Kind of annoying, might be intentional to motivate her pet to earn more money faster, because it stops when she starts whoring her pet out.

 

These are my settings in MCM:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[HexBolt8]

1 hour ago, bigschwabbel said:

As long as Mistress is below "Owner's poverty threshold" she will try to take money from her pet every 20 seconds, even if her pet has no money in her inventory or is still below "Player's expense money".

That results in the message "Your Mistress takes 0 gold from you." every 20 seconds.

That's not intended.  I probably introduced a problem when I added the expense money setting.  Thank you for mentioning this.  I'll investigate.  For now, I suggest setting the poverty threshold to zero.

 

Edit:  Fixed for the next update.  Sorry for the annoyance.

[HexBolt8]

6 hours ago, BigOnes69 said:

Any recommendations on animations?

You can look at this or this (not sure if they're available for SE), or search for mods with "idle".  You can also find idles in alternate animation packs.

[HexBolt8]

Regarding fashion mods, that could have a place.  The owner might just see Lola as sex toy, or the owner might want a sex doll to dress up and look pretty, or the owner might want her to look like a tart.

 

This mod's hair style event grew out of the one in the original Sub Lola, which was simply head shaving.  It has more options now, but the intent really is still control and humiliation.  (There is a response for Lola to be excited about the change, just as Lola can also be excited about forced prostitution, so that depends on how the player thinks the character would react.)

 

A fashion mod would work differently, making Lola into the ultimate sex doll (whatever the owner finds attractive), or a strumpet (the owner is going for embarrassment and humiliation).  It's a different kind of event, because it plays out over time, rather than temporarily changing hair style or color before changing it back.   That's going to take more time than I'd want to put into a single aspect, especially if it were to be more than just randomly messing with Lola's appearance, since the owner probably has certain preferences and it would be inconsistent to keep switching Lola between long hair, short hair, earrings, no earrings, bright colors, muted colors, and so on.

 

In regard to YPS specifically, that mod has enough features that to do things right would best be accomplished by a separate mod that has YPS as a required mod.  Such a mod could possibly have a follower function as a friendly fashion advisor, or as someone in control of your appearance (as in a dominant follower or slave owner).  Perhaps someone will build such a mod for YPS.  It wouldn't have to integrate with Sub Lola of Devious Followers, just make you undergo fashion changes, ideally with a certain look as an end goal.

 

7 hours ago, CaptainJ03 said:

I have set the hairdo to shaved, because I can't be bothered to open racemenu, find a nice enough hairdo in the 1k KS hairdos yield (had to install that for another mod, not my choice) click the right button in the MCM, open it another time and try to find that same hair I had before. That hair change event is about humiliation and showing you who's in charge - and that's definitely not you.

That's right, it's about who's in charge.  However, some owners might want you to look nice (the owner's tastes of course, not the slave's).  Others won't care, still others might want you to have a bad appearance (like the shaved head, or a shaggy haircut).

 

Selecting an alternate style is a pain, but if you export your settings, you only have to do it once.  My personal rules are that a slave's hair must never cover the face or breasts, nor hide the collar (at least from the front).

 

7 hours ago, kapibar said:

Making PC more dependant on an NPC actually makes sense when you aknowledge that Lola is cared for by her dom

I think mental and emotional dependence are at the heart of the relationship, but physical dependence could also fit in (as an option of course, since limitations like this can really hurt your ability to play Skyrim).

 

Even now, if you set allowed lockpicks to zero, you're dependent on a follower to open locks, and you don't develop the skill to try to escape any devices locked on you (slaves shouldn't touch locks).  Or, the owner might prefer that the slave open all locks and set off any traps.  It can vary from owner to owner.  That could be extended to spells, weapons, and armor.  I'm just not sure how that would look.  Score thresholds for each?  If it's simple, that might be okay, but probably not worth a lot of effort just to limit your ability to play the game.  I did the lockpick limit because I was building key swiping, so it was very easy to also have the owner take lockpicks.  Restricting the items you can equip in your hands would be new.

[CaptainJ03]

Found an omitted word in Mistress' answer to my question "Mistress, do I please you"

Does that excite you? It should. Maybe scare you a little too? Don't worry, I'm going to be very strict with you. (...)

[bigschwabbel]

14 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

Edit:  Fixed for the next update.  Sorry for the annoyance.

 

Very much appreciated! Thank you!

[bigschwabbel]

Found a typo:

 

"I take it you wish to follow that tradition. So be it. Once you have served out your contact you may ask to be freed at any time."

 

I'm quite sure it should say "contract".

 

Screenshot

Spoiler

 

[bigschwabbel]

And another typo:

 

"I can't say that. It's not true. I wont!"

 

Screenshot

Spoiler

 

[Raine_Hyd]

3 hours ago, bigschwabbel said:

And another typo:

 

"I can't say that. It's not true. I wont!"

 

Screenshot

  Reveal hidden contents

 

What's wrong that, wont is correct? Otherwise it's won't, which isn't correct.

[Tr_veller]

11 minutes ago, serioth21 said:

What's wrong that, wont is correct? Otherwise it's won't, which isn't correct.

 

That's not correct:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/wont-vs-wont/?utm_source=email_share&utm_medium=content

 

 

[Raine_Hyd]

46 minutes ago, Tr_veller said:

 

That's not correct:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/wont-vs-wont/?utm_source=email_share&utm_medium=content

 

 

I learned it as wont, but I guess that was wrong. Thanks for the info, guess going forward now I know. 

[HexBolt8]

Thank you for reporting the typos!  The one with "contact" has existed for a long time.  It's jarring to be reading along and come across something that's wrong.  Fixed for the next update.

[Tr_veller]

19 minutes ago, serioth21 said:

I learned it as wont, but I guess that was wrong. Thanks for the info, guess going forward now I know. 

 

In hindsight, I could've been more polite explaining why - so apologies if I came across as terse and thank you for taking it in the spirit it was intended.  

[bigschwabbel]

I don't know what it is today, but I'm quite observant, more than usual.

 

"I knew you would. You're a good little slut. I want to see your reaction when ____ activate them on you."

 

I'm pretty sure we're missing an "I" here.

 

Screenshot

Spoiler

 

[HexBolt8]

9 minutes ago, bigschwabbel said:

I don't know what it is today, but I'm quite observant, more than usual.

Another old one.  Thanks!  Fixed for the next update.  You get today's gold star award, for excellence in typo spotting.  ⭐

[Operand]

The PC got the "unburden" quest. So far she's been just doing her things ignoring the quest for ~1 day. So, question here is - what happens if she just ignores it at all and continues to do as she pleases? Is there a time limit? Is there any punishment for not going into the city? The only inconvenience currently is the armbinder and the fact that even if she unlocks it - she gets shocked for not wearing it. However that can be circumvented by equipping it back and "manipulating the locks" effectively giving her freedom to do things when she needs it.

 

  

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

You get today's gold star award, for excellence in typo spotting.

 

Here's how I deal with typos in my mods:

• Export the mod with JP plugin (you know what it is by now)
• Filter out the fields which I want to do a check on. If you have something like a python/php or whichever interpreter for light script you got - it's a very easy thing to do.
  • For instance, for the dialogue you want to export the "NAM1" field
  • You also need to include the containing FormId which will be the corresponding key in the JSON entry
• Now, your resulting text will look something like "FormId" - "Text of the dialogue line" one per new line
• From here just copy it and paste in some google doc. Voila. The red subscript will highlight the straight typos in words and the blue subscript will highlight things like missing prepositions or other oddities.
  • Since you also exported FormId per each line, fixing it in the mod is a piece of cake

 

I think it's even possible to skip the entire filtering for fields part, but I had mixed results on the grammar parser with that. Plain text yields much better and more consistent results.

[HexBolt8]

1 hour ago, Operand said:

The PC got the "unburden" quest. So far she's been just doing her things ignoring the quest for ~1 day. So, question here is - what happens if she just ignores it at all and continues to do as she pleases?

There's no time limit or other compulsion.  The assumption is that the character won't want to have her hands bound for too long.  (Obviously, mods that permit spell casting or powerful kicks while so restrained make the situation little more than a nuisance, but that's a reflection on the mods that do such things and the consequence of having restraints that don't don't restrain.)  You're free to take as long as you want, and go wherever you like.

 

If you think it should be more punishing, I'm open to suggestions, but personally I head right for town when I get that quest.

 

Regarding typos, I can only export the full mod (using your script).  I can't filter it.  Meaningful checking would involve a grammar checker (the 3 items recently reported wouldn't have been caught by a spelling checker).  I'm not all that worried, though.  My proofreading isn't that bad, and I encourage players to report typos, which I fix right away.

[Snook001]

3 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

There's no time limit or other compulsion.  The assumption is that the character won't want to have her hands bound for too long.  (Obviously, mods that permit spell casting or powerful kicks while so restrained make the situation little more than a nuisance, but that's a reflection on the mods that do such things and the consequence of having restraints that don't don't restrain.)  You're free to take as long as you want, and go wherever you like.

 

If you think it should be more punishing, I'm open to suggestions, but personally I head right for town when I get that quest.

 

Regarding typos, I can only export the full mod (using your script).  I can't filter it.  Meaningful checking would involve a grammar checker (the 3 items recently reported wouldn't have been caught by a spelling checker).  I'm not all that worried, though.  My proofreading isn't that bad, and I encourage players to report typos, which I fix right away.

I think it should be remove.  Sorry, but Master or Mistress are sending the slave forward to take the risk and earn more gold.  The only way the over-burden should work is if the PC reach that point, then all the gold including what it sold later on should go to the owner.  The fact that she is participating in bringing all the loot should be irrelevant.   After all she gave free rain to the slave to bring more gold.  Maybe a punishment forcing her to make more coins selling her slave body, so the slave is more selective on the loot she pick-up?

[Arch]

On 3/30/2021 at 4:10 PM, HexBolt8 said:

Yes, sorry.  I should have clarified.  I'll update the post again.  It's not like erasing is going to rub through the paper.

  

Great!  And it works with Pet Collar.

 

What do you mean when you say it works with Pet collar?  Are there hidden integrations?

[Operand]

17 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

If you think it should be more punishing, I'm open to suggestions, but personally I head right for town when I get that quest.

 

Yes. There needs to be a way to make her behave. The already existing punishment here won't do as it does nothing to enforce the request. It can be ..

1. Master getting angry enough and just dragging her to the town (can be just a teleport to the nearest town as an implementation). In town, he then needs to ensure she learned her lesson:
   1. Forbid her from leaving home for some time (if she owns a home in that town)
   2. Forbid her from leaving town for some time
   3. Bind her to a cross or pillory in her home (if she owns a home in that town)
2. Master constantly nudging her to return? Like - force the dialogue with a demand to return.
   1. Progressively more devices each time she ignores the request? I.e. First request is already done (armbinder), then second one - maybe leg cuffs, third - corset and so on
   2. When demanding the return, master would also check if she misbehaved and unlocked any of her devices. He will then re-equip them in a locked state and take away any keys she has

So it's to ensure that she has much more need to return or even enforce the return. The reason PC may not want to return are some major issues like SLS (which I always use) - getting out of town is a huge hassle there and therefore PC would only return to the town when she got absolutely no other choice.

 

Speaking of SLS - it could be nice if you can add support for tolls there. It's that Master would pay the toll. This is important because:

1. It actually show that it's Master who's in charge and he's the one leading PC, not the other way around. From the RP perspective it's a great touch. I'd vote for any possible interaction where it's Master who pays for the stuff - it shows "who's actually the boss".
2. In case Master takes away any gold from PC, it's actually required - since otherwise there's no way to even leave town ("legally"). Another way here if of course to not take away all the gold from PC by Master, but I like this feature so much and I always set it to 100% and to all gold. PC shouldn't own any gold, it also brings a whole lot of issues that she needs to manage and that brings a lot of depth to the setting.

 

Another issue with SLS is the magicka drain. If PC has the magic curse she can't use magic. This can break certain quests in this mod. Example - sweeping. That is a spell which requires magicka to be above 0 to activate. As such if PC got this quest and has the curse, she's pretty much stuck at home forever. Of course, console to the rescue but the proper fix would be to either change the spell type so it allows usage with 0 magicka  or in general think of a way to integrate with SLS better.

 

And one more thing - PC should not receive sweeping quest with her arms bound (i.e. while in the process of the unburdening quest). It's unimmersive to say the least - I mean, the master knows her arms are bound, how is she supposed to sweep? And it brings in an issue that's hard to resolve:

• To tell the master they're in the city, she needs to go outside (because otherwise the master would say something about failing to get the location tags .. not the most immersive dialogue line, but I can live with it)
• If she goes outside, then the sweeping quest will start punishing her for not finishing the sweeping
• If she does not go outside and instead try to sweep, she'll fail to do so because of bound arms

 

In the end, it's possible to resolve by stepping outside and quickly flashing through the dialogue for finishing the unburden quest and then getting inside.. but it's kind of a gimmick and she still gets punished for no fault of her own.

[HexBolt8]

7 hours ago, Arch said:

What do you mean when you say it works with Pet collar?  Are there hidden integrations?

Just that it recognizes Pet Collar as a valid collar.

 

4 hours ago, Operand said:

The already existing punishment here won't do as it does nothing to enforce the request.

Well I wouldn't call it "nothing".  Bound hands severely limits what a character can do, particularly in regard to combat.  It also blocks equipping items.

 

4 hours ago, Operand said:

In town, he then needs to ensure she learned her lesson

I think we're viewing this event very differently.  Lola hasn't been bad, so there's no reason to punish her.  The dialog in the original mod suggested that the owner was pre-emptively stopping Lola from shifting heavy loot to the owner to carry (I've added an optional new mechanism to limit the ability to load up the owner).  If Lola's carrying a lot of stuff, the owner decides that it's time to sell that off and relax (hence the quest title).  Lola is free to choose which major town, but her hands stay tied to keep her from starting anything new.  It's just forcing a decision on Lola, not punishment.

 

4 hours ago, Operand said:

The reason PC may not want to return are some major issues like SLS (which I always use) - getting out of town is a huge hassle there and therefore PC would only return to the town when she got absolutely no other choice.

Couldn't you travel to a major town, rather than a walled city?

 

4 hours ago, Operand said:

Speaking of SLS - it could be nice if you can add support for tolls there. It's that Master would pay the toll.

This mod's expense money feature lets you take gold from the owner to pay expected expenses.  That would reasonably include tolls.

 

5 hours ago, Operand said:

Another way here if of course to not take away all the gold from PC by Master, but I like this feature so much and I always set it to 100% and to all gold.

Again, the expense money feature.  It's fairly new, so you might not have seen it.  Set owner's share to 100% of all gold, but you can still pay for rooms, food, booze, and tolls.

[bubba999]

Is there a way that removing Devious Devices added by trapped chests can be removed like in Devious Followers? Like, Mistress will remove items that She Didn't Add for, say 250g each? Since she takes away keys there's no sense in buying keys somewhere....