Purple Overkill wrote:
I don't understand the relevance if talking about punishment vs redemption here?
And what do you say is the difference between Right and Good?
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
If by less torture you mean zero torture, sure...
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
These people have lots of scruples and feelings. They just believe the afterlife is a much better mode of existence than life. They're not nihilists. they don't want NOTHING. They just want something different than life on the material plane.
Souls go to the plane they're the most philosophically aligned with correct? Not sure Abaddon is the right one for their philosophy even if the death of mortal life is a shared goal. Daemons hate all mortal life, but really just want to kill so they can get to the mortal soul and eat it. This cult wants everyone to continue existing as Petitioners or other outsiders.
At what point does well-intentioned extremism become unequivocally evil?
Assuming the people involved have a high enough HD, what should the members of this wacko cult detect as?
The members of this cult have come to the conclusion (mostly by having lived through some really bad and violent times) that life, in general, is suffering. Whether there is a greedy and uncaring aristocracy that refuses to help the starving peasants, or malicious raiders who kill and enslave any who can't defend themselves, or scheming devils who attempt to warp and corrupt everything you love into depravity, life is, in their view, defined by suffering. What simple pleasures can be had in life are just temporary reprieves for most before the suffering resumes. The cult believes that just solving the immediate crises plaguing the people isn't enough, as a new generation is born and they will surely suffer as well when a new crisis arrives. No, in order to break the karmic cycle of suffering, to transcend mortal suffering, life must end. The good souls will get their eternal reward in the heavens, free from suffering, and the evil souls that have been malicious causing others to suffer will suffer their just rewards as well in the lower planes. As they see things, in the afterlife, common causes of suffering like,hunger, disease, warring kingdoms, etc are, for the most part, just not a factor. To that end, the cult has decided that the most efficient way to do so is with a special disease they've concocted. Is painless even as it weakens and kills the body. They offer a message of peace and hope to anyone who would listen, and actively oppose any groups or individuals (even in the face of personal peril) that would cause suffering to others, even as they wait for their disease to spread and end life. They do not do this with any expectations of reward or gain, but merely because they believe this is the right thing to do.
The alignment rules state:
This cult could arguably check off the list for Altruism and Concern for the dignity of sentient beings (although yes, there may be a bit of cognitive dissonance in their beliefs), as they make personal sacrifices to help others. Of course they do not have Respect for Life. Their entire philosophy disrespects Living as a way of life (no pun intended).
This cult does kill, of course, primarily through spreading their disease, but they don't do it out of sport, or do it out of convenience to get something else they want. They do end up hurting people, since killing off members of society deceases society's ability to function, not to mention the mental anguish of people losing loved ones. The cult doesn't quite see it that way of course, or perhaps some members see it like the pain of a needle to inject a necessary medicine. there is pain, but it is for a beneficial situation later. Regarding oppression, not only do they not do they, they actively oppose it.
Their intent is arguably good, but the side effect (everyone being dead) is probably not good. But, they do try to minimize suffering on the way to their desired end. So, how should the objective morality of the universe label these cultists?
Not technically true. A WtW in regular form can take weapon damage normally (albeit it has huge DR). In swarm form a barbarian with a greataxe can't hurt it without special equipment of feats.
What I'm saying is that if a normal snowball I pick up off the round can affect a WtW (assuming I can bypass DR somehow), then, logically, why can't a snowball i conjure up affect the WtW? Regardless of whether I propel or using my arm or via a magical push, the snowball should hit and splatter against the WtW in the same fashion?
That's the thing. It is NOT a hard and fast rule. "Always" evil, by RAW, is basically one in millions will be non-evil. The non-evil fiend follows the rule perfectly. The rule just states that 99.999999% of fiends are evil.
Every person is unique. Therefore, by your logic, we should discount every single person's story? You can correctly say that the vast majority of demons are so difficult to redeem that the chances of seeing one in your lifetime is almost zero. You can't correctly say demons are irredeemable period. Because if there is at least one example, your point is refuted.
I'm currently playing a Nocticula heretical worshipper in a wrath of the righteous campaign, trying to redeem Nocticula. Things got really interesting/messy when the NPC Paladins found out. It was right around the time we brought back a certain succubus who was claiming to be redeemed as well.
The crusaders did not...react well.
Not all CE deities or demon lords would withdraw support from CN worshippers. Nocticula specifically grants spells to her CN worshippers. Her CE worshippers really hate that though.
Next time on "Alignment and You!" we will quibble with such questions as "Do paladins fall if they slaughter an animal for food?", "How much collateral damage is 'too much'?", and "Can a paladin even actually kill a villian?"
Collateral damage is a very important and pertinent issue when it comes to alignment. You Can a paladin leading a war use a weapon of mass destruction that will hit some civilians if it will end up saving more lives?
for ease of play, I would suggest that the barbarian delays his initiative so that him and the eidolon go at the same time. That way, you can both both attack the same target witt he same charge, at the same time.
And yes, as long as the eidolon has a shape capable of riding the mount, there's nothing saying it can't.
Would you say a Paladin would be justified in smiting heretical worshippers of Nocticula?