T O P

  • By -

Storyteller-Hero

A fun mind shock about Asmodeus cultists, is that most of them are probably just regular people who have been convinced that the troubles and disappointments of their lives aren't being addressed by the gods, and that they could be happier serving "the one god who does". One might think that devil worshippers suffer in Hell, but suffering souls are typically those who have turned against the gods altogether without making any deals with devils, or those who commit upon evil paths while forsaking faith/worship altogether. Those who worship and/or contract with the devils are typically on the track to entering the hierarchy of Baator AS devils, and not the batteries + currency that un-contracted souls become in the Hells. Said devil worshippers could be raising normal families in the communities, and their kids could see the murderers of the cultists as the real evil beings of the world, ironically turning to the devils for the power to avenge their parents.


Ninja-Storyteller

To be fair, being a devil is absolutely horrible by our standards, and the standards of almost every ordinary person in the Forgotten Realms, Oerth, Eberron, and even Exandria. The entry level devils get tortured until their mind shatters and they lose any sense of identity, to better function as cogs in the great infernal machine. And most mortals won't start higher than your bog standard imp, which is still a hideously painful transformation followed by grueling quotas, thankless decades, and a future of still getting your mind hammered by Glengarry Glen Ross mantas. But most people don't know that. They don't put it on the brochure.


AccordingJellyfish99

So the average retail worker...


Storyteller-Hero

If it's a contracted soul that becomes a devil, the draw to signing the deal may be getting to start at imp or higher instead of being a raw recruit lemure, with memories retained and opportunities for advancement more readily available as a reward for "good faith". Those who willingly serve are more valuable than those made to serve against their will, with exceptions depending on talent and skill. The majority of souls that end up in the Maggot Pit would likely be un-contracted souls, but contracts can be an exception to the norm. In case one imagines that a devil might lie in the fine print, it's worth noting that devils can't renege on a contract like demons might - they have rules by which they must abide, so fraudulent promises **in contract** would be tried and punished by their court system, especially when their rivals learn about such violations of the infernal code of laws. To maintain and expand his church across the multiverse, Asmodeus has to at least provide perks for sticking with him - he won't treat his own followers like any non-believer that ends up in Hell. A honeytrap of evil still needs honey for the trap.


Ninja-Storyteller

I honestly think most people who sign on to start as Imps+ do terrible at their jobs and get *demoted* to Lemure pretty quickly. The ones who don't get shipped off to the Blood War, that is. It's the perfect trap for devils to offer a higher starting position, and then watch you fail backwards due to your raging incompetence at the job. And for the few people who DO thrive? Well, that suits the devils just fine. Another cog in the machine, punching timecards and getting exploited.


snowhowhow

Dude, imps aren't the lowest form of fiends... Lemurs and larvas are, and that's sucks... I wish everyone who found themself in that state of existence not to give up and remember our lord and saviour Orcus, who fought the hierarchy of demons through sheer fucking determination! Same approach goes everywhere!


HallowedKeeper_

The cassalanter family are just a bunch of rich nobles who are trying to free their children


Bayley78

Well from a deal they agreed to. On top of that they plan to murder 100 people to get out of it.


ReverseMathematics

Not sure if you have kids or not, but it would not be as difficult of a decision as you think to kill 100 people to save my kids. And if it were one of those "If you push this button, your kids live, but 100 random people drop dead" so that I didn't have to be the one to physically do it, I'd be slamming that thing so fast.


tosety

But it's still an evil act to actively kill people even if it's to save your children. I could see the allure of it if I imagine my son or daughter needing an organ transplant and I happen to have the means to kill someone to get my child that organ, but it's still illegal and immoral


ReverseMathematics

Oh, definitely an evil act, for sure. I wouldn't pretend for a minute that it's a reasonable course of action either.


Bayley78

Yea but like they also used them as a collateral with the literal devil for the original deal. I dare you to say you’d do that with your own.


EducationalBag398

The Christian "devil" and the Devils in the Nine Hells are very different things


sundalius

Tbf, Asmodeus himself and the Christian Devil are less so different things.


SamubGamer

Happy Cake Day!


Atlas_Zer0o

Ay but a devil knows this and random ends up being your wife and other child or something.


magicallum

Spoilers for the 2009 film "The Box" >!The basic plot of the film was that a struggling couple is offered wealth if they push a red button, which will kill someone that they have never met. The twist is that the person it's killing is the person who previously pressed the button. So by pushing the button, you doom yourself. It always seemed very fiendish.!<


Harkibald

Based on "Button, Button" by Richard Matheson. Something I love about this story is that the movie, the Twilight Zone episode, and the original story each have different endings.


lucasribeiro21

What are the endings? The premise is so good, but the movie’s ending was worse than shit, with all that alien stuff. It surely disappointed me.


Harkibald

The alien stuff was bonkers. I strongly recommend checking out Richard Matheson stories! He wrote "I Am Legend" which also had Hollywood ruin it's ending. "Last Man On Earth" starring Vincent Price is a much better adaptation of that one. All of his stories I've read have that awesome weird and creepy but not particularly gory kind of horror Twilight Zone: >!It's sort of similar, but it's only implied that the next button press will kill the wife. It feels very very different. No aliens, just a mysterious guy with a box!< Short story: >!When she pushes the button, the husband gets pushed in front of a train. The insurance check happens to be the exact amount promised by the button guy. She gets upset and Button Guy says "Do you really think you knew your husband?"!<


TheGoobles

Sure, but it’s their own doing. They made a deal for wealth and power in exchange for their kids becoming devils. The 100 kills is just for a chance to back out of the consequences for the remaining two kids.


GreeksAndCreeks

> And if it were one of those "If you push this button, your kids live, but 100 random people drop dead" so that I didn't have to be the one to physically do it, I'd be slamming that thing so fast. Yikes you’re a really bad person in this hypothetical.


sundownmonsoon

Well, until any of those 100 people are someone's kids, and then their parents are willing to also kill 100 people to save them. It's a bit silly.


[deleted]

Why is that silly that people would sacrifice others to save their own? It's the most basic of survival insticts and one if the reasons why we as humans surived during eras where weren't at the top of food chain. No would fault the reason, only the actions.


GreeksAndCreeks

> Why is that silly that people would sacrifice others to save their own? Because we developed this thing called “morality” thousands of years ago.


Sun_Tzundere

Well, then that makes you unbelievably evil and you should die. But not everyone in the temple is like you.


pifuhvpnVHNHv

Sorry to tell you but being willing to murder 100 people to save just one is actually very evil.


TheUltimateShammer

Sure, but someone killing you to prevent you from doing that would absolutely be justified in doing so. Especially given how it's not a rational decision you could be persuaded from.


ReverseMathematics

Absolutely! And that's a fantastic premise for a campaign with a sympathetic villain. I've said from the start that I make no attempts to convince others that it isn't an evil act, just that I think it would be very surprising to some what a parent would be willing to do to save their kids.


Memnoch0103

It should be


Denmen707

Their children we're dying, in their eyes they saved them by agreeing to the deal. Now a few years later they will again try to save them, yes by murdering 100 people. But to them those people don't matter, their children do. They would do anything to save those children. The Cassalanters are one of the few good Devil deals I've seen. There are plenty of people that agree to deals that save themselves. This one felt different.


Enaluxeme

> But to them those people don't matter, their children do. Lack of empathy is evil. Saving your own by willingly causing more suffering is egotistical.


sundalius

What part says they aren’t empathetic? That they aren’t tormented by it? Making the evil choice doesn’t mean they aren’t empathetic, or lack it, it means another motivator superseded it.


Enaluxeme

The part where they willingly sacrifice a large number of people. If they fail to recognize that those people also have feelings and people who care about them they lack empathy. If they do recognize but are still willing to make the sacrifice that's evil too anyway.


sundalius

I never said it wasn’t evil, I said it didn’t indicate a lack of empathy. You’re very insistent that they fail to recognize these things, but my point is that the things they feel coercing then to still pick themselves means they can be evil and empathetic. Someone who is told to kill someone or they’ll die in a hostage situation can be fully empathetic but put survival over empathy.


Dustorn

If murdering 100 people to save your children is your idea of good, I'm terrified to see your idea of evil.


ahhthebrilliantsun

Murdering 100 people to make you children suffer


GooCube

The Cassalanter parents are literally the reason their own kids are even in danger. They made a deal to exchange their children's souls for wealth and success, but after one kid was taken suddenly they actually care. Perhaps of they weren't the direct cause of their children's situation I could empathize with them a bit and see them as good people who were simply driven to evil by extreme desperation, but as is they just selfishly doomed their own children and now want to escape the consequences via even more selfish means.


i_tyrant

These are good tips for humanizing cults IRL, though while cults in D&D may have similar _origins_ in practice it depends on the DM. Since D&D is a world where you can get _literal physical power_ from making pacts and performing sacrifices for fiends, it doesn't take long for "I just joined to get food" to turn into "yeah we just sacrificed a family of four on that altar and now I can _take_ food with my _fire beam eyes_, sweet!" As soon as a cultist starts participating in murder/torture/etc. (extremely common cult stuff for D&D), I think it's ok to lock 'em in a barn and burn 'em. Can you be sure every single member in there did it? Maybe not...but then again, is your world one where cults' dealings are mostly unknown, or one where even your average commoner knows fiendish cults are _famous_ for eating babies n' shit? Like, what did they _think_ they were gonna be doing joining that? Also I don't think there's any D&D lore that stats _everyone_ who makes a pact with fiends gets to skip the Lemure/Larva stage in Hell. It depends whether that was in the pact's terms, and lots of people make pacts for purely pre-afterlife reasons. The more concessions you ask for, in this life or the next, the higher the cost.


ur_meme_is_bad

Your party is not a fan of due process either, I see.


TheUltimateShammer

Due process depends on the legal system doesn't it? If it's more of a medieval European setting then this is probably more due process than most people got.


NotObviouslyARobot

They get due process. Due process of law is summary execution in this case.


sundalius

Imagine asking your god for scorching ray instead of create food/water smh


i_tyrant

Imagine being a fiend that actually gives them what they need instead of what you guide them toward to make them more evil. :P


WWalker17

> is that most of them are probably just regular people who have been convinced that the troubles and disappointments of their lives aren't being addressed by the gods, and that they could be happier serving "the one god who does". Warhammer is kind of the same in some ways. When people's lives are so bad that they feel the Emperor of Mankind has failed them, the gods of Chaos are there for them, if at horrible costs in exchange for their "gifts"


CurtisLinithicum

It's Warhammer Fantasy, and has possibly the worst cover art ever, but *Plague Daemon* handled this well. From memory: *The desperate mother, holding the limp, sweat-soaked form of her child after a week of unbreaking fever, calls out into the night, "please, anyone but my child!".* *And sometimes the night answers, "then who?"*


Drasha1

What are the gods honestly doing for people? Asmodeus is over here fighting the armies of the abyss so demons don’t consume the mortal realms. The gods and all their servants are just kind of chilling over on their planes. Occasionally they give mortals some power but that’s about it.


Groudon466

The Good-aligned gods act as a way for neutral and even somewhat evil people to end up in the Upper Planes when they die. That’s extremely helpful, and far better than people ending up in Mechanus or Limbo just because they didn’t go out of their way to be good.


Gr1mwolf

Weren’t they actively turning people into living mortar for their precious “wall” if they didn’t worship them in older editions? As in fusing their still sentient soul into a giant wall of souls until it eventually burned out and faded from existence altogether?


Groudon466

They retconned that out of existence in 5e because it was stupid. Or at least, it’s no longer up. Like, they errata’d it out of the original SCAG (or whatever book it was in). Additionally, even when it was up (if that’s still canon at all) it was changed after Kelemvor came into power. In the novel Crucible: Trial of Cyric the Mad, we see Kelemvor’s version of the wall. Instead of being made of people, it’s just a magical mirrored wall that reflects people’s true selves. This is contradicted by one of the oooolllld video games, but the novels and game books take precedence.


TomFoolery22

Calling NWN2 old with four Os and Ls makes me want to adjust my high-waisted pants and shake my cane at you, you whippersnapper you.


Groudon466

Knew I'd get someone with that, lol.


Halinn

So they're good because as gatekeepers they let people into the nice places?


gothism

Spreading love, defending nature and justice.


MonsutaReipu

Yeah but being on a path to become a devil = evil, at least strictly in DnD terms where demons are evil and there's no ethical or moral grey area about it.


Buroda

Sounds like a hybrid of scientology and nazism. I mean seriously, these people are serving an evil god (and doubtlessly committing evil acts) in order to secure a better place in THE evil hierarchy. I don’t think that having a family really counts as a redeeming factor when these people are contributing actively or passively to an organization that ruins many, many families more. Risking being a repeated Godwin’s Law violator, I must reiterate: this is akin to joining a neonazi organization that doesn’t even pretend it’s anything but. And it’s happening in a setting where “evil” is not a moral judgement but a measurable entity. So in other words, what these people will be doing is akin to blowing up a theater in Inglorious Bastards. At worst a morally neutral act, at best a net positive.


mcvoid1

* Immanuel Kant says it's evil because murder is evil in and of itself. * Jeremy Bentham says it depends on how many people would be hurt if they lived.


Icy_Sector3183

Burning a temple full of devil worshippers in a world where that actually means they are a deadly threat to society? The act is evil. The results is a lesser evil than letting them live and then failing to peacefully neutralize the threat they represent. A good solution is to demonstrate that their current path leads to suffering and rebuild their empathy with their would-be victims so they can return to society. But good luck with that!


ParticularSafe6709

Nietzsche?


Icy_Sector3183

Dunno, I'm an engineer and never took the Examen Philosophicum.


MastaShakeZula

What would St. Thomas Aquinas say?


mcvoid1

That as it's not practicing one of the holy virtues, it will not make a person more holy either way. PHIL 102 - Intro to Ethics, paying off big time today.


Jejmaze

No idea, but back in old testament days burning a temple full of *evil cultists* was considered BASED


realBillyC

Virgin categorical imperative vs. CHAD utilitarianism Common [*philosophers with B last names*] W😎😎


Wallname_Liability

Hegel?


casualsubversive

This is why everyone hates the Moral Philosophy Professor class.


ForeverTheElf

Cool motive, still murder.


Beavt8r

Unexpected B99 :)


YellowLugh

I could HEAR Peralta while reading your comment.


albt8901

Yes.


WonderfulWafflesLast

Well, it depends, actually. In 1st edition, it was a team game. Meaning, Their Team (Evil) VS Our Team (Good). Here's an example of how Gygax viewed it, from himself: >Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide. Generally speaking, removing evil from the world is inherently good, regardless of method in 1e. In 5th edition, it's more complicated only in that the terms don't mean what they mean to us in real life. Good is being selfless. Evil is being selfish. Lawful is being disciplined. Chaotic is being impulsive or equivalent (such as madness). In OPs example, it would be evil in 5e to do that, unless there were a greater reason to do so, like they were trying to complete a ritual that would cause many innocents to die. Then, it's just combat at a larger scale to stop them from succeeding, and the potential sacrifices made to achieve killing them is a part of the selfless nature of being Good.


williamrotor

Burning down the temple would be a "Good" action but not a good action. Being on the right sports team doesn't mean it's okay to throw a punch in the stands.


Baguetterekt

I would argue that cultists actively participating in bringing devils to wreak havoc on innocents puts them well outside the stands and onto the playing field.


IsawaAwasi

That sounds like your Evil isn't Evil enough. In my games, nobody gets an Evil alignment without doing genuinely awful things like murdering innocents or torturing people. And worshipping Evil gods requires doing those things.


TimmJimmGrimm

This is the correct D&D answer. The alignment system, developed by Gary E. Gygax, was not meant as a solution to tens of thousands years of philosophical inquiry - nor was this a device to answer the conflict between all religions, including atheism - nor was the plan to correlate psychological issues (even though Mr. Gygax literally included a few of the labels on some of his charts!) with 'good' and 'evil'. It was to allow you to feel better about playing the damn game. You are the White Hat. THEY are the Black Hats. You want to avoid becoming a Black Hat. You get literal math-oriented experience POiNTS for slaughter of the Black Hats. That's it. I mean, i find it fun to argue what is good and evil. But it is a GAME. It is not meant to solve world issues. Heck, it is a horrible physics engine. But other players that want to play the GAME really do not want assholes like me discussing this kind of thing for ten to forty hours just because i took a string of ethics courses when i was younger. Thank you for this accurate description. **Yes. Burning people alive is evil, in-game. That's... not nice.** The rest is Out Of Game stuff and, although i love it personally, please do not do this to your fellow players.


cult_leader_venal

> developed by Gary E. Gygax It's E. Gary Gygax, you heretic!


DeLoxley

And I always thought it was Gar E. Gygax, King of the Nerds


Harbinger2001

Funny. I get the opposite from Gygax’s alignment system. Killing worshippers of an evil god is perfectly fine because the alignment system says you’re opposed to evil. What if the worshippers are orcs? D&D, as you said, is a game, not an exploration of moral relativism. Evil is bad and it’s okay to kill evil.


Gnashinger

It also just really depends on how evil is defined in you game. Evil could just be that someone is a dick, like in the Fable games. Evil could also be a political affiliation. The forces of good vs the forces of evil where good and evil is just cosmetic. Evil could also be straight up evil. Black and white, pure good and evil, with very little gray inbeween. The answer the the OPs question is really going to end up being dependent on the setting and the mood of the campaign, but sometimes evil is just evil.


ruat_caelum

I agree as well. A paladin killing baby goblins is fine because they are "evil creatures" the alignment system was used exactly for this reason so tables didn't break down into 5 hour philosophical arguments.


poindexter1985

Ahh, yes, the D&D alignment system, famous for *avoiding* philosophical arguments.


estneked

>THEY are the Black Hats. You want to avoid becoming a Black Hat. You get literal math-oriented experience POiNTS for slaughter of the Black Hats. > >Burning people alive is evil, in-game. That's... not nice. I sense a disconnect there. I am rewarded by killing black hats, but if I kill them the wrong way I become one of them.


whirlpool_galaxy

Gygax has said on public forums that killing orc babies is lawful good, quoting a 19th century advocate for indigenous genocide. I don't think we should base ourselves on what that guy thought on morality.


NoobHUNTER777

Not just quoting the genocide advocate, but specifically taking a quote from something *directly* genocidal he said and calling it Good.


TimmJimmGrimm

Gary contradicted himself many times. Heck, most ethical philosophers contradict themselves many times. My point remains the same: you decide what works for your game. It is not my place to argue. Congratulations, it looks like you have made up your mind. Now you can get back to your game.


grendelltheskald

Uh that really doesn't jive. Retributive justice is a part of lawfulness and goodness, according to Gygax himself. The whole idea of necessary heroism didn't even really come into the game until ad&d2e and that was a response to the Satanic Panic. One of the classes in the Ad&d1e PHB is the Assassin which is ALWAYS evil. That's a playable option. Thieves had to be neutral or evil. Here is Gygax answering what is and is not lawful or good: > Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide. > An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. > The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...  [...] > I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws. 


cdcformatc

>Uh that really doesn't jive. Retributive justice is a part of lawfulness and goodness, according to Gygax himself. honestly why would someone invoke Gygax when the quote you reproduced exists and is very obvious what Gygax thought about the alignment system. He wasn't very subtle about it there's not much interpretation.


Downtown-Command-295

The alignment system, developed by Gygax, is bullshit and always has been.


Totally_Generic_Name

Can I interest you in using the Magic the Gathering colour wheel for determining your next character's personality and motivations?


TheYellowScarf

I'm still suprised they didn't put it in Ravnica or Strixhaven as an optional.


BlackFlameEnjoyer

No you can't. Its barely better and it taking itself too seriously as a worldbuilding tool made the flavor of the game worse. Read more nuanced fiction and/ or some actual moral or political philosophy if you want deeper character motivations.


sfPanzer

I heavily disagree. Burning people alive isn't inherently evil or good. It depends a lot on the circumstances and the reasons for doing so. If you do it just because you like to see them dead or because you like the screams then yes it's evil. It's a very selfish action. If you do it because they are the kind of worshippers that do evil stuff like sacrificing and torturing people, perhaps even summoning monsters, but you alone could never take care of them all other than locking them in a barn and burn the whole thing down ... then that's not an evil act at all. You did it to save others and it was the best approach for someone with limited means. Heck, Angels, beings who are literally locked into the Good alignment, are known to burn down whole towns in their way, innocent included, just to get rid of some bigger evil. Good != nice.


Malithirond

I mean, really with as many fire spells and magic effects the game has don't players burn people to death on a pretty regular basis?


sfPanzer

They do, yeah.


TimmJimmGrimm

Your game! Your decision. You get an upvote.


Savings_Arachnid_307

I'd consider it ineffective. Do you know how many fire resistent or even immune people are Asmodeus Cultists, it's a lot.


lairedae

Exactly what my husband said when I read this out loud. ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|joy)


sfPanzer

Yeah fire is the thing Devils use all the time thanks to their own immunity (especially in their war against demons who are merely resistant). Chances are some high ranking cultist can handle it better than an ordinary human lol


Mandriser

Asmodeus: Uhhh... Thanks bro..


My_Only_Ioun

Wrong. Divinities cultivate mortal followers for their souls, and for advancing their plans on the Material. The longer someone lives, the more their soul grows. Asmodeus wants those followers to live long full lives, become wise and strong, so their souls are better material for Hell.


IkeIsNotAScrub

**Some Common Moral Frameworks that I'm Going to Simplify Because This is a Reddit Comment and Im Not a Moral Philosopher:** **Virtue Ethics:** This is the ethical framework most traditional "heroes" operate under. It puts the virtues of the individual foremost - to be good is to hold true to certain values. To be brave, to be honest, to be fair, generous... Be a person worth looking up to. I think most virtue ethicists would say that indiscriminately killing everyone in the temple without chance for surrender or trial shows poor moral character and is thus bad. **Deontology:** There are moral absolutes - things that are right and wrong under a set of predefined rules and assumptions. What is good is what upholds these rules. If the code of morality involves not killing without fair trial/chance for surrender/without immediate concern for self defense, then most deontologists probably wouldn't like immolating a church filled with worshippers. > *Note: There's a lot of places where deontological rules can come from, leading to a lot of different definitions for what "right" can look like. One might believe that they are commanded by divinity to behave in certain ways - as might be common in a D&D world. If a world has an omnibenevelont, 100% definitionally good deity, and they command "Kill devils and all who associated with them", it may be considered moral to immolate the church.* **Utilitarianism:** Morality doesn't come from a code or sense of virtuous character, it comes from the outcomes of our actions, and what is good is whatever increases net happiness in the world. A utilitarian could easily justify the immolation of a temple worshipping a powerful and harm-causing deity, but would likely seek additional information before coming to their decision - Is it possible to round up the worshippers and address the situation peacefully, is it possible to worship an "evil" god in a benevolent/beneficial way, is there a dire need to immediately destroy the temple lest greater consequences follow, would such an act provoke retaliation from other worshippers or otherwise make them more dangerous in the future? Morality becomes a question of epistemology, as we try to understand the possible outcomes of our actions to plot a course of action which best promotes happiness.


Kile147

This is why I prefer the MtG color wheel for PC alignments. Not necessarily because it's an inherently better system but because it's an inherently amoral system that doesn't judge, apply morality, or apply alignment to specific actions but rather to motives. Moral philosophy is a complicated subject and rather than debate good and evil, it's a lot easier to just ask why a character might do a thing. In this case, simply burning down a church full of cultists isn't enough information to apply a color wheel alignment to since we need to understand why someone is doing it. If forced I could make an assumption and assume that Red is involved because it feels like an emotional and chaotic move that didn't involve a whole lot of planning though.


SleetTheFox

It would largely depend on how Asmodeus is worshiped. Asmodeus himself is unbelievably evil. Are they people with misguided and harmful religious beliefs, or are they, like, actively dangerous terrorists? Dropping a bunker buster on a compound full of civilian-slaughtering religious extremist insurgents is very different from burning down an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church.


APanshin

I'd also draw the distinction between infernal cultists and worshipers of Asmodeus. A distinction that's blurred because Asmodeus straddles the line between devil and god, depending on the edition and setting. But to lay out the difference... Peter is an infernal cultist. He steals neighborhood pets and sacrifices them for good luck. Three months ago he worked up the courage to ambush a vagrant, a sacrifice that rewarded him with an imp familiar. The imp is now encouraging him to set his sights higher. Jimmy is a worshiper of Asmodeus. He thinks the established social order of the pantheon is bullshit. He tells girls he's a rebel and an anti-establishment thinker. He tells his mom it's not a phase, she just doesn't understand. Killing Peter is arguably a good act. It brings a murder to justice and prevents further evil acts in active preparation. It may not be a lawful act, if his execution is done by freelance vigilantes instead of under commission of a legitimate authority, but if done with full knowledge of his crimes it fits the general adventurer ethos. Killing Jimmy is an evil act. He's done nothing worse than be a posturing edgelord, which isn't a capital crime by any sane legal definition. Killing him for his choice of patron deity is the worst sort of religious zealotry, the sort of thing heroes are supposed to stop, not commit. Until Jimmy acts to harm others, killing him is murdering an innocent.


Groudon466

Hot take: killing people for their choice of deity is only necessarily wrong irl because we don’t know which religion is correct, and no religions are nearly as bad as Asmodeus worship. If we knew that one or more religions were real, then someone who worships a being who wants people to go to Real Actual Hell isn’t just being an edgelord. They’re spreading a belief system with consequences for its worshippers that are infinitely worse than the literal Holocaust. Even the Nazis only killed their victims. Tricking them into selling their souls and being condemned to eternal torment is so much worse that it’s not even comparable. People have a hard time imagining eternity; it might help to describe it as “Experiencing the horrors of the Holocaust for a lifetime, and then another lifetime, and then again and again and again forever except it’s even worse”. That is what the Asmodeus worshipper is supporting. With that in mind… how seriously do you think you would take a devil worshipper living next door? Being within walking distance of your kids? How seriously would you take the infernal contracts they offer? People irl attempt suicide, and often regret it if they survive and go on to live well. There’s no “survival” for an infernal contract- the neighbor only needs to convince your son to sign his soul away during his edgy phase, once, and he’s going to be tortured forever after death and there’s nothing you can ever do to save him. He might not even realize he signed it away- we accept EULAs constantly without reading them. If any of this were real, I would kill every Asmodeus worshipper on sight. Almost everybody would, and it would be completely okay. I don’t care if someone protests that *they* aren’t having people sign infernal contracts- they’re directly supporting and donating to the people who do. If their support as an individual makes it even 1% more likely that a good person will be tricked into selling their soul, then their actions are already more vile than the foulest acts in WWII. I hope I’ve gotten the point across enough about how *abominably bad* it is to worship the Devil in a world where the devil is real and actively encouraging people to trick other, good people into going to Hell forever. They can all die. ———- IRL Satanists are chill, of course. Most of them wouldn’t be Satanists if they knew there was an actual evil being torturing others in a pit of fire.


Venator_IV

You have the most rational POV I didn't expect someone to bring this up on Reddit With undeniable proof it's *real* the context of religious interactions changes completely


psychotaenzer

>He's done nothing worse than be a posturing edgelord, which isn't a capital crime by any sane legal definition. Which is a damn shame.


BlackFlameEnjoyer

Edgy comment ngl


grendelltheskald

Asmodeus is an unquestionably evil archdevil that requires his subjects do human sacrifice. It's not a Baptist Church.


SleetTheFox

That was a rhetorical question; my understanding is it varies by setting (though him being very evil seems to be a constant). Outside of D&D, though, I did want to clarify that IFB churches are much more extreme than your typical Baptist church.


HopeFox

Yes, obviously, for a couple of reasons: 1. Firstly, when you have the choice between murder and not murder, choosing murder is always evil. If there's a better way, good people always have to take it. 2. Secondly, Asmodeus is, in some settings, a moderately mainstream object of worship. Not everybody who pays homage to Asmodeus is a serial killer. If it were a temple of Iuz or Vecna or Nerull, there might be a stronger argument for this approach, but again, see point 1.


cop_pls

> Secondly, Asmodeus is, in some settings, a moderately mainstream object of worship. Not everybody who pays homage to Asmodeus is a serial killer. If it were a temple of Iuz or Vecna or Nerull, there might be a stronger argument for this approach, but again, see point 1. This is an important one because it applies to a lot of evil gods. Sailors in the Forgotten Realms give tribute and prayers to Umberlee. That doesn't make them Chaotic Evil cultists in service to a Chaotic Evil goddess, it makes them reasonable people trying to avoid getting drowned by her wrath.


TNTiger_

Also with real precedent. Many of the more brutal Indo-European Deities were venerated more out of fear than love. You don't pray to Zeus cause you really. Like him that much, but because if you didn't he'd smite yo and yo family's asses.


cop_pls

Japanese Shinto practices are a smaller-scale variant on this, as far as I understand. You don't keep the *kami* happy because of grand theological implications. You keep the *kami* happy because otherwise your tree dies, and that's a nice tree.


The_Pandalorian

I'm just imagining a kami floating around and just being like, "*Fuck* your tree."


Kile147

Less veneration, more appeasement


gothism

This goes into something like 'no ethical consumption under capitalism.' I think normals in dnd worlds would get a pass for mild worship. Your mother is dying of disease and you pray to Talona to spare her, you live in an arctic land and you pray to Auril to overlook your family this winter, etc. Are you giving a bit of power to those gods by this worship, I'd say so, but who would begrudge you this? And do normals even know?


daemonicwanderer

Would the “normies” even know about alignment really? We as players know that Asmodeus is lawful evil. I would imagine that many people don’t think about or know the alignments of the gods or even themselves.


MinidonutsOfDoom

I mean the normal person in this setting is a solid neutral alignment and I think that applies rather nicely for a lot of thing. People of other alignments are the sort of thing you get when people dedicate themselves to particular aspects of their convictions, freedom, selfishness, selflessness, etc. and that's how you get the overall alignment system.


daemonicwanderer

Exactly. But I don’t think many people are like “Umberlee is a chaotic evil goddess”. They see her as capacious and mean.


EquivalentInflation

Slight disagree on the first one, but yeah, the second one is the real kicker. Asmodeus's *entire gimmick* is lying to people and manipulating them. You can't kill a number of his followers without doing checks to see if they're actually aware of who he is, or if he has managed to lure them in.


WWalker17

I disagreed with the first one, until i reread and saw "the choice between murder and not murder...". There are situations where murder is the only option, and in that case, it's not necessarily evil.


Korlus

> There are situations where murder is the only option, and in that case, it's not necessarily evil. In modern society, we tend to give those forms of killing their own name. E.g. "I killed him in self defence" is not the "premeditated killing" that murder requires. Similarly "I had to kill him, he was going to kill others" (in defence of another) is also not usually considered murder. I'll freely admit that this logic breaks down in some languages and countries, so it's definitely not universal. If you plan to kill someone as Option A, and never present or seriously consider or look for an Option B...


ReaperCDN

>Firstly, when you have the choice between murder and not murder, choosing murder is always evil. If there's a better way, good people always have to take it. Smiting evil is considered a righteous act in service of a good God. Mercy is the suspension of justice, and only the victim has the right to grant an aggressor clemency. Murder may be in fact the best way to remove a threat. For example: Destroying a lich, killing a dragon, killing a Kraken, killing an Elder Brain, destroying an evil, sentient artifact. All acts of good. However, yes. Individual worshippers could have been brought into the fold through any number of methods. Including outright deception.


Downtown-Command-295

Hard disagree with at least one point. Mercy is an integral part of justice. Without it, you lose 'let the punishment fit the crime' and you're beheading people for littering. Secondly, it's not murder if it's being done in self-defense or defense of others. The word is thrown around FAR too easily around these forums. Killing a dragon that's been killing people and torching towns? NOT MURDER. Killing a dragon that's just minding its own business and hasn't hurt anybody? MURDER.


ianyuy

Just something I like to reference whenever these topics show up: Here's a quote from Gygax, on what the "Lawful good" alignment means. >Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide. >An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct. >The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then... >Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question. >I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws. >Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not. >Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good." -Gary Gygax 2005


Smack-9

Yeah see no, killing prisoners to send them on to Heaven is not OK at my table.


Phirousa

In most fantasy settings the purpose of confinement less to help atone or rehabilitate the criminal, but more to punish them and deter others. A criminal that's so bad that Paladins or equivalent armed justiciaries have to involve themselves is definitely a mark of severity. I think It's reasonable that those LG characters who uphold generally fair and righteous law would see it respected in that sorta way, for the law is then good and must be defended.


Smack-9

But thats not what Gary is saying. Gary is saying if you capture some Christian soldiers who invaded your village in Afghanistan, tell them that they need to convert to Islam, then you are obligated to shoot them in the head once they do so to save their souls in case they backslide into heathen idolatry. (This hypothetical is not intended as an example of how Islam actually works but is constructed this way to demonstrate a point to an assumed American audience).


[deleted]

Which, if you're in a universe where you can actually be saved from hell by renouncing your "wrong" belief, makes sense. In a universe with actual forces of good/evil and construction/destruction, if you renounce your evil god and get yourself into favor with a not-evil god, it *does* make sense that sending them to "heaven" before they can re-earn their way into "hell" *is* reasonable and benevolent. You're saving someone's soul from a potential eternity of suffering. You're ensuring their souls are shuttled to paradise and not to eternal torture, or to become monsters/fuel or some such for the forces of the hells. All that said, none of the nonsense I wrote stands a real-life logic check. And I'm sure I mixed metaphors. I don't know DnD universe hells and stuff very well.


Smack-9

Which is why i refuse to run or play in a world where that makes sense.


Phirousa

I was gonna write some extended post but I think I misunderstood your initial post. I didn't mean to try to debate your disinterest in running such topics. That's completely understandable, and of course in any real life scenario it would be pretty vile


Smack-9

No worries. You take care. :)


[deleted]

Thanks for your time! I don't have anything else to add here - I posted my comment thinking you didn't "get" it, rather than just not agreeing (as I don't agree), but wanted to at least acknowledge you and bid you adieux. Happy new year.


ianyuy

So does nobody ever face the death penalty (hanging etc) in your world? Or is the issue that it wasn't judged first by a governmental body?


Smack-9

First of all, Gary is talking about converting prisoners at sword point and executing them to save their immortal soul, which is straight up war crimes shit. Second of all, DnD is a game of heroic fantasy. Summarily executing prisoners is not heroic. Now, it is also a game, and dealing with prisoners is a hassle. So its up to me as a DM to ensure that when a NPC surrenders, its something that will drive the story forward and be fun. An NPC who is an unrepentant monster and deserves death is not going to surrender as a rule, unless there's a story beat later on that this is a set up for. Gary had some weird fucking ideas about alignment and I'm not bound by them. I don't want to play a game where the heroes are running around killing orc babies in their cribs because "nits turn into lice," thats some genocide shit and I'm not here for it.


TheFirstIcon

>First of all, Gary is talking about converting prisoners at sword point and executing them to save their immortal soul, which is straight up war crimes shit. I think, based on how typical capital E Evil crimes like rape and murder were treated in medieval societies, the implication is that the paladin is executing the criminals because he is Lawful but he is giving them a chance to renounce their crimes because he is Good.


Downtown-Command-295

Yeah, while Gygax gets props for getting the whole thing rolling, the game has evolved FAR beyond him. This take is definitely proof of that. Hell, creating alignment was a colossal fucking mistake.


BMI0702

Gary Gygax was also kind of a fucking idiot and also a misogynist, so I'm not prone to listen to him on matters of morality.


ianyuy

Nobody has to listen to anyone's matters of morality. I just like to post it because many people believe their points of view is the way DnD "is intended to be" or other such things. When, in reality, we all have our own viewpoints and none of them are really canon.


Dr_Oatker

Hey Gary? What the fuck?


[deleted]

> It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then. If you read any actual history book about that time you'll notice that was complete and absolute nonsense. Gygax was right to not want to waste our times with ethics and philosophy because he was quite ignorant on the topic and not exactly the most suited person to do so based on his personal and business life.


MikeAlex01

>Firstly, when you have the choice between murder and not murder, choosing murder is always evil. I mean, it could very well fit within Lawful and Neutral depending on the circumstances. If your personal moral code indicates murdering someone who has done great damage to the world is a good act, then I would say that's Lawful. If you think that you, and the world, are better off without a person that has committed many terrible actions, then murder is Neutral since it goes to your benefit


rollingForInitiative

>I mean, it could very well fit within Lawful and Neutral depending on the circumstances. If your personal moral code indicates murdering someone who has done great damage to the world is a good act, then I would say that's Lawful. It would never fit Lawful. Execution and all that is perfectly Lawful Good, but there needs to be some sort of process to it. A trial, a sentence, a judgement, etc. Not necessarily a legal process, but you need to establish that who you're killing actually deserves it. If you just nuke a temple of Asmodeus, you might well kill innocents. People that were mislead and lied to. People who're there undercover. Etc. "I'll murder everyone I think might be evil and all collateral damage is fine" is definitely not LG. Same thing really goes for NG, for the same reasons. Wanton destruction and mass murder isn't Good.


gothism

What if, in your DM's world, a paladin is essentially also judge and jury?


[deleted]

But they didnt talk about lawful/chaotic?


kandoras

What setting has Asmodeus as a mainstream god less evil than Vecna? He was literally king of the devils before he attained godhood.


Lanavis13

Tbf, Asmodeus provides a service that is dearly vital to the sustainability and safety of the entire multiverse. Without the blood war, EVERYONE is fricked over. I don't think Vecna provides any service as useful as keeping the demonic incursion at bay.


rollingForInitiative

SCAG describes Asmodeus as accepting prayers both for reprieve from the fugue plane in the afterlife, and for people who have sinned in the eyes of other gods. So it kind of feels to me like there's really two sides to Asmodeus. There's the devil cults, who worship him the same way that people worship Demogorgon or Orcus. And then there's the divine side, with people who worship him based on his divine portfolio, which is not as overtly evil as Vecna's "evil secrets".


caprainyoung

Yes. An evil act committed against evil people is still an evil act.


[deleted]

Without any more information than that, I'm going to have to give this one a solid "maybe".


17thParadise

Nononono you're meant to give an answer without any of the relevant information to qualify your response


Gnashinger

And it has to be a hard one way or the other answer with no leniency and you must back it up no matter the situation.


JonIceEyes

Depends, are they all in there gleefully watching a child sacrifice? If so, it's fine. It has a lot more to do with what this congregation does than anything. If they just hear sermons about getting power over their oppressors and putting themselves first, then no you don't just murder them.


Biovyn

If you are a good aligned character and your god hates Asmodeus I'd say yes. In a fictional world were actual deities exist without the shadow of a doubt, good and evil is definitely more linked to your god than to just moral.


Harbinger2001

This is the correct answer. In a world where good and evil actually exist, there does not have to be a moral quandary. Unless you want to explore this in your game. My players once came across a hill giant lair in a cave. After the giants started lobby rocks at them they set their stockade wall on fire and it killed all the giants. When sifting through the rubble they found they had killed hill giant families as well. This troubled the players - so I never had families be affected by their actions again as that’s not something they wanted to worry about in the game.


bartbartholomew

"I don't judge people. Only god can judge people. I just arrange the meeting."


Dracon_Pyrothayan

Absolutely. Among other things, one would think that the church of The Deceiver would primarily be composed of those he Deceived. Also, even of those of his worshippers who follow in spite of the lies, many of them are grateful for his Lawful aspect rather than the Evil aspect. It's really easy to believe that someone who is willing to interact with you and keep the sacredness of bargains and oaths to also be benevolent. How great a *relief* it would be, to find someone who tells you they care, and can prove it in writing, if you just sign here. The worst atrocities are not committed by Evil people, but by good folks who have been convinced of Evil things.


EducationalBag398

Has nobody actually looked at the lore around the Nine Hells, the Blood Wars, as an aside the Abyss and it's Demon Lord's, or even Asmodeus himself? This is DnD (5e?) after all unless you homebrewed a new cosmology. Like if you could find a way to kill Asmodeus and the other Arch Devils would you? Is it better to do that act of 'good' and deal with the ever expanding Abyss? You think the Arch Devils are bad, the Demon Lord's of the Abyss are much, much worse.


Decrit

I mean, depends on the nature of workshippers. If the workshippers are people activbely acting and consciously acting the will of asmodeus and are, like, preparing enchantments and stuff like that i don't see it as an evil act. Sure, it's sketchy, a lot, but you are dealing with people actively hurting you and other people around you. If you mean workshippers like "common toil", like peasants and so on of dubious morale or knowledge, or even the chance of the actually existing in said temple alongside other more fanatical cultists, it's a very pragmatical act with evil outcomes. Often, evil it's easier to evaluate as "the willingness of a character to overstep or not consider the weill being of other in pursuing goals and take shortcuts". In both cases the characters are willing to not take the challenge ahead and take a shortcut - which isn't dumb, but it's inconsiderate about any side effect. In the first case you have at least the knowledge that the creatures inside are actively committing evil acts that need to be stopped. In the second you don't know but decide to ignore it.


Matsansa

If you are sure everyone there is an evildoer, could be an good act. Think about this scenario: You are alone. You and your party faced the cultists inside the temple and you got almost tpked, you were the only one who could get away. Asmodeus won, the ritual will be completed and the mortals will be doomed... unless if you could do something. In your way to the outside you found a room full of inflamable materials and you know you could have a chance to defeat them all. Is it cruel to burn people alive? Yes, it's. But what is the true evil? 1 - Kill all the genocides inside the temple Or 2 - Let them murder every innocent people outside? One way you are helping them to do Evil, in other, you are stopping them. The situation could be really trick if you needed to burn an orphanage to interrupt the ritual or even kill an innocent person, which lead to other kind of dilemmas. However, in the way you asked, no, it's not a Evil act, could be the only Good act you could do.


Art-Zuron

Generally speaking, Asmodeus is Lawful Evil incarnate, and, thus, fighting him is objectively good. Then, fighting his followers is also good, as they are evil by association. Burning down a temple with them in it is, further, good by definition. If Asmodeus is objectively evil that is. The followers are not considered good or innocent, and, thus, its good to kill them. However, if there are people who are not Asmodeus worshippers in there, then killing them is evil. Whether that outweighs killing the evil though depends on the gods' opinion on the matter. One god might believe that it's a necessary evil for the greater good. Another might believe that any death of an innocent is unforgivably evil.


kandoras

In my last campaign, the group wanted to burn down the shack housing Actual Cannibal Shia LaBeouf. Until we remembered that he had kidnapped a little boy. So we killed Shia a second time, rescued the boy, boarded up the doors and windows, and *then* set the cabin on fire. So I'd rule it as evil, as long as you made sure the temple didn't have any unwilling human sacrifices or the like. Assuming you've done that check, then I'd say it's a free fire zone where arson might be the safest and least resource-draining solution.


kkngs

Are they trapped, or are you just committing arson without worrying that folks are inside? If it’s just not giving them the heads up, I’d say you aren’t obligated to, they’ve assumed the liability themselves by going there to worship. If they’re trapped, then my take is it depends on exactly who is inside. If the group inside is basically the folks from season one of True Detective, then light her up. If it’s just some illiterate commoners that have joined a cult that otherwise isn’t really distinguishable from any other congregation but happens to be led by Lawful Evil acolytes, then it would be an evil act, they could still be redeemed.


cult_leader_venal

One big problem with the discussions in this thread is that all of the participants are products of the 18th-century Enlightenment so things like "trial by jury", "due process", "right to remain silent" are just assumed by everyone as the norm. But these ideas did not exist in the medeival settings that fantasy RPGs are typically set in. In that setting, punishing/executing known criminals without trial was more common and you would have been considered crazy to argue otherwise.


grendelltheskald

Up to you to decide. Here's Gygax on the topic of what lawful good means: > Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide. > An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. > The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then... 


RingtailRush

Oh boy, it certainly depends, but short answer is yes. In most D&D games, worshippers of Asmodeus would probably be considered "cultists." In most D&D games, "cultists" are blanket badguys like stormtroopers and killing them is generally considered okay. However in some D&D games/worlds, that might not be true. In Golarion - the world used in Pathfinder - Asmodeus is a common deity, patron to an entire nation and commonly worshipped by many non-evil people. Killing these people would not be okay. In either case, I think blocking the doors and setting fire to their temple and letting them burn alive is cruel and in my opinion is an evil act. Slaying them in battle is not. Of course an execution of cultists arrested or whom surrendered might also be considered evil. Depends on how much moral nuance you want in your game.


PsalmHatesGamers

This post is so strange and doesn't make much sense if your reasons is just that Asmodues is evil so all of his followers are evil. First of all people pray to devils (and Asmodues) for things because they are desperate. So they are probably poor or in another bad situation. Of course evil people will also pray to him for power but that's not his entire following. Secondly if you want to do this for the "greater good" you probably wouldn't want to destroy the cult of Asmodues. He (and the entirety of nine hells) are all that's keeping the demons away from all the other planes. Without a powerful leader in the nine hells it would crumble and the demons would win the war and wage a new one in the multiverse. So yes burning it down would be evil.


derentius68

Tldr yes. That is an evil act. The 3rd edition books, Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds did a really good job at listing exactly what was considered a good or evil act. An evil act committed upon the irredeemably evil, was considered good. Killing mindless undead, demons, even chromatic dragons is an act of good. However...worshippers are never really irredeemable now are they? It is not in their nature to be good or evil, they chose that path. Just like how they can choose to not be on that path anymore. What I found more interesting in those books was that if you didn't make an effort to convince the person that what they did was wrong; you were often committing a mild act of evil yourself. Likely because of the adage "evil triumphs when good men do nothing". Now to lock all these people up and then burn them alive? Only an evil person would do this. Especially if those people are begging to live.


Teevell

So, forget about who is in the temple. The important part is the action itself. What sort of person burns people alive? What sort of person can actually go through with that action? It's one thing to kill them in self-defense or even to stop them from hurting others because you know they're about to summon Asmodeus or whatever. But there is a difference between killing them swiftly and efficiently, and letting them burn alive.


grendelltheskald

Itt: people who hate the alignment system and don't understand it attempting to use real world philosophy to answer an in character morality puzzle. The answer is no. Killing evil cultists is not evil.


[deleted]

Worshippers =/= cultists


Obie527

Evil actions against evil is still evil actions, so yeah.


Harbinger2001

Not in a fantasy world with literal physical gods of evil.


ZeroBrutus

It's an evil act with a good result. Good characters in dnd commit mass murder on the regular, so I generally think the gods judge things for their results more than the means itself.


EADreddtit

Ya I was looking for this comment. How is this situation any different then going in and killing a dozen or two cultists by sword and spell? Or just killing a bunch of goblins who took over a certain mine?


Groudon466

This is **Good.** I’d go as far as to say, confidently, that everyone else in the thread is wrong. Murder, in a vacuum, is bad. You’re cutting someone’s life short and sending them to the afterlife, separating from their family for decades until the family dies and rejoins them. Y’know what’s far, far more despicable? Convincing someone to sell their soul and be condemned to an afterlife of torture and misery. Killing a dozen people would not have the moral impact that convincing a single person to sell their soul to Asmodeus would. There’s ~840 years of lifespan cut short between them, and they get sent to the planes of their gods, which are typically Upper Planes and therefore paradises. They’ll spend countless years in safety and happiness, and then either become angels or merge into the planes, their consciousness joining the greater whole of love and goodness. A single person who sells their soul could easily spend over a thousand years as a tormented slave before their soul is eventually merged completely into Baator- the scattered remnants of their self would be integrated into a mass of hateful misery for all eternity. The Asmodeus worshippers know this, and they don’t care because their twisted values tell them that it’s better for all that to happen than for people to live good lives and rejoin their loved ones in paradise. They’re actively trying to condemn more people to miserable eternity. Knowing that, and considering what adventurers already kill on a regular basis, the only moral choice is to kill them as fast as humanly possible. Their brief moments of suffering as they burn to death are a speck compared to the burning they would gladly see a good man suffer for eternity in Baator.


Moleculor

And if there's a single person in there who is in the process of changing their opinion, and fighting against Asmodeus? What about two people? Ten? A dozen? 20% of them? Maybe someone dragged their kids to the temple. Anyone there against their will?


StanDaMan1

Lawful Good: “Yes.” Chaotic Good: “Hahaha… oh, wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh even harder: HAHAHA!”


NotSkyve

If they were going to strike them down in combat, I don't see what the big deal is


WanderingFlumph

Context probably matters here but if they are doing evil devil worshipy type stuff then no.


Either-Bell-7560

Completely depends on your game. Gary Gygax would have had a Paladin fall for *not* doing it.


Jshippy94

Hmm do I think it’s amoral to destroy a building and murder all the people inside just because they have a different worldview then me……I think I’ll go with yes. Ok now that I’m done being sarcastic I would say more often then not yes but it depends on context. Am I setting the fire because I don’t like Asmodeus so screw him and his followers? Then yes this is evil. Or do I have solid information that everyone inside is actively evil and are going to sacrifice 100 children to bring about the destruction on the town? Because while that’s kinda an extreme example it’s a valid argument


Discount_Joe_Pesci

It is obviously evil, yeah.


DaneLimmish

Yes that would be a very evil act imo


greenskinMike

Mass Murder is evil, no matter how you dress it up.


CompetitionSad3510

Yes. Wrong is wrong.


021Fireball

Causing an unnecessary, agonizing death when a quick, clean death will suffice is always evil, no matter who you commit it against.


RobusterBrown

Nope. Dnd alignment is simpler than real life. Killing evil is good, killing good is evil.


Autobot-N

No


DuckonaWaffle

No. Those people are evil, therefore removing them means there is less evil, which makes it a morally good act.


SigmaBlack92

In an absolutist way, yes, because you're still commiting objectively bad acts (burning a building down, killing people). In a Goodness-related, fanatical way, no, because you're ridding the world of an Evil God's cult and followers. Depends where your characters are standing.


LordJoeltion

Non being explicitly Evil doesnt make it Good tho. There is Neutral too


OmNomSandvich

It really depends on the nature of the particular temple and worshippers. If they were cultists actively conspiring to do evil deeds, then its a Good act. There's nothing morally wrong with for example sneaking into a bandit camp and setting their barracks ablaze to stop them from brutalizing travelers. But if its just misguided ordinary people, then the arson is over the line.


dandan_noodles

those things aren't objectively bad.


Enaluxeme

Straight up Lawful good. You're killing evil, meaning that you're both delivering justice and preventing them to cause more harm. Of course, that's assuming that you honestly believe that each and every single one of those cultists is straight up evil.


Shiroiken

Under D&Ds original alignment system, not at all. They are members of the Evil tribe, and so eliminating them is actually a good act (as it helps the Good tribe). Under a more nuanced modern alignment system, probably.


Bobsplosion

Do you have a citation of where I'd like to find those original alignment rules? I just checked 3.5 which indicates this would still be evil.


chris270199

Interesting question, but yes it would be evil - remove Asmodeus from the equation and it's clearly an evil act by the alignment system Problem is the alignment system is notoriously bad at dealing with specifics because it's meant as a simplification, good, neutral and evil are too complicated to actually be gamefy Like, killing is wrong it's one of the in world reasons to batman not killing the joker, but by letting the joker live batman still knowingly puts other people at risk which is also evil - stuff like the this, the trolley problem and so on screw with alignment


Diddlypuff

To add, utilitarianism is often framed as the ethical lesser in fantasy and fiction.