The Mésalliance. Part 2. (Updated 11/28)

[Cheiromancer]

Not only does One Step Beyond last 1 day/level, it also affects up to 1 target/level. You do need a 1000 gp gemstone for each recipient, however. Sadly, it is material component, not a focus. Still at less that 50 gp/day it is quite a bargain.

One Step Beyond was originally printed in Book of Eldritch Might III- the Nexus.

Do wizards still get 2 free spells/level after they get into epic levels? Mostin might be able to pick this up next time he levels.

---

I don't think that Soneillon's provocation of Eadric was an attempt to cause him to Fall. She *had* offered to assist him in the journey to oblivion- to go to the bottom of the Abyss and back- but I don't think that journey is something that you can be tricked into. Eadric would have to embrace that knowingly and willingly. And I believe her when she says she has no interest in causing Eadric to fall; acting as a tempter is just not part of her paradigm.

Still, this post has raised in me the fear that Eadric *could* fall. It is primarily Tramst's conversation with Brey that troubles me, though. Eadric seems to have a penchant for always choosing the most difficult option, which "leads to the Adversarial paradigm, which Saizhan teaches us is incomplete. Evidently, this is so, or the Adversary himself would not have Fallen."

To put it bluntly, if you play with fire you are going to get burned. Eadric is playing with fire by allowing himself to get involved with Soneillon. I mentioned above that tempting Eadric is not part of Soneillon's paradigm. That is not completely true: as a succubus, erotic interest is *definitely* part of her paradigm, and seducing him is definitely of interest to her. And erotic involvement with a demon would violate so many of Eadric's core values, beliefs and tenets that... what, exactly?

Eadric realizes that he is above conventional standards of moral behavior. The scene with the pilgrims underlines his distance from conventional morality. What that means, exactly, is still being worked out.

Truth is something that is constructed by saizhan: "Saizhan always determines the correct truth." says Tramst. Does Eadric have the saizhan to create a truth which makes sense of his increasingly complex life? If he fails to do so, he has to reject whatever doesn't fit. But what do you do if you find you have to choose between incompatible truths? If you reject "that which you have experienced to be true, in favour of that which you know, in your heart, to be false," then we meet Tramst's definition for falling.

So Soneillon is definitely an opportunity for Eadric to Fall. The nature of their relationship is very, very hard to reconcile with the other aspects of Eadric's life. And Eadric cannot arbitrarily simplify the situation. Acting on a simpler code may lead him to reject what he knows (on a deeper level) to be truths and embrace what (in his heart) is false.

Perhaps slaying Soneillon would have been a fall-triggering event- perhaps not. But Eadric is not the kind of person who simplifies the situation in that way. He showed that when he spared Despina. This situation is that original situation writ large. But going along with Soneillon is hardly an option; she has fallen as well.

Or has she? Is falling a subjective event, or an objective event? Can observers legitimately disagree on whether a particular being has fallen or not? If Eadric achieves a saizhan sufficiently deep to reveal that Demogorgon is an aspect of Oronthon, perhaps he could walk the path of oblivion and still remain the breath of God. He would operate in a paradigm that does not see a conflict between the chthonic template and his paladin/contemplative/half-celestial status. But he might be the only one to see it that way, aside from a few fiends. If your truth is only recognized by crazy people, doesn't that suggest that you are insane?

The situation is unstable. If Eadric simplifies it, it will likely be at the cost of violating his own integrity. If he embraces its full complexity, the result may be indistinguishable from the Fall. If he doubts- if he understands and experiences Nehael's doubt- he might fall as she did.

Perhaps, if he is lucky, Graz'zt will kill him before any of these alternatives are realized. Isn't it sad that an untimely demise at the hands of his worst enemy might be Eadric's best-case scenario?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Wow. Two new posts while I was composing the last one.

Good point, Rackhir, about Soneillon's warning to Eadric. I might want to add that the question of identity is complicated in this story hour. Look at Fillein/Jovol/Teppu. That's sequential identity- identity over time. Is it possible that there are equally complicated issues for simultaneous identity; identity over space?

Is Soneillon what happened to Nehael after surviving annihilation? Is Nehael an aspect of Soneillon? If so, what can we make of Rintrah's rescue mission?

Since Teppu denies being Jovol, I doubt either Nehael or Soneillon would identify herself as being the other. I think, furthermore, that there is a deeper explanation of the strong parallel between them; they are each, in their own way, Eadric's kius. And perhaps he fulfills a similar role to them!

 

[Micah]

If your truth is only recognized by crazy people, doesn't that suggest that you are insane?

I seem to recall Oronthon himself being accused of mental instability somewhere along the line. . .

 

[wolff96]

I seem to recall Oronthon himself being accused of mental instability somewhere along the line. . .

By Nwm, naturally.

For what is Nwm if the coolest and most powerful characters are not unidentical? (With apologies to Sep for theiving the construction. )

 

[Felix]

Welcome to one of the oldest debates in philsophy and religion.

Yup.

Still, this post has raised in me the fear that Eadric *could* fall. It is primarily Tramst's conversation with Brey that troubles me, though.

You should be nervous, but not necessarily as nervous as you are now. Remember that Saizhan revolves around inspiring enlightenment. The teaching that Tramst is giving Brey is formulated to inspire enlightenment in Brey, and might not be the Truth of falling that Eadric is subject to. What Tramst is saying is a truth, but not the truth.

But that's not much consolation, is it? Heh.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Perhaps, if he is lucky, Graz'zt will kill him before any of these alternatives are realized. Isn't it sad that an untimely demise at the hands of his worst enemy might be Eadric's best-case scenario?

That raises an interesting point. Our heroes are at a power level where one unlucky character can be raked by volleys of instakill effects (Destruction, Disintegrate, etc.) Some of the PCs may well have SR as well. But the basic question is what do you do to guard against a Natural 1 at this powerlevel if campaign discourages ressurections?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Which is as much as to say that one need not try to logically figure anything out because the normal rules of consistency don't apply to Sep's world. If you try and figure out anything resembling truth in the metaphysical, moral, or religious realities of Sep's world, you'll just hurt your head.

Figuring out the politics of his world (both spiritual and natural) and enjoying the example of high-level, high powered play and good writing is the fun of it (at least for me).

You should be nervous, but not necessarily as nervous as you are now. Remember that Saizhan revolves around inspiring enlightenment. The teaching that Tramst is giving Brey is formulated to inspire enlightenment in Brey, and might not be the Truth of falling that Eadric is subject to. What Tramst is saying is a truth, but not the truth.

But that's not much consolation, is it? Heh.

 

[Enkhidu]

I've been reading the discussion about saizhan, and Eadric's tempting, et al, and have come to a comclusion.

Sep included the portion about Tramst and Brey talking about the fall because its integral to how Eadric could fall. The Ahma will fall if he is not - and I believe it really is this simple - true to himself.

For all that we've been told (at the same time Eadric has been told) that Eadric has no artificial boundaries on his behavior, Ed still has self-imposed boundaries. And Ed, as we have seen, is much harder on himself than anyone else could be.
Frankly, as long as Ed continues to simply "be himself," I don't think he can go wrong.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'm not exactly sure of the passage, but isn't Nehael residing elsewhere right now by the will Oronthon? I could have sworn that one of Oronthon's angelic servants took Nehael away from Graz'zt's realm. I'll have to search the past updates.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Maybe so, but if you ask what it means for Eadric to be true to himself, you're likely to get a dozen contradictory interpretations.

It certainly can't be that whatever Eadric does is being "true to himself"; otherwise it would be meaningless.

OTOH, Eadric's identity isn't fixed either. Otherwise, the ideas and interpretations he lived by under the older Orthodox Oronthonianism would be the standards he still needs to live by. And in that case, he's no longer at risk of falling because he fell the moment he showed mercy to Nehael.

Of course, if you ask the "I can be a slut and still be good because sluts are cool and they don't have to like to like kill babies" crowd, Eadric could go on a romp that makes Ortwin look like a prude and not fall/still be true to himself. If you ask me, justifying that in terms of Eadric-as-presented-so-far would be such a complete change that it's unclear in what way the new "Eadric" would resemble the old. But if identity is infinitely mutable, that wouldn't necessarily prevent him from being true to himself. It would just mean that his new self and his old self had little in common.

Then again, it may be that Eadric's identity isn't infinitely mutable and there is a core of "Eadricness" that is based on the interaction of several key virtues (justice, mercy, chastity, honesty, etc) and any activity that would be seen as conflicting with that core of Eadricness would be being false to himself or false to Oronthon and falling. It might be in conflict with the rest of the world where truth, falsehood, and even Oronthon are mutable concepts, but since the whole point of the world's relativism is to permit inconsistency, it would be a consistent piece of inconsistency if there were an essence of Eadricness somewhere.

On the whole, it seems to me that Eadric falling or not falling as a result of acting or not acting in any particular way is a combination of: A. His player deciding that he does or does not fall, B. How good of a rationalization he can come up with for whatever he wants to do at the time and how convincingly he can deliver it (convincing deliver=really believed=true to self; unconvincing delivery=bad faith=falls or some such rubric), and C. Whether or not Eadric ends up killing babies, raping girls, or anything else that can't be rationalized as good behavior.

Of course, exactly what it means to "fall" in a world where truth is up for grabs and future actions change the past is up for grabs. For that matter, what it would mean for Ahma to fall is unclear too. For all we know, if he really did fall, it's likely that a significant number of Oronthonians and/or others might see it differently--perhaps Oronthon changed again and Eadric's fall defined that change or perhaps Eadric was fallen from the beginning but was justified in falling and thus it wasn't really Eadric that fell. And in Sep's world, as I understand it, that would be true for them. Whether or not it would be true for Eadric himself is another question.

But there we go. That's all fairly incoherent because it's pointless to speculate about necessities or what will/would happen if in a relativistic system. The point of its being relativistic is that there are no definitive "If"/"then"s. All that will really matter is the story. (And, if it isn't apparent yet, I think the story quite interesting despite its metaphysics).

For all that we've been told (at the same time Eadric has been told) that Eadric has no artificial boundaries on his behavior, Ed still has self-imposed boundaries. And Ed, as we have seen, is much harder on himself than anyone else could be.
Frankly, as long as Ed continues to simply "be himself," I don't think he can go wrong.