Why are religious fanatics considered more dangerous than normal people?

It seems ridiculous to me that a regular mob of peasants is laughable to a mid-level party but a throng of fanatical cultists somehow poses a legitimate threat. What gives? Help a diagnosed sperg understand.

...

Mob mentality is a thing, mob mentality within a cult is even more of a thing. Ask any jehovas witness or mormon or amway employee that got left out and ostracized from the community how it felt. Now give them weapons and figure out the rest yourself.

Which is scarier user? Waco Texas or Pleasantville PA? The Partridge family, or the Manson family?

OP has never spent any time in the bible belt. Good thing, considering he's a faggot.

Because peasants have something to lose and are easy to deal with because of fear, cultists have nothing but blond passion and that is hard to break.

Also it's not common that fantastics are... Well fanatic. Which means that it isn't taste for then to fight to the death when their belive is tested.

Bob the farmer instead gets hit once and goes home.

Seriously, far too many games have every random mook fight to the dead, even bar brawls.

Because in a fantasy setting that cult has actual power and summons actual demons.

Because cults tend to have access to more magical powers, evil monsters, and better training not to mention high morale.

In abstract game terms; creatures like villagers tend to get only 1 HD or level or whatever you want to call it because they're meant to be weak and kind of shitty, not even a match for shitty monsters like goblins. Cultists will have more hit dice and levels because they are meant to be a fight for the party instead of just setting backdrop, and can afford to be a bit stronger.

Man it doesn't take the bible belt. Even in less looney areas, jeebus freaks pop up. I have a proffesor that studies preppers and doomsday cultists. This shit is crazy common.

>Why are religious fanatics considered more dangerous than normal people?
They have more motivation to kill you.
>It seems ridiculous to me that a regular mob of peasants is laughable to a mid-level party but a throng of fanatical cultists somehow poses a legitimate threat.
The real threat is what he may end-up summoning.

>Peasant revolting over unfair taxes gets shot by an arrow
>Panics and tries to get back to treat their wound

>Indoctrinated cultist killing nonbelievers gets shot with an arrow
>Runs into enemy formation and pulls trigger on suicide vest while screaming "god is great"

A mob that does not fear death is significantly more dangerous than one that does.
This isn't even including things like fictional cults giving very real powers out.

Does not even need to be religious
picture related

The Patridge family. When i see a wild dog mob, i know they bite and can avoid or killthem. But the Patridge is your Fahrenheit 451 stepfordian nuclear family. They are the cockroaches that plan and sheme in the background while you think they are not dangerous than, bang, drop the a-bomb on you while they crawl unhurt away..

But that isn't dangerous provided you can outrun a mobility scooter. And I say that as a bleeding heart liberal snowflake.

The main thing that keeps people and other animals from being incredibly dangerous is that they mostly try to preserve their own lives. Take that instinct away and they become terrifying. A rabid or crazed dog is scary as shit, even if it isn't very big. Much scarier than, say, a black bear under normal circumstances. People are the same way. You ever see cops try to restrain some guy going crazy with some drugs in his system? It might take 3 or 4 regular guys to tackle that one maniac. Do the math.

I mean, hell, just look at something like wasps. A wasp is like 1/100 of your size. That's not a fair fight by any stretch. But an angry wasp gives absolutely zero fucks whether it lives or dies, as long as it hurts you in the process. How do you usually react?

>but a throng of fanatical cultists somehow poses a legitimate threat.
a mob can potentially be reasoned with, and have clear, and frankly sympathetic goals.

> they are just trying to protect themselves and their families, and if you can convince them they are in no danger from whatever the mob's focus is, they will dissipate.

a cult cannot be reasoned with and usually act toward a goal that can be far more alien than even that of elder things from beyond space and time, possibly even more so as cosmic horrors don't seek potentially self-destructive goals.

>Blond passion
>Hard to break
Tell me about it!

...I'll show my self out

This is a wrong question. What is more dangerous is an organization.

Nobody cares about some suicide cult that drunk poison in a swamp hut the other day. Secular organizations can also be dangerous. And peasants are probably religious anyway.

Though there's a reason why cults are a good villain material - when your motivation is "Do what god tells you", you can be doing whatever the author wants.

>your joke
i liked it, user

i'd give you a little "ba-dum-tish" but i don't have my drum kit with me at the moment.

>Why are religious fanatics considered more dangerous than normal people

Having nutty cultish beliefs helps people commit more extreme acts of violence which they might otherwise shy away from.

nope.exe

>why are people who don't want to get killed less dangerous than people who will gladly die in battle

I didn't read the thread. Did someone call OP a retard yet?

A mob is easier to rout than a cult. The individual is less important than their commitment to the unit, so the stronger that commitment, the stronger the unit.

I love Firestorm

No just a faggot.

If we're talking objectively there isn't much of a difference except occasionally the religious fanatics perceive a sign or foretell some stupid shit that makes them suicidally brave. It's not common though. The finding of the Holy Lance during the first crusade, for instance. Doesn't necessarily mean they actually fight better though.

>sand niggers
>anything but stupid and violent

Nice try, achmed.

Y'all need to step up your game, then.

>Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.

>If one man were to run amok with a sword in the market-place, and everybody else tried to get our of his way, I should not allow that this man alone had courage and that all the rest were contemptible cowards. The truth is, that a desperado and a man who sets some value on his life do not meet on even terms.

>When i see a wild dog mob, i know they bite and can avoid or killthem.

I like how you abandoned the other half of this analogy because it would have made no sense.

Give a man something to believe in and assure him his deeds are approved by someone above and they will commit unthinkable acts believing them divine, they have nothing to lose after all, as they are assured that something beyond mortal whims is backing them.

A group of peasants only care about living to the next day, even while rioting, usually won't fight to the absolute death unless someone is guiding them and urging them onward, and then you have a totally different issue than a mob of peasants, but other than that, if sufficient threat is presented, peasants will break.

With certainty comes danger.

If anyone is 100% certain that their actions are correct and just, they are capable of anything.

Fanaticism is like retard strength. When one takes no consideration for ones own safety in their pursuit of harming another they become extremely difficult to stop. That is the danger of fanatics. They are dedicated to their cause and see death as acceptable when weighed against the threat you pose to their ideology.

fuck off back to pol

somebody seems to have left their containment board