DM: Question about how to proceed

[Lycanhero]

My party ventured into an yuan-ti lair. when the place was cleared out, they found 2 shrines and statues dedicated to gods, they didnt know anything about these gods. But 1 of my pc's wanted to destroy the shrines out of vengeance, then a 2nd chimned in that he wanted to do it because it sounded fun, then the first also wanted to do it for ****s an giggles.

The other 2 pc's said they didn't want anything to do with this and left the room. I repeatebly asked if they where sure they wanted to do this for fun, they did. Not sure how to react I changed there allignment from neutral to evil (this was after many previously dubious acts like torture). one of the 2 pc's was obviously shaken that his allignment was now evil since he thinks the end justifies the means (which in my opinon in itself is evil). My question is how should I proceed?


TLDR: 2 pc's destroy shrines to god get allignment changed how to continue from here.

[Camman1984]

Personally I would argue that destroying a shrine for giggles is a chaotic move rather than necessarily evil, it's just petty vandalism. Now if they destroy it, then desecrate it with the blood of the priest before using it in some unholy ritual, then that is evil.

I would go along those lines, move everyone a step toward chaotic and then just throw other consequences at them, vengeful worshippers, hacked off gods etc.

[mephnick]

This is grounds for a curse thematic to the god whose shrine they destroyed.

Like..if I did this as a player I would just assume I would be cursed because of it. That's a fantasy staple. They can't complain if something bad happens to them.

[Millstone85]

Two intact shrines in a yuan-ti lair, and they are not dedicated to yuan-ti gods?

[Darkstar952]

Two intact shrines in a yuan-ti lair, and they are not dedicated to yuan-ti gods?

The OP never specified which gods the shrines were dedicated to, only that the players didn't recognise the gods. So presumably it is the Yuan-ti gods.

And i agree with some of the previous posts, more of a chaotic action that truly evil. I would also agree that its not really enough on its own to warrant an alignment shift, but it is a good opportunity to curse the offending players.

[Maxilian]

I don't agree with the alignment change, but i do agree with the idea of a curse, so as the alignment change is already in place, why not make it part of the curse, like if its a Yuanti God, it may give it some kind of lycanthropy (its normal for Lycantropy to change the victim alignment) and they tend to see the Serpent form as the "perfect" form

[Camman1984]

Until you repair the shrines, each night you suffer horrific dreams, your body has been replaced by serpentine features and you are surrounded by all manner of writhing creatures. Each time you dream, you feel yourself being drawn toward a very familiar shrine, upon which is a sacrifice, a creature that resembles your real form. Against your will your arms rise up, and, just as you plunge the blade into the bare chest of the prone victim, you wake up.

Each long rest you must pass a charisma save in order to gain the benefits of a long rest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The OP never specified which gods the shrines were dedicated to, only that the players didn't recognise the gods. So presumably it is the Yuan-ti gods.

And i agree with some of the previous posts, more of a chaotic action that truly evil. I would also agree that its not really enough on its own to warrant an alignment shift, but it is a good opportunity to curse the offending players.

If the gods were those of the Yuan-ti, I'd say that destroying their shrines is consistent with a good character. Yuan-ti gods are uniformly (like the Yuan-ti themselves) evil, heartless, and cruel. Still absolutely curse-worthy (because they're also jealous and vengeful), but not an act of an evil character.

And even good characters can do occasional evil acts as long as they're not habitual and they're sufficiently grounded in the other facets of the character.

[Laserlight]

I repeatedly asked if they where sure they wanted to do this for fun, they did.

Just "are you sure" by itself doesn't suffice. When you ask "Are you suuuuuure you want to do that?" it ought to be for a reason that the character would be aware of, and you should explain that reason. The classic example at our table is "Your barbarian can see that the wall is 60ft high and it's stone at the bottom, so when you land you'll take 6d6 damage. And you'll be prone and unable to move until next turn. And you'll be surrounded by three giants and two ogres, who will all have advantage on attacks against you. So, are you sure you want to do that?" (And yes, he did it anyway).

In this case, you could say "Destroying an idol may--according to the tales you've heard from other adventurers--cause an alignment change, or spring a trap, or give you a curse. Or it may do nothing. Do you wish to continue?"

[DeTess]

Something you should consider is what your alignment shift is supposed to do. And then, you should probably ask yourself the question 'would this consequence still make sense if we didn't use alignment at all in this game?'

Personally, I think for doing things like this, they should get some kind of consequence(or alternatively, a very ominous lack of consequences) related top their action, rather than a change in a meta-state, like alignment. For example if a group I'm DM-ing where to burn down an orphanage, they'd become wanted fugitives, with good parties and bounty hunters trying to track them down. Alignment changes would be an afterthought to that, rather than the main event.

In your case, I'd either have the gods inflict some kind of curse on them, or maybe the gods decide a bit of blackmail is in order. Maybe they both get a dream, with the gods they offended telling them to do a favor for them, or else...

[Ganymede]

How do you proceed? You watch Curse 2: The Bite for inspiration regarding the vengeance those fell gods will inflict on the PCs.

[Unoriginal]

My party ventured into an yuan-ti lair. when the place was cleared out, they found 2 shrines and statues dedicated to gods, they didnt know anything about these gods. But 1 of my pc's wanted to destroy the shrines out of vengeance, then a 2nd chimned in that he wanted to do it because it sounded fun, then the first also wanted to do it for ****s an giggles.

The other 2 pc's said they didn't want anything to do with this and left the room. I repeatebly asked if they where sure they wanted to do this for fun, they did. Not sure how to react I changed there allignment from neutral to evil (this was after many previously dubious acts like torture). one of the 2 pc's was obviously shaken that his allignment was now evil since he thinks the end justifies the means (which in my opinon in itself is evil). My question is how should I proceed?


TLDR: 2 pc's destroy shrines to god get allignment changed how to continue from here.

I don't get it. Why would their alignments change?

They don't typically destroy shrines, do they? Nor did they hurt anyone or did anything evil?

I don't see why destroying shrines to evil entities make you evil, when torturing people doesn't.

[GlenSmash!]

I also wouldn't have destroying the shrines change alignment.

You don't need alignment to having interesting things happen as consequence for Characters actions.

I like the Weresnake idea mentioned earlier.

Or flat out have destroying the shrines release an ancient evil. Like in The Mummy (not the Tom Cruise one).

[Unoriginal]

Or destroying the shrines do nothing, because those gods don't have enough influence.

[NecessaryWeevil]

You know, I agree it's a fantasy staple, but it's a staple that doesn't make much sense. Assuming the shrines are to yuan-ti gods, why would they intervene after the shrines are destroyed, but not while adventurers are slaughtering their worshippers?

[Unoriginal]

You know, I agree it's a fantasy staple, but it's a staple that doesn't make much sense. Assuming the shrines are to yuan-ti gods, why would they intervene after the shrines are destroyed, but not while adventurers are slaughtering their worshippers?

Well it's possible their influence would be limited to their shrine, or that the shrines were blessed in advance to protect them. Or that there are rules that demand direct disrespect of the god in order for them to do something.

But you're right otherwise.

[GlenSmash!]

You know, I agree it's a fantasy staple, but it's a staple that doesn't make much sense. Assuming the shrines are to yuan-ti gods, why would they intervene after the shrines are destroyed, but not while adventurers are slaughtering their worshippers?

Off the top of my head:

The shrines were arcane and granted these gods power. Worshipers are cheap, but contracting construction of new shrines is not. Likewise the shrines could be the greater insult.

The gods didn't want weak worshipers anyway so culling them was not a big deal, but destruction of the shrines is a direct insult.

Fantasy Gods are often vain and fickle.

[CantigThimble]

Off the top of my head:

The shrines were arcane and granted these gods power. Worshipers are cheap, but contracting construction of new shrines is not. Likewise the shrines could be the greater insult.

The gods didn't want weak worshipers anyway so culling them was not a big deal, but destruction of the shrines is a direct insult.

Fantasy Gods are often vain and fickle.

Also, followers are not direct representatives of the god. They may serve him in some ways, but they're also independent people acting for their own reasons. You can scrap witha follower without it being a direct attack on the god, which is also why followers of the same god can fight with each other, it's the same principle.

However, an altar is exclusively a representation of the god. Defacing it is a direct insult to him and him alone.

As for a curse, I'd probably give them -1d4 on any saving throws against spells cast by the god's priests from now on.

[Keravath]

Just another opinion, but destroying shrines to evil gods wouldn't be considered evil by most. Quite the opposite in some corners. Simply cleansing the world of some evil influence. Although the OP did not say what the shrine the gods were for, the likelihood would be deities worshipped by yuan-ti if found in a yuan-ti lair.

I would also not hold the two who decided not to participate blameless. They likely did this to avoid any potential revenge from the gods who were worshipped at these shrines rather than on any moral basis since many good aligned characters might believe that destroying a shrine to an evil god is actually something they SHOULD be doing ... especially if the character was a cleric, druid or had a religious background.

Now the reasons given by the three characters give some motivation for their actions
- vengeance - the characters had just completed fighting a bunch of evil creatures who worshipped at these shrines. Destroying the shrines could be completely in character and have nothing to do with being evil. The evil gods of the yuan-ti may motivate their evil actions so destroying their shrines could be completely justified. In my opinion ... not evil.

- destroying for fun - sounds like a character that enjoys destruction. Is destroying a temple for fun evil? Even if it is likely a temple to an evil god? Maybe ... this one might contribute to an alignment change depending on the previous character action.

- sh*ts and giggles - depending on the character this sounds possibly more chaotic than evil ... again because it is likely a temple to an evil god.

So bottom line in my opinion, would be that the actions described would not justify forcing an evil alignment on the characters.

On the other hand, torture and other actions were mentioned and depending on the context, it might have been more appropriate to go with an evil alignment when these actions were taking place ... however, I wouldn't use a weak current pretext to push an alignment change for past actions when the change should have been made when those actions occurred. If the characters are actually going to behave evil, they will do so again in some more egregious way and you could have changed the alignment at that point.

[Darkstar952]

If the gods were those of the Yuan-ti, I'd say that destroying their shrines is consistent with a good character. Yuan-ti gods are uniformly (like the Yuan-ti themselves) evil, heartless, and cruel. Still absolutely curse-worthy (because they're also jealous and vengeful), but not an act of an evil character.

And even good characters can do occasional evil acts as long as they're not habitual and they're sufficiently grounded in the other facets of the character.

I agree if the players knew any details about the gods it could easily be portrayed as a good deed. But given the fact the players knew nothing of the gods and just decided to smash it up for "****s an giggles" I would weigh it much more towards Chaotic than Evil.

[etrpgb]

TLDR: 2 pc's destroy shrines to god get allignment changed how to continue from here.

I think you overreacted, just continue playing and forget it. Unless in your settings the gods are really active.

[Arkhios]

This is grounds for a curse thematic to the god whose shrine they destroyed.

Like..if I did this as a player I would just assume I would be cursed because of it. That's a fantasy staple. They can't complain if something bad happens to them.

Yuan-ti are snake people, so their god is likely something related to snakes.

Here's a suggestion for the curse:

You become vulnerable to poison damage, and you have disadvantage on saves against the poisoned condition. Regardless of any pre-existing resistances or immunities.

In 5th edition, vulnerability is actually pretty hardcore penalty: You take twice as much damage of that type. Every single time you take damage of that type.

[Glorthindel]

If the gods were those of the Yuan-ti, I'd say that destroying their shrines is consistent with a good character. Yuan-ti gods are uniformly (like the Yuan-ti themselves) evil, heartless, and cruel. Still absolutely curse-worthy (because they're also jealous and vengeful), but not an act of an evil character.

I am reading it as the reason for the punishment is less the actual act, and more the motive.

If a good character said "this is the shrine of an evil god of an evil species, and this shrine must be destroyed and its stones scattered", even if they were just guessing (and lets be fair, its a safe bet), that seems a fair action for such a character to take.

But there doesn't appear to be that motive there, they just did it "because its funny" and that's less reasonable.

[Lycanhero]

Thank you all so much for the input. I have much to consider and you guys rly helped me what to do next session. I also think i reacted a bit to harsh with the allignment, lesson learned to be a bit more laid back.

If you have any nore oppinions and ideas i like to hear them :D


I am reading it as the reason for the punishment is less the actual act, and more the motive.

If a good character said "this is the shrine of an evil god of an evil species, and this shrine must be destroyed and its stones scattered", even if they were just guessing (and lets be fair, its a safe bet), that seems a fair action for such a character to take.

But there doesn't appear to be that motive there, they just did it "because its funny" and that's less reasonable.

This was indeed the idea behind it

[Monktor]

Personally, I would not consider "hard" movements of alignment based on individual actions.

There needs to be an established pattern with understood motivations to actually shift alignment on the moral end of the spectrum. As other players have noted, it's more of a chaotic choice they made.

[Devils_Advocate]

"The ends justify the means" can be used to mean a lot of things, but so long as a character is neither selfish nor malevolent, I'm pretty sure that he's not evil in any sense that the alignment system has ever used. Of course, he's still definitely not good if he's entirely unconcerned about minimizing the suffering that he inflicts.

Plays by the rules vs. resists restrictions on behavior is law vs. chaos, not good vs. evil.

And while wrecking someone's stuff strictly for revenge or for kicks is mean, it's not terribly egregiously so, and there are plenty of overall neutral characters who are unkind to their enemies but kind to others.

"Are you sure that you want to do that?" is a fairly passive-aggressive way to imply that something is obviously a bad idea. If you think that the players don't realize something that would be obvious to their characters, just go ahead and tell them whatever pertinent information their characters would be aware of. Honestly, telling players whatever pertinent information their characters would be aware of is a huge part of the DM's job. Sometimes that information is details of the characters' environment, but sometimes it's background knowledge. At the very least, if you're going to punish players for not already being experienced D&D nerds who have internalized the standard tropes and basic lore, by not telling them what they need to know to roleplay their characters appropriately, don't then blame them for your decision to do that.

Um... That wasn't so much directed at the OP specifically. Just kinda set off a rant I've been sitting on, y'know?

And if you think that something that the characters wouldn't know should nevertheless be obvious to the players... Well, I wouldn't count on them metagaming. On the other hand, players shouldn't expect that there will never be negative consequences for making in-character choices, either! It's not like D&D takes place in an inherently just world where no one ever unfairly suffers due to ignorance. Occasional setbacks of that nature are to be expected.

But there are big problems with invoking direct divine intervention. I surmise that a lot of people find it dissatisfying for mortals to only be free to make meaningful choices because the gods don't care about most things. Also, that doesn't really fit very well with D&D, where some of the gods are supposed to be good. On the other hand, having the gods just cancel each other out makes all of their power kind of meaningless, and if they're not powerful they hardly qualify as gods. So, how do they fit into a game at all?

In D&D the gods are, compared to the wet radish that is your character, unlimited in power. There is no amount of whupass that you could put together that would allow you to triumph over Vecna – he can cast any (or every) spell as a free action. He can cast "Kill Drogor the Dwarf Barbarian with no Save", a spell which heretofore had not even been researched by anyone – as a free action. And he knows many days in advance when he is going to be in danger and who he's going to be in danger from, so that's really not a battle you're going to win. Nevertheless, when adventurers come across a temple to Vecna, they kick everything over, they smash the idol and they steal its ruby eye. And they get away with it.

And that's because when you kick over temple to Vecna, you aren't going against Vecna in any direct sense. Vecna lives on a distant outer plane and has full control over anything that happens in his personal dominion. Anywhere else, and he's essentially playing a game of Populous. If there isn't a knight or prophet of Vecna around, Vecna really can't do much until the "end-game" scenario in which he starts throwing volcanoes around. And as soon as that starts happening, the best bet is really to try to hop on the first portal out of whatever universe you happen to be in because it's going Armageddon pretty soon. Vecna might encourage some monsters to go look you up, or lower some land in your way, but you're an adventurer – so that's pretty much what you expected out of life anyway. - Dungeonomicon (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547)