Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1809347" data-attributes="member: 3146">I don't know. Tearing down a god's altar was pretty much always seen as a direct challenge to a god's power. Historically, if nothing happened to you, it was generally taken to mean that you had a stronger divine protector. That's evident in any number of stories (and whether or not they are historically accurate is irrelevant from the point of view of establishing what seems to have been expected for defiling a god's altar)--from the biblical story of Gideon who tore down Baal's altar to the story of the saint considered apostle to the Germans (whose name I forget at the moment) who won his converts at least in part by finding a tree sacred to Thor, cutting it down and surviving. Somewhat similar are stories of direct power encounters like the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (we'll set up two altars and whoever answers with fire from heaven is the real god that Israel should follow) to the test described in the saga of Burn Njal (we'll consecrate three fires, one to Odin, one to Thor, and one to Jesus and see which ones the Beserk can walk over without being hurt). In all of these cases, the actions of men were seen as direct challenges or appeals to a god's (or God's, as the case may be) power. And the god was expected to respond or forfeit any claim to worthiness.Of course, Mortimer in the story is not just tearing down the altar of a god. He's tearing down the altar of three gods and erecting a larger altar to their hated enemy on the very spot that he removed the gods altars from. That seems like it should be construed as a direct challenge to the gods' power and authority and would attract their attention. It might pass if your gods follow something of a Christian model and are supposed to be patient and without a really direct connection to the physical sites of their worship (normal Christian doctrine is that the church and the locus of God's presence is properly the people who meet in the building rather than the building itself). However, a more properly polytheistic model with idols, etc would definitely construe such action as a direct assault on the gods. If Nerull were directly protecting Mortimer as his patron, he might get away with it. However, if he lacks a divine protector, he should catch it in the chin.For a few more perspectives, the greek gods were even touchier than that. Arachne was transformed into a spider for just boasting that she was better than Athena. The greek gods--even the generally nice ones like Athena were directly involved in a heck of a lot and tended to, in fact, be spiteful and petty. But that ought to be par for the course for a setting with gods rather than God.All that said, I think a curse would probably be a more mythologically appropriate way of dealing with it than a Flame Strike or Holy Smite. Probably Daylight sensitivity and being treated as one step worse on all [light] spells (so 1d6/level instead of 1d8/2 levels for searing light, etc) from Pelor, -6 to all saves vs. fear effects and immunity to heroism, hero's feast, cloak of bravery, etc from Heironeous, and -6 to str from Kord. One curse from each god. That's probably along the lines of what should happen to someone who tears down the altar of those gods without a divine protector.</blockquote>

Verification