Most likely an evil action.
Also, it's very likely to bring you into conflict with the other party members which is the whole point of the "no evil pathfinders" rule. I wouldn't recommend it.
If you do use this character in another campaign I would definitely talk to both the GM and other players about this. A lot of people have strong views on PVP / inter party conflicts.
I don't destruction itself it's evil, imo it's chaotic.
take Gorum for example, he's not evil.
Wars are not evil, intentions behind them might be.
Destroying something with or without a reason is chaotic action, not an evil one.
He's destroying any altar, it's like an earthquake, it doesn't let any altar escape his sight. Earthquakes aren't evil, they kill everything.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erik the Cleric: Alan.
Alan Not-an-Antipaladin: Y-yeah?!
Erik: If you urinate on that altar, I'm gonna give you such a whooping. Don't do it. Don't think about doing it. Don't think about loopholes about it. Don't cast Desecrate on it. Just walk away from that altar.
Alan: But if I just want to pray?
Erik: Prayers to the Dragon are fine. Anyone else, and... well... (nods to the monk)
Tae Kwon Kill: (bows; gong plays in the distance) あなたの鼻の穴を通して、あなたの嫌いな人を引き裂くために大変光栄になります。
Alan: Is that supposed to be a threat? No, seriously. I have no idea what the hell he just said.
Yes. Evil. And, ignorant since the good gods are actively working against the evil ones not "knowingly letting it happen". Heck, even Asmodeous and Dahak fought against Rovagug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, evil. Being a rabid, stuck up ignoramus does not protect you from the nature of your acts.
Destroying an alter to a good deity: Evil. Destroying an alter to an evil deity: Good. Destroying equal numbers of both: Neutral.
That being said, any reincarnate spell will turn this guy into a Lamia. Hey, she gets her voice back, so that's sort of a win. She can still progress as a monk, can't she? She's better equipped to sway other silenced Monks to maltheism.
Or the player can bring out another character and let the GM play the monster. Even better, someone can hand the character over to their girlfriend. A lion monster with Kung fu skills and magical powers is a pretty cool intro to gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As with any question of morality ever, the answer depends on your reason.
Killing is generally an evil thing. Killing a monster that will sow death and destruction is generally not.
Is he destroying the altar out of spite? Probably not a nice act, it would be evil, but really only as evil as any other destruction of property.
Is he destroying the altar because he believes all gods are ultimately a negative force in the world, and he is improving it by doing so? Not evil.
It's destroying property, not direct harm to conscious beings. The standard of justification is quite loosened.
A bad deed aimed at good people (even gods) doesn't make it evil. An evil deed performed on an evil creature is still evil.
So no, destroying an alter isn't evil. There are certainly WAYS you can go about destroying it that would make it evil, but no; on paper, this isn't an evil act.
That said, I caution you, like many others here have done, to carefully consider such an act before following through. It's a little easier for the local Paladin squad to look the other way when an evil alter has been destroyed, but if you start destroying alters of more benevolent gods, you could easily find yourself squaring off against some pissed off, high level NPC's, who don't much care for you. Also consider your fellow PC's. They might not be in a hurry to defend you from said NPC's if it was an alter to their own deity.
I played in an evil campaign once, and I played a Superstitious Barbarian who hated magic. Several of my party members were spell casters, but I found other ways to roleplay my hatred besides constantly trying to kill them. I suggest venting your distaste toward Good gods (and even Neutral) in other ways - you can take advantage of their hospitality, taking more than your share of food, water, hygienic facilities, etc. You could also stand outside their temples and try to convert passersby. In short, there's little you can do to "screw with" these alters that won't get you into some sort of trouble, but I think there's plenty to work with that will be forgivable by the other PC's and GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably not nice, and it's definitely not smart, but it probably isn't evil.
Destroying something that doesn't belong to you is generally considered a 'not good' thing. So destroying any good alter that is in active use would be evil just because it isn't yours, just like destroying a non-alter would be.
For the most part, you don't tend to find as many good alters as evil alters out in the unclaimed wilderness, typically because smart people don't look kindly on their neighbors going to the church of 'Kill Everyone and Take Their Stuff' (brunch Sunday at 11:00.) So you will find your evil cultists building their temples in remote and hidden locations. Plus the aesthetics tend to be better for your evil take over (or destroy) the world schemes.
As to whether destroying a good alter is evil just because it is an alter that is more complex. Certainly it would be sacrilegious to that particular religion, but not necessarily to anyone else. Given the semi-object nature of good and evil, that would probably make it morally neutral for your character.
Of course hurting people, even emotionally, is a bad thing, though destroying an alter to Sarenrae in front of a devout worshipper of Sarenrae would be a selfish act that hurt another, and hence in my opinion, bad.
And of course if the alter in question was actively doing something that empowered or promoted good or limited evil(sealing off a portal to Hell say) destroying it would probably also be bad, and even more so if you understood the consequences.
So the degree of badness would probably greatly depend on the circumstance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to make way for a hyperspace bypass? In that case, it's lawful...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setting aside Good vs Evil for a moment (I don't think it's Evil), what you're describing is Chaotic, and that's actually a bigger issue for a Monk.
A Monk is Lawful by necessity because a Lawful alignment indicates discipline and control over base needs and desires.
A Monk who becomes overcome with emotion and is recklessly and uncontrollably filled with rage every time they encounter religious iconography is unlikely to remain a Monk very long.
For PFS: expect table variation and for people to criticize both your character's understanding of the lore and try to get you to not lose them their Prestige on any sensitive missions. If you push it, you may end up on the receiving end of "not healing / not buffing you is not PvP"
Outside of PFS: talk to your GM and fellow players and make sure that they are on board with the change you made in the background (the part about how Zon-Kuthon is only around because of Shelyn, rather than because he's a crazy neo-Cennobite deity and deities rarely throw down with each other, especially over mortals, double especially do good deities rarely throw down with evil deities over mortals the evil deity in fact saved from the Earthfall).
Also, +1 to the "this is a chaotic act, Mr. Monk, please join the paladin in the 'falling in perpetuity' queue".
Setting aside Good vs Evil for a moment (I don't think it's Evil), what you're describing is Chaotic, and that's actually a bigger issue for a Monk.
A Monk is Lawful by necessity because a Lawful alignment indicates discipline and control over base needs and desires.
A Monk who becomes overcome with emotion and is recklessly and uncontrollably filled with rage every time they encounter religious iconography is unlikely to remain a Monk very long.
I've seen this very thing happen before...
I've seen this very thing happen before...
Hey hey now! It was the only way to save Padme...
I argue that destroying the shrines of any deity is a chaotic action. (Shouldn't someone of "faith" be respectful/understanding towards others' modes of belief - regardless of the difference of tenants?) I support my claim with the idea that it is your PC acting upon their own personal history and impulses (i.e. chaotic) rather than their own set code of beliefs (i.e. lawful) which determines and structures their worldview and actions. Your PC's emotional past is overriding their sense of decorum. To me, that's chaotic.
Your PC feels hurt from their past so they're lashing out in attempt to crush that pain. I also argue that your character could not be a monk (by RAW) because of that of impulsive and rash behavior (which is the hallmark of the chaotic alignment).
Of course, the idea of a PC who is angry at the gods for their treatment in life is an infinitely interesting concept to play and explore, but would be better suited for a more chaotic-minded class...
Regardless of moral implications, it certainly does seem like a pretty interesting character concept. Maybe needs a bit of polish, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil and/or chaotic.
I mean... destroying an alter might not be necessarily evil, but this character's motivations certainly are.
An example of non-evil destruction: They built a newer, nicer temple to the same god on the other side of town, and this falling apart temple is now being torn down to make room for an orphanage. That is perfectly alright.
But just general destruction? No, probably not. At least when good or neutral gods are involved. With evil gods, you can write it off sinc the followers were probably involved in some bad juju, and removing that as a threat is ok.
If you were fleeing a temple under siege then i can see where destroying a good alter would not be an evil act if doing so would prevent it falling into enemy hands and being desecrated. Think of it as scuttling an alter
If you were fleeing a temple under siege then i can see where destroying a good alter would not be an evil act if doing so would prevent it falling into enemy hands and being desecrated. Think of it as scuttling an alter
"Better I burn it before they try to cut open a baby on it?"
I think it would be even worse to destroy an altar.
However, Monks usually have a high Wisdom, so I'd think that they should be able to see past this sort of stuff and understand the ways of the world. That would give me the impression that the PC probably "knows better" but persists in being a jerk just to satisfy his angst and self pity.
If the PC also can't talk and just walks around being silently antagonistic about religious matters that might aggravate rather than relieve the irritation this stuff could cause. Then again, maybe you're such a great roleplayer that instead of thinking, "Man, I wish this jerk would cut it out" people will think, "Wow, that's such a unique portrayal of the anguish caused by the Evil policies of Nidal. It inspires me to explore the darker side of imagination and embrace the concept of the anti-hero."
If the idea is just, "This might aggravate you, but it isn't Evil, so you can't tell me to stop!" I'm not sure that will go over as well though.
It really depends on your motivations and how you actually play it out during the game session. It could possibly be evil. If you take your aggression out equally in the followers of good and evil deities, then I would say evil. If you take out your aggression out only on the the alters, etc. of good and evil deities, but avoid harming people, then probably more chaotic. This sounds like a character who could change alignment in the future, depending on where his anger leads him and how he responds to the consequences. He could end up either more evil or less evil.
I'd say it's a neutral act (in a sense, you're simply rejecting that deity's authority), but also an act that will easily get you in trouble with your compatriots.
Sure, you could go smash an altar to Shelyn to make a political statement, but her glaive-carrying priests might object to your statement very, very strenuously.
(And that good-aligned altar you're smashing probably belonged to a potential ally who you've just alienated at best.)
So I think my bottom line is that going around smashing good altars is a terrible idea that's probably going to end with your character dead or in prison.
I don't destruction itself it's evil, imo it's chaotic.
take Gorum for example, he's not evil.Wars are not evil, intentions behind them might be.
Destroying something with or without a reason is chaotic action, not an evil one.
He's destroying any altar, it's like an earthquake, it doesn't let any altar escape his sight. Earthquakes aren't evil, they kill everything.
No, it's not like an earthquake. The altar isn't collateral damage in a fight, he's talking about consciously destroying something sacred to a good deity's faith because he has an issue with all gods. Using your example, he's the evil intentions fueling a war, not a natural disaster.
If he's offending good and evil religions equally, he can likely stay on a neutral path but destroying the holy/good altar is definitely an evil act.
Setting aside Good vs Evil for a moment (I don't think it's Evil), what you're describing is Chaotic, and that's actually a bigger issue for a Monk.
A Monk is Lawful by necessity because a Lawful alignment indicates discipline and control over base needs and desires.
A Monk who becomes overcome with emotion and is recklessly and uncontrollably filled with rage every time they encounter religious iconography is unlikely to remain a Monk very long.
This is the thread-winning post right here. Even if an argument can be made that the destruction of an altar isn't evil (and I agree depending on motives & situation it's possible), random acts of destruction based solely on personal feelings is definitely a chaotic act.
In Golarion, probably the only place where it wouldn't be a chaotic act is Rahadoum since the laws of that land support the suppression of all religions.
I'd personally count destroying a good altar because you hate the good gods and thus wish to deprive them of their worshippers as an evil act (intentions matter, and in this case your intentions for destroying altars seems to be "I hate the gods so I want to reduce their influence on the world"). In any case, I'd also consider any altars your character destroys to be a chaotic act (even if it's the altar of a chaotic deity), as it is acting upon emotion and without the approval of whatever the governing body of the area is. Chaotic acts are not so good for monks.
I don't play PFS, but if I did, I wouldn't want to play in a group with this character. All I see is massive party conflict between the vast majority of characters who are at least somewhat religious and your character, not a good thing for PFS. For a home group, this is the sort of thing you bring up in character creation to make sure the rest of the players are ok with it and can pick concepts that mesh well with it.
I think labelling property destruction evil is a bit of an overreaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does said monk accept divine healing? In any form (up to and including wands and potions, which are probably divinely sourced)?
|
|
How did they do it in Rahadoum ?
In fact it would be a very Lawful thing for a Rahadoumi citizen to do.
Here it depends on how your monk's home culture see this act. If Nidalese casually destroy altars to gods they do not like, then no big problem.
BTW how does he react to altars of Neutral gods ?
Also as long as he can find a way to coexist with his fellow pathfinder, no problem either
I think labelling property destruction evil is a bit of an overreaction.
So arson would be a neutral act?
If we're talking about a professional arsonist doing it solely for mercenary reasons, perhaps.
But to extend the analogy to the OP's character's motives, this is someone performing arson for the moral equivalent of wanting to watch it burn not just knowing that it causes distress, hardship, and suffering but actively seeking that result.
He stated that the character hates the gods. In the character's eyes destroying the altar is an act of aggression performed with the intent of hurting the deity & his/her worshippers.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
It's unlawful, chaotic, worrisome, and not good. But it is not evil.