|
So, if you have a player that wants to play a cleric of Pharasma, and she's really attached to the idea of not allowing the looting of tombs...and the adventure path you're running contains a not insignificant number of tombs where the wealth found inside is assumed to be part of party treasure...can anyone think of some good justifications that are party friendly for such a cleric to allow the taking of valuable items?
I could see her allowing the party to take items from a tomb they cleared of undead abominations, for example. Or if they take a really cool magical sword, replace it with a more mundane one...? Any other ideas?
This will be a large group, I want to minimize the chances for conflict...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the player's job is to come up with characters that will fit the group and the campaign. That doesn't mean there can't be conflict or angst but the character should mostly be able to get along with the rest of the group.
If the player is going to choose a character that has views opposite those of the rest of the party then it's really up to the player to come up with why their character would want to travel with this group.
My view is characters would choose adventuring parties like they would choose a group of friends. They would hang out with the ones they had the most in common with and would avoid those who participated in activities they objected to. If this party does things the cleric will object to then this cleric would not adventure with them.... end of story, make up a new character that would. However, if this player is set on this concept then it's up to them to come up with their own reason for adventuring with people who he/she knows will regularly do things he/she would disapprove of.
|
|
So, I was a bit preachy but I didn't actually give any suggestions, so here are some (though they may be lame):
1) The cleric could come to realize that items buried with the dead do the dead no good but in the hands of the cleric's ally aids the cleric in carrying out Pharasma's doctrine.
2) Churches need income like any other business. Maybe the cleric requests the characters tithe a small percentage of what they find to the church. All that gold in the chest doesn't do the ancient king any good but could be used to help spread the word of Pharasma.
In any of these cases, maybe the cleric requires the party to say a prayer to Pharasma before she will allow them to take anything from a tomb. Or maybe the cleric requests the other characters occasionally make a donation to the church of Pharasma in atonement for looting a tomb. Whatever the cleric chooses, it should be something the party is willing to do and seems logical based on the situation.
That way everyone is happy.
(I'll try to think of some more reasons as the day goes on.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"move" the treasure.
The cleric is against looting tombs of the goods that tombs were made to protect. They should have no objection to looting the fallen corpses of past tomb-raiders.
I don't know the particulars of your AP, but you should be able to rework the tombs such that you are slaying un-natural creatures in them and then just have the loot be either used by the undead invaders or have it on the nearby corpses of unlucky folk who tried to raid the tomb.
Have the +X sword of uberness beside the tomb in a dead hand rather than inside a sarcophagus :)
Just a thought.
-S
This came up when we started our current campaign. The halfling fighter/rogue/shadowdancer had some serious concerns about things like being raised and of course looting the dead. Here's the answer my cleric of Death gave:
"Once proper rites have been given, the body is but an empty shell. The shell has no need of possessions. I have given it what dignity I can. But the departed's possessions can still benefit the living and ensure that those who live now can prosper. At least, live long enough to meet what fate awaits them. Take those items you desire, and do not worry about what I will do. I am concerned with the fate of the living and with the souls of the dead. The body is nothing."
|
Or the other players could return to tombs they just cleared at night, while the cleric of stuffupyness sleeps, gather the extra loot and not mention it, she never needs to know. As long as she isn't the one tracking party loot, she never even needs to know that the party is splitting 10k gp as opposed to 6k.
Of course, this is assuming that one of your players is devious enough to come up with such a twisted plan... ;-)
Define "loot."
There's a difference between removing grave goods, opening up a sarcophagus to take its user's magical sword or rifle through his pockets, and stripping the gold fixtures off of the walls to melt down.
There's a few justifications for a lot of it. Only tombs of living gods are respected. Grave goods (i.e. most stuff that you'd leave) matter at the moment of interment, so removing them later on isn't a hassle. Only take things not actually on the person, or only take gold, and not any items.
Probably one of the more interesting ones is the notion of the "broken seal." The whole point of a tomb is that it's a sanctified place of rest and repose. Once evil gets in (pretty well the reason you'd go cavorting in the tomb in the first place) it's no longer a tomb. Instead, the onus is on the priest to restore a tomb-like status.
In other words, stuff isn't protected, but dignity is. While this would cause the priest to speak out against some looting, it would permit other, and more importantly would give the priest a lot of interesting stuff to do about the problem, like convincing a party to reseal and generally treat a tomb like a gravesite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: how are the grave goods treated in your world, as related to the resting souls of the dead?
Are these tombs like Egyptian tombs, where the people believe (more or less, simplistically) that the dead NEED this stuff to journey through the afterlife?
Items found in tombs are not the same things as digging through a corpse's pockets for loose change (which as Lathiira's GM, I recall that that was what that particular discussion was about)--usually items in tombs are ritually placed there as part of a funereal service to ensure the departed's final rest/afterlife is a good one.
And in that particular case, I can see how a cleric of repose would object--because she is fully aware that taking this stuff may well cause unrest for the departed souls--and beyond the rightness of it, she might even well convince the party that angering a bunch of souls about to become restless undead would be a bad idea.
If you want the party to be able to loot the tombs, then you need to establish clearly to the cleric that the treasure looting will not disturb the departed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My friend brought up a good point regarding Pharasma and tomb looting in the adventure The Mummy's Mask. The opening of the necropolis for looting goes against the entire religious ideal of Pharasma.
Why would the clerics of that god be ok with that?
Also isn't this an idea that basically 'breaks' the adventure's main idea?
|
Okay, I'm looking at Pharasma's deity article. You know what it doesn't say anything about her or the Church objecting to? Looting tombs.
There is not a single word even implying that taking valuables from, say, a chest that happens to be in a tomb is remotely against Pharasma's teachings in the least way. She cares about the proper disposal of the bodies of the dead, not their possessions.
Now, actually despoiling the bodies of the dead is a different matter, and something she objects to strongly...but even there only those buried with proper Pharasmin rites are really protected.
Indeed, if going through a non-Pharasmin tomb (or a Pharasmin tomb inhabited by monsters...and thus already despoiled), a priest might consider it his duty to strip any bodies, immerse them in water, and bury them in proper Pharasmin burial shrouds with all attendant rites. This, incidentally, would strip said body of all valuables. They could also hold off on doing it until it was safe to do so, since they're hardly obligated to be stupid.
But generally that level of care is reserved for worshipers of the Goddess. The bodies of nonbelievers are not generally considered important in the church.
So...this really shouldn't be an issue, going by Golarion canon. The player is imputing additional personality traits to the deity that are not only not implied, but actively contradicted by the Goddesses description...and also one that actively screws over the other PCs. If they're just misinformed...inform them. If they really insist even after being informed then, frankly, they're being kind of a dick out of character and you should talk to them about, y'know, not being one.
As a specific note regarding the Mummy's Mask AP stuff...those aren't remotely Pharasmin tombs. And indeed disgorge undead upon occasion, which makes Pharasma's faithful sorta obligated to go in there and 'despoil' them to get rid of those horrific abominations.
In short ... Pharasma cares about the dead people, not their stuff. :)
In my very first pathfinder game I decided to play a Neutral cleric of Pharasma. Anyhow, I wrote up a single page on backstory, personality, etc. and the dead remaining dead and undisturbed was an important part of it. What I didn't forsee is that two other players decided to make a pair of treasure hunters (tomb robbers). Late in the dungeon there was an actual timb that was robbed, but I remained outside. I asked the GM if there was a way to lock the treasure hunters inside, and I was told yes: the door only locked and unlocked from the outside. For the record I didn't lock them inside.
I understand the predicament, and actually begrudged my gaming group a bit for making me choose to not role-play my character for the sake of getting along with the people at the table. In a way I feel like I asked for it though. I know what adventurers do. The morally ambiguous "mercenary" and "grave robber" character types have been to death, but it definitely makes it easier for the players to gte along.
Also remember: Pharasma is the goddess of the dead and her clerics are charged with the sanctity of the remains. They look after the REMAINS specifically and care little for superfluous regalia. It may be, within the church that other faiths' burial rites are considered anywhere from distasteful to downright heresy.
Imagine for a moment that a Pharasmin entered the tomb of a devout of Nethys. Said worshipper was entombed in a lavish underground lab and library complex. This campus includes a dungeon of fell creatures for further experimentation, summoning chambers and necrotic cysts. Y'see, the master fully anticipated his own return to unlife at some point and wanted everything ready for his furthered studies.
Well along comes the Pharasmin and finds a bunch of monsters and accidentally summoned creatures trapped in the tomb alongside construct servants. The Pharasmin realizes all of these trappings are tainted by the desire to cheat the Mother of Souls and when she reaches one of the necrotic cysts and finds the corpse in suspended animation surrounded by a host of undead acolytes, well that TEARS it. This whole place is a blasphemy to Pharasma and everything in it is null and void.
I see the Pharasmin as "correcting the mistakes" of other religious traditions and how they bury their dead. This might not be the case with everyone's campaign, but that's how I do it.
The lastest AP, the Mummy's Mask, has the church of Pharasma letting people in to loot the old tombs in Wati. So I don't see why a Priest of Pharasma would be against looting.
Okay, I'm looking at Pharasma's deity article. You know what it doesn't say anything about her or the Church objecting to? Looting tombs.
Actually, I was sure something like that was mentioned somewhere. So far, I have found something to that effect in the description of the Pharasmin faith in "Trial of the Beast" (Carrion Crown AP, 2nd book).
"Adventuring priests avoid entering tombs for the purpose of looting, though if a tomb is known to hold undead, they accept this transgression with the intent of dispatching abominations (though they still oppose desecrating non-undead corpses in such places)."
It is fairly weak though, and there need not be Pharasma's own decree - instead it might be part of the dogma and tradition of the church.
Still, iirc the idea in Mummy's Mask is that the Osirioni government itself opened the necropolis with the idea that adventurers would take the valuable relics and, wanting to convert them into riches ASAP, would sell them to local merchants, with the idea that this would allow the government itself to get what it wants. Thus, the local Pharasmin cult might be okay with it as long as certain standards are met, the dead are treated with due respect and any encountered undead are dispatched. It could be seen as a necessary evil, or an opportunity to check up on old tombs that the church itself was not able to oversee and that could have become despoiled or unhallowed. In fact, they might encourage local clerics to join adventuring groups to ensure that "things are done right" - which provides a good hook for the PC cleric.
In addition, the DM could allow the way treasure is received to give the whole operation a more official feel. in order to avoid smuggling or improper treatment the church or the government might offer cash bounties or material rewards (including magic items) for recovered and duly submitted relics, or simply for securing tombs without everything intact - in essence, instead of getting the treasure from the dungeon, the PCs would get it from the authorities. Even in the regular module, you can have it is a sort-of sidequest, where the PC get an offer (through the cleric) to secure the tomb of a noted Pharasmite saint or important historical figure, discretely inspect it, and then reseal it or make it available as a pilgrimage site with the support of the clergy.
|
The way the Pharasmans handle it in TMM seems pretty sensible, they have 3 basic rules. "Remember how this came to pass. Every slaves hut is a memorial. Honor the departed." Essentially, this translates as 'Tombs are holy places, do not engage in needless conflict. Do not desecrate or vandalise tombs, wilful and unnecessary destruction is not tolerated. The dead should be treated with dignity and respect, i.e.; there is no need to dump the contents of a sarcophagus on the floor.'
That all serves to keep a modicum of honour and respect for the dead and their resting places but allows the taking of their grave goods to benefit the living upon their eventual path to Pharasmas realm. It's also seen as an opportunity to learn more about ancient history and recover knowledge that may have been lost.
An argument could be made that all treasures, wealth and memorabilia left behind in a grave is part of the consecration of the grave, and should not be even touched for up to a year after the corpse was interned, lest the consecration of the grave be violated; The spirit needs the treasures and memorabilia left to them to make their journey to the Bonelands, or the lands beyond in their final reward.
For example: (borrowing from WoD-Wraith) a spirit would use the incorporeal spirit of a sword left at his grave as a spirit weapon in the journey to the Happy Hunting Lands.
A priest of Pharasma would know whether or not a spirit has made the journey, and whether a tomb is lootable or not.
From what I've read in TMM, the Church of Pharasma was against opening up Wati to adventurers, but since the government was going to do it regardless, went with it so they could at the least, regulate what was happening.
I believe that the AP mentioned that part of the reason the Church was against it was because some of the 'old ways' from the land's old pantheon (Egyptian) were still lingering around in the current culture. Material items entombed with the dead some how created a 'spiritual copy' that the departed can use on their journey in the after-life.
Random note: I feel that Abadar would love what is going down in Orsirion in that TMM.
Hmm, I think according to Pharasmite doctrine the judgement takes place pretty quickly, so ancient necropoli would definitely not be covered under this rule. It is more likely that the people inside were buried under different customs. Wasn't ancient Osirion supposed to have gods similar to the RL ancient Egyptian ones?