| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromany is not forbidden within the walls of the city, but stealing corpses, killing people or having undead wander the streets certainly is. So necromancers still have to abide by the rules and laws of the city. The same goes for Asmodeus priests. They cannot make human sacrifices, but they are allowed to operate in the city, sticking mainly to the contract side of their deity (at least openly, Ornher Reebs might develop some very illegal schemes in your campaign behind the screens, if you want him to).
The question then is: why was Rolth expelled from the Acadamae? For doing 'normal' necromancy stuff but breaking the laws of the city (e.g. stealing corpses to experiment upon)? That would never be a necromancy headmaster's judgement. In my campaign the PCs learned that he did not only experiment with flesh golems, he also tried to graft undead flesh upon living tissue, which went too far, even for the Acadamae's standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necromany is not forbidden within the walls of the city, but stealing corpses, killing people or having undead wander the streets certainly is. So necromancers still have to abide by the rules and laws of the city. The same goes for Asmodeus priests. They cannot make human sacrifices, but they are allowed to operate in the city, sticking mainly to the contract side of their deity (at least openly, Ornher Reebs might develop some very illegal schemes in your campaign behind the screens, if you want him to).
The question then is: why was Rolth expelled from the Acadamae? For doing 'normal' necromancy stuff but breaking the laws of the city (e.g. stealing corpses to experiment upon)? That would never be a necromancy headmaster's judgement. In my campaign the PCs learned that he did not only experiment with flesh golems, he also tried to graft undead flesh upon living tissue, which went too far, even for the Acadamae's standards.
Point of clarification. Human sacrifice (or elven / dwarven / halfling / etc) is not illegal. Sacrifice of unwilling people is illegal. At the opening of the newly created temple to Asmodeus there was a sacrifice of 13 virgin woman offered up. I believe this is detailed in the Guide to Korvosa. Since the 13 virgins were suppose to have been "willing" it was legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point of clarification. Human sacrifice (or elven / dwarven / halfling / etc) is not illegal. Sacrifice of unwilling people is illegal. At the opening of the newly created temple to Asmodeus there was a sacrifice of 13 virgin woman offered up. I believe this is detailed in the Guide to Korvosa. Since the 13 virgins were suppose to have been "willing" it was legal.
In a world where magical compulsion is a thing, calling someone ‘willing’ is a shaky notion. Although the source material on Korvosa is not conclusive on the matter, in my mind it does not really suggest that ‘willing sacrifices’ are legal.
Here’s what the Guide to Korvosa says on the event you refer to:
Archbishop Ornher Reebs dedicated the new temple, with the help of the Acadamae’s headmaster, in an appropriately infernal way, sealing a pact with an erinyes using the blood of 13 virgin sacrifices. While all of these virgins volunteered for the dedication, some observers speculate that a few were charmed or otherwise magically compelled to join the “festivities.”
The conclusion of this dedication sent shockwaves through the city, and Korvosa’s citizens threatened to riot, raze the temple, and topple the monarchy. Queen Domina calmed the city by expending her own personal wealth to import a powerful cleric, who then attempted to return all 13 sacrifices to life. Only four of the virgins refused the service, and most of the other nine are still alive today.
The people’s reaction was certainly not in line with a ‘legal’ act. It was political influence and manipulation (both the queen and the headmaster of the Acadamae supported the church), combined with an expensive emergency operation that managed to do enough damage control to keep the people at bay. The fact that nine out of thirteen sacrifices accepted the resurrection is a strong hint that ‘willing’ was a debatable term.
Anyway, I suppose it is up to each GM to make his own call and decide what is legal and what isn’t. In my campaign the sacrifices were illegal and the aftermath of the tragedy described above sufficed to (at least officially and openly) keep the church of Asmodeus in line for years.
The same goes for the OP’s question on necromancy in Korvosa. If you tell your players that Rolth was expelled from the Acadamae for doing ‘illegal experiments’, they will want to know what those experiments were in a city that has been training necromancers for generations. Creating a flesh golem would not have been sufficient for my group as an excuse, since creating undead is apparently no problem in the city. So, what do you do with Rolth? You either turn the man into a serial killer (like the new edition did) or you come up with another plausible answer. In my (pre-new edition) campaign that answer was merging living and dead matter.
The matter even became personal when Rolth gave a PC’s sister a skeletal arm, after he had already corrupted her mind to make her his sidekick. This led to a dramatic conclusion in which the PC had to put down his own sister, since she proved beyond salvation. So, I made my own call and ran with it, trying to weave it into the campaign to enhance the story. I can tell you, when the PCs finally took down Rolth (who had inflicted even more evil upon them) in an extra homebrew sidetrek adventure, it was an emotional moment and a great triumph at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with you about the legality of the sacrifice. You fail to consider that, since the queen agreed with the sacrifice, that made it legal. As for the girls being charmed, people vastly overrate what charmed means. They treat the caster as a friend, it doesn't override their personal choice. At worst, they are willing to be sacrificed to another deity, just maybe not Asmodeus. Furthermore, their resurrection proves nothing more than 9 of them had no issues with coming back.
People riot for any reason or no reason. The presence of rioting says nothing more than people objected. As an example, the American Revolution began in part as riots against the actions of Britain, despite those actions being fully legal.
I agreement with Val'bryn here. It's pretty clear that, had the sacrifices been willing, they would have been legal and even had the blessing of the queen. The only thing that questioned their legality was the notion that multiple woman seemed to be under a compulsion or charm effect.
Now, making that kind of sacrifice illegal in someone's campaign is totally cool. If you use the source material as a basis for legality though the law seems to indicate that willing vs unwilling is where the line gets drawn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a sacrifice is something Queen Domina was OK with doesn't mean it was legal in the city. Korvosa has a complex legal system with a variety of checks to royal power built into the system, including the arbiters. It's not simply what the monarch says, goes. A strong personality like Domina's had more ability to work her royal authority and dominate the system, but notice that the sacrifice issue is handled by her mollifying the public, not by use of royal power.
Ultimately, Korvosa's charter probably never touched on the subject of sentient sacrifice, willing or not (though I bet something about it made it into the 247 amendments after the Asmodean incident).