D&D 5E Mummy Lord Question

[lobo316]

I think a remove curse always removes a curse, regardless of what kind of curse it is. Otherwise, what would be the point? But unless the curse is also lifted from the treasure itself, the moment you touch the treasure again, you are cursed again. So I would go with A.

You know, I agree with this thought, in concept. BUT, where's the danger in taking a mummy lords treasure if a 3rd level spell can negate the curse just like any other curse?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The treasure is effectively worthless - it curses you - your remove curse - it remains cursed - it recurses you - and so on.

Unless you just sell it - but that would be an Evil act, and your PCs are the good guys, right?

 

[feartheminotaur]

That's actually a great way to do it - "Oh, you've removed that curse from yourself, now...Bob, don't pick that back up, I said 'from yourself' you fool"

Also seems in line with the DMG's cursed items where cursed items don't show up with identify and remove curse only breaks the attunement, not the curse on the item.

And would it be Evil if they sold or gave it to an Evil person? Two wrongs and such?

 

[lobo316]

Thanks guys, always nice to bounce these ideas off DMs without a "vested interest" as a player. I think I am going with option A then and here's why...

It's not "just a curse". It's a regional effect.

If we look at Remove Curse, paraphrased.....

At your touch, all curses affecting one creature or object end. If the object is a cursed magic item, it's curse remains (but the own can discard the item).

So if the object is a non-magic dagger...is the curse lifted? Yes, however, the regional effects are not.

According to the lettering of the spell...yes, the dagger would "technically" no longer be cursed, but...I'm thinking as long as the mummy is alive (at least it's canopic jar), the curse will return, maybe immediately. I think it'd be enough for the PC to drop the item (as with any cursed magic item), but then you'd treat the treasure like any magic item (even though it's not technically magic).

I'm just thinking that remove curse is just to easy to lift the curse of a powerful mummy lord, so I'm tying the curse to the regional effect.

Make sense?

 

[Imaculata]

Well the point of the curse is to make the treasure worthless to people (read: adventurers) trying to steal it. And I think that holds true, whether you free a person from the personal effect of the curse or not; The treasure itself remains cursed after all. I understand your reasoning, but removing a curse really should be that simple. But I agree that removing the regional effect of the curse (which affects the entire treasure) is a different matter, and should not be so easily removed.

In other words, you can save a person from death by lifting the curse on him/her, but you cannot lift the curse on the treasure itself, unless you destroy the mummy lord.

 

[lobo316]

Well the point of the curse is to make the treasure worthless to people (read: adventurers) trying to steal it. And I think that holds true, whether you free a person from the personal effect of the curse or not; The treasure itself remains cursed after all. I understand your reasoning, but removing a curse really should be that simple. But I agree that removing the regional effect of the curse (which affects the entire treasure) is a different matter, and should not be so easily removed.

In other words, you can save a person from death by lifting the curse on him/her, but you cannot lift the curse on the treasure itself, unless you destroy the mummy lord.

Agreed. And that is pretty much the way I'll be running it.