With respect, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], I believe that [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] 's input is constructive, even though he appears surprised of something that appears to be rather the common default approach.
In fact, if you're willing 5ekyu, you could provide some practical example of how you implement post-life story into your setting?
I thought i might have done so already but...
Last fantasy game i ran with 5e some years ago...
I created a pair of cults - both worshipping the same goddess of death and the transition.
One cult viewed the "reborn" as having been "cradled in the arms of the goddess" and therefor blessed, holy, possibly seers etc. They were revered.
Their hostile sister cult viewed the returned as having escaped the goddess and as abominations - so they viewed the returned as to be killed.
I established a feat tree that started with "been dead, got better." that included a variety of special post-death types of stuff... spotting "once dead" speak with actual dead and so on. player could start down those trees after they came back and a couple did. (it could also have been done as prestige class but yech.)
Each character who died got a post-death scene that usually ran between sessions where they encountered figures from their past and figures from their future and passed loved ones etc - always with an offer to stay and also a task to be done if they went back. These were always personal to the character and gave them a good new hook. Sometimes that hook provided new openings in the current plots for the character and/or the game - but sometimes it was exclusively personal.
So when the party got around to the rezz step, almost always the next session or later, the pc came back a noticeably changed person.
In my current 5e based scifi game, looking at how i wanted to do the tech, i did a reverse component cost onto everything above the 3rd level revive... you have to have a soulcatcher-chip installed when you die or you cannot be brought back and they are expensive. So, its the guy wanting the chance to be rezzed that forks out the cost and the procedure to keep a constant brain-map etc stored so that when he dies he can be ressurected if its more than just a few minutes. That creates a wonderful strata-element for society because most folks cannot afford that investment, some places treat it like "high end insurance" and also sometimes going into hostile jobs these are given as "perks". But the overall impact of the technology is fairly easy to track since it stratas so well instead of being "go to a cleric and why wont good clerics raise anyone or law enforcement raise victims?" kind of disconnect. Naturally it also hits home with different groups, different religions, different politics etc as to how folks feel about it. The PCs dumped a lot of cashola to get theirs inserted at about fourth level and one of them just had a haywire have to remove moment due to a plot issue where the bad guys were using the captive PC and trying to hack one of their own into his soulcatcher'ed body while it was still alive. (Adds another reason to not just kill a PC that makes sense within the setting cuz those catchers go into lock-down mode when you die.)
Life and De4ath and After are huge elements of most any campaign world - or should be. Bringing back the dead is just one of the elements of say DND magic that alters heaving any setting it is played in - or should - just like say teleport and flying dragons require management too for "old world castles" to make sense.
As stated, its fine to run a campaign where dead is dead but choosing that as well as "can be easily dead" type hardcore mechanics are two choices taken together which will serve up a clash with a heavy story-on-character type campaign... so obviously... it would seem not making all three of those choices at the same time for one game would be a non-controversial no-brainer.
Anecdote: one of the players in the 3.5 game after all was said and done and after he had run a heavy defense stay alive at all cost character and **never died** said later he did regret not getting that side of the game explored. it was one of the reasons he started branching out from always building "survive at all cost nothing matters more than not dead" characters after over 20 years of doing that over and over. he had a lot of fun in some of our future games with that change, though he did often go back to his core tank-4-life as well.
For good results long term, choose mechanics/ruleset-setting-campaign-type-pcs-hook/plot that all work together in harmony and enhancing each other - don't chose them to conflict at a basic fundamental level. How is this controversial?