Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting

[pogre]

Teleportation is the first type of magic that is not available in my setting.

The second is any effect that creates something from nothing, or makes it appear from somewhere else. Ig anything like that is possible, it only last as long as the spell until it pops out of exidtance again.

Raise Dead exist, but not ressurrection. accidents and death in battle can be reversed, but assassination can be donr easily by stealing the head or heart, or destroying the body with fire or acid. What is left won't be enough to raise. Can also be fun to go hunting for a stolen head.

Divinations only exist to the extent that you can consult spirits of the kand about things that happened in their domain, or to get some advice on a problem. Even they can't see the future, just make an estimated prediction.

Excellent. Similar to some changes I am contemplating.

 

[lehcym]

I find the powerfull spells like teleportation not to be a real problem. You think of them in advance and you can add restrictions on them beforehand if you really need to, and as it's announced in advance it's well accepted.

The most annoying are sometimes the lesser spell, that ridiculous little thing that you overlooked and that just has been used in a really clever way. You know that if you are honest it should work, and everybody knows it should work, but it would also break everything.

 

[Scorpio616]

I had a problem with some stuff, but after switching to WFRP 2E those issues were solved.

 

[Kinak]

I've never gone in and edited the spell list myself, but my PCs actually did in one high-level campaign.

They activated an artifact that locked out chronomancy (per the 2nd Edition supplement) and teleportation over the entire world. Planar travel was still possible, so sufficiently powerful mages could establish something equivalent to teleportation networks with permanent gates.

That changed the topology and play of the campaign substantially. They were glad they did it, despite it really nerfing them, because it meant never having to deal with an enemy chronomancer again.

So, I guess the point of my story is consider that, at some point, there was an in-world reason that sort of magic was shut down. Maybe the PCs can fix it... or maybe they're realize it's ultimately a bad idea.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I have a permanent ban on every spell that brings people back from the dead. Sometimes I want to run a lighter game, and I allow clerics to cast them when this is the case, but on homebrew settings where I have put any effort, death is always death.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I have a permanent ban on every spell that brings people back from the dead. Sometimes I want to run a lighter game, and I allow clerics to cast them when this is the case, but on homebrew settings where I have put any effort, death is always death.

Was wondering when this was going to be brought up.

Raise Dead - and spells like it - causes far too many issues in regards to versimilitude. No one of any importance would die, save by old age.

I have replaced with spells like Revivify: a powerful priest can bring the dead back, but only in a short window of time after their passing. So it can happen, but not with world-destroying regularity, and still gives adventurers the ability to recover from bad luck or bad calls, if their healer is on the ball about it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Ah yes. The ol' raise dead conundrum. I control npc's. Npc's always choose NOT to be resurrected. Players may choose whatever they like. Npc choice is "justified" as preferring afterlife (not that I need to justify that choice to anyone but me.)

 

[Celebrim]

Was wondering when this was going to be brought up.

Raise Dead - and spells like it - causes far too many issues in regards to versimilitude. No one of any importance would die, save by old age.

Actually, the idea that important people would be raised from the dead threatens my versimlitude. In fact, by law in most of my world it's illegal to raise an 'important person' from the dead in most cases. Once you are dead, threatening the natural order of the world by bringing you back tends to cause way too many problems.

For example, suppose you have a situation where a King is killed. At that point, his 40 year old son is now the lawful king after having waited to obtain the throne for many years. If you raise the king back to life, does his son cease to be king and must he now keep waiting? Is it possible to have reverse succession? Can a king be uncrowned? Can you have two lawful kings? Will now the son resent the father, or if resentment is already present, will it be increased? Will the father even want to be returned to life, seeing as he must now supplant his son? Suppose the son and the king were not of like mind and desired to follow very different policies, and to place very different advisors in high station? Won't there be immediate conflict between the son and the father, and between the supporters of the two administrations?

In the history of my world, there have been way too many feuds and civil wars that came about in centuries past because someone decided to ressurect a dead prince. Brother vs. brother, father vs. son, even in cases that before the death the two had held a loving and respectful relationship. Brothers have agreed to have their older sibling raised and restored to the successsion, only to become resentful when they see the policies the brothers put in place and regret it. Thousands of people have died just so someone could have a few more years of mortal life. At some point, society said, "It's not worth it." In general, it's illegal by law and custom to raise a person from the dead if they have an adult heir unless the adult heir is the one guilty of the murder. And in general, everyone has to want the dead person back before the priests will attempt it. Family members are interviewed privately before a decision is made, consultations are made with the divine, and only then is raise the dead person considered.

Further to that, there are lots of reasons why a dead person might not want to come back to life. In general, most NPCs don't have a mortal destiny that they will deem worth it to come back for. PCs are among the most common sorts that are actually raised because they usually have destinies to fulfill and no heirs or other entanglements complicating things.

I'd think its actually more likely the unimportant persons that get raised, at least if we are talking about nominally good temples. That's among the reasons temples charge wealthy adventurers for spells. It's so that woodcutter who is his families sole source of livelihood can be brought back and without whom, the family is rendered destitute, the children fatherless, and the wife berieved. There is generally little concern over whether an 'important' dead person is brought back. The only time that happens is in nations with 'immortal' autocrats that have loyal panapoly in place to keep them on the throne no matter what happens. And in those cases, its most likely that the death involved an attempt to subvert that, and so an attack on the loyal priests occurred as part of the coup and various attempts were made to put the body beyond restoration.

This isn't merely a theoretical consideration. It's written into the plots of my game. In fact, in the current murder mystery scenario this is playing out pretty much in the way I consider typical.

A doting mother of a wealthy and politically connected noble family, has had her son, the clan chief murdered. She's petitioned the king and the temple to raise her son from the dead. Both are going to refuse her request as being unwise.

a) Though she doesn't know it, her younger son resents the older son because the older has always been her favorite. This despite the fact that by personality, the older is a semi-autstiic recluse incapable of providing proper leadership to the clan and the younger is ambitious socially gregarious ruthless person similar to herself and who is actually involved in the day to day running of the clan. As things stand, the younger would retain his loyalty to his 'foolish' older brother. But the death of his brother has changed the dynamic, and awakened the younger's ambition to possibilties he hither considered imposible. If the older brother were actually raised from the dead, in a few years time not only would the younger brother murder his older brother, but probably the older brother's children as well.
b) If the situation was reversed, the outcome would be little better. The younger brother and the overall alignment of the household is LE. The older brother is LG. If the older brother where the younger, and the younger older and murdered, the same resentment would eventually develop. The older LG brother wanted to change the way the clan behaved. Had his ruthless brother been raised from the dead, he'd have been tempted eventually wrest control of the clan from him by force - probably leading to a clan wide lethal feud that would have killed scores of people and led to the King intervening.
c) The King doesn't directly know these things, but the King is currently embroiled in putting down a minor rebellion. The last thing he wants to do right now is break traditions, be seen to favor the aristocracy, and create the possibility of additional turmoil in one of the clans.
d) The Temple doesn't know these things, but does know that the diety has said 'no' regarding all the questions they've asked regarding this matter (the mother is a major financial backer, so its worth asking). They know that no good is going to come from bringing him back, that the diety in question (who does know this) said 'no', and they know that the murdered brother is unwilling to return. Ultimately, all they can do is convey to the grieving family that the soul of their beloved has been conveyed successfully to his immortal life in the outer planes and is happy there.

 

[GnomeWorks]

<interesting and well-thought out ramifications for keeping Raise Dead around>

Or... you could just cut it, and not have to go through all that.

I mean, it seems to me that most DMs don't think through the logical ramifications, as you have. Most of the DMs I've dealt with certainly haven't.

So I'd rather just cut it and not deal with it, than have to deal with settings that have giant holes in their consistency when it comes to discussions about raising the dead.

 

[Celebrim]

Or... you could just cut it, and not have to go through all that.

But I don't want to 'cut' it. It's another tool in the tool box for creating good stories. Among other things, it's a cushion against having the effects of bad luck wreck good ongoing stories and character development. It has a gamist value for making a better game, and it has a narrative value because many of the best stories involve characters coming back from the dead, and it has a simulationist value because of the interest of thinking about how it impacts the social life of a world where magic is real and the dead coming back might be less than extraordinarily unusual.

I mean, it seems to me that most DMs don't think through the logical ramifications, as you have. Most of the DMs I've dealt with certainly haven't.

That's not the systems fault.