Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bowbe" data-source="post: 2912315" data-attributes="member: 6328">Before I begin let me say I am in no way picking on the Man in the Funny hat. The quoted part of his reply just reminded me of a couple things. *Chuckle* Glad I didn't co-author and co-develop Raise the Dead. Wait, I did. Long story short... there was a description in one of the adventures of a NPC cleric who would use his limited abilities to raise dead in order to occassionally raise farmers who died in accidents or young children who had a tree fall on them or whatever. In a different adventure a ghost haunts a party asking them to retrieve a stone and his body parts to raise him from the dead. I'm sure that doesn't qualify as an instance of it being used on behalf or for an NPC because it isn't "official" by the book stuff and doesn't qualify as a "meta reason" for the spell to exist; rather it will be exclaimed shortly after this post that those "meta reasons" were for motivation of plot. True. And? Part of the reason I got into developing that book was exactly because we had a GM who had his own insistence that if your character died it's soul was filled with joy and would never want to return. Then consistantly allowed other gm's under him to raise their NPC minions if the PCs killed them off too quickly. Evidently their insistence was that their pet NPCs get second chances but characters do not. Depending on the groups you play with and your years at the gaming tables you could see all sorta wild stuff go on and probably have. My point is you say "my own insistence". Isn't that what is great about D&D? Everyone has their own insistence on various points about the quality and flavor of their game or what they wish their game was or want their game to be or think the game is from their own narrow perspective? I'm the first to admit I'm guilty of that sort of thing myself from time to time.Cutting out all the meta this and lingo that ultimately thats what it's all about isn't it? Our own insistence on what the game has meant to any one of us who have played, argued and played some more over the last how many years? Bottom line... I felt that Remathilis post was awesome! He was savvy enough to know people would go through and argue every single point he was attempting to make. I knew when I read it before scrolling down to any of the replies that there would be at least a half dozen people jump off and tell him he was flat wrong too! It's brave to put yourself out like that, knowing that you are going to create controversy. Luckily controversy typically leads to fresh dialogue which is what I like. I think if we look at Remathalis's post "by the book" and no I don't mean "by the core rules" I mean by the generally encountered experiences with D&D you would find most of his list to be pretty accurate. Tons of people cut their teeth on a game quite similar to that, or played some video game inspired by D&D that reflected his ten truths. Of course they aren't the same for every "campaign" but they are I think at very least familiar to the psyche of the greater majority of people who have played in a D&D type setting or adventure. Maybe it isn't the game they prefer to play or run now, but it's a game that they have played or run at some point in time. Case</blockquote>

Verification