Bring 'Um Back Alive?

[MarkB]

So, just buy some scrolls of Raise Dead and hire a rogue to cast them.

 

[Dozen]

So, just buy some scrolls of Raise Dead and hire a rogue to cast them.

Same thing. Now, stealing the scrolls could work, and be exciting. I'd support that approach.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I see no issues with Raise Dead other than what the DM puts in the way (and the whole "willing" thing).

There are countless occasions where a King has had an Assassin, or many, on retainer. That is not public knowledge (normally). I see it no differently for a Cleric to be on staff either in secret or otherwise (if he worries about "publicity").

And if you are going to have a zoo with sentient creatures, then guess what, morals and publicity go out the window as you are dealing most likely with a totalitarian state - and what the King says is law - there is no worrying about who thinks what. After all, if the King is putting so much money and resources into such a zoo, then he has more than ample resources at his disposal to allow for the "reinstating" of life into exhibits of value. Consider it part of the maintenance costs.

I'd tend to think of such a set-up in the same way as how Caligula managed his empire. He did many outrageous things that the common folk loved. To them he was a fun and entertaining emperor. But, to the aristocracy, he was a living nightmare. Where that all goes is that he had power and money - he could do what he wanted. A King in this scenario is very similar here.

(And using that comparison, the King may be doing his thing, but the nobles could oppose it - and that could lead to a whole other dimension of the campaign.)

Overall, I think that the premise of such a campaign could be interesting. However, I also think that it could get old quickly. If all a party ever does is serve a single master as nothing more than acquirers of beast fodder, then it would eventually devolve into doing the same thing, time and time again. While the creatures may change, the overall effect would be the same - find creature, stuff in box. You will probably want to use this as additional quests, or main quests if they are not doing something else, but having a diverse sandbox will be very important to prevent burnout.

But too, it'll depend on the players. If they really get into it, then great. But I've too often see players who are a little hyper and easily distracted - so you will still want a range of things they'd be able to do.

Regardless, have fun!

 

[Razjah]

True, if the king is holding sentient being captive for show I guess it wouldn't be difficult to find a cleric to cast raise dead.

I get the point about it getting repetitive but I don't look at it as being that different from delving into different dungeons. The overall effect become the same- find dungeon, loot it, sell junk to get ready for next dungeon. But, spacing it out would probably be best to prevent burnout, like [MENTION=95387]BriarMonkey[/MENTION] said.

 

[BriarMonkey]

...
I get the point about it getting repetitive but I don't look at it as being that different from delving into different dungeons. ...

Agreed. Any campaign (for which I am thinking something long-term) would get repetative if it only focused on a single type of adventure model - be it dungeon delving (in the classic sense); monster hunting; or court intrigue. Any campaign that is to have some staying power will have to have diversity.

 

[Dozen]

And if you are going to have a zoo with sentient creatures, then guess what, morals and publicity go out the window as you are dealing most likely with a totalitarian state - and what the King says is law - there is no worrying about who thinks what. After all, if the King is putting so much money and resources into such a zoo, then he has more than ample resources at his disposal to allow for the "reinstating" of life into exhibits of value. Consider it part of the maintenance costs.

I'd tend to think of such a set-up in the same way as how Caligula managed his empire. He did many outrageous things that the common folk loved. To them he was a fun and entertaining emperor. But, to the aristocracy, he was a living nightmare. Where that all goes is that he had power and money - he could do what he wanted. A King in this scenario is very similar here.

Oh, sure, because there is nobody in the D&D world who'd throw over a tyrant. These sort of things happen exactly as frequently as in reality. Nevermind, I don't know, the six adventurers per square meter in every tavern.
Now really, it's silly to say that totalitarianism works the same way it does in our world. In D&D, there are powerful people who sell their swords, murder by the thousands or play the hero and get away with it without trouble. There is magic in the air. Divinations get by every mundane wall. Guilds, houses and organizations scheme endlessly. And all of them will have adventurers on their payroll if they know what's good for them. A king needs good publicity at least among the people of his kind. Respect from his peers, his church, his family, those of similar alignment, whichever. One wrong step in the wrong direction, only one more enemy than what his own adventurers can take on, and he's as good as dead. None will see them coming.
The king may not realize that(my whole 'only laid back people can think of this crap' theory is responsible for this assumption), but clerics have positive Wisdom modifiers. They will keep the idiot safe at least from themselves. Unless his demise could turn out to be useful, naturally. Yay for intrigue.

 

[BriarMonkey]

No offense [MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION], but if I recall, the OP was asking for opinions, not someone to DM the game for him. Everyone here has been posting their opinions and you have done nothing but malign them.

Let the OP, and presumably the DM, make the decisions for his world based on ideas as presented.

 

[Dozen]

No offense @Dozen , but if I recall, the OP was asking for opinions, not someone to DM the game for him. Everyone here has been posting their opinions and you have done nothing but malign them. Let the OP, and presumably the DM, make the decisions for his world based on ideas as presented.

Offense taken, if only for saying I have only maligned Dandu's opinions. I totally did that(I don't consider antagonism a negative trait) but also gave feedback and he responded positively.
Besides, if Dandu's ideas are taken to heart, mine would become pointless. RUMBLETiGER on the other hand, is my friend, and we agree on how the campaign should be run. No secret, he said it two pages earlier. I have every reason and right to talk back you could possibly think of.

 

[BriarMonkey]

My point stands.

And Dandu's point is still valid.

 

[Dozen]

My point stands.
And Dandu's point is still valid.

Saying so is easy. Disprove my reasoning. Go ahead, and take your time.