Is RAISE DEAD (etc.) too readily available in most D&D campaigns?

[roguerouge]

The Buffy example

Someone mentioned the Buffy the Vampire Series as an apt way to handle the return from the dead, by having them come back ... different. But it also provides an excellent example for why MOST people, good people, would not come back, whatever the state of the world they left behind:

BUFFY: (still looking down) I was happy. Wherever I ... was ... I was happy. At peace. I knew that everyone I cared about was all right. I knew it. Time ... didn't mean anything ... nothing had form ... but I was still me, you know? (glances at him, then away) And I was warm ... and I was loved ... and I was finished. Complete. I don't understand about theology or dimensions, or ... any of it, really ... but I think I was in heaven. And now I'm not. (almost tearful) I was torn out of there. Pulled out ... by my friends. (Spike continues staring, listening) Everything here is ... hard, and bright, and violent. Everything I feel, everything I touch ... this is Hell. Just getting through the next moment, and the one after that ... (softly) knowing what I've lost...

BUFFY: They can never know. Never.

 

[Storyteller01]

Like Molonel is saying, you've just got a different safety net from others. You don't like this particular safety net, and that's fine, but unless your characters are dying in droves and switching out characters on a near-weekly basis at the mid-to-high levels, you have another safety net in place. For some people it's action points, for some people it's karma, for some, they just don't throw tough or deadly monsters/villains at their party. Whatever safety net you use, you're going to loose some realism in favor of character continuity.

There are differences though. With mine, you can improve your chances at some check or use it to prevent death. You can use it to prevent another players death, increasing the risk of your own later (yes, it's happened). You get one chance, how you use it is up to you.

I prefer this to D&D's standard of raise dead. It's there as often as you spells or scrolls, either the spell or the scroll costs less than a +2 weapon (5,250 for the spell, 6,250 for the scroll). It availablitiy is based on its cost. Nearly every city will have a copy by the RAW.

In nearly all stories coming back from the dead was a cathartic event. With D&D, it's a service that can be provided to anyone who makes a big enough donation.

A great example of this is a short story titles 'Nothing Says 'I Love You' Like the Kiss of Cold Steel'. A run away noblewoman comes home ensure her sons enheritance after spending years as a thief, married to an assassin. Folks who get physical trying to prevent it get injured. The families response: 'Servant, Healing Potion!'. As much as this story takes from D&D, even this writer doesn't bring back soemone who dies via raise dead. The death loses it's impact otherwise.

 

[Storyteller01]

It isn't necessarily shoddy and crappy writing. Think of Dante, think of Buffy, think of any NUMBER of superhero comic books where the defeated foe rises again. Even LotR had resurrection of a sort: Sauron, destroyed, was trying to come back. Think of biblical stories, not necessarily Jesus, but Lazarus. Think of the Phoenix, rising from its own destruction. Think of the un-killable hydra, the troll who could regrow any part of himself, the hero who was made immortal rather than die (hundreds of classical mythological exapmles). Think of Satan after the fall, think of any character who was bloodied and beaten, but managed to come back from the brink, sometimes once, sometimes hundreds of times. Heck, even Frodo may have been "resurrected" by the elves when he was poisoned.

There's no problem with resurrection in the game; The OP's question regarded its availablility. My problem with it is the ease with which the characters can get it. All of your examples show important elements that have far reaching effects. All require some huge effort to work (hydra was either created by gods or the child of one, Buffy's return seriously effected Willow in numerous ways, buffy was not the same after her return, Angel went primitive after returning from Hell, etc). With current spells, a character effectively pays bail to get out of the afterlife for a while longer. No real change or loss, no heroic effort except maybe 'Why didn't you go back for my spell book!' arguements. 'Right, back to the church' has become far too common in the games I've seen.

Characters see dragons and tarrasques and quake, even at high levels. IMHO, dying and coming back should engender the same fear.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are difference though. With mine, you can improve your chances at some check or use it to prevent death. You can use it to prevent another players death, increasing the risk of your own later (yes, it's happened). You get one chance, how you use it is up to you.

Well, if there weren't differences, I'd be surprised that you have a problem with D&D's.

I prefer this to D&D's standard of raise dead. It's there as often as you spells or scrolls, either the spell or the scroll costs less than a +2 weapon (5,250 for the spell, 6,250 for the scroll). In nearly all stories coming back from the dead was a cathartic event. With D&D, it's a service that can be provided to anyone who makes a big enough donation.

The point remains that it is such only if you allow it to be treated as such. Judging by the threat, resurrection is not a spell that sees a whole lot of use, even when fully allowed in the campaign, and the price for coming back (both in terms of permanent CON damage or level loss, and in the expensive jewelry required) is steep. Not only that, but, by default, you need to be in a place where there is a powerful enough cleric. In D&D, this means that a cleric of high enough level is available in only about 15% of the places the party visits (requiring at least a small city to have a GP limit high enough to have casting this available for a donation), and even then depends upon the caster's willingness to perform the spell (I don't know many DMs who gloss over the cost of getting an NPC to cast a spell for you). +2 weapons ain't exactly flying off the shelf in most D&D games, either. Both are significant investments.

The point is, D&D's system is not broken. It's entirely good to prefer your own way of doing things, but that doesn't mean anything other than that you have a problem injecting the drama, loss, and significance of death into your campaign when your group has access to raise dead, et al. So you choose a way that suits you better.

A great example of this is a short story titles 'Nothing Says 'I Love You' Like the Kiss of Cold Steel'. A run away noble comes home ensure her sons enheritance. Folks who get physical trying to prevent it get injured. The families response: 'Servant, Healing Potion!'. As much as this story takes from D&D, even this writer doesn't bring back soemone who dies via raise dead. The death loses it's impact otherwise.

Healing potions are pretty much the same thing as resurrection. Just like "almost dying" for some villain or hero (like Frodo when he was stabbed with the blade), but then coming back, is pretty much the same thing as "dying."

 

[molonel]

Just because somethings unreal does not make it apart of traditional fantasy. So now you're backing away from your argument that resurrection is an element in fantasy medium to "it's fantasy because its unrealistic?". If this is the case I look forward to Batman, Dorothy and the rescue rangers to show up in your traditional fantasy dungeons and dragons game real soon. Just because it can't happen in real life does not mean it belongs in fantasy.

Well, just because it can't happen in real life does not mean it does NOT belong in fantasy, either.

Is that enough double negatives for everyone?

I'm not backing away from anything, nor flipflopping, nor anything else that you insist on accusing me of in order to bolster your argument artifically. I play a fantasy game, and resurrection is a part of that. It fits within my story, it fits within my world and it works. It's been a part of D&D since very early on.

It's a fantasy game. People cast spells, and there are dragons. The idea that the gods have the power to bring the dead back to life is as ancient as mythology itself. The idea that this happens in fantasy stories or myth is also common. You feel it is too common in RAW 3rd Edition D&D, so you have circumscribed it.

I haven't. Both of our games work, I'm sure. And players in my campaign have fun, and players in your campaign doubtless have fun.

The real difference is, I'm not telling you that your game doesn't work, or is somehow flawed.

I don't think pointing out flaws in your argument is nitpicking. There was no ressurection on SG1. It's apart of the mythos. The sarcophguses had incredible healing properties. The great thing about SG1 is that it often tried to answer everything "fantastic" with science.

Your whole point seems to be, "Ah! But they didn't actually die."

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether they crossed over into the great beyond, or whether heroic luck prevented them from going, or a coffin healed their mortal wounds, or a bacta tank did it, or whatever. You see a great difference. I say there is none. It's a story element, either way. Death is cheated, either way. There is imaginative precadent, either way. Your way is no better. Mine is no worse.

That's all there is to it.

You are nitpicking when you cook the books to try and deny this.

SAdly, you've yet to provide an example. The strongest thing you said you had was SG1, a scifi show that within its own mythos has stated that there's nothing resurrection about the sarcophagus. If you put a dead body in one, its going to stay dead. If you had a strong example, I couldn't take it apart. Anything. You can't even name me a book, with all the books on the market, that have an example of what you're talking about. It's not about winning.

Um, you're wrong. I already did name a series of books several posts ago. Stephen Brust. Resurrections are a part of sorcery. There were specific weapons to prevent resurrection by destroying the soul, and ways to prevent resurrection.

You choose to ignore the example, or simply weren't reading carefully enough to see it.

Ah, so even within the span of this single entry, you have flip flopped from
1. Ressurection is fantasy because its unreal
2. It is in traditional fantasy, i just can't find any
3. The writers don't do it because they have ultimate control.

You should stick to articulating your own argument instead of throwing mine through the Straw Man Factory (tm).

This is not flipflopping.

Resurrection is a fantasy event. It does not happen in the real world. It happens in imaginative literature. (I am not touching religion in any way, shape or form, nor commenting on it.)

Resurrection does happen in fantasty books and movies. But you wanted a storyline where it happens a LOT. That's a different question. I have provided numerous examples, but "Oh, that's epic!" or "Oh, that doesn't fit because of blabbity blah blah blah!" or whatever.

It has been used both in fantasy and science fiction. People are alive who should be dead, by all accounts. There is a spectrum, rather than a binary division between the means by which this occurs. Sometimes, by heroic luck, the wounds never actually occur. Sometimes, technology or magic saves someone from certain death and heals their wounds. Other times, divine power of some sort or magic or technology we don't understand brings them back from the dead.

Writers, however, move at the speed of plot. They are not playing a randomized game where certain elements are outside their control. Gamers deal with these things. Authors and screen writers do not.

All of this is consistent, equally true, and logical.

They don't do it because its shoddy and crappy writing. It's too unbelievable and opens up far too many cans of worms.

In your opinion.

Eh, you're not going to stop calling it cheating, either way i guess, so I fail to see a reason that i should reexplain what a mechanic is and what fudging actually is. All I can say is stick to your day job and don't ge a job as a game designer because your naivity of game terms is fairly apparent. Feel free to call a lot of other people on these boards cheaters and Im sure they remarks will be much harsher than mine.

No, I'm not going to stop calling it cheating. It's legitimate cheating. It is cheating blessed by the rules. I do it myself. But it's cheating. Your character should be dead, and isn't. Call it resurrection, call it heroic luck, call it a bacta tank or an Egyptian coffin or whatever you like. It's all part of a spectrum of choices that allow the story to continue, and no choice is better than any other.

You can call me names, and mock me, and call me naive and brag about your vast experience and understanding all you want.

I'm not going to reply to that, because it has nothing to do with the argument, and reflects poorly on you and your position that you have to resort to such things in order to bolster yourself.

As for your argument,m they are both mechanics which I've said. HOwever, there is nothing unrealistic from a fantasy point of view for a hero to do an amazing maneuver to avoid death. Now, when I say "realistic" I am comparing it to the example of the hundreds of fantasy mediums where heroes defy the odds. This is realism in a fantasy setting. This is as opposed to the resurrection spell mechanic which no fantasy medium uses. It is unrealistic in a fantasy setting. D and D came about by wanting to recreate those great fantasy stories you see and read. When we talk about realism, we talk about trying to get as close to that as possible. Since there is no repeat ressurection in these mediums, it is safe to say that it does not belong.

You are wrong.

D&D makes the rules for itself. It is a different imaginative arena that deals with different problems than fantasy authors. A fantasy author never rolls a d20 on a table to determine whether or not his main character dies. He or she simply decides that it is so, and thus, it happens.

Resurrection is no more or less strange than some mysterious, guiding force that magically steers killing blows away from you at the last possible second.

And now we have the "I don't really care" ending.

That's because on a very real level, I don't care. You're going to play your game your way, and I'm going to play my game in mine. This is relative. It truly is.

Odd, we both like the same thing, but your way really doesn't achieve that effectively. Not my opinion, but a fact considering no other medium uses resurrection to symbolize heroic acts. How much of a threat is death when I can go to the corner store temple and buy a resurrection fairly cheap, by traditional treasure standards. You say this is a tomato/tomato evidence, but outside of the argument "they both can't really happen", you fail to really prove it.

It's not your opinion, but a fact.

Huh.

Well, I guess I'll have to go back and tell the players in the numerous campaigns I've run that they didn't actually have fun, like they thought; and the game wasn't actually heroic or epic, like they thought; and death wasn't painful or the Raise Dead spells they cast weren't big plot points and poignant moments that drove the plot and moved the adventure.

No, we were all deceived. We didn't have fun. The game didn't work.

Why? Because ... "DonTadow" ... on a message board said so.

I wonder if they'll be convinced?

I respect your opinion, but don't knock other peoples opinions when yours has far too many flaws.

If you respect my opinion, you have a strange way of showing that respect by calling me naive, ignorant and uninformed simply because I disagree with you.

I can honestly say that I respect your opinion, because I'm sure it works for you, and because I'm sure your players have fun and your game runs smoothly.

What you need to realize, though, is that the problems you see are your opinion, and do not apply to anyone else besides you.

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, if there weren't differences, I'd be surprised that you have a problem with D&D's.

Point taken..

The point remains that it is such only if you allow it to be treated as such. Judging by the threat, resurrection is not a spell that sees a whole lot of use, even when fully allowed in the campaign, and the price for coming back (both in terms of permanent CON damage or level loss, and in the expensive jewelry required) is steep.

Thankfully Enworld is populated with gamers that prefer a good game to playing the numbers. Unfortunately this thread isn't representive of all players.

Not only that, but, by default, you need to be in a place where there is a powerful enough cleric. In D&D, this means that a cleric of high enough level is available in only about 15% of the places the party visits (requiring at least a small city to have a GP limit high enough to have casting this available for a donation), and even then depends upon the caster's willingness to perform the spell (I don't know many DMs who gloss over the cost of getting an NPC to cast a spell for you).

No, this means that 15% of the worlds locations will have a cleric capable of casting the spells. PC characters hae a tendency of gravitating around these locations. Granted that DM's don't always gloss over the cost (I'm guessing more do than we want to admit), more than a few allow characters other means to pay. Some might even provide discounts. Paladins and clerics in my campaign would get significant mark downs at their gods temples. Does happen more often than not.

+2 weapons ain't exactly flying off the shelf in most D&D games, either. Both are significant investments.

True, but at the same time their not terribly game altering when you obtain one either. You get a slight increase in power that becomes the norm (or subpar) almost as soon as you get it. Again, paying to raise a friend is like paying their bail.

The point is, D&D's system is not broken. It's entirely good to prefer your own way of doing things, but that doesn't mean anything other than that you have a problem injecting the drama, loss, and significance of death into your campaign when your group has access to raise dead, et al. So you choose a way that suits you better.

Not so much that I can't do it as it has a greater effect as a whole my way. We can agree to disagree.

Healing potions are pretty much the same thing as resurrection. Just like "almost dying" for some villain or hero (like Frodo when he was stabbed with the blade), but then coming back, is pretty much the same thing as "dying."

Agreed, which is why healing potions tend to be less common in my campaign as well. Pretty much anything divine is difficult to obtain. Going to the church and buying healing potions doesn't happen. Gievs a nice niche market for bards though...

 

[Storyteller01]

So, does anyone here have a problem with IK's version of healing and raising? With raise dead being a 9th level spell (I believe) and healing actually having the possibility of killing both healer and recipient?

 

[JoeGKushner]

So, does anyone here have a problem with IK's version of healing and raising? With raise dead being a 9th level spell (I believe) and healing actually having the possibility of killing both healer and recipient?

Difficult to say without extensive playtesting.

Iron Heroes makes MANY changes to the game system and has some funky mechanics in several fields that don't necessarily mesh well with the game.

Conan, Iron Heroes, and other OGL games also tend to limit the 'raise' factor but have other bits to help out and compensate for it.

Often times it's a chance of magic and spell craft. One without the other seems counter productive but can be done as long as the players know about it ahead of time. Changing assumptions in the game without letting the players know ahead of time can be a reciepe for disaster.

 

[DonTadow]

There's no problem with resurrection in the game; The OP's question regarded its availablility. My problem with it is the ease with which the characters can get it. All of your examples show important elements that have far reaching effects. All require some huge effort to work (hydra was either created by gods or the child of one, Buffy's return seriously effected Willow in numerous ways, buffy was not the same after her return, Angel went primitive after returning from Hell, etc). With current spells, a character effectively pays bail to get out of the afterlife for a while longer. No real change or loss, no heroic effort except maybe 'Why didn't you go back for my spell book!' arguements. 'Right, back to the church' has become far too common in the games I've seen.

Characters see dragons and tarrasques and quake, even at high levels. IMHO, dying and coming back should engender the same fear.

I want to make sure this is emphasized. On a limited scale that makes it important. Kami, you mentioned a lot of examples and in each of those examples the ressurection was an important event, epic almost. It didn't happen a lot and to even get it to happen was nigh impossible.

Lets not change the definition of ressurection to fit a mechanical term. Ressurection is coming back from the dead. It's not near death and taking them to the temple. By the time they reach the temple their dead. In the previous mechanics used the characters are still alive and luck out by avoiding the death. In all of these cases.

MOlonal,

WE obviously play two different types of games with two different types of players. My players would question rampant resurrections and would not find the world interesting enough. YOurs obviously don't care about it so long as their playing.

 

[molonel]

So, does anyone here have a problem with IK's version of healing and raising? With raise dead being a 9th level spell (I believe) and healing actually having the possibility of killing both healer and recipient?

Game mechanics are like food. Those mechanics might create the sort of environment and imaginative world that someone else wants to play in.

For me, myself, I would not play with those rules. To me, the game itself contains enough elements of "heroic luck." Characters have abstract hit points, and saving throws, and there are sometimes luck items and abilities that allow rerolls.

If I made Raise Dead - which is actually a pretty crappy spell in the way it hits you so hard with XP loss - that hard to come by, it adds nothing to my game, and I'm going to have to make the game softer and temper it with some sort of "heroic luck" in order to prevent people from dying.

I don't want that.

Standard wealth tables, and the fact that you can only dispose of magic items at half cost (by RAW) mean that Raise Dead and Resurrection are EXTREMELY expensive spells. Some effects require True Resurrection, which is out of the ability of all but the highest level characters to use or acquire, and usually involve a quest.

I had a character in one of my campaigns that was killed at about 12th level by cannibals who dragged away the body. A cleric cohort actually had one gem specifically for Raise Dead, but they didn't have the body, and they found out that the cannibals would consume it in three days in a mystic ritual to make his strength their own. If that happened, he was gone, because nobody had True Resurrection, and when you're on a mission to save the universe you don't have time to go off on a lengthy sidequest to find a perfect 25,000 gp diamond and a cleric capable and willing of using it on your behalf.

People here who are so bothered by Raise Dead and similar spells seem to assume that all players have unlimited monetary resources, unlimited access to high level divine spellcasters and unlimited time. I've never played in a game like that, and I agree that it sounds very boring to have unlimited cash, all the time in the world and never face the risk of death.

But I've never played in a D&D game like that, nor run one.

It strikes me as a straw man, to me.