Monte on Life and Death (And Resurrection)

[DEFCON 1]

I think you missed my post, where I explicitly point out a game that uses a middle-ground with consequences for death, and yet still uses Raise Dead.

You proclaiming there is no middle-ground, is kind of weak sauce.

You're right... I started writing my post before yours came up for me. No worries.

The reason why I don't argue for middle ground is basically for the same reason Monte talks about. Any "middle ground" for resurrection needs to have a cohesive narrative to explain why PCs get it and yet nobles or the filthy rich don't. Because I find there we are extremely light on narrative reasons why that happens. Even if resurrection required going on these long quests to pick all manner of magical components that needed to be used (something that supposedly only "adventurers" could acquire)... every noble with any ounce of sense would spend handfuls of their fortune hiring people to go out and get that stuff for them... so that there was never any shortage of components needed to have the resurrection work.

At some point, it just becomes silly.

 

[Sunseeker]

I also voted for 'no resurrection'.

Reason being that I just find it to be kinda of a pointless exercise. We go through all this effort and argumentation here on the boards to make sure combat is "challenging", and why hit point loss should be "wounds" or "not wounds", and because we want combat to have "consequences"... but yet we then completely negate all that effort by having Raise Dead.

If all you lose by "dying" in combat is a few hours in the day and a few thousand in gold when your party schleps the corpse back to town for the village priest to say a few words over the body... then all that effort to make combat "realistic" and have "verisimilitude" seems completely pointless to me. If we really want combat to have consequences... then there should be NO 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card. If you die... you die.

And if we're not willing to do that... then let's stop going through with the constant charade of saying PCs HAVE to die to have combat have any meaning. Cause it doesn't. When you reach -10 or fail three Death Saves... you're not dead... you're out of combat. And the consequence of that comes down to what serves the story best after that point... whether the character is actually truly dead, or just unconscious, crippled, captured, severely injured etc. etc. And we can then stop arguing about hit points, healing surges, magical and non-magical healing etc. etc. because they become nothing more than a metagame indicator of when the player doesn't get to participate in the combat anymore. No more, and no less.

But death doesn't matter. Even if it's permanent unless you're kicking Bob out of the campaign after his character dies. Assuming you're more than casual acquaintances, this probably isn't the case. What happens is that after Bob's character dies horribly, Bob goes and makes a new character. The DM contrives something in order to work New Bob into the campaign, and Bob is now "alive" again.

Death doesn't matter so long as Bob keeps sitting at your table and playing a character. Now, you could tell Bob he can't make a new character and can only run NPCs....and that appeals to some people, but I'd wager that more casual acquaintances would up and leave, and good friends would probably be rather miffed at the proposition.

 

[KidSnide]

There's more middle ground than he's considering.

A slightly more powerful ritual -- though one not quite as exotic as he's talking about -- could be used within, say, a day. Enough time for you to drag your ally's corpse (assuming there is a corpse) back to town and hire a healer, or enough time to perform some exotic rite. It takes time for the spirit to pass completely beyond the body, even when it's not showing any "signs of life" (which fits most pseudo-medieval mythography: people were buried because no one actually dies, and when the Second Coming happens, they're going to get right back up again whole!).

This middle ground is important for adventurers, but including it in the game raises (revives? resurrects?) the game world issue of why don't rich people have themselves raised indefinitely until old age finishes them off. There is unquestionably a big difference between a 1-day raise dead and a hundred-year resurrection, but either ritual creates the significant game world trouble that revivify (or even a 1-5 minute version) does not.

-KS

 

[P1NBACK]

You're right... I started writing my post before yours came up for me. No worries.

The reason why I don't argue for middle ground is basically for the same reason Monte talks about. Any "middle ground" for resurrection needs to have a cohesive narrative to explain why PCs get it and yet nobles or the filthy rich don't. Because I find there we are extremely light on narrative reasons why that happens. Even if resurrection required going on these long quests to pick all manner of magical components that needed to be used (something that supposedly only "adventurers" could acquire)... every noble with any ounce of sense would spend handfuls of their fortune hiring people to go out and get that stuff for them... so that there was never any shortage of components needed to have the resurrection work.

At some point, it just becomes silly.

Right on. I think dark, dangerous side effects would be a good method for keeping the normal men from tampering with mortality.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This middle ground is important for adventurers, but including it in the game raises (revives? resurrects?) the game world issue of why don't rich people have themselves raised indefinitely until old age finishes them off. There is unquestionably a big difference between a 1-day raise dead and a hundred-year resurrection, but either ritual creates the significant game world trouble that revivify (or even a 1-5 minute version) does not.

I see your point.

My solution has always been: Clerics high enough level to raise the dead are a very rare commodity in the world.

You figure, you've got a population of mostly commoners with a smattering of minor adepts and a few trained warriors.

A king who for some reason has a 12th or 14th level cleric in their control is perhaps unique in the world.

That, plus not killing people just for hitting 0 hp (e.g.: lower-level revivify effects) works just fine for my gaming pleasure.

 

[Sunseeker]

This middle ground is important for adventurers, but including it in the game raises (revives? resurrects?) the game world issue of why don't rich people have themselves raised indefinitely until old age finishes them off. There is unquestionably a big difference between a 1-day raise dead and a hundred-year resurrection, but either ritual creates the significant game world trouble that revivify (or even a 1-5 minute version) does not.

-KS

In the Ravnica block in MTG, the very wealthy do indeed use their own special mix of undeath magic in order to keep themselves "alive" well beyond their years. This would be an incredibly interesting story proposition. What if all the great noble families and the heads of ruling clans were raised indefinitely? How does that affect society? How does that affect them? How does that affect the very fabric of the universe with such constant abuse of death/undeath/resurrection magic? Maybe resurrection leaves you marked in some manner, and resurrection is illegal, so it's something the player would have to hide to avoid well, dying again.

I think introducing the idea that there should be ramifications for being raised is a good idea. Perhaps they can only return 90% of your soul and you become colder and crueler. Perhaps you may be revived as a new race/sex/age, maybe because they can't actually restore your body, but they can trap your soul in a new "donor" body. Maybe resurrected people "leak" and without magical supplements, you soul would eventually escape your body, like trying to piece together a popped balloon.

I don't think Wizards should remove resurrection magic from the game, but I do think they should use it to encourage players to be creative with it.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I done beat Monte to it this week.. in this thread!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Death doesn't matter so long as Bob keeps sitting at your table and playing a character.

This assumes that Bob has no real connection to his character that switching it is any big deal. I would wager that that's not the case in most games. Sure... I see some folks here on the board who talk about their campaigns where PCs drop like flies practically every week, and then what you say is true... that death doesn't matter because the characters end up being nothing more than fodder than actual participants.

But if the loss of character is important... then I think it should BE important. If combat is supposed to have consequences like "death"... then those consequences shouldn't be able to be negated with a horse ride and pocket change. If not... then let's stop getting so worked up about how the "game mechanics" of combat don't match up with the "story" of combat, and just use what makes the game of combat most enjoyable and fun to play.

 

[Dausuul]

But death doesn't matter. Even if it's permanent unless you're kicking Bob out of the campaign after his character dies. Assuming you're more than casual acquaintances, this probably isn't the case. What happens is that after Bob's character dies horribly, Bob goes and makes a new character. The DM contrives something in order to work New Bob into the campaign, and Bob is now "alive" again.

Death doesn't matter so long as Bob keeps sitting at your table and playing a character.

Bob's old character is dead. Every NPC who knew the old character, doesn't know the new one. All the heroic deeds and reputation earned by the old character don't apply to the new one. The new character's goals, knowledge, and skills are different from the old one's. If none of that makes a difference in your game... well, all I can say is, I cannot fathom how your game works.

 

[Sunseeker]

This assumes that Bob has no real connection to his character that switching it is any big deal. I would wager that that's not the case in most games. Sure... I see some folks here on the board who talk about their campaigns where PCs drop like flies practically every week, and then what you say is true... that death doesn't matter because the characters end up being nothing more than fodder than actual participants.

Even if Bob is highly attached to his character, if there's literally no way to get it back, then he'll go make a new one and bring it to the table next session. If Bob's character is a big deal to him, then having harsh death is probably not a good idea for encouraging good gameplay. It will either lead to people making "throwaway" characters or it will make them all scared out of their wits and using 10' poles on every rock and shrub.

But if the loss of character is important... then I think it should BE important. If combat is supposed to have consequences like "death"... then those consequences shouldn't be able to be negated with a horse ride and pocket change. If not... then let's stop getting so worked up about how the "game mechanics" of combat don't match up with the "story" of combat, and just use what makes the game of combat most enjoyable and fun.

Death isn't important. How you handle death is what matters. Respect the death within the game, give it value, give it meaning, and players will accept that death is OK. Make the death of Bob's beloved character no more than a footnote? I will guarantee you that players will not see death as important, they will see it as an inconvenience, worse an insult.

Bob's old character is dead. Every NPC who knew the old character, doesn't know the new one. The new character's goals, knowledge, and skills are different from the old one. If none of that makes a difference in your game... well, all I can say is, I cannot fathom how your game works.

But death didn't make that difference. Bob's choice in characters did. Bob could have literally rebuilt his character as Bob 2.0, especially if it was a character Bob really loved. These issues make an impact, no argument there, but how much of an impact depends on the game.