Monte on Life and Death (And Resurrection)

[Ainamacar]

I don't think there is a "should" when it comes to specific ways of handling death, especially its story impact, in D&D. We tell different tales in different settings, and despite many shared assumptions this one is so big that it deserves its own space in the game.

The only should I see, therefore, is for providing these abilities as an interface to the various ways one can imagine handling death and resurrection. That creates common means to access similar effects, and handling interaction with other game elements, without presuming to set down a cosmology.

There are so many different ways to think about it. Sometimes an exploration of societal impact of easy resurrection for the rich isn't a distraction, it is part of the setting (this is fodder for a lot of sci-fi stories, and I'd guess plenty of fantasy as well). Maybe resurrection has consequences, ranging from the inconsequential, to the bizarre, to the dangerous. Maybe there are consequences not necessarily for the resurrected person, but for the person performing the resurrection. Maybe Raise Dead is closer to a phone call to a dead soul, but in some cases giving it a temporary "spiritual body." Maybe Raise Dead is cast on the living, a sort of Astral Projection where they actually venture into the afterlife to bring a lost soul back, and that process isn't necessarily without conflict or danger to the living. Maybe the deities each handle it in their own way, so a deity of fate might grant life for "one final task" while a deity of life might grant a new life without strings attached. Maybe there is a prophecy of a "second-life" for all creatures at the passing of the original creation, and to obtain that second life now is to risk one's entire spiritual reward should death (this time oblivion) occur again before the final victory is won. Maybe the souls of the dead are the raw matter in creating a new creation, and resurrection actually prevents them from passing to this new land, forced to remain in life or death as an inhabitant or guardian of the old world. Maybe death is a process of annealing a soul, to be repeated many times until ready for some task one with only mortal eyes could not see. Maybe reincarnation is the setting's norm, and raise dead is a way to hijack that process, but only if the timing is precise (and if not there may be significant "leaking" from past lives assuming the effect works at all). Maybe reincarnation is the norm, but a final death is actually valuable because only in that state the soul retains the knowledge of all past lives, in which case "raising" a person actually puts them into the final death where all their past lives are finally accessible to them, essentially raising (in a spiritual sense) beings that have been dead for eons. Maybe there is only oblivion. And maybe there is only oblivion, but this is hardly common knowledge, and the spirits which inhabit "raised" bodies prefer to keep it that way.

That's hardly scratching the surface. Give DMs the tools they need to run the kind of game they want, and if they want to handwave the whole thing (easy resurrection for PCs, hard for everyone else for no particular reason) then make that an option as well.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I do know that the Steven Brust option in the Vlad Taltos novels should be there. (No accident that those novels are loosely based on a D&D campaign.) Raise dead is cheap and easy, if you know any mover or shaker. Kill someone with a "Morganti" weapon, and it doesn't matter, because such a weapon kills the soul. Thus you bring up all kinds of interesting issues about receiving or inflicting a permanent death that gives pause, even in a game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Which ones are thinking of.

I was thinking Rod of Resurrection, but that was after BECMI. (Or maybe concurrent with it; don't remember in AD&D 1E.)

 

[Shemeska]

Have any of you actually used a resurrection/raise dead type spell as written?

Nope.

Made even more awkward since my last two campaigns have included outsider PC that raise dead wouldn't work on by the book.

 

[NotZenon]

In most of my campaigns true death is pretty much permanent, but revivification from dying is almost common place. My players don't have a problem with it cause i warn them before hand and have explained to them why i think Resurrection can really mess up the game world. It also helps that we have an unwritten agreement that players don't die unless they do something really stupid or repeatedly ignore warnings i may give them ("the dragon laughs gleefully as your pitiful attack bounces off harmlessly").

Anyways the point i'm getting too, is i would be happy if they dedicated say three paragraphs to the subject in the new rules. explain how commonplace raising of the dead can change a world, and offer a couple of options. Thats really what i'm hoping for a lot of in the new game, explanations and options.

 

[Blackwarder]

I haven't voted, personally I think that the number of times a character could get back from death should be limited by its starting Con score, another thing would be that each time a character get resurrected it should pass a con test, on a critical fail the character get raised as an undead of a level appropriate to the spell used , on a normal fail the character stay dead, on a success the character get back to life but receive a -1 permenet con penalty and on a critical success the character get back to life with no penalty.

That way, the players won't be able to feel that they could ignore risks because they can spam reviving and resurrection spells.

Another thing that I don't understand about the column is the difference between resurrection and reviving, from what I gather reviving spells should be cats ASAP while resurrection spells could be cast months and even years after the character died... Why not call them both resurrection spells and be done with it? Do we really need new names for stuff?

IMO the difference between different level resurrection spells should be the time between death and being able to cast the spell and the severity of the penalty, low level ones should require extensive bed rest (simulated by a sever temporary ability lose, preferably Str, Dex and Con) while high level ones would allow the resurrected guy to just rest for a bit and get back into action.

There could be other interesting stuff happening depending on the spell being used but that could be part of the spell text, for example a Druid low level resurrection spell have a chance to turn the reserected into some sort of a woodland creature and a resurrection spell cast by an evil priest will turn the resurrected into an undead on a regular fail instead of a critical fail etc.

Warder

 

[howandwhy99]

The thing is, the game and every system within in it are setting defining elements. Settings change if they have to be converted from one game to another.

The catch is, if we offer modular elements for the game, the designers (and community) can provide a whole lotta variety across D&D campaigns. Each game could be different as each game's setting would be too. Customization and the understanding of "what rules & why" would become the norm. We'd also get a whole lot more of "Here's my campaign setting" and "Here are my House Rules" back again.

The core rules, however, really do need to be strong yet flexible and cover all of what we expect could occur in a D&D game. We might look at really envelope pushing settings of the past to see what that core is, so we can design for such in that core. Spelljammer, Darksun, I'd even hazard Planescape (but that was considered "beyond the scope of the game" by many when it came out) could help us understand where that core lies.

Here's a shot at what I think that core needs to provide and what we end up seeing in more unusual forms in the settings above:

• Fantastical, from book and film and fairy tale
• Mythological, of all pantheons (no longer worshiped)
• Historical, primarily from Europe, but extending all over ultimately
• Medieval primarily, but with bronze age and even stone age thriving in parts
• Age of Sail, with ship types by race, even airships
• Castles and cities, with heraldry and titles
• Wilderness, of all earthly types expanding into the non-earthly
• Dungeons, from traditional to bizarre

I think we can cover the basics, if we assume in the core that stuff like resurrection is a group choice. It needs to be accounted for, but so does its absence.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, the old age restriction has always been a good one for me. Most rich NPCs do not die of swords and the like (and if they do their family might well not are able to pony up the coin) but instead die of old age.

If disease takes people down a lot then that could be a way back.

But as in many editions, Raise Dead does not equate out to immortality.

 

[Lanefan]

Have any of you actually used a resurrection/raise dead type spell as written?

Yes.

Frequently.

For about 30 years now.

The resurrection survival percentage roll from 1e is brilliant - there's always a small chance you ain't coming back (or, it's gonna take something big usually involving a bunch of adventuring in planes you really shouldn't go to).

I haven't seen "Wish" mentioned yet as a revival tool, but it certainly is - at least in earlier editions before its power got squashed. Wish is usually the hammer that succeeds where lesser tools fail; but it's quite rare and - in my current game at least - cannot be purchased.

Making undead out of corpses is another thing entirely, and that's what Necromancers are for.

LAnefan

 

[howandwhy99]

Let's talk PC-Only rules.

Things like -10 HP and you're dead (only PCs). Or XP = full XP gained (PCs-only, NPCs get 50%).

-10 hp to die made the game a lot less lethal at lower levels. You may have only 1 hp, but even the nasty ogre really needed max damage to do 12 hp of damage to kill you outright. (Also, if you have 1 hp and are going toe-to-toe without heavy armor+shield against an ogre, you may want to rethink your plan).

Remove the -10, a house rule so ubiquitous it's often assumed core, and the game really doesn't change that much. The thing is, -10 became far less useful, gradually, as PCs went up in level. 10 hp wasn't so much of a buffer anymore for the damage / rd they might face. So low level play would be more lethal, if you weren't careful, but not much else would change. Players who like 0 = dead want that lethality. They have enough confidence in their own playing ability that they believe they can avoid death. They just want the jaws of death to be "real" again.

But as soon as DMs started allowing creation of characters above 1st level, the choice became “bring in a new 10th-level fighter or play your now-9th-level character.”

There have been a few long-lasting methods of character resurrection in D&D. If we're really going to umbrella all of them, then we need to account for our offering of all of them. Getting rid of the possibility of resulting poor choices, like that quoted above, is a good start.

What happens to the world if we make resurrection PC-only? Part of the early resurrection rules was that they applied to all characters equally. PCs weren't a special case. If your death was never permanent, neither was your reviled enemy's. If only PCs could ever be resurrected, then can they not bring NPCs back to life either? Presumably at some point an NPC would be important enough to be brought back from death. How are we going to ensure potential lethality for PC allies and cared for NPCs? No resurrection for them makes the game harder. No possibility of their loss takes away any reason for protecting them. I think this is why resurrection was rare and expensive, but possible.

Resurrection worked like the opposite of the -10 rule. It was possible for every character, but it was very hard and rare for lower levels. If you've only played your PC a few hours or sessions, they are probably going to stay dead unless you have some very powerful/rich and kind PC allies. As any character rose in level however, being resurrected became easier. That 10th level Cleric wasn't unheard of, you could now afford him or her possibly, and at high levels that person could even be you. Permanent death was still possible though before natural death occurred. Death still meant paying a price in base Constitution (prior to modification) and coming back had a limit.

I think death and resurrection should affect PCs & NPCs in the same manner, but that's a campaign decision. Whether we use my preference or any other, the books need to inform DMs what the consequences are to their game and setting. Perhaps no resurrection is possible for anyone? Perhaps no one ever dies? Both are interesting options, but the repercussions of big choices like these need to be addressed directly.