Monte on Life and Death (And Resurrection)

[Elf Witch]

If this is the motivation for Raise Dead, then some sort of Hero Point mechanic (that will prevent the unwanted deaths), or even free roleplaying between player and GM of the PC's spirit being returned to the world by the gods to complete its unresolved destiny, both seem to me to be better options than the ubiquitous returning to life of the dead.

That is my preference and how I tend to run my games. But a lot people feel the need for an official rule so I prefer easier than harder I am pretty satisfied with 3E rules on it. Though I am open to better rules.

 

[Drowbane]

I am currently in a Pathfinder game where the DM does not believe in killing off PCs. Like at all.

I really dislike this, as if there is no threat of death then it cheapens the game. At one point he even said we could "save the game"... I almost walked out...

and I was living there at the time.

No matter what WotC does, these things will always come down to DM style. In my games, death is a real threat and coming back from the dead is not as easy as just casting a spell and losing some XP or whatever. I am all for the party going into the afterlife to 'rescue" a fallen comrade. This will usually mean some sort of diplomacy with a Deity, who tend to be patterned after the Greek style of gods. "Why should I let you take Soandso the HPSponge's soul with you back to the Land of the Living, Mortals?"

As a player, I tend to opt to make a new character if a PC dies... unless there is a strong pull for that character to return from the dead - such as an important (to the PC) quest that he must do or risk unrest for eternity. Few DMs have given me such a reason to bring any single PC back from the dead...

 

[FireLance]

How about a simpler, somewhat mechanically-based approach for why PCs can get raised but most people cannot? Let's say raise dead should only be available to PCs of 9th level or higher. Then say that raise dead imposes 8 negative levels (which are regained at the rate of one per day of complete bed rest), so a target only survives the process if he is 9th or higher level. That way, all the gold and power in the world isn't going to help you if you don't have enough personal power (as measured in terms of levels).

 

[Fanaelialae]

It would be nice for some book space to be devoted to the *narrative* of resurrection and not just the mechanics.

For example, several folks have asked the question: "If adventurers have access to raise dead, what about the rich nobility?" I've always thought that raise dead was a sticky wicket when it came to succession and inheritance...maybe the state has instituted a tax on excessive resurrection? Maybe the church which can perform these rituals has nobles in it's pocket?

I like the idea that the state recognizes a resurrected individual as having died. So, in other words, you can probably resurrect the murdered king but it won't matter much because the line of succession will have taken over. A resurrected person is no longer married ("til death do us part"). A resurrected person's Will is carried out even after they have been brought back.

If the power exists to raise King Soandso's great grandfather, you want a legal code that can handle who gets to be king. Allowing rezzed ancestors to just take over would lead to chaos, so it makes sense to simply accept the status quo by legally recognizing that a resurrected person has died.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily work as well for uncivilized lands, nor for all campaigns...

 

[Scribble]

I like the idea that the state recognizes a resurrected individual as having died. So, in other words, you can probably resurrect the murdered king but it won't matter much because the line of succession will have taken over. A resurrected person is no longer married ("til death do us part"). A resurrected person's Will is carried out even after they have been brought back.

If the power exists to raise King Soandso's great grandfather, you want a legal code that can handle who gets to be king. Allowing rezzed ancestors to just take over would lead to chaos, so it makes sense to simply accept the status quo by legally recognizing that a resurrected person has died.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily work as well for uncivilized lands, nor for all campaigns...

Sounds viable, but I don't think it accounts for the law of human nature.

No one with the money/power to be resurrected would ever allow that to come about. That implies people consciously giving up their money/power knowing full well that they would return to the world.

Call me cynical I guess, but I just don't ever see that happening.

 

[Lanefan]

I could never let a single die roll tell somebody when they should stop playing a particular character, or what direction the campaign should head in for the next several levels.

I'm more of a fan of the 4e version of resurrection--only souls with unfinished destinies (IE whoever the DM decides) can return from death.

So instead of the dice deciding who comes back, the DM decides.

I'll stick with the dice - they don't play favourites.

Lan-"if it were up to the DM I'd have stayed dead a long time ago"-efan

 

[am181d]

This is one case where I think Monte has it exactly right. If there's a spell that can restore characters to life very soon after they've dead, and an option for big/epic rituals to restore life for people who've been dead longer, that covers 99.9% of all player deaths that you might want to reverse. If DMs want deadlier games, they can restrict access to one or both.

Neither of these types of resurrection explicitly cure old age, so old kings will still need to go the lich route if they want to live forever...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sounds viable, but I don't think it accounts for the law of human nature.

No one with the money/power to be resurrected would ever allow that to come about. That implies people consciously giving up their money/power knowing full well that they would return to the world.

Call me cynical I guess, but I just don't ever see that happening.

Ah, but it's also human nature for newly made kings and lords to be unwilling to part with their new found power and wealth. It just takes one new king who's afraid that someone might find a way to bring his father back to decree such a law. The old lords might grumble, but their sons certainly aren't likely to... I wouldn't ascribe such a law to optimism. Even the old lords would have to accept that their chances of being raised are MUCH greater if their sons have nothing to lose by doing so.

Besides, it promotes social order, so I think most reasonable societies with access to such magic would actually agree to it. Does anyone really want the evil cult resurrecting the tyrant from 500 years ago so that they can legally usurp the throne? If you allow formerly dead people to resume their former legal status (as rulers) you can get all sorts of insanity. If a man's wife remarries after he dies, and then he's raised, is she guilty of adultery? I think the law makes too much sense not to exist, although I could see a grace period after death, before the person is considered to be legally dead, as being a possibility.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I would much prefer to see more durable characters and less harsh death and dying rules, with NO raise dead effects.

However, this is easy to houserule in and out.

 

[CM]

So instead of the dice deciding who comes back, the DM decides.

I'll stick with the dice - they don't play favourites.

Lan-"if it were up to the DM I'd have stayed dead a long time ago"-efan

I thought that the oldschool style meant that everything was basically left up to the DM to adjudicate? Why is resurrection survival chance important to be left out of the DM's hands? Do you always play with antagonistic DMs?

By the way, it's always assumed in 4e that the PCs are able to be resurrected, if they want. It's the NPCs who are subject to the DM's will.