I leave the spells in as they are, although I'm thinking of eliminating the level loss entirely. IME, the players usually die for being heroic or sacrificing themselves for the sake of the party, not for being idiotic (although I guess some old school players would cal that idiotic...). Bottom line, I don't like punishing players for that. There's also the issue of plot continuity. I HATE seeing characters get retired, and new ones coming in, it really wrecks not only the story, but also my familiarity with the party and how to challenge them. If there were no "death penalty," but making a new character in place of one who died still cost a level, sticking to your old one would be a lot more appealing.
I also heavily endorse spells like Revivify from spell compendium (by mentioning it, and by enforcing a party pool of money to buy scrolls of it, and other healing items), which must be cast immediately after "dying" (before the soul has completely left, according to the fluff), but instantly raise the person at no level loss and to fighting-capable hp. To me, using spells like that makes it seem like the person never died. You're not undoing the most powerful force of nature with a cheap magic trick. You're rescuing him/her from the brink of it.
You do bring up a good point, Stream-- I know not all gaming groups are huge on this, but I am a fan of continuity as well. It's conducive to role-playing. And it does have the potential to ruin a campaign if 3/4 of the party dies halfway through a big adventure, now it's up to the survivors maybe to find new "recruits"... But it is more of a campaign-stopper when there's a TPK in there. In a Red Hand of Doom campaign I was in the party was doing fairly well until the blue dragon guarding the entrance to the temple at the end wiped us all out. We had gone pretty far by that point and felt that it wouldn't make sense to have another party "magically appear" where the dead ones were.
So I guess that's why I'm worried about this in the campaign that I am DM'ing, I am all for continuity and players "growing" with their characters, and establishing a "known" company like the Knights of Myth Drannor for example-- but we all know that PC's die. A "1" on a save, being critted by a Frost Giant, a monster they might be totally unprepared for, etc. etc. Having the possibility of permenant death will keep the PC's on their toes and help to avoid the "dumb PC" situations ("There's a glowing black evil rune on the door? Sure, I'll touch it! If I die I'll just come back!").
Several of you have some interesting ideas-- Jhaelen, I do think the Raelms try to be consistent, but don't succeed 100% of the time. I agree with the notion that King Azoun IV was "comfortable" with his death and didn't want his soul to return, he didn't really have unfinished business and knew that his kingdom was in pretty good hands with Alusair and Vangerdahast and the Purple Dragons... that makes sense.
Irdeggman, I do agree with the god's purposes statement. I think in my campaign I will limit these spells to clerics of deities with the appropriate portfolios, and only then under extenuating circumstances, like if the PC's ARE in the middle of a tough adventure against a baddie that threatens the entire land. So going to the temple of Selune or Waukeen wouldn't do it, but maybe for Tymora or Lathander, if the PC is a worshipper or of the same alignment. And of course if it is a nature god like possibly Silvanus then no
raise or
resurrection, but maybe a
reincarnate as long as the PC embraced that philosophy.
Stream, I totally forgot about
Revivify! That "saved from the brink of death" spell is a great idea, especially for situations where a PC death is "unfair" (like rolling that "1" on a save-or-die trap). It's costly enough that it's not always going to be a safety net, but affordable enough that it can keep the campaign and continuity on track.
How about some thoughts from players? As a player, what do you expect concerning these spells? As a cleric player, what do you think? Do you think your deity should give it to you because "it's in the Player's Handbook" or do you agree that only certain deities might allow it? As a player, would you think it's "unfair" that a DM might put a restriction on the power over life and death??