Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[Stalker0]

Raise Dead: Its one of those things that is always an issue for world builders. How does a society deal with a world in raising the dead is so easy? Kings that can just come back, high priests that cannot really be killed.

Everyone has their own reason, but those reasons are often hand waves on the "realism" of the world.

So I greatly applaud 4e's way to handle raise dead:

"You can only be raised if you have an unfulfilled destiny."

While PCs are often to have unfulfilled destines, most people simply cannot come back. It allows player to have raise dead, without making it a prominent influence on the world. A nice simple and elegant solution.

 

[kinem]

Actually, as a pro-simulationist, I consider this yet another outrage. What does "destiny" mean? Why should the gods allow Harry the adventurer to be raised, only to see him fall into the next pit trap and die and be be left to rot, while the favored high priest has no 'destiny' and cannot be raised?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Ooh! Let me get in before the haters.

I like it. Simple, but straight-forward and nothing bars the DM from applying to "special" NPCs.

 

[Imban]

Raise Dead: Its one of those things that is always an issue for world builders. How does a society deal with a world in raising the dead is so easy? Kings that can just come back, high priests that cannot really be killed.

Everyone has their own reason, but those reasons are often hand waves on the "realism" of the world.

So I greatly applaud 4e's way to handle raise dead:

"You can only be raised if you have an unfulfilled destiny."

While PCs are often to have unfulfilled destines, most people simply cannot come back. It allows player to have raise dead, without making it a prominent influence on the world. A nice simple and elegant solution.

Hmm, I tentatively like this. As a sidenote, however, the ones that always had a more obvious impact on the world were Resurrection and True Resurrection, for me. The list of misadventure that kills you more dead than Raise Dead can fix is actually pretty large - simply vandalizing the corpse a bunch is enough to make sure someone you just assassinated need a Resurrection - so while wealthy people assumedly were buying Raise Dead for things like being gored by a boar, the ones who were chopped in half by our greatsword-wielding heroes needed more treatment than that.

Resurrection requires things like hiding / utterly destroying the body, or disintegration and then scattering the dust to the four winds to make impossible, and that's frequently well beyond the means of normal assassins.

(Of course, True Resurrection fixes anything, but only people who are super have access to it, not just "wealthy people".)

 

[Kraydak]

Actually, as a pro-simulationist, I consider this yet another outrage. What does "destiny" mean? Why should the gods allow Harry the adventurer to be raised, only to see him fall into the next pit trap and die and be be left to rot, while the favored high priest has no 'destiny' and cannot be raised?

/agree. As a simulationist I hate this change, and utterly fail to see how anyone could think it is, in any way, shape or form, pro-simulationism. It is pure, rules-enshrined, DM fiat.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Just to avoid any confusion: Link Relevant to News Post.

********

Hmm, does this mean that only 21st+ level characters (characters with an Epic Destiny) can be raised? I wouldn't think so.

I don't know. This seems weird to me. If I were writing a book / telling a story to someone, sure, this works. But within a cooperative world ...

I have to disagree with Stalker0's contention that this is a bone to simulationists. If I understand the term, I am one, and the simulationist in me is really balking at this. There is no fair way to "simulate" this within the context of the game. In fact, this seems like pure "gamism" to me - it's a game, the PCs are the players, so rules apply to them that don't apply generally. To me, the heart of simulation is that nothing happens to PCs that can't happen (at least in theory) to NPCs. They may use different "game rule models" to model the results/course of action for practical reasons, but the hypothetical "game physics" are universal.

From a simulationist context I never had a problem with Raise Dead. It was rare enough (How many clerics are there that can even cast it in all of Eberron?) and expensive enough that it was only really available to PCs, other adventurers of note, and royalty - and not always even then, if you can't get to a priest in time or if the killer took certain precautions. I'm OK with that.

Meh. This feels like a pretty heavy-handed "fix" to me. I'd rather they made Raise Dead a Ritual but otherwise left it the way it was. They could even add in a few cool magical items like a "Death Bolt" (500 GP; One Use; this dark crossbow bolt, blessed by the Raven Queen's Priests, counts as a "Death Effect" if it delivers the killing blow.) for DMs to use when they want a "plot device death" to kill a King.

As a sidenote, however, the ones that always had a more obvious impact on the world were Resurrection and True Resurrection, for me.

Me too. My "perfect world" is that Raise Dead is made into a Ritual, and otherwise stays just the way it is, but that True Resurrection is the spell limited to those of 21st level or higher who still have a Destiny to fulfill. And the spell effect wears off once you reach 30th level.

 

[robertliguori]

Let's wait until we see the rules for destiny. If we see nonsense similar to the nonsense from Saga, then we can toss this into the continuing pile of DOA D&D rules across editions.

(Or, optionally, have religious ceremonies in which people ritually pledge to serve their god for some number of years and therefore have Unfinished Business if they die before their time.)

If destiny is simply something the DM assigns to characters arbitrarily ("Yeah, sorry, Bob, you have a destiny of Destruction, so you get a -2 to your attack rolls for 24 hours for resolving that border skirmish peacefully.") then this is beyond stupid.

Of course, even if you can't assign yourself a destiny, you can arrange to make it impossible to fulfill, and keep it eternally. That would be interesting; a villain who swears an oath to dark powers to obliterate a family line, is granted the power of undeath until he succeeds, then turns around and says "Fooled you!" and protects the family line while working on his real agenda (and fighting off agents of the dark power).

Rules should be written with the assumption that people will try to break them. If you trust people not to break the rules, then keep them vague and simply describe outcomes. If you don't trust people, then the rules should either resist breakage, or break into awesome non-game-destroying pieces (like characters giving middle fingers to fate).

 

[Jayouzts]

While I agree with the sentiment, I am not sure what this changes. If most PC's and major villians have unfinished destinies, how is that different from what we have now?

 

[small pumpkin man]

/agree. As a simulationist I hate this change, and utterly fail to see how anyone could think it is, in any way, shape or form, pro-simulationism. It is pure, rules-enshrined, DM fiat.

It is, because simulationism means a lot of different things.

If, as is the more up to date bandwagon to be jumping on, we apply the Robin Laws player types, it's good for Storytellers (because it follows appropriate genre tropes) but likely bad for tacticians (since usage of "destiny" may or may not lack consistency). However both of these (genre tropes & consistent worlds) are under the simulationism banner, so GNS doesn't really mean much here.

 

[eleran]

/agree. As a simulationist I hate this change, and utterly fail to see how anyone could think it is, in any way, shape or form, pro-simulationism. It is pure, rules-enshrined, DM fiat.

How would a simulationist approach Raise Dead then? I am anxious to see how Raise Dead works in the real world.