Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[MichaelK]

I hope I'm not the only one with a vision of Miracle Max over a dead body going,

"Hello in there, what's so important here, what have you got that's worth living for?"

(The resurrection scene from the Princess Bride)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

First, I'm not "Mr. WotC" - I'm a freelancer. Second, did you actually read the entire post, or simply the isolated and out of context quote posted on ENWorld? Because my post was actually about how this was good for a very specific type of world/cosmos... namely, Eberron.

In terms of "Would people try it, just to see if it worked"? Sure, they very well might. They'd know just how unlikely it was, that people successfully returning from the dead is a thing of near-legend, but I'm sure Jorasco would be happy to take their gold and give the wheel a spin. That doesn't bother me at all. My point is that I don't feel that Eberron as it stands is an accurate reflection of a society in which resurrection is a reliable service provided at the equivalent of any major hospital. Again, such a tool should give House Jorasco incredible political power, and furthermore have lessened the impact of the Last War, since many of the heroes that fell in battle would have been raised by their nations. I WANT a world in which there are fallen legends who can't be brought back, in which the PC cleric can't choose to raise the murder victim even if he's willing to spend the gold. I've got no problem with him trying, desperately hoping that this one might return - but I'm just as happy that if I say "He doesn't," I don't have to explain why not (yes, I can say "He's choosing not to come back", but that's not always going to make much sense - especially when you're choosing between life and Dolurrh, not life and Heaven). The PC knew the odds when he tried, and if he wants to get the ally back, he can always try to go to Dolurrh and pull him back - but at least now it's an adventure.

So I certainly understand that it's a huge deal, and one that favors a very specific sort of world... which is exactly what I was saying in that original post, in which raise dead was in fact a fairly trivial point.

Apologies, Keith, for calling you Mr WotC, that was uncalled for! I agree with what you're saying, though, apparently I was just explicitly stating some of this for my own benefit. I wasn't really trying to criticise, as much as understand what this meant. For Eberron, yeah, this is a very good fit. For other settings, well, I guess that'll depend on the exact wording and functionality.

 

[Steely Dan]

"Hello in there, what's so important here, what have you got that's worth living for?"

"...To blaive…"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My take on this change is not that random peasants will be mad/depressed/outraged that they have no "special destiny." It's that most people would never even consider the possibility that their loved ones could come back from the dead. This is exactly how I've run things in my campaign already, where Raise Dead is available only to those who have been killed through the use of "blasphemous death magic." This is sufficiently nebulous to let me use it when I want, but not have anyone expect to come back from the dead.

This seems to be a complete defiance of human nature. If there's any possibility, no matter how vague, that you can bring people back to life, it will be significant to those who really care. The reasons your peasants don't consider it is entirely different - yours is specific to being killed by magic (presumably including undead, aberrations, etc.), but with this, anyone killed before "fulfilling their destiny" (or however WotC has worded it, which may be everything, in the end) could be raised. That's dramatically different. Few are going to believe their husband's "destiny" was to crushed by a hay bale, and even if people do, they're going to feel funny about it. A typical "medieval faux-Christian society" which is present in most D&D settings just doesn't fit with this sort of thing at all.

 

[Hellcow]

Apologies, Keith, for calling you Mr WotC, that was uncalled for!

Now, "Uncle Eberron" I'll accept.

For other settings, well, I guess that'll depend on the exact wording and functionality.

That's really all I'm saying. I wasn't intending my post to be a big revelation about raise dead in 4E, and wasn't precisely quoting the rules (nor can I by NDA). The way it's set up is something I think works well in Eberron; it may or may not work as well in other settings, and you'll be able to decide for yourself soon enough.

In any case, it certainly is something that can be house-ruled any number of ways, and I've seen some great suggestions out of some of these threads as to how other people have handled it. I myself always have restricted it. I simply feel that the current official version addresses its role in Eberron well - while in the past I felt it was something that really required a house ruling for the world to make sense.

 

[Clawhound]

There's a big difference what happens to a peasant and what happens to a PC.

A peasant, a merchant, a king: these are all NPCs that act exactly as I, the DM, dictate. They can work by any rules that I see fit. These characters do not have Player's handbooks. They are not central to the story. Once they walk off the panel, they cease to exist. They are like the painted backdrop to a set: they exist only to give your world false depth. They are the illusion of a living, breathing world.

Let's use a different piece of logic: if all you needed was a sword and armor, and you could go out and make fantastic amounts of money, why isn't everyone doing that? Why doesn't the entire population just get up and go treasure hunting? Why don't governments tax or seize discovered caches of treasure? Why don't dragons establish multinational corporations to multiply their assets?

Answer: That's not a fun game.

You can take simulation too far. In the game, we have many conceits that make no sense. They are there because we need them to make the genre work. That's it. That's as far as it goes. If you mistake the genre rules for the world rules, you quickly wind up with a pile of steaming nonsense.

The term for this is "suspension of disbelief." No, none of this stuff is real. We pretend. We even pretend that the world makes sense, even if the logical underpinnings of it are no deeper than panted canvas. We do this so that we can run around, kill monsters, take their stuff, and be hailed as heroes.

 

[Will]

That is a cheap argument. Ultimately, suspension of disbelief is a personal thing.

I mean, if I wrote that if you fumble with a sword you heal your opponent rather than hurt them, you don't think people would be annoyed?

Some people enjoy a game more when they feel it 'makes sense' in various ways.

If a game doesn't have to make sense for you? Great. Let us try to have our own fun?

 

[JohnSnow]

You can take simulation too far. In the game, we have many conceits that make no sense. They are there because we need them to make the genre work. That's it. That's as far as it goes. If you mistake the genre rules for the world rules, you quickly wind up with a pile of steaming nonsense.

The term for this is "suspension of disbelief." No, none of this stuff is real. We pretend. We even pretend that the world makes sense, even if the logical underpinnings of it are no deeper than panted canvas. We do this so that we can run around, kill monsters, take their stuff, and be hailed as heroes.

I never do this, but...QFT.

However, I'll caveat that by geeking out: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

And on that I can honestly say truer words were never spoken. So if you disagree, it's because you have a different point of view.

 

[abeattie]

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).

Er... you have a destiny if the game isn't over -- you don't if this is the last session?

Sure -- kings and such could have "grand destinies" that you actually watch -- it's just sort of assumed with PCs that they will go on to do Greater Deeds -- it's the job description.

They seem to have done alot in this version to shape the rules to support "story appropriate effect" I think this is just another example.

-Adam

 

[Wulfram]

Unless Mr Baker is grievously misrepresenting the position, I don't like 4E's handling of Raise Dead. Of course, I didn't like 3.5e's handling much either.

To me, I compare the Fellowship of the Ring to the Rohirrim. In the Rohirrim, you have soldiers who have spent their entire lives hunting orcs every day. And yet, somehow, they aren't as tough or amazing as Legolas, Gimli, or Aragorn. They're good at what they do - but they aren't the heroes.

[tolkien pedant]If they've been fighting as long as the 87 year old Aragorn, or half as long as 139 year old Gimli. or a 10th as long as Legolas, who refers to the other two as children and considers 500 years as but a little while, then, as mere ordinary Men with sensible lifespans, they're likely in pretty poor shape to be fighting Orcs.[/tolkien pedant]