Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[pukunui]

No. Read it closer.

You say there's no wrong way to do raise dead and then go on to outline how you think this new way is, essentially, the wrong way to do it. How is that not contradicting yourself?

 

[Plane Sailing]

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?

In contrast, it meets my simulationist goals nicely. The standard 3e rules (raise dead is available if you've got enough money and want to come back) makes world simulation somewhat difficult in that you've got to account for relatively easy raising of the dead in society.

If 4e rules state that only those with unfulfilled destiny can be raised (however that may be defined) it removes the whole 'campaign world with raise dead' problem at a stroke.

Cheers

 

[robertliguori]

Give me an example to toy with.

OK. Character has the destiny of slaying a great evil in single combat. Evil slips and falls in a 200' spiked death pit.

Character has destiny of slaying great evil. Character leaves continent and refuses to engage in any actions that directly engage evil.

Character has destiny of preserving X. Character destroys X.

Character has a destiny of preserving X. Other character destroys X.

Character has destiny of preserving X. Character locks away X in such a way that it is under a controlled hazard, always in peril but never actually destroyed, and adventures freely.

Character has a destiny that requires X to not be destroyed. Character subjects X to stress, trusting in destiny to make sure that X never actually becomes irrecoverable.

As I understand it (from various GNS arguments in days of yore), the term "simulationist" can involve simulating the physics of a genre in addition to simulating the physics of the real world. So by saying Raise Dead only works for people with unfulfilled destinies, we have established an element of the D&D genre. The mechanics, then, are such that they simulate this genre element. So therefore it's simulationist.

Destiny as a force in the world is not the problem. Destiny as handwaving, that doesn't have characters engaging in elaborate schemes to make the rules of destiny work in their favor, or optionally simply murdering the in-game personality in charge of destiny, is the problem.

Incidentally, 'simulationist' in this context carries along with it the unattached rider "...of a fantasy universe of high adventure, etc." One can describe tic-tac-toe as a simulationist game, where the universe being simulated is a 3x3 grid in which Xs and Os are placed. This does make what people actually mean when they use the worlds 'simulationist' or 'narrativist' any less meaningful.

 

[Kzach]

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?

Gods work in mysterious ways.

/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.

Then DM un-fiat it. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Naysayers are always acting like everybody must obey the rules as if they're some divine commandment.

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

Ooh, well said!

 

[Wolfspider]

As with so many of the so-called problems with v3.5, I've run into none of the supposed difficulties with raise dead in my games. Not every stableboy or barmaid who gets run through is automatically raised at the temple turnstile.

I do like this idea, though. I think I will implement it in my v3.5 game, even though something like it already exists in practice--only heroes (or villians) get raised, those who do have a destiny.

 

[Hairfoot]

If 4e rules state that only those with unfulfilled destiny can be raised (however that may be defined) it removes the whole 'campaign world with raise dead' problem at a stroke.

I've never considered that a problem. Only the highest-level priests can cast it, so very few NPCs will even have access to it. Also, you'd imagine clerics tend to be quite strict about who they raise and under what circumstances, so unless the party can find a priest of a commerce/trade god of high enough level to raise dead, it's still a rare and special event. IME, anyway.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I have always viewed Destiny as something that is in flux, it is that little thing that is always one-step ahead of you.

Destiny is the only true omnipresence in D&D. It is something that sees everything you will do, may do, and when. It sees what your true Destiny is, us as people may believe our Destiny lays in for your example slaying the great evil. But it truly wasn't it could be...

-The journey to do so leads you to impact the lives of those around you, sending them to do great things.

-You discover something in your journey to defeat the great evil that alters the world.

-After the death of the great evil, circumstances change and sets in motion your true destiny.

Those are just a couple examples.

Now that is not to say Destiny cannot be tricked, it is just extremely difficult. Some Gods may be able to do so, some Epic-level characters may be able to do, "once per day when you die..." could be you tricking Destiny into this not being your time-to-die, etc.

Hell, I have always viewed the Star-Pact as being tied to Fate and Destiny, so perhaps you could make a deal with the Fates to alter your Destiny, etc.

 

[Irda Ranger]

And if the beloved king is killed...
"you raise the taxes, you sell stuff or even sell yourself but you get those 5000 gp within a week or you can say goodbye to your head! Got it?"
so says the lovely, mourning Queen.

Yes; and?

If you don't like the world that the rule creates, change the rule. But change it in a way that allows PCs to have control over their own spells. You don't leave the diameter of Fireball to DM fiat, do you?

Bad DMing or not, neither of your examples is impossible under the 3.5 Raise Dead rules either, so I don't really see what you're getting at.

Here's the link to the SRD: LINK Apparently you need to go read it again. Either that or read my example #1 again. Assuming that Bob's sister wants to come back (and why wouldn't she?), example #1 is impossible under 3.5.

Admittedly, example #2 may or may not be possible under 4E. We don't know yet what restrictions Raise Dead works under (does disintegrating his head still work?). But it is impossible under 3.5 if you "kill him right." However, I could have made a better example than #2 if I'd spent more than a minute on it. Whatever. See below.

But the DM isn't master of fate. The proper term for the master of fate is "Author". DM implies dice and player free will ... Declaring that will-of-the-DM destiny can randomly trump any of them means you're no longer actually playing a game with meaningful rules, and not declaring so means that destiny can be casually overridden by unanticipated outcomes.

Note that I merged two of Robert's posts. I also added the orange coloring to hi-light the key bit (IMO). - IR

This is the part that really bothers me. This rule gives the DM the power to "tell the PCs story for him." It takes away control from the PCs in a ham-fisted manner that is blatantly "because the DM feels like it." It reinforces that the campaign is the DM's opportunity to tell storied to me, rather than for me to be a meaningful participant in an emergent story.

Maybe that works for some people. Maybe, as a DM, you insist on having 100% narrative control (and the PCs better not mess it up by Raising people who don't have a Destiny!), or maybe as a PC you like just sitting back and listening to a good yarn. But it doesn't work for me, either as a DM or a PC.

*********

Just to make clear though, I'm not "really upset about this." This isn't some "4E is dead to me!" moment, or something else equally hyperbolic / over-dramatic. In the scheme of things, house ruling this is a 5-second job. Easy peasy. I think 4E is really moving in the right direction in a number of ways, and this is but one small dislike easily fixed.

 

[HeinorNY]

OK. Character has the destiny of slaying a great evil in single combat. Evil slips and falls in a 200' spiked death pit.

Character has destiny of slaying great evil. Character leaves continent and refuses to engage in any actions that directly engage evil.

Character has destiny of preserving X. Character destroys X.

Character has a destiny of preserving X. Other character destroys X.

Character has destiny of preserving X. Character locks away X in such a way that it is under a controlled hazard, always in peril but never actually destroyed, and adventures freely.

Character has a destiny that requires X to not be destroyed. Character subjects X to stress, trusting in destiny to make sure that X never actually becomes irrecoverable.

Two options:
-He can't meet his destiny anymore
-It wasn't really part of his destiny

 

[DandD]

Meh, Raise Dead and other Ressurection spells have always been something dumb in D&D. No matter what explanation they give and whatever rules specification they write, it will be dumb, no matter what.
Voyaging to the Realms of Dead People and bringing back the souls in Orpheus-style should be the only viable way for heroes and other good people. Everything else should just be Blackest Magic born from the hearts of evil people who read the Necronomicon and other vile books of Darkness and Dread. Raise Dead and Ressurection should be Necromantic Spells that make the Ressurected become evil and spiteful at best, and Zombies who crave brains otherwise.