Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

You know what....

The Destiny of all my PCs (other than their own motivations and personal quests) is to fulfill the friggin' goal of the campaign i've spent hours and hours thinking, writing and whatever (Kill the BBEG, save the world, save a country, destroy an evil God...)

If Bob the fighter want's to kill hes evil brother, good for him. I'll probably let him do so... conectim him with the story or something... But Bob might discover, that killing his brother was actually part of a biger picture.... his destiny is beyond what he once thought.

 

[Kishin]

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?

I would argue that rationalization the motivations of divine beings is a difficult if not impossible task.

 

[small pumpkin man]

for those not reading the thread in the news forum.

I'll note that I was paraphrasing in my LJ entry. The actual description of raise dead doesn't use the term "destiny". The key point is that raise dead isn't something that can be performed casually as a public service - the precise wording will come out when WotC releases something official. Most likely, I've said more than I should of as is.

There's more there worth readin too, but it's not directly relevant to the disscussion like this is.

 

[billd91]

I can't say that I favor the change in flavor because I don't really see a significant difference. DM decides whether or not NPC gets raised in either case. In 4e, he doesn't have an unfinished destiny and can't be raised. In 3.5, he was satisfied with being in the afterlife and didn't want to come back and can't be raised.

I may prefer the 3.5 flavor actually because then it's about the choice of the character rather than cosmic fiat. And if you've finally arrived in whatever heaven your religion espouses... why would you want to go back to the world where you died a violent death anyway? That's why I've always considered raisings rare.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I can't say that I favor the change in flavor because I don't really see a significant difference. DM decides whether or not NPC gets raised in either case. In 4e, he doesn't have an unfinished destiny and can't be raised. In 3.5, he was satisfied with being in the afterlife and didn't want to come back and can't be raised.

I may prefer the 3.5 flavor actually because then it's about the choice of the character rather than cosmic fiat. And if you've finally arrived in whatever heaven your religion espouses... why would you want to go back to the world where you died a violent death anyway? That's why I've always considered raisings rare.

I was thinking...
Maybe it is a good character concept... Maybe a morally devastated hero who ended his life with suicide that was suddenly raised by a mysterious (good) cleric. Inspite of being disgusted with life he has to deal with it because he has some destiny to achieve, being reluctanct until he decides to embrace it

 

[cougent]

As someone still debating the switch to 4E, this actually seems like the weakest justification or explanation I have seen yet. I will wait for the final rules, I will read them over and over, but at first blush this too looks very much like "hand waving" justification.

 

[small pumpkin man]

As someone still debating the switch to 4E, this actually seems like the weakest justification or explanation I have seen yet. I will wait for the final rules, I will read them over and over, but at first blush this too looks very much like "hand waving" justification.

To quote Hong.
"WHY DOESN'T ANYONE LISTEN TO ME!?"

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But how does this change the use of raise dead in a practical sense?

It is an invitation for the DM to ask the player what that destiny might be. It is an invitation for the DM and player to collaborate and sketch out a destiny, either before or after the tragic event.

In terms of flavor, this makes an immense amount of sense.

Of course, the DM always has the option to simply agree with the player who says "Uh, yeah. A big destiny of some sort."

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

It sounds like a good enough explanation to me.

Although I don't think it's strictly needed in our games where:

1) the amount of people in the world who can Raise Dead is small

2) heaven is a nice place (not a place where evil PC teleport to kill petitioners and get XP), and practically every normal person that goes there and is not stupid will not want to come back and run the risk of being sent somewhere else next time

3) PCs rarely die, period

 

[pukunui]

for those not reading the thread in the news forum.



There's more there worth readin too, but it's not directly relevant to the disscussion like this is.

I suspected as much. I tried to point that out, too, but I was ignored (this seems to happen a lot. Is it because I have a low post count or something?).