Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[BryonD]

The ultimate problem with the simulationist approach is that, if you think it through sufficiently, you realize that A doesn't actually solve the problem - it just raises more quesitons, which need more creative solutions, and so on.

Isn't it fun to just make up crap about someone else's position and declare it flawed based on your own smear!!!!!

It makes my brain hurt.

My brain handles it just fine.

 

[Will]

What I don't understand is why we must have a rule to tell us which one to use.

Well, effectively, the rule was one way before, now it's a different way. People could houserule it before, and I suppose if you are really set against this rule you can houserule it again. Which kind of sucks if you prefer it that way.

But, well, for my part? Yay!

 

[JohnSnow]

The real differences would be in politics and warefare.

No, the real differences are so vast as to be incomprehensible.

The "destiny" (or "most people just don't come back") explanation actually preserves verisimilitude for anyone who's willing to take more than a surface look at what the possibility of raising the dead would change about society.

D&D's four levels of dead is twice as many as exist in The Princess Bride, which, I feel the need to point out, is a comedy.

1) "Fortunately, your friend here is only dead. We should be able to bring him back, but he'll be weak for a while." (Raise Dead)

2) "Sorry, your friend's not just dead, he's very dead. That spell we used last time won't cut it - you need a more powerful spell to bring him back." (Resurrection)

3) "Oooo...your friend's not just very dead, he's extremely dead. Oooo...that's gonna cost ya." (True Resurrection)

4) "Sorry. He's all dead. Guess all we can do is go through his pockets and look for loose change." (And this really is what most people call "dead.")

Even Billy Crystal couldn't make this funny.

It changes politics, war, inheritance law, economics, the social order, religion, and I can't even imagine what else. Trying to apply logic to fantasy is, IMO, a mostly fruitless exercise.

 

[JohnSnow]

Isn't it fun to just make up crap about someone else's position and declare it flawed based on your own smear!!!!!


My brain handles it just fine.

Fine. Explain to me how death and resurrection works in your world. Provide detailed alterations to the socio-economic and historical events based on the notion that death is no longer permanent.

One logical hole and you lose.

Best of luck.

 

[Revinor]

In the real world, diamonds are most common in tropical locales, like africa and south america (it has to do with dead dinosaurs).

You mean that dead dinosaurs are not eating diamonds, so they can be found? I fail to see any other relation, given that most diamonds are 1-3 billion years old, while dinosaurs (dead or alive) are considerably younger.

I think that you are confusing diamonds with petroleum. Petroleum is also not made from dinosaurs, but at least one of the theories claims it is some kind of dead plants related.

Or maybe amber? It is sap from the trees, for sure organic related.

 

[Revinor]

Fine. Explain to me how death and resurrection works in your world. Provide detailed alterations to the socio-economic and historical events based on the notion that death is no longer permanent.

One logical hole and you lose.

Take history/social set of ANY setting and we will find some logical holes, regardless of raise dead being there or not. I suppose that even taking Earth history in short form would produce a lot of logical holes. Most of second world war is made from logical holes.

One example of the setting with non-permanent death is presented in Takeshi Kovacs novels from Richard Morgan. It is SF setting, but with feudal-like culture in many aspects. Basically, in this world, you were able to make a full copy of mind of a person and then put it back in any body. In addition to stationary scans, everybody had a backup unit implanted in head, which was very resilient and providing latest updates in case of death. Killing person was not a serious crime (more of financial aspect of new body), destroying his/her backup unit was capital offense. Travel between stars was achieved by transferring data of person into body waiting on the other side.

There was a LOT of effects on the setting caused by lack of permadeath and ease of switching bodies - it was one of defining factors of it. While you could argue about few aspects of society as presented, it was still very consistent and well thought.

I don't see a big problem with coming up with fantasy equivalent of it.

P.S.
If you have not read the novels and you are not allergic to SF, please do read them - I have enjoyed the story a lot. Concept of Envoys is really nice solution to interplanetary conflicts.

 

[robertliguori]

Fine. Explain to me how death and resurrection works in your world. Provide detailed alterations to the socio-economic and historical events based on the notion that death is no longer permanent.

One logical hole and you lose.

Best of luck.

'Kay.

Characters of 6th level and above are trans-economic, and so rare in the campaign setting that most people live their lives without meeting one. Even then, heroes who set out to change the world deliberately are unknown-up-until-now; if there are characters selling spell-casting above fourth level, it's the PCs doing the selling, with individual effects to adjudicate.

This, needless to say, involves ignoring the projected NPCs by population tables.

Of course, there is already a huge-ass gap between "Mythic fates and unknowable gods" and what we've seen of 4E (again, you can kill gods and take their stuff), so the goalposts are not on perfect, they're on "Better than having to explain from the perspective of a Fate why they chose to make the world a particular way, when a poor explanation will result in a PC finishing murdering them." This is why hanging mechanics of the universe on the decisions of in-universe NPCs is rarely a good idea for stability and sanity.

 

[hong]

'Kay.

Characters of 6th level and above are trans-economic, and so rare in the campaign setting that most people live their lives without meeting one. Even then, heroes who set out to change the world deliberately are unknown-up-until-now; if there are characters selling spell-casting above fourth level, it's the PCs doing the selling, with individual effects to adjudicate.

So... you integrate these characters into the economic and social fabric of your game world, by putting them outside said fabric?

That's what I've been doing all along!

 

[Stogoe]

So, I respect that some of us want to tell a story where resurrection is a precious, destiny-driven privilege, and others want to tell a story where resurrection is nothing more than a luxurious commodity.

What I don't understand is why we must have a rule to tell us which one to use.

Welcome to the other side of the fence; the side where the game doesn't cater to your every whim and you might have to houserule something, or several somethings. We've lived with the Immortal Oligarchy rez-rule for multiple editions, and we've had to tweak it/throw it out wholesale to make the game work for us.

You'll get used to it; we did.

 

[Lurker37]

And if you got sent to the Nine Hells and are now burning in agony, you'd rather stay there, too?

Doesn't happen any more, according to worlds and monsters. The Dead go to the Shadowfell, and those without the destiny or sheer will to keep them there quickly move on. The majority go to parts unknown, but some choose to enter the service of a god. The latter could conceivably be tracked down, allowing for them to be resurrected if you can persuade them to return. No-one, however, ends up in a heaven or hell anymore, at least not one that can be reached by planar travel. Where the majority of dead souls go is a mystery.

So there's already adventure hooks built into the new 4E afterlife concept. Most of the time, your first stop will be the Shadowfell.

And to repeat what others have said - it's much, MUCH better for nearly every plot line a DM can conceive to have resurrection of the dead be an exception rather than the rule. Certainly the vast, vast majority of fantasy and sword and sorcery fiction most of us have in mind when planning a campaign or character makes this assumption. How is having an in-game explanation of what 99% of us were doing in their campaigns anyway bad for simulation?

Answer: For most of us, it isn't.