Raise Dead and its Social Implications
- Thread starter dead
- Start date
Byrons_Ghost
First Post
I more or less play it by the book, but take a different spin on things IMC. Without getting into the whole "D&D is low/high/meridian magic" or "magic is the same as science" topics, I do think that the ready availability of healing magic at lower levels will have an impact on the death rate in the world.
The way I see it, having even a low-level cleric that can cure moderate wounds or neutralize poison is going to save a lot of people who would have otherwise died. So I see things as being a lot closer to modern medicine, with death rates similar to today than in medieval times. Essentially, since the majority of problems are getting cured by the local priest (or whomever) before they become lethal, then raise dead spells just aren't going to get thrown around that much, at least within the genereal populace. People will live to old age or natural causes take them, and that will be that- no res for them.
Of course, there's still premature death due to accident, hostile attacks, etc. Although accidents could still fall under the "day-to-day healing" category, they could also be lethal. In rare cases like this, it would depend on the local resources available. In populous land with a strong church, ressurection would definately be available. In a sparsely populated land, or one that doesn't have a strong clerical presence, then there would be no option. Using the modern metaphor again, it would be like the divide between care available in first vs. third world countries. In the first world countries, the res would happen. In the third world countries, it wouldn't enter into the equation, and the people might not even know it's an option. They would just accept it as the way things are.
That brings me to my next point, about the perceptions of death. To us, the ease of raising the dead in the game is astounding. To the characters within the game, it's probably par for the course. Again, without getting into the low/high magic debate, I see this as mainly pertaining to royal lines, assassinated politicians, etc. If you know that spending a lot of time and resources on an intricate assassination plot is going to result in your enemy getting up and walking around the next day, you're not going to go the assassination route. Likewise, if a king can easily be raised after a murder or accident, the younger probably wouldn't even see this as a chance to take the throne- more like an inconvenience, similar to someone in our world going into surgery. So they'd either take a long-term view of things, waiting for the natural progression to set in, or they'd be so impatient that they'd just go out and make it on their own, adventuring and so forth, without waiting the fifty-plus years for the old man's priests to finally let him rest in peace.
To me, all this makes things in game play more interesting. It provides plenty of opportunities for people to travel the world, from impatient heirs to barbarians who have just heard of this strange magic that can defeat death and with to use it on their ancestors (hey, you try telling Conan he should've brought his father's remains to you within one day per class level!)
Then there's the political aspects- things get much more political without the assassination factor. If you can't just kill your opponent, then you have to do things like undermine and weaken them through prestige, finance, and the like. I used this to good effect in my last campaign- the PCs had a number of powerful enemies, but both sides knew that a straight-up battle would be pointless. So they had to resort to manipulation and intrigue instead. Another good example would be Gibson's story, "Burning Chrome", in which Chrome isn't destroyed directly, but the loss of her finances and power means she can no longer protect herself from those who would like to destroy her directly. Whereas before, an assault would have been pointless and suicidal.
Anyhow, that's enough rambling. To sum up, I think that clerical healing will make death much less common, especially as things "progress" up the ranks, to the point where only people in high-risk situations (ie, adventurers) have to seek out raise spells on a regular basis. And, I agree that the easy access to raise would change things among the world's elite, but that it doesn't have to be a bad thing. And the rest of the world probably wouldn't notice the difference.
All that said, I do like some of the customs and setting things some people have done with these spells, particularly the ransoming of noble corpses.![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
I'm curious how this would work with True Resurrection, though, which says it doesn't require the body. Would the person just come to in the middle of their enemy's stronghold? Granted, since it's a 9th-level spell it's not going to happen all that often, but it'd certainly be amusing...
The way I see it, having even a low-level cleric that can cure moderate wounds or neutralize poison is going to save a lot of people who would have otherwise died. So I see things as being a lot closer to modern medicine, with death rates similar to today than in medieval times. Essentially, since the majority of problems are getting cured by the local priest (or whomever) before they become lethal, then raise dead spells just aren't going to get thrown around that much, at least within the genereal populace. People will live to old age or natural causes take them, and that will be that- no res for them.
Of course, there's still premature death due to accident, hostile attacks, etc. Although accidents could still fall under the "day-to-day healing" category, they could also be lethal. In rare cases like this, it would depend on the local resources available. In populous land with a strong church, ressurection would definately be available. In a sparsely populated land, or one that doesn't have a strong clerical presence, then there would be no option. Using the modern metaphor again, it would be like the divide between care available in first vs. third world countries. In the first world countries, the res would happen. In the third world countries, it wouldn't enter into the equation, and the people might not even know it's an option. They would just accept it as the way things are.
That brings me to my next point, about the perceptions of death. To us, the ease of raising the dead in the game is astounding. To the characters within the game, it's probably par for the course. Again, without getting into the low/high magic debate, I see this as mainly pertaining to royal lines, assassinated politicians, etc. If you know that spending a lot of time and resources on an intricate assassination plot is going to result in your enemy getting up and walking around the next day, you're not going to go the assassination route. Likewise, if a king can easily be raised after a murder or accident, the younger probably wouldn't even see this as a chance to take the throne- more like an inconvenience, similar to someone in our world going into surgery. So they'd either take a long-term view of things, waiting for the natural progression to set in, or they'd be so impatient that they'd just go out and make it on their own, adventuring and so forth, without waiting the fifty-plus years for the old man's priests to finally let him rest in peace.
To me, all this makes things in game play more interesting. It provides plenty of opportunities for people to travel the world, from impatient heirs to barbarians who have just heard of this strange magic that can defeat death and with to use it on their ancestors (hey, you try telling Conan he should've brought his father's remains to you within one day per class level!)
Then there's the political aspects- things get much more political without the assassination factor. If you can't just kill your opponent, then you have to do things like undermine and weaken them through prestige, finance, and the like. I used this to good effect in my last campaign- the PCs had a number of powerful enemies, but both sides knew that a straight-up battle would be pointless. So they had to resort to manipulation and intrigue instead. Another good example would be Gibson's story, "Burning Chrome", in which Chrome isn't destroyed directly, but the loss of her finances and power means she can no longer protect herself from those who would like to destroy her directly. Whereas before, an assault would have been pointless and suicidal.
Anyhow, that's enough rambling. To sum up, I think that clerical healing will make death much less common, especially as things "progress" up the ranks, to the point where only people in high-risk situations (ie, adventurers) have to seek out raise spells on a regular basis. And, I agree that the easy access to raise would change things among the world's elite, but that it doesn't have to be a bad thing. And the rest of the world probably wouldn't notice the difference.
All that said, I do like some of the customs and setting things some people have done with these spells, particularly the ransoming of noble corpses.
I'm curious how this would work with True Resurrection, though, which says it doesn't require the body. Would the person just come to in the middle of their enemy's stronghold? Granted, since it's a 9th-level spell it's not going to happen all that often, but it'd certainly be amusing...
Last edited:
Piratecat said:
Ideally, yes, or at least sometimes (kingdoms in Europe were more often elective than hereditary). But in practice successions are more normally determined by force.
The first King of England to succeed by hereditary right was Henry III, in 1216.
From the foundation of the kingdom of the English in 829 AD to end of the mediaeval period about 1500 there were about 41 successions to the throne. Eighteen were elections (many of them not noticeacly free, but elections in form at least). Only eight, that is less than twenty percent, were hereditary successions. The remainer were forcible: conquests, usurpations etc.
"Uneasy sleeps the head that wears the crown."
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
As far as the peasant class being jealous of those able to afford the boon of revivification, I think they would be more jealous of the ability than the boon. The average peasant works year round to ensure the livelihood of his family, and is taxed by his lord in excess of 50%. I don't think that they would be especially keen on the idea of returning from the afterlife to such conditions. They would be no more or less jealous of the ruling classes because of the ability to return from the dead.
Raising a fallen king... now that has some seriously fun possiblities. Depending on the religious state of the kingdom, I can see a race between the loyal supporters of the dead king and the supporters of the hier: The king's men trying to get the king raised before the heir can be coronated. The church/religion that would perform the resurrection might be the same one that presides over the coronation, leading to the church pontiff being the one to actually decide the matter, usually for the greatest benefit of the church. Or, if the churches are different, the possiblities of inter-church conflict could be quite a backdrop. O, the possibilities...
P.S. most lords could not be considered idle rich. They must constantly pay attention to their lands and defend their position from ambitious neighbors.
Raising a fallen king... now that has some seriously fun possiblities. Depending on the religious state of the kingdom, I can see a race between the loyal supporters of the dead king and the supporters of the hier: The king's men trying to get the king raised before the heir can be coronated. The church/religion that would perform the resurrection might be the same one that presides over the coronation, leading to the church pontiff being the one to actually decide the matter, usually for the greatest benefit of the church. Or, if the churches are different, the possiblities of inter-church conflict could be quite a backdrop. O, the possibilities...
P.S. most lords could not be considered idle rich. They must constantly pay attention to their lands and defend their position from ambitious neighbors.
Byrons_Ghost said:
Ecellent points! Well said!
With Raise Dead and Resurrection routinely available, and with customs and attitudes formed by their availability, it basically makes no sense that people should think of the premature and temporary death of a ruler or property owner as an occasion on which inheritance laws should operate. The thought should simply not occur to them.
Last edited:
I've thought about this from time to time, and it seems that there are 2 different paths to take.
1) Change the rules.
or
2) Change the society.
I do a bit of both.
First, multiclassing is really common IMC, so it's rare to find a single classed cleric capable of casting Res or True Res. I also say that other creatures can use the opportunity to come into the Prime Material Plane, whether "hitching" a ride back along with the soul (ala Buffy), or take the soul's place if it refuses. On the other hand, I also made an incantation (UA) that raises dead without the gp cost, so I guess I'm wishy-washy like that.
Second, many societal changes come into play to reduce the effect that raising has. First, many evil clerics and/or wizards will raise the body as undead, blocking any ressurection attempts. Or they'll kidnap the person, torture them to death, raise them, rinse, repeat, untill the victim chooses not to return. As I run it, the person being raised can't tell who's raising them untill they accept, so once they say no once or twice, the BBEG can return the body with no fear.
As far as nobility goes, many will form pacts with specific churches, offering them their support for raising them from any untimely demise. The churches know the nobles will support their political aims, so they raise them for free (kind of a magical lobbyist). Or the dragon kings (not Athas, actual dragons) will raise them if they've been a good servant/agent.
I guess, in many ways, it ends up being similar to high level modern medicine. If a person in America gets AIDS, he or she has a decent chance of living a pretty normal life. In South Africa, where people are poorer, its a death sentence (gross exaggerations (sp?) I know, but it fits the point).
Anyways, Good Eats is on, so I gotta go. Hope I helped.
1) Change the rules.
or
2) Change the society.
I do a bit of both.
First, multiclassing is really common IMC, so it's rare to find a single classed cleric capable of casting Res or True Res. I also say that other creatures can use the opportunity to come into the Prime Material Plane, whether "hitching" a ride back along with the soul (ala Buffy), or take the soul's place if it refuses. On the other hand, I also made an incantation (UA) that raises dead without the gp cost, so I guess I'm wishy-washy like that.
Second, many societal changes come into play to reduce the effect that raising has. First, many evil clerics and/or wizards will raise the body as undead, blocking any ressurection attempts. Or they'll kidnap the person, torture them to death, raise them, rinse, repeat, untill the victim chooses not to return. As I run it, the person being raised can't tell who's raising them untill they accept, so once they say no once or twice, the BBEG can return the body with no fear.
As far as nobility goes, many will form pacts with specific churches, offering them their support for raising them from any untimely demise. The churches know the nobles will support their political aims, so they raise them for free (kind of a magical lobbyist). Or the dragon kings (not Athas, actual dragons) will raise them if they've been a good servant/agent.
I guess, in many ways, it ends up being similar to high level modern medicine. If a person in America gets AIDS, he or she has a decent chance of living a pretty normal life. In South Africa, where people are poorer, its a death sentence (gross exaggerations (sp?) I know, but it fits the point).
Anyways, Good Eats is on, so I gotta go. Hope I helped.
Ralts Bloodthorne
First Post
I run a high magic world, with levels far in excess of 20th.
It works, I'm not gonna change that, so you might as well just put the bashing away. And no, we don't use the ELH.
The biggest limitation is the following:
Ressurection, True Ressurection, Raise Dead, Reincarnation do not work upon those who have died of old age or do not wish to return.
We expanded this to: "Whom the Gods have called home." Before each ressurection, the clergy often checks with thier Gods to see if the person died at the proper time.
If they did.... Too bad.
We also added a few mechanics for fun...
Knowledge Religion Check DC for returning from the dead: Age+Level
On a failed roll, one of the following occurs:
It is only partially effective, resulting in the person becoming undead, and the Church of the God of Death dispatching Fists of the Dead to "relieve the person of the burden of thier unnatural existance"
Chance for a powerful/minor outsider to inhabit the body: 10+Level+Level Adjustment
Damaged Body: Reroll all stats, as the chill of the grave, and the journey to beyond has effected thier mind and body.
A penalty equal to level against necromatic magics.
IN all cases, the returned has the option, at any time, to "chuff off the mortal coil" so to speak.
All in all, the two biggest things are: Natural lifespan, and a desire to return. Since being a king isn't as fun as everyone thinks it was, and in a magical soceity, which is very complex, I think that the king might WANT to stay dead.
It works, I'm not gonna change that, so you might as well just put the bashing away. And no, we don't use the ELH.
The biggest limitation is the following:
Ressurection, True Ressurection, Raise Dead, Reincarnation do not work upon those who have died of old age or do not wish to return.
We expanded this to: "Whom the Gods have called home." Before each ressurection, the clergy often checks with thier Gods to see if the person died at the proper time.
If they did.... Too bad.
We also added a few mechanics for fun...
Knowledge Religion Check DC for returning from the dead: Age+Level
On a failed roll, one of the following occurs:
It is only partially effective, resulting in the person becoming undead, and the Church of the God of Death dispatching Fists of the Dead to "relieve the person of the burden of thier unnatural existance"
Chance for a powerful/minor outsider to inhabit the body: 10+Level+Level Adjustment
Damaged Body: Reroll all stats, as the chill of the grave, and the journey to beyond has effected thier mind and body.
A penalty equal to level against necromatic magics.
IN all cases, the returned has the option, at any time, to "chuff off the mortal coil" so to speak.
All in all, the two biggest things are: Natural lifespan, and a desire to return. Since being a king isn't as fun as everyone thinks it was, and in a magical soceity, which is very complex, I think that the king might WANT to stay dead.
Warlord Ralts said:
Good point. In my campaign the Dead waited in a vast queue, which was advancing slowly enough that one might plausibly maintain that only world-wide use of reincarnation and revivification magic caused anyone to leave it at all. Some people maintained that the Dead were advancing to judgement, and that only the wickedness of the world since the collapse of the Empire had caused the huge backlog to form (these people argued that the 200-year practical limit on True Resurrection was the result of the fact that people who had been dead for about 200 years reached the head of the queue and got judged). Other people maintained that God was not going to start judgement until the end of the world, and that the Dead were simply waiting in line for Judgement Day (except those who came back, of course). And the druidic people believed that there was no Judgement Day coming, and that those who ended up in the queue were stuck there until someone cast Reincarnation for them. So there was a fair incentive for anyone to come back who could.
But under other arrangements for the afterlife things might be different. If the Dead are waiting in limbo for Judgement Day most will cheerfully come back. But if the Good have gone to their reward they will be most unwilling to come back (especially if their reward involves responsible duties, as I would argue it must to reward the truly Good). And if the wicked are being punished justly for their sins they will be very anxious to return if given the possibilities.
Which could mean that revivification magic would only work on (a) evil people, and (b) those who nobly agree to postpone their enjoyment of Paradise for a specific and sufficiently important reason. The former are likely to be much more common. In general revivification might therefore be rather dangerous, and the religious authorities would never engage in it without clear signs from God. Or perhaps a brief taste of the realities of Hell, together with the certain knowledge that death is inescapable at the expiration of natural lifespan, might mean that most evil people who are re-vivified face the strongest possible incentive to mend their ways, so that everyone who is raised is (or at least starts out) determined to be better than they were. Underr those circumstances certain Good people might feel it to be their duty to raise and resurrect all the Evil people they can, so that those Evil people have a chance at being redeemed.
Easy revivification of the dead is full of good stuff, consequence-wise.
Last edited:
