Raise Dead and its Social Implications

[Ovinomancer]

Janx,

According to the 3.5 DMG, the new standard is the community generation charts ppg 137-139. In this system a metroplolis with 1,000,000 people would have 4 clerics in the 13-18 level range. Plenty high enough for most reserrection magic.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm... although this is not really about social implications, I use the 1st ed rules where you need to roll a system shock or be permanently dead. The shock roll is Con based and you lose a Con point permanently for each time you die. Sooner or later, it's game over, and PCs are pretty scared of dying (the negative Con point also immediatley means loss of HP as far as granted by Con bonus, so the PC comes back alot weaker then he/she was...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have been thinking about including an incantation that allows the dead to be brought back....good for lower-level characters, but not always as effective as one might like. In the Middle World, most souls go to Lymbo (the least of Hell's planes), and the Infernal Powers are always looking for ways to send agents into the Middle World. This incantation would be such a way -- if the dead person's soul is in Lymbo, then a demon or devil inhabits the body instead.

(I don't have separate planes along the lawful/chaotic axis.)

Daniel

 

[JDJarvis]

Well, it is not uncommon for a bad law to encourage what it is aimed at suppressing, so perhaps this feature of your world is realistic. But note:

Under your law, someone who kills the king for the throne actually stands to get it, which encourages him to try. Whereas if the revivified king got to keep his throne, there would be no point in assassinating a king to get his throne, because it simply wouldn't work. People wouldn't even try.

A Lawful society with lawful people will mostly follow the laws. The exceptions to that situation make for the campaign fun. Somone who kills the king but isn't otherwise and heir will stil lhave to deal with the heirs of course and there is always the risk of the returned pointign out who it was that killed them in the first place , even demanding justice and killing the would be killer in the first place, the vengeful Returned just isn't allowed to retake the throne under most circumstances.

Why would someone ever submit to being the corn king if they were going to die in a year? Because they think the system works and they are part of the system.

The prohibitions against the Returned vary from realm to realm. In some lands they are put in place by societeis with fear for the undead (say whatever you want about the Returned they were once dead and that alwasy paints them in a certain color for some folks) , some societies that don't want to stagnate under century long reigns of tyrants (the old must make way for the young). Some folks also consider death to be a gateway to ones ultimate reward to join the cellestial host after death, denying the cellestial host is considered rather poor form.

Let's try applying your logic to burglary rather than assassination

It isn't the same logic there is not the same underlying fear of the condition of the successful burglar. some socieites take the burglar and try to form him into a contributing citizen or enslave him for his act or worse as killing someone isn't always considered enough punishment ( a prison sentence wherein one is tortured for decades and not allowed to die becasue of clerical magics is a fairly effective crime deterent in some lands in myy camapign world, or so the locals think).

And I am just trying to imagine the political realities. Can you imagine that if Alexander the Great had been resurrected, his generals would have been able to pull his empire apart. Hell no! Law or no law, he would have had the prestige to simply resume command.

In most realsm in my campaign he would be considered a villain by many and gain little or no support by members of a lawful church. Chaotic empires don't last long.

Succession to a throne (or other landed estate) is rarely law and usually war or politics. If a king or noble was strong enough (politically and militarily) to get and keep it in the first place, he would still be strong enough to keep it after a revivification. If not, he could always get it again.

Divine Right in a campaign world where divine agencies have a more obvious and direct impact on affairs alters succession a tad. In a world when one dies and does certainly join the Holy Choir or the Cellestial Host or the Eternal Legion and can be contacted and confirm this, people may behave differently then they did on earth. Varaitions on folks that follow the legal and morally acceptable way things should be in the cmapign make for the dynamic and exciting events: I don't need a truely supernatural dark lord to challenege the playes in my game all i need is someone like Richard the lionhearted to come back following his death and work to reclaim the throne.

 

[Silveras]

When you also calculate population size to leveled cleric distribution, you have a control for how easy it is to get a high enough cleric.

The basic rule of thumb is 10% of population has "levels" and 10% of that is the next level higher, etc. So out of a population of 1 million (a really big city), you've got:
1st level = 100,000
2nd level = 10,000
3rd level = 1,000
4th level = 100
5th level = 10
6th level = 1

.. snip..

As long as my math is right, and most people use the 10% standard, I don't see a problem.

Your math is right, but the rule you are following is 1st/2nd Edition, and not true in 3rd, as Ovinomancer pointed out.

Actually, EVERYONE has levels in 3rd Edition. After you generate all the higher level NPC residents, the remaining population is divided among 1st level Warriors (5%), Aristocrats (1/2 %), Adepts (1/2 %), Experts (2%), and Commoners (92%).

 

[Janx]

So the 10% was a rule of thumb. It's OK if its been revised (especially in 3.5). Bear in mind, I play 3e, and I don't have the books lying around.

However, I skoff at the notion that 4 clerics of 13-18th level is sufficient for a population of 1 million people. It's not that there would be that many (or that few). It's that 4 clerics CANNOT service the needs of 1 million people.

So let's back up a step. How many clerics that can cast 5th level spells or higher in the fictional city of MillionDonia with a population of 1 million people. Use the 3.5 formulas. This would be the total number of revivicapable clerics (new word, like it?).

It's the ratio of these clerics to population that basically determines how widespread revivication is. There's a practical limit to how many people they can serve.

If the result is, TONS of clerics, then you've got a problem. If the number is still pretty low, then revivication will be pretty rare still.

It's a tough call. I live in a city of 4 million. There's 4-5 dead people reported in the news every day. I suspect if we were in D&D, we'd have enough clerics to keep up with the murder/accident rate. that would certainly take the fun out of things.

Since it seems we may have enough clerics in larger towns, the other built-in control is cost. Make it high enough, and ressurection is available to only the rich. That's where you'd have to make the setting fit the rules. You'd have the privileged rich never dieing.

I think the original intent of all the healing and reviving spells was for PCs. A combat intensive campaign needed these features so characters could advance. A more "realistic" campaign would want to make these things harder to get, less effective.

It seems that most traditionalists would want ressurections to occur rarely. At least for NPCs. The flavor of every NPC getting ressurected all the time isn't what many people want. The occasional special situation resurection is usually OK. And for some PCs, its a running joke for the weekly resurection.

One could justify weakening the healing effects (and that may mean actual weakening, raising cost, levels, etc) by the quote "it is easier to destroy than the create." It's not logical that a 1st level spell should inflict 1d8+3 damage or heal 1d8+3 damage. The same would go for revival spells. They might have a chance of failure, or be higher level.

Tough problem. I think many GMs simply never thought of it, and thusly the NPC clerics never got the idea that they could constantly cure and raise the entire population every time something bad happened

Janx

 

[Evilhalfling]

Lovely thread folks,
after reading through it I went back to my world and considered consequences of raising the dead.
1st - my world has a fairly small human population - 1 metroplolis per continent, very few large cities- this has the effect of reducing magic avalible across the board. With this change most cites have a one priest capable of rasing the dead.

2nd - four countries each have different policies -
Three kingsland is a lawful, popluated country with a unified polythestic church. This would make raising the dead fairly commonplace.
Solution bueacracy- a committe of return (3) is formed for each request, gental repose is cast on the body (not free) and they debate the merits of the individual. These commitees are sometimes bribable. If the dead is brought back without this they have to pay for the committe regardless - and if the rasing was in error the priest and returned are both fined and the returned is declared excommunitate.
If more than two weeks pass he is considered leagly dead and stripped of titles and land. Inheritance is subject to appeal.

Denumbria is a chaotic country torn between evil and good, It has a king but his power is limited to the reach of his arm. Only a priest of your faith will bring you back from the dead. The churches and people take this to believe that you are now a servant of this church, if not a pawn. Even after paying market rate (or more) you are still obligated, and it is very difficult to get the church from asking for "just one more small thing.." Inheritance issues are hotly contested, almost anything is possible, and has precident.

Vigil small knight driven culture, patroling over 100 miles of wall, supported by god of war. Only knights can be raised (it is both a rank and prestige class) But knights are expected to pay the costs themselves, in addtion to titheing. However they only have 1 cleric capable.
The returned retain all titles and property, and are welcomed back by fellows.

Corin dominated by a strong king, no large cities - procedure is repose the corpse(not normally memorized) and send word to the king. Unless the person is widely known to be important to the king. This country is considered inefficent and crime and merchant lords are common. You may be able to find a priest outside the national church, but it would be considered illeagle.

 

[Silveras]

So the 10% was a rule of thumb. It's OK if its been revised (especially in 3.5). Bear in mind, I play 3e, and I don't have the books lying around.

However, I skoff at the notion that 4 clerics of 13-18th level is sufficient for a population of 1 million people. It's not that there would be that many (or that few). It's that 4 clerics CANNOT service the needs of 1 million people.

And you'd be right. However, you need to re-read the DMG before commenting on its content, because your numbers are WAAAAAY off ... fine for 1st/2nd Edition, but wrong since.

Those 4 Clerics are backed up by 8 Clerics of half their level (6-9), 16 more of half THAT level (3-4), 32 of half THAT level (1-2), and maybe 64 more if the higher numbers were in play. That's 60 Clerics.

Settlements in 3rd Edition range up to 25,000 inhabitants. Anything bigger is a "DM's custom special". And, sadly, there is no discussion of what proportion of the population lives in cities/towns and what proportion lives in the countryside (not counting 3rd party products).

Even the smallest settlement (Thorp) can have a Cleric of up to 3rd level as a resident (base level 1d6, -3 for Community Size), and s/he is supported by 2x as many lesser Clerics of 1/2 that level ... and so on. A small town (901-2000 population) can have a Cleric of up to 6th level (1d6, -0), and a Metropolis (25,000+ population) the aforementioned up to 60 Clerics total.

My point is that, in 3rd Edition, the demographics are unreal. They are designed so that a party "in the dungeon" can "go back to town" and get whatever healing or other assistance they need. As the party advances levels, they may need to go a bigger town to get NPCs who can cast higher-level spells, but the design is so that they can always "go back to town".

This design is great for the dungeon-crawl campaigns, where a city/town really is just a rest stop between trips into the depths, but it raises issues for anyone who wants to do serious world-building.

The 10% rule is just not valid. A thorp of 50 people could have up to 36 of them being Clerics, Druids, Monks, Bards, Barbarians, Wizards, Sorcerers, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. True, the percentages get "better" as you look at larger settlements, but 10% is no longer a good rule of thumb until you reach the largest cities.

 

[random user]

I still have not seen anyone reply to the cost aspect of this, so perhaps the answer is obvious and I have simply overlooked it.

Let's take the example of 4 rezzes per day. That's 20kgp per day just for raise dead, or 7,300,000gp per year just on material costs. This isn't a cost that you pay to the priest (who may or may not charge a service fee on top of that), that's just the money that's sucked out of the economy into nothingness.

Now, I don't know how much your royal treasuries are, but the kingdoms in my world certainly can't afford to let 7.3m gp go just for "charity" or "goodwill."

If in our real world, you could pay US$250k to get raised if you die (and you would lose a level or constitution), how would that affect your life? I'll tell you, I'd be just as afraid of death as I am now. I mean, Bill Gates would rest easier, but for your everyday peasent, merchant, and middle class equivelent, the fear of death I don't think would change much.

Someone above made an analogy to burglery. My analogy using the same thing is "What if you could pay $2000 for an alarm system that was consumed every time someone attempted to steal something (even a $10 item), and assume the person isn't so much interested in taking that $10 item as he is in making your life miserable. How often would you replace that alarm system?"

As I said above, rich kingdoms (a la Bill Gates, who, I actually think has more in money equivelent than most kingdoms (indeed it wouldn't surprise me if he has more money than some countries)) can affored to raise kings etc, but there are broader questions about those kingdoms would do if given that chance. Assassinations against rich kingdoms isn't so much about removal of a single person as it is essentially blackmail. The rich kingdom can either suck it up and not raise the dead, or they can raise the dead and be subject to more assassinations simply to bleed the treasury dry.

Or maybe people in other campaigns simply have more money than the people in my campaign? In my campaign very few are going to be able to afford the 5000gp material cost of the raise dead. If gold is more common I can see this being more of an issue, but at 5000gp per raise, I don't see my society being affected by it.

 

[Agemegos]

Those 4 Clerics are backed up by 8 Clerics of half their level (6-9), 16 more of half THAT level (3-4), 32 of half THAT level (1-2), and maybe 64 more if the higher numbers were in play. That's 60 Clerics.

Settlements in 3rd Edition range up to 25,000 inhabitants.

Okay. 25,000 inhabitants. With various curative and healing magics (available from the lower-level clerics and the low-level slots of the high-level clerics) they aren't going to be quite as susceptible to accident and disease as mediaeval people were. For a rough ballpack, let's say that half of the deaths are of old age at an average of 75 years, and that the other half are owing to violence, disease and accident at an average of 25 years. That means 2% of the population die each year. That's 500 deaths per year, and revivification is useful for about half of them.

My back-of-envelope is in the ballpark of one revivification per day. It is going to be expense (particularly that of the material component), not availability of clerics, that limits revivifications in those circumstances.

Of course there may be a problem generated by the comparatively large rural populaiton living in surrounding areas with fewer high-level clerics.