Raise Dead and its Social Implications

[Agemegos]

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.

I'm sure that what you say was an important design criterion. But perhaps a world-building consideration drove the design in the same direction (ie. towards having more high-level NPCs).

Given the gross differences in power between D&D characters a few levels apart, a D&D society with no NPCs above 7th level has no way to impose social norms on high-level PCs. Which means that those player problems that turn up on ENworld occasionally and that are best settled by the GM enforcing the social and political consequences of psychopathic behaviour would not be resolvable without harsher and more plot-devicey methods.

In a kingdom of twenty million souls (very big) where nine people in ten are 0-level and each level has 10% as many members as the level below, no NPC is above about 6th or seventh level. A tenth-level PC is therefore a startling anomaly, a party of four or five of them is mind-boggling, and a fourteen-level PC is a rare and as socially uncontrollable at Superman. Or NAZI Germany.

Back in 1st ed days I always got the feeling that the campaign was supposed to change in tone and focus when the PCs hit 'name level'. They were supposed to become powers in the land, buying chickens in thousand lots, employing households of henchmen and retainers, building keeps and carving out estates. In 3rd ed not so much. Which means that the magnatesand institutions that keep 10th-level itinerant dungeon-bashers in their place have to be correspondingly stronger.

 

[Agemegos]

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."

How are they at dropping a million here or there to build a castle? Or should I not stir that up?

 

[random user]

How are they at dropping a million here or there to build a castle? Or should I not stir that up?

My kingdoms don't create a huge castle each year every year, let alone 7 of them (DMG price for "huge castle" 1m gp). Perhaps my kingdoms are just poor.

 

[Evilhalfling]

How are they at dropping a million here or there to build a castle? Or should I not stir that up?

well castle building in a medieval kingdom was not supposed to be easy, 30 years was not uncommon, and more often work contiune over generations.
none of this build-in-one year from strongholds book.
Except for King Edward II building all those castles in wales, Ive never understood the economics of that...

To move back to the discussion, I could see a king sacking his treasury to keep (raise) a powerful military adavantage (i.e. high level characters) but it would not happen regularly.

Revivification will still have to be addressed for the societies eilite who would logically have the 5-6k for a raise dead. The higher cost spells are out of reach. Assuming that you can just use starting NPC wealth for merchants and such - calling it assets opposed to magic items - a 9th level character could liquidate his funds (12,000 gp) to pay for a raise dead.
I could see lovely estate sales, "everything must go! 1 week only!"
You could also look at gp spending limits for a community - Crp gotta fly -

 

[Silveras]

I'm sure that what you say was an important design criterion. But perhaps a world-building consideration drove the design in the same direction (ie. towards having more high-level NPCs).

-- snip --

Back in 1st ed days I always got the feeling that the campaign was supposed to change in tone and focus when the PCs hit 'name level'. They were supposed to become powers in the land, buying chickens in thousand lots, employing households of henchmen and retainers, building keeps and carving out estates. In 3rd ed not so much. Which means that the magnatesand institutions that keep 10th-level itinerant dungeon-bashers in their place have to be correspondingly stronger.

I can buy some of that.

My going on about the demographics was mostly to illustrate how different they are from the 10% rule Janx remembers. (On a sympathetic note, one of my greatest challenges in 3rd Edition is trying NOT to remember how things were done previously.)

The large limiting factor will, indeed, be cost. And that factor is much improved under 3.5 vs. 3.0 ( a 5,000 gp diamond vs. a 500 gp diamond for raise dead). Even under 3.0, though, most peasants could not afford such a thing.

Still, the availability of raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection has dramatic effects.

• The fact that they are possible with enough money means that those who have the money will make every effort to ensure it gets used.
• Inheritance customs would be different .. either because there would be two "tiers" .. those who can expect to be raised/resurrected and those who cannot ... or because the whole society would expect that anyone could be brought back, even if it were unlikely.
• Burial customs would be different. Funeral pyres, or otherwise destroying the body, would become reserved for criminals. Destroying a body would become a mark of shame for a family, in that case.

The peasants who cannot afford to be raised/resurrected also do not have property to worry about passing on (usually). What little they have would be passed on using traditions based on those of the nobility... who can afford to be raised/resurrected (rarely).

I agree that there was an expected shift in tone at "Name" level in previous editions. That was abandoned in 3rd Edition, though.

I don't get the impression that the high-level classed residents are there to be checks on the PCs. The residents generated using those rules are just the "normal residents". The DM is free to add any other characters s/he wishes, in addition, without counting them as part of the population. Those are the checks against PCs lording their abilities over everyone else.

 

[random user]

I think that even those who nominally have 5000gp to use and still not be bankrupt, in many situations they would choose not to be raised.

Imagine an NPC Smith. He owns his own smithy and does a decent trade. He's been working for 20 years so he's decently old (let's say about 35) but still has a few years of life in him. If he were to die, by selling his smithy and collecting all his money, he could afford to be raised and still have a house to live under.

But he remembers his long years of apprenticeship and having to wander from teacher to teacher. He scraped together all of his money together so eventually he could buy a smithy so he could pass it down to his son, who has some talent in smithing. If he sold his smithy, his son would be left with nothing and would have to seek work elsewhere. Indeed, he would as well, since he wouldn't have his own shop.

In addition, he's scraped together about 1000gp to offer as a dowry for his daughter. He had a hard life, and he's hoping that by having his daughter marry someone of minor importance (which the dowry will help) she may have a better life, and more importantly, his grandkids may never have to experience going to bed hungry like his kids did when he was younger. He could use that money for himself, but that means that his daughter would most likely have to live the life of a pauper.

If this NPC died, do you think he put in his will "please liquidate everything and bring me back to life?" Or do you think he would be content that he raised a son and a daughter, both of which will hopefully have an easier life than he had?

I'm not saying that there are no people who would choose to be raised; however, I still maintain that the vast majority of the population would not be affected by raise dead regardless of how common it is.

 

[Sigurd]

Great thread -- my approach

My understanding ala WOTC Dreamlands is that the dead hang around for a convenient time then they travel into shadow and then to their respective afterlives or to Dreamland.

Typically, as a DM I'll fold, bend, and mutilate the rules if it generates good role playing (thats why we play after all).

I've informed my players how rare some of the components for resurrection are and told them that it is a ritual spell. Their player clerics will be expected to contribute to the ritual and they might all have to sacrifice xp to raise their comrade. I imagine a ritual where each of the characters are drawn into a trance and their memories of the best actions of the fallen are offerred to the diety. The diety will renew a very personal oath bond perhaps demanding something of each supplicant.

Like one of the early posters I've made the various flavours of resurrection Domain spells. The spell may also be granted for the founding of a new Church (that is people not building) and when it suits the deity. In these cases its a single use spell. I even give Cleric's holding one of these devine spells a +1 to char so long as they have not cast it. People just suspect that this char is infused with the deity's spirit.

Also as a ritual spell resurrection requires that each participating cleric make a pledge before their god about the conduct and suitability of the one to be returned. If s/he is a rotter after he is returned they will lose prestige before their god and want serious revenge. The spell is almost always cast in a holy center of the deity because of the increased safety and power it affords.

I have a huge sympathy for the char that gets blasted by a death magic spell if they feel they had no part in the players death. If the player is angry they died that way, I figure the character is ten times as angry. I'm happy to supply a role playing solution to the char's death. On the other hand I don't support a matter of fact cycle of death, gentle repose, erase some money, revive.


Sigurd

 

[Agemegos]

Except for King Edward II building all those castles in wales, Ive never understood the economics of that...

If you are talking about Carnarvon, Conway, Beaumaris, Rhuddlan, Flint, Hope, Ruthin, Bluith, Llanbadarn and Harlech, it was Edward I who ordered them built (although some were not finished or abandoned until the end of the next reign). And the economics is very like the Star Wars Strategic Defence Initiative: military spending gone mad, bankrupting the national treasury.

On another point. Castles were often extended, modified, strengthened, and re-designed over generation after generation. Some of the insanely expensive castles that Edward I built were took 44 years of on-again/off-again work (Carnarvon), or were abandoned after five years (Beaumaris). But when people got really serious they could get a strong castle up a lot more quickly than that. Gilbert de Clare built Caerphilly in under three years. Edward I got Conway finished in five years and Flint in three (and while he was builting nine other castles). And by no means were all castles monsters like Caerphilly and Conway.

 

[WayneLigon]

Except for King Edward II building all those castles in wales, Ive never understood the economics of that...

I't's good to be the King...

Probably he did it the way most rulers do it: when you are the guy controlling the money supply, you can make it do what you want to and damn the consequences later. You just don't pay some people, or decide you're going to pay them a quarter of what they might normally get otherwise. After all, he's the king and all those people on his land work for him; if he says 'I'll pay you enough so your family doesn't starve but you'll be a mason on this castle', there's not much said mason can do about it except get hung.

 

[adembroski3]

I disallow any and all raise dead spells EXCEPT Miracle and Wish. Those two can do it. However, it depends on the god you are tapping to bring him back... i.e. Paladine will not permit one of his clerics to ressurect Dalamar.

One thing to keep in mind is the demographics. Not every hamlet and village is going to have a resident priest capable of raising the dead. In my model, only the most powerful clerics in the world are capable of such a feat, and even they aren't able to do it all the time. Most clerics beleive in the natural course of events, and thus are loath to ressurect someone as it may interrupt this flow.

Anyways, that's just my view. Personally, I can't stand raise dead. It drives me nuts, and I can't stand it when my players view death as a few days off.