ressurect or die?

Well, losing one level and the gold is more painful to most of my players than the prospect of creating a new one.. so often they don't bother to be raised..

I don't think raising dead would influence the world. Only the rich and resourceful have the opportunity to do so, and unless you want to spend 25,000 on a true resurrection, you need a body. So even though your uncle was sentenced to death, unless you have 25,000 gold handy and a cleric willing to do the honor, murder trials still matters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


palleomortis said:
Yea, but when you lose someone close to you, what wouldn't you give to have them back?
Yes, but most people in a D&D-style world won't be able to afford it, so resurrections will be limited to the few who are wealthy enough.
 

Generally people are getting Raise Dead by level 5. Because of this, I can be less forgiving as a DM. And, nobody wants to die. Loss of a level is bad, even with the xp rules for 3.5.
 

JoeGKushner said:
How would the population grow twice as fast?

1. The spells aren't low level.

2. Rich nobles would be able to afford it.

3. Body still needed for raise dead. (easy enough to take care of in certain cases.)

4. Old age still a viable threat.

5. Murder trials not needed? Why? Is death no longer painful?

Undenyable tho, it would change the world we live in dramatically. And murder trials would not be needed because you could just ressurect the dead and they could tell you.
 

palleomortis said:
One thing that resurrecting does, is change the world. Think about it, the population is now growing twice as fast, murder trials are no longer needed, hestory is now out of the questions and into the pure facts, so much of the world we know now would change so dramatically.

A laborer makes 1 sp per day. Assuming he manages (somehow!) to save 1/3 of it, it will take him 450 years to afford a raise dead.

A mercenary makes 2 sp per day. Assuming he manages to save 1/2 of it and is able to work 3/4 of the year, he'll be able to afford it in 400 years.

An alchemist makes 1 gp per day. Assuming she manages to save a third of it, she'll be able to afford a raise dead in 40 years.

A rediculously elite 10th-level mercenary leader makes 33 sp per day. If he's able to work 3/4 of the year and saves half of it, he'll be able to afford a raise dead after 'just' 12 years... but even then a true resurrection would take 30 years.


Now thinking about how incredible these saving rates must be---I sure don't save half of what I make---just to allow these well-off craftspeople and warriors to raise someone once in a lifetime, I think you can see the reason these spells don't have much effect on the world.

With a more realistic savings rate of 2%, the elite mercenary leader would need over two hundred years of saving to afford even a raise dead.


Now what effects does it have?

Kings, dukes, and other powerful nobles and royals may act differently. A ruler of a city may take in thousands of gold pieces worth of taxes (in grain, livestock, coin, and services) each year, and it's quite possible that the ruler would be able to set aside a thousand gold pieces *each year* to prepare for such contingencies. This may mean he'd be able to raise several people over the years -- family members, cloe friends, and possibly even himself with good planning.

The noveau riche (like PCs) may well be able to afford such services as well.


Frankly, I'm suprised to hear that these spells have such a profound effect on so many DMs, since they have very little effect on my game world. When I play my characters are seldom willing to accept a raise or resurrection, even when I've grown attached to them, as they tend to refuse the spells ("I'm happy here, thanks") except in cases of grave injustice and such. As DM, I haven't seen the spells used that much either -- many PCs feel as mine do about the afterlife, many others can't afford the costs, and some can't convince ranking clergy to cast the spells. Many players want to "try something different" or don't want to lose the level to the spell.
 

palleomortis said:
Undenyable tho, it would change the world we live in dramatically. And murder trials would not be needed because you could just ressurect the dead and they could tell you.

Or lie to you, having their accomplice kill them and then framing someone else with the "perfect" witness.
 

CRGeathouse

Well, with elves living for for 500 years, it's a possiblity. That and just steal the money. Imagine if stealing money from a bank would bring back the most loved person in you life, what would you do?

Kea Yoss

True stuff, that and there are was to kill other people withoute letting them know it was you. Now I know how to get rid of those jerks at the bar tho!
 

Well, either way, if you put all the stuff from d&d, there would be a whole nother world out there, and that's probably the fun thing about it.
 

palleomortis said:
Undenyable tho, it would change the world we live in dramatically. And murder trials would not be needed because you could just ressurect the dead and they could tell you.
.

But that assumes that some court is going to pay for the cost no?

It also assumes that the person being raised knows who did it or isn't lying.

It also assumes that the court wouldn't just use the spell speak with dead for a much lesser price.

Althought in a real magic rich world based on Monty Python, I can see something...

"So, which one of them killed you eh?"

"I'm really alive again? The fresh air!"

"Yes yes... now which one killed you?"

"The birds... the sun... the trees..."

"Rubish I say. Which one did it."

"Oh that? I fell out a window and broke me neck."
 

Remove ads

Top