What's the problem with bringing PCs back from the dead?

[Numion]

"Screw it! I can be resurrected so lets just do this stupid thing anyway."

In all my games of 3E, I've never once heard anyone say that.

So, for me, the rule in 1E you quoted would be useless.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In all my games of 3E, I've never once heard anyone say that.

So, for me, the rule in 1E you quoted would be useless.

Good thing I'm not you then.

 

[molonel]

In all my games of 3E, I've never once heard anyone say that.

So, for me, the rule in 1E you quoted would be useless.

I've been playing 3rd Edition since it came out, often every week if not more.

I've never heard a player say that in a home game, a pickup game or a con.

Ever.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've been playing 3rd Edition since it came out, often every week if not more.

I've never heard a player say that in a home game, a pickup game or a con.

Ever.

Guess we have had different experiences.

Its not a 3e thing, it was like that when we removed the negative effects from 1e rez.

 

[Quasqueton]

This whole idea that raising dead PCs in a D&D game should be rare and/or extremely difficult, or impossible, based on the argument that it is such in myth, legend, and literature strikes me as very odd.

Since when, and why, do myths, legends, and literature drive the rules, conventions, and concepts of D&D? Could D&D, in any edition/era, actually emulate myths, legends, and literature exactly, without heavy modification? Hell, D&D doesn’t even mimic LotR – and many people claim LotR was a direct inspiration for D&D (though that assertion has been stated wrong by the creator of the game).

It’s like saying that movie action heroes should have a dozen weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo on them because computer game action heroes have such. And movie action heroes should be able to restart a scene after dying in that scene, because computer game action heroes can do so.

D&D is a game. Any given party of protagonists usually has at least one, usually more than one, magic worker. Even the lowest mage or priest can do things that stand out as miraculous in most myths, legends, and literature. A first-level character can have a sword shoved into his gut, he can fall unconscious and be moments away from death, yet the first-level cleric can touch him with a 0-level spell and stop him from bleeding to death. A 1st-level spell can heal him completely. Completely. That is not common in myth, legend, and literature.

A low-level mage can levitate, put a squad of enemies to sleep. A low-level druid can animate the plant life to grab and hold a horde of enemies. A low-level cleric can repel a group of zombies with his basic faith. The mage and cleric can call a creature from Heaven or Hell and have it fight for him. Warriors struggle against and defeat dragons, giants, and other monsters every game session. All of these are deeds worthy of grand myths and legends in our Real World. But everyone accepts them without blinking in a D&D game.

Yet, reviving a character from death is somehow too potent? Because it is rare in myths, legends, and literature? If Real World myths, legends, and literature rule what can be accepted as normal in your D&D campaign, you have a lot of trimming to perform on the game beyond must limiting coming back from the dead. Heck, how can you have cure light wounds? Magical healing is just as rare – usually reserved for just deific characters in myths, legends, and literature.

Quasqueton

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This whole idea that raising dead PCs in a D&D game should be rare and/or extremely difficult, or impossible, based on the argument that it is such in myth, legend, and literature strikes me as very odd.

Since when, and why, do myths, legends, and literature drive the rules, conventions, and concepts of D&D? Could D&D, in any edition/era, actually emulate myths, legends, and literature exactly, without heavy modification? Hell, D&D doesn’t even mimic LotR – and many people claim LotR was a direct inspiration for D&D (though that assertion has been stated wrong by the creator of the game).

It’s like saying that movie action heroes should have a dozen weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo on them because computer game action heroes have such. And movie action heroes should be able to restart a scene after dying in that scene, because computer game action heroes can do so.

D&D is a game. Any given party of protagonists usually has at least one, usually more than one, magic worker. Even the lowest mage or priest can do things that stand out as miraculous in most myths, legends, and literature. A first-level character can have a sword shoved into his gut, he can fall unconscious and be moments away from death, yet the first-level cleric can touch him with a 0-level spell and stop him from bleeding to death. A 1st-level spell can heal him completely. Completely. That is not common in myth, legend, and literature.

A low-level mage can levitate, put a squad of enemies to sleep. A low-level druid can animate the plant life to grab and hold a horde of enemies. A low-level cleric can repel a group of zombies with his basic faith. The mage and cleric can call a creature from Heaven or Hell and have it fight for him. Warriors struggle against and defeat dragons, giants, and other monsters every game session. All of these are deeds worthy of grand myths and legends in our Real World. But everyone accepts them without blinking in a D&D game.

Yet, reviving a character from death is somehow too potent? Because it is rare in myths, legends, and literature? If Real World myths, legends, and literature rule what can be accepted as normal in your D&D campaign, you have a lot of trimming to perform on the game beyond must limiting coming back from the dead. Heck, how can you have cure light wounds? Magical healing is just as rare – usually reserved for just deific characters in myths, legends, and literature.

Quasqueton

I think its been fairly well explained. It cheapens the heroics of the players is the only answer I can give you, for the various reasons stated above. There should be some risk, removal of equipment is a slight thing, they just go find another temple to raid to get new stuff.

 

[Korgoth]

You know, mate, your question has been asked and answer, right? No offense, but what's the reason for starting this again?

Several of us have stated that Raise Dead makes a fantasy world too inconsistent, problematic or gonzo for our tastes. I want to have "assassinate the king" plots, and so on. Maybe you don't... that's cool. Or maybe you just want to have Raise Dead available to the PCs but never to Good King Tar-Get, and just not ever explain or address it. Also fine, if that's your cup of tea.

But I construed the intent of this thread as you asking what people's beef is with Raise Dead. Lots of people have explained in an eloquent and/or measured way why it's a problem for them. Are you really proposing to argue me out of the fact that Raise Dead messes up the fantasies that I want to run? Like I'll all of the sudden say "Oh, wait... I don't really want to run Korgoth's fantasy; I want to run Quasqueton's fantasy. How could I have been so silly all of these decades?"

So if you want to know my opinion, fine - I'm glad to explain it to you. If you want to argue about mechanical impacts on gameplay and game balance, or about the original intent and structure of the D&D rules... all of that is to some extent demonstrable and seems fair to argue about. But if I tell you that I don't allow Pegasi in my world because I think they're dorky... what is there to argue about? I think that Raise Dead messes up the dynamics of the fantasy worlds I'm trying to run. I think I've made a consistent enough case for why this game mechanic messes up that kind of world. What more is there to say?

I'm not trying to get in your face here. I'm just trying to tease out what this is all supposed to be accomplishing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Okay, the efforts required are more striking.

It still happens.

The precise *point* is that the efforts required are "more striking." I don't think anyone's objecting to the idea that the direct intervention of a deity or actual immortal status would be an appropriate means to allow resurrection. The idea that a reasonably-available spell that qualifies as a common character option allows it is a different bag altogether.

He asked for a mortal example. Hercules was not yet a god. Ergo, he qualifies. He's dying, nothing can save him, and divine power rescues him. This qualifies as an example.

No it doesn't. Herakles/Hercules was not raised from the dead. He never died, period. This is not an argument about the availability of deific ascension, neutralize poison, or conditions governing immortality, so this is not an appropriate example.

In your opinion.

In my understanding as a Sanskrit-proficient Hindu who has done more than his share of theology study, yes.

Throughout the discussions we've had on this subject, Reincarnation was right there alongside Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection as an option to bring a character back. It wasn't the preferred option, but it was there.

Reincarnation qua Hindu/Vedic/Buddhist philosophy is vastly different from reincarnation via spell. It's a condition of being, not something a mortal can do to another mortal. And memories are *not* retained, ever. A reincarnated life is a new life, not a reset button.

Heroes and lives cycling back from the dead is a fundamental part of world mythology. My analogy is not flawed.

Not when you rephrase the issue that way, maybe. The question is not whether there is a mythic precedent for "heroes and lives cycling back from the dead" (and I would argue that's not quite correct either, since no mortal escapes death's clutches in *any* of the examples you give; the story of Orpheus and Eurydice is usually taken as an example of how mortal impetuousness and frailty prevent us from cheating death), but whether returning from the dead should be available for mortals as a common, hardwired-into-the-campaign option.

Well, people keep acting like it's some foregone conclusion that Rez, True Rez and Raise Dead have never appeared in literature, myth, fantasy or legend. That is absolutely, positively and demonstratably false.

By gods and for gods, yes. For mortals?

The point that I would make is a different one. In myth, legend, and much fantasy literature, death is an insurmountable barrier for mortals; it's one of the essential elements to making heroic deeds heroic. Gilgamesh battles death in a struggle that's directly metaphorical for mankind's attempts to stave off mortality. Odysseus visits Hades to be reminded of the importance of living life to the fullest. Balder dies to show that even the mightiest and the most beautiful cannot escape death (and, as I said, he doesn't make it out until after the world itself is remade; even Odin, All-Father of the Universe, cannot "raise" him). Only beings of supreme power or divine immanence can either resurrect or be resurrected. Raise dead inverts that paradigm, allowing mortals to bring back mortals as a matter of routine, and it IS without precedent in mythic traditions for this precise reason.

 

[AuraSeer]

I have no problem at all with this; if nothing else, it serves to reinforce the notion that the PCs are *not* the only fish in the pond and that there's lots of other adventurers out there.

I have the same reasoning but the opposite conclusion. I hate trying to shoehorn some random new PC into the adventure, because it makes the PC party less special.

In my game the PCs are Important. There is a reason they're the ones called on to rescue the princess, or defeat the evil mastermind, or prevent the destruction of the world. If they fail, there's no one else who can come in and clean up behind them.

If there's a replacement 20th-level ranger around every corner, and every village is home to a trustworthy replacement archmage, who the heck needs this one party? There are tons of people willing and able to save the world, so the PCs can go on vacation and let those other shlubs get their hands dirty.

On top of that, replacing a PC can mean throwing away quite a lot of history and character development. What if Luke Skywalker froze to death on Hoth and was replaced by another PC? How would the eventual duel with Vader turn out? "I am the father... of some other kid you never met, who used to hang with your friends before you came around. Join me, and we will rule the galaxy as father and, um, trivial replacement apprentice!"

 

[Kyrail]

The only good solution I came up with that makes this work and is still believable is more robust rules for dealing with disablement and unconsciousness.

If you raise the dead all the time, there is no threat.

If you disallow raising the dead, and someone hits 0... new character. Not much fun.

If you have rules that allow a fairly large margin for being disabled, knocked unconscious, or "dying", you have both. PC's still don't want to get taken out of the fight, they just "lost". But they get to keep their character assuming you don't TPK the whole batch. Also you can take PC's are prisoners this way if the party is forced to flee.

The current dying system is not good enough for D&D if you remove raises, it's extremely unforgiving, like real life. But we're not going for real life, we're going for believable. Nothing in D&D is even close to how things work in real life, but they're close enough to be acceptable.

Also I like the disabled effect a lot and think it should get more game time. It only normally happens at 0, so it's rare.

I haven't perfected a system, but here is what I got so far. Keep in mine, no raise dead in the game. Also keep in min PCs are heroic. There is reason they have stats above 10, they get special rules. Monster die at 0, PCs have players attached to them.

0 to -5, disabled. With this someone could stagger about 150 feet before falling over unconscious. Seems reasonably heroic to me.

-6 to -10 unconscious and not bleeding.

-11 -19 Bleeding to Death. Fort save DC 15 to stabilize.

The 10% thing always annoyed me, and I have never seen anyone enjoy rolling that minuscule chance every turn. It's like a mockery of playing the game, instead you're rolling to see how much un-fun you're going to have. 10% chance of possible fun! Anyway fighters get killed the most, so they should stabilize easily. Even if you have a +0 fort you still have a 25% chance.

-20 dead.

I wanted to somehow work peoples con modifiers in there, but I can't seem to make it work.