Indentured Resurrection [Spell]

[Lysander]

This would be a useful spell to have. It could also be a good plot hook to start a game, having a cleric resurrect the party in exchange for them working together to defeat a great evil.

Indentured Resurrection
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 8
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Duration: Conversation 1 min/level long, followed by instantaneous resurrection

As Resurrection, except you have the opportunity to telepathically speak with the subject's soul before choosing to revive them. The caster may offer the soul specific conditions to follow should they be resurrected and the soul is able to make counter-offers. If both agree on a deal the target is resurrected, and is magically bound to follow the conditions of their contract to the letter. The subject has no ability to resist following the contract, and can only be freed by completing their task or through an exit clause.

[Milskidasith]

So it's a higher level version of Resurrection, except worse for the person being revived?

What's the point? Sure, indentured servitude and all, but anybody who can afford a casting of this (which has the same material component cost of a regular Resurrection) can get a regular Res done.

[Godskook]

1.What does 'exit clause' mean, exactly?

2.A shortcut for handling the question of what happens while they live, but before they complete their quest, grabbing inspiration from the Geas spells might help.

3.Balance-wise, this is a lot more powerful than its nearest neighbor, Dominate Monster(a 9th level spell). With Dominate Monster, there's SR and a save, while with this there isn't. Dominate Monster can also be dispelled, is mind-affecting, can be IHS in rare circumstances, and must only target living creatures. If Dominate Monster is appropriate as a 9th level spell, this might not be, as it seems to completely eclipse Dominate Monster.

Other than that, pretty cool idea.

[Lysander]

1.What does 'exit clause' mean, exactly?

2.A shortcut for handling the question of what happens while they live, but before they complete their quest, grabbing inspiration from the Geas spells might help.

3.Balance-wise, this is a lot more powerful than its nearest neighbor, Dominate Monster(a 9th level spell). With Dominate Monster, there's SR and a save, while with this there isn't. Dominate Monster can also be dispelled, is mind-affecting, can be IHS in rare circumstances, and must only target living creatures. If Dominate Monster is appropriate as a 9th level spell, this might not be, as it seems to completely eclipse Dominate Monster.

Other than that, pretty cool idea.

An exit clause is a way out of the contract. For example, "You will be my bodyguard, until three years have passed or until I let you go"

This compulsion is greater than dominate monster, but it's balanced by the fact that the subject must willingly accept the conditions, and can negotiate more favorable terms. If the subject prefers to remain dead or wait for a resurrection by other means they can do so.

[deuxhero]

Needs a clause stating that if a deal can not be reached, you keep your diamonds.

[Godskook]

This compulsion is greater than dominate monster, but it's balanced by the fact that the subject must willingly accept the conditions, and can negotiate more favorable terms. If the subject prefers to remain dead or wait for a resurrection by other means they can do so.

Either (a)you're suggesting that a diplomacy check must be made, which isn't enough to balance this spell(way too easy), or (b)you're suggesting that this is balanced by roleplaying restrictions which is generally a poor idea for a mechanical ability(equivalent to the balancing mechanism behind the item familiar feat).

[Milskidasith]

Plus, once again, anybody worth becoming a rez'd slave is somebody important enough they could buy their own resurrection. If it mimic'd true resurrection, it might be worth it.

[LordZarth]

This spell is either for the DM or for the player to cast, not for the player to buy. (IE, stop pointing out that resurrection is better.)

[AstralFire]

I would just make an expensive material component that can be used in place of the resurrection diamond and grants the indentured quality.

[DracoDei]

I don't see the roleplay clause as being a weak counterbalance, and even handled mostly via a diplomacy role, if you use The Giant's rules it would probably work reasonably well.

[Godskook]

I don't see the roleplay clause as being a weak counterbalance, and even handled mostly via a diplomacy role, if you use The Giant's rules it would probably work reasonably well.

Aside from actually scaling, I don't think so. For an Old Red Dragon(+5 wis, 28 HD), the base DC is a measly 48 before the two modifiers the Giant lists. The deal is at least favorable(-5), and at worst, if you're dragon-hunting with Mind Blank up, the relationship is Enemy(+5). That means, for cases when you intentionally plan on using it on Old Red Dragons, you only need to beat a DC 48 check. Between ranks(+23), feats(+5), charisma(+6 is reasonable), synergy(+2), mwk tool(+2), I've already need only roll a 10 on the check to make it, and there's also beguiling influence(a first level warlock invocation, accessible on a dip, +6), or a +30 competence bonus from a magic item(So a +72, against the absolute worst case on the ORD, a DC of 68).

A specialized cleric could reasonably kill and then recruit every single CR 20(or less) dragon out there to his cause, without failing the diplomacy(or any other check related to this spell, for that matter) even once.

[DracoDei]

Ok, but I think that MIGHT say more about The Giant's rules breaking, although at higher levels than the Basic rules, than it does about this spell per se... hmm... still, that does point out the problems with the spell and demonstrate the original point that you can't base it off a diplomacy roll very well.

[Milskidasith]

Here's an idea: Make it so that the spell requires a will save instead of a diplomacy roll to resist (you can still go willingly). You get a new will save once every X (job completed, year, ordered to do something against your nature are all probably three things included, though "extremely against your nature" might just be an auto break) with a bonus on the save (probably +2 per job completed, +4 per year, autobreak if against your nature, +1 or 2 for other circumstances like not being paid well.). That would make it fairer, though I think we already break the intention if we are using this just to get armies after murdering them.

[Lysander]

You're making diplomacy sound like mind control. You can only use it within reason. Even a natural 20 can't convince an average person to set themselves on fire, or give you all their worldly goods.

[Milskidasith]

It can convince people to become fanatical with you, so it can. By Rich's rules, the worst modifier you can get is a -20, and that's to convince your sworn enemy to do something suicidal at no benefit to himself.

Using DM Fiat is not RAW, and should not be part of the discussion. Besides, it's not even like "I'll ressurect you if you work for me" is a particularly bad deal."

[Godskook]

Ok, but I think that MIGHT say more about The Giant's rules breaking, although at higher levels than the Basic rules, than it does about this spell per se... hmm... still, that does point out the problems with the spell and demonstrate the original point that you can't base it off a diplomacy roll very well.

Probably not, considering the 'standard' rules have a DC 50 to make anyone helpful to your cause, including people you just killed. Run a bluff check first to convince them that the deal you're offering is a good one, and voila(Even optimized for Sense motive, the dragon can't have access to his magic items when dead, so he loses to your +30 magic item of bluff).


You're making diplomacy sound like mind control. You can only use it within reason. Even a natural 20 can't convince an average person to set themselves on fire, or give you all their worldly goods.

Standard 3.5 diplomacy can attain mind-control level effects in the epic rules. However, mind-control isn't necessary, you're spell provides the control. All diplomacy is doing for this example is convincing the dragon to agree to the terms. Bluff is convincing him that it is a good deal. Essentially, it goes like this:

1.Kill dragon without anyone knowing you did it. Post-mortem concerns aren't, since he's not going to stay dead long enough for anyone to notice.
2.Cast this spell, and begin bargaining.
3.Roll a bluff check the dragon(since he's dead and away from his items) can't resist. He now believes your deal is in his best interest.
4.Roll a diplomacy check the dragon can't resist. He accepts the ridiculous deal.
5.Resurrect dragon under ludicrous terms(Such as: Serve me loyally as long as I'm alive(short-term deaths don't count). I'm human(implies maximum age: actually Illumian)).
6.?????
7.Profit off your herd of dragons!

[DragoonWraith]

I feel like the spell is quite well balanced in any campaign where the DM and players are willing to use common sense.

Ultimately, the target in question must decide, for himself, without compulsion, that the benefit (coming back to life) are worth the cost (the servitude). That's not just a Diplomacy roll, that's coming up with a fair deal.

And ya know, if you cast it on that dragon who just died out in his lair hidden deep in the bowels of the tallest mountain in the middle of the toughest mountain range in the world, and has little/no hope of getting any other resurrection... they might be willing to agree to quite a bit. But they're clearly not going to take any deal with wastes their entire life in servitude; what would be the point of coming back, then?

[Milskidasith]

But that changes the problem from "Diplomacy is broken" to "The 6 cha dwarven cleric is just as good as the rogue with a scroll and maxed diplomacy at convincing the dragon to serve it."

Going from "Diplomacy is broken by RAW" to "Diplomacy means nothing by DM Fiat" is not making this spell any better.

[Dragonmuncher]

Saying that the spell is broken if you abuse Diplomacy is pointless, because you're abusing Diplomacy. As long as you don't twink out your Diplomacy, and the DM remembers to add appropriate modifiers, it should be fine.


It's also not more powerful than Dominate Monster. If anything, it's more like a voluntary Geas spell. Remember, you're saying "I'll bring you back to life... but only if you do this."


Hm... maybe modify the spell so that instead of "the target cannot disobey," change it to "If the target breaks the contract, they immediately die."

Other consquences if they break the contract:
They need to make a save every turn, or die.
They immediately die, and their soul is stored in a gem that's the material focus of the spell (a la Trap the Soul).


Actually, I like this best: "If the target violates the terms of the contract, he immediately dies. At this time, his soul is either released to the afterlife as a normal death, or bound in a gem as the spell Trap the Soul (chosen at the time of casting, with both parties aware of the chosen result)."

[Gan The Grey]

I don't understand all the flack this spell is getting. It is no more abusable than Gate, or Planar Binding, or Candles of Invocation, or blah blah list continues. The fact is, if Diplomacy can break this spell, then Diplomacy can already break any normal world interaction, so it's really a moot point.

Great spell OP. I like it.

[Latronis]

Combined Geas + Rez?

love it.

And not completely unheard of in fantasy literature either

[lesser_minion]

It can convince people to become fanatical with you, so it can. By Rich's rules, the worst modifier you can get is a -20, and that's to convince your sworn enemy to do something suicidal at no benefit to himself.

Using DM Fiat is not RAW, and should not be part of the discussion. Besides, it's not even like "I'll ressurect you if you work for me" is a particularly bad deal."

Well, he wasn't actually talking about RAW, we were talking about The Giant's fix, which is a little more robust, and avoids the situation where every conceivable opponent worships a player character who so much as smiles at them.

Put this spell together with The Giant's fix, and things start to get troublesome, but it still isn't broken - you have to kill the dragon first.

[Milskidasith]

Well, he wasn't actually talking about RAW, we were talking about The Giant's fix, which is a little more robust, and avoids the situation where every conceivable opponent worships a player character who so much as smiles at them.

Put this spell together with The Giant's fix, and things start to get troublesome, but it still isn't broken - you have to kill the dragon first.

The Giant's rules aren't really that robust at all, they just prevent diplomacy abuse from starting at level 5 (or 3, if you can manage to put your entire WBL into a ring of diplomacy +5.

At worst, you get a +20 to the check, making it 35 + HD + Wis. While, like the Giant says in his article, seems hard, you can bring it down to 5 + HD + Wis with a simple magic item (at higher levels) and then the check isn't going to be particularly hard, especially if you have other ways of increasing diplomacy.

[DracoDei]

The fact is, if Diplomacy can break this spell, then Diplomacy can already break any normal world interaction, so it's really a moot point.

Yes. Also, one of the examples given required that you kill the dragon without him/her getting a good enough look/smell/whatever at you to recognize you when you cast this spell. That is a little harder than just killing it period.

Also, one way to help mitigate that sort of thing (in addition to GMs with actual brains...) would be to add an additional material component whose cost scales with the HD or CR of the target.

Another idea would be that you can only have one creature so bound to you per 3 or 4 caster levels... which still allows for a 20th level cleric to rez an entire party this way, which is perhaps a good way of recovering from a TPK.

[Lysander]

What about these additional stipulations to limit the spell's power:

The spell ends if the subject is ever killed again. So they can potentially be freed by an ally killing and resurrecting them again.

Both the soul and the caster automatically succeed on any sense motive checks made during the telepathic conversation.

The contract must have a clause that explicitly allows the subject to be freed, whether by performing a task or after a period of time. Should the task ever become impossible to complete the compulsion ends.

[DracoDei]

The second sounds good (barring Epic uses of that skill, which I can't be bothered to look to see if there are any, but if they exist they probably amount to mind reading...).

Not so sure either way about the 1st and 3rd.

[Clementx]

Rather than invent a new spell, just have the NPC cast planar ally[/I, [I]binding, or gate to call up the deceased soul, and offer resurrection to his previous life as payment for service. Depending on your afterlife, the soul is already a valid target as an outsider, or you could insert a specific clause to allow this. It is still the same creature after being restored, so it is still bound by the inescapable terms of the binding. But, resurrection magic always offers the right of refusal to the soul, so the PC can choose to reject the deal no matter what.

This does not make it a matter of conning the other, setting arbitrary DCs to overcome the compulsion, trying to escape the geas without doing the work, or gathering armies of permanent slaves. In fact, I'll be using this the next time I DM a TPK or diamond-poor party with an unlucky fatality.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Rather than invent a new spell, just have the NPC cast planar ally, binding, or gate to call up the deceased soul, and offer resurrection to his previous life as payment for service. Depending on your afterlife, the soul is already a valid target as an outsider, or you could insert a specific clause to allow this. It is still the same creature after being restored, so it is still bound by the inescapable terms of the binding. But, resurrection magic always offers the right of refusal to the soul, so the PC can choose to reject the deal no matter what.

This does not make it a matter of conning the other, setting arbitrary DCs to overcome the compulsion, trying to escape the geas without doing the work, or gathering armies of permanent slaves. In fact, I'll be using this the next time I DM a TPK or diamond-poor party with an unlucky fatality.

I like this...

However, I think the OP's new spell does roughly what you've proposed, and tidies it up into a single spell - which one could use to replace resurrection in one's campaign if, like me, you don't like the revolving door afterlife of standard D&D.

[DracoDei]

That doesn't change MUCH (except for bumping up the level, which you could do anyway), it just makes it so the party cleric is returning people to life in return for them making him a cup of tea or whatever...

[Altair_the_Vexed]

That doesn't change MUCH (except for bumping up the level, which you could do anyway), it just makes it so the party cleric is returning people to life in return for them making him a cup of tea or whatever...

When your party cleric can cast it, you're entitled to get rezzed for free.
I'm more refering to the lower level party who pays for their fallen ally to be brought back.

[Lysander]

It's entirely possible to use Indentured Resurrection without any contract whatsoever (or I suppose the contract is "you come back to life for free"). But it's still useful for speaking with the dead before deciding whether to revive them or not, even if you don't want anything out of it. Maybe you're not sure how a person died and whether they deserve to be brought back.

[lightningcat]

I've had a charcter on the recieving end of a similar contract, not much fun for him (quite a bit of fun for me).
But a resurrection with built in geas/quest and speak with dead, I like it, and as a DM I would offer it for a greatly discounted price :smallbiggrin:. After all as long as the character got up, who in the party would argue with getting a resurrection instead of raise dead, and one condition would always be "do not speak of this contract". Oh the evil DM ideas...