"D&D death" takes the punch out of "Death"

[Ancalagon]

I wrote this in another thread but now I copy it here because I don't want to derail the other discussion.

Sadly, the title of this thread is a flaw in D&D.

On one hand we have the issues that death is cheap for beings above a certain power level and that people DO end in a confirmed afterlife.

On the other hand we apply our RL ideas about death and the death-related plot-devices that we know from other stories and works are based on "death = final".

When we mix both hands we find out SOMETHING does not mix very well - and ignore that rather than having to create an entirely new set of philosphy and morals. The practical implications are also quite obvious.

As I stated before, Miko is an awesome example for that: Rich used the plot-devices we are used in regard to death and made a great story from them. And then he simply ignored all the other implications that might arise ("death" simply is not the defining cut that it is in RL or other non-D&D-stories).

You have the same issue with the mother Dragon who apparently was happy in the afterlife but killing dragons is still the worst, worst, worst thing you can do. It simply... does not compute.

[Snake-Aes]

To most beings, death IS final. 5k gold worth of diamons(the cheapest) is still beyond reach of all but the adventurers and nobility.
Miko's case is simple: Who would ress her? Why should she accept it?
Same for dragons: Who will ress all of them?

[Ancalagon]

To most beings, death IS final. 5k gold worth of diamons(the cheapest) is still beyond reach of all but the adventurers and nobility.
Miko's case is simple: Who would ress her? Why should she accept it?
Same for dragons: Who will ress all of them?

You are making it too simple. D&D has an proven afterlife, we do know that people do have souls that go on, the afterlife is similar to life, just without a body (means your personality and memories are intact and not lost).
We also know that an afterlife is some sort of "fitting reward" for you.

So, even for people who are not resurrected the grim reaper is not that grim.

Second: Miko is not "gone". Her story is not over as it would be in RL (or any other story). Takes quite some punch out of it, imo.

The point that no one resurrects the specific creatures does not take away the possibility that people can get resurrected. I mean, what is the POINT in assassinating a king? What is the extreme heroic thing if HERO does a final stand vs the orcs that helps to save the kingdom? Both can easily brought back.

My point is: You have to go through a lot of extra plot-effort to give a death the same punch in D&D as you had to in any other story. Thus -> "Death" loses quite some of its punch. Which is the point of the thread.

How cheap death actually in the oots-verse is the fact that basically an entire thieves guild got resurrected. Not only the leaders, but even the low members. If "death is death" seems, usually*, to be only an economic question and, if you ask me, that alone takes out a lot of what "death" usually means.

Want an comic-example? We have a very plain prophecy that one of the main characters, a character who is a favourite to many, !WILL! die.
What is the reaction by many people instead of "Oh may God! Belkar, one of my favourite characters, will die!"?
It is: "So what. He can be resurrected or made undead. Yeah, would it not be awesome if he came back as undead?"
I mean... Ugghh...? Doesn't that kill the punch of "main character will die" somewhat?

* Unless you died in a truely disintegrating way.

[factotum]

Miko's story IS over. Her body was cut in half months ago and is presumably buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Goblin-occupied Azure City, so the only reasonable way anyone has to bring her back is to spend 20k of diamonds and find a priest high enough level to cast True Resurrection. Haley's not sure any cleric in the WORLD is high enough level to do that (although Belkar thinks Redcloak may be able to), and who would spend the diamonds anyway? The only likely candidate is Hinjo, and I'm sure he has far more pressing needs for 20,000 gold than raising Miko.

So, if even a fairly high-level and powerful character has virtually no chance of getting a rez, why should it be any different for anyone else? Death still has his sting, even in a world where people can be raised from the dead, because often the difficulty and expense of doing so are simply not worth it.

[Snake-Aes]

Yes, final deaths take an extra effort...but you have to look at how many people can actually afford a raise. It's 6% of the population, tops.

[TriForce]

well i think its also slightly inconsistant, as you pointed out, MBD was happy in the afterlife, being (likely?) evil thats a bit strange. we know good people have it well in the afterlife, and now we are getting evidence (mama black dragon, jirix) that (probably) evil beings ALSO have it good in the afterlife. you indeed start to wonder why people want to live anyway. the only thing i can think of is that most people dont really know or believe stories about the afterlife and thus, like here, fear death

[Snake-Aes]

well i think its also slightly inconsistant, as you pointed out, MBD was happy in the afterlife, being (likely?) evil thats a bit strange. we know good people have it well in the afterlife, and now we are getting evidence (mama black dragon, jirix) that (probably) evil beings ALSO have it good in the afterlife. you indeed start to wonder why people want to live anyway. the only thing i can think of is that most people dont really know or believe stories about the afterlife and thus, like here, fear death

Common people's faith in the afterlife is almost like the ones here... people DO believe, or at least try to. They have extra assurance in the fact priests do divine mojo all the time...but even then they can't tell it really comes from a god with it's own paradise until they go there. Dieing is scary.

[SPoD]

Death is no more final in any other work of speculative fiction, either. Are you telling me you've never seen a non-D&D inspired work of fiction where the villain was "killed" only to be cloned or time travel from his own past or what have you and return? Or that the death was really his twin brother, or clone, or duplicate from a mirror universe? Almost every major comic book villain and hero has died at least once, as have many characters in sci-fi shows (Spock, anyone? Or Sheridan?)

Miko's death is as final as any that exists in speculative fiction, because any story can reverse death at the author's whim. We have a reasonable chance that no one is going to go through the trouble of resurrecting her, due to the fact that no one liked her enough to expend the necessary resources. That's more assurance than most characters who die in sci-fi or fantasy tales. The only difference is that Rich wanted to bring her back, he wouldn't have to invent the means on the spot.

[Kish]

Well, I see two separate issues here. First, the meme exists that anyone who dies is likely to be resurrected.

It has no support from the comic, which shows quite the opposite, with the vast majority of characters who die staying dead. Yet, the meme continues to exist without nourishment, as memes often do. I suggest ignoring it, beyond pointing out as necessary that it's not accurate.

The other issue here, though, is the established afterlife. That is a difference from the real world, but--despite Roy's speculation that a world where there was no explicit proof of an afterlife would be a much more peaceful one--most of the characters in the comic seem to value their lives as much as they would if they didn't know there was an afterlife. Therkla's the only one who actually valued hers less because of the knowledge of an afterlife.

[Optimystik]

What SPoD said. In fact, D&D is unique in that the means to bring characters back is explicitly defined (resurrection spells), and the reasons this magic isn't used is also explicitly defined (nobody likes Miko enough to do it, and she has to be willing to come back even if so.)

In comics, it can be anything - from "I was faking it" to "alternate reality me" to "sleeping clone/android of me wakes up" to "it was my twin sister all along." D&D at least doesn't need to rely on those contrivances.

Though the availability of resurrection can lead to problems of its own. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)

[Aharon]

also, if you really care, there are ways to make death final - getting a barghest to eat your enemy lowers his chance to be resurrected to 50% with wish and true res and makes it impossible otherwise as does using the Reaping-Metamagic feat on the spell you kill your enemy with. Casting a twinned Barghest's Feast on the corpse of your enemy lowers this chance to 25%. Using his soul as a spell component or during magic item creation utterly annihilates him.

[SPoD]

The other issue here, though, is the established afterlife. That is a difference from the real world, but--despite Roy's speculation that a world where there was no explicit proof of an afterlife would be a much more peaceful one--most of the characters in the comic seem to value their lives as much as they would if they didn't know there was an afterlife. Therkla's the only one who actually valued hers less because of the knowledge of an afterlife.

I think this stems from the fact that while the characters know there is an afterlife, they don't know what afterlife they would end up in--because they don't have a running tally of their current alignment. There are more shades of grey in the afterlife system than the alignment system; someone could be officially Lawful Good and still end up in one of three planes. And that doesn't even count people who may have slipped alignment without realizing it (or admitting it to themselves), or people who wouldn't actually enjoy their alignment's standard paradise...Evil types seem to have a hit-or-miss chance at best. (I chalk the dragon's reaction up to the fact that Tiamat is fairly protective of her followers because they are her spiritual children, unlike most evil deities).

In short, I would think that for some people, knowing that there is an afterlife but that it's a 1-in-17 chance to end up on any given plane would actually be MORE stressful than just living. Especially if your wife or children were different alignments from you.

[Optimystik]

Concerning Mama, I don't think evil dragons ever get raw treatment, even in standard D&D. Don't they just get the fiendish template slapped on and get to feast on extraplanar sojourners to the lower planes?

[derfenrirwolv]

Death is like being forcibly removed to another country where it takes 5,000 gp to get back from. I know i'd be sad if my mom left for another country and i couldn't see her again for 20 years.

[Ancalagon]

Yes, final deaths take an extra effort...but you have to look at how many people can actually afford a raise. It's 6% of the population, tops.

Of those who are important to a story it's 100%.

But have fun talking about specifics that it's never meant to be about. "Death" in D&D-stories is cheaper than for non-D&D stories. And that has implications. Feel free to not-account for that, which is totally your choice.

But I don't agree it's legit.

Miko's Death, to come back to specifics, is only "as final as it is" we did not get shown how it goes on (because that would reduce the impact the death had). From a point of storytelling, the "cheap death syndrome" simply is a problem.

[Kish]

Of those who are important to a story it's 100%.
Really? Miko was never important to the story? Shojo wasn't? Or is this a tautology (in which case, it would be just as accurate to say of a story set in a resurrectionless world "no one ever dies" and, when given counterexamples, say, "well, no one important to the story ever dies")?


But have fun talking about specifics that it's never meant to be about. "Death" in D&D-stories is cheaper than for non-D&D stories. And that has implications. Feel free to not-account for that, which is totally your choice.

But I don't agree it's legit.

Really, this is hardly an argument. "I'm right and you're wrong, feel free to ignore that fact, but if you do you're wrong!" If you can't address things people say, then perhaps you should reconsider your premises rather than attempting to prove them by assertion.

[Ancalagon]

Really? Miko was never important to the story?

Mikos surroundings could have afforded it if she had not alienated herself with everyone else - and if everyone else was not in a fight that was lost.
Also, this covers only one part of the issue I talked about. She is not "gone", only dead.


Really, this is hardly an argument. "I'm right and you're wrong, feel free to ignore that fact, but if you do you're wrong!" If you can't address things people say, then perhaps you should reconsider your premises rather than attempting to prove them by assertion.

Question: So you tell me that death in a world with a known afterlife and the option to resurrect is the same as in a world without all that?

[Asta Kask]

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

[Ancalagon]

Death is no more final in any other work of speculative fiction, either.

I'm not sure if that number is true.

"Usually" dead means dead. Just think about all the hereos who managed to kill the final foe for good. Also check out all those "non-fiction fiction stories" (I mean stories that have the "real world" as background). In them all death is final (imagine The Departed with resurrection).

Add that in other cases where we do see resurrection of some sort it is a "very special case" and not really glued into the word as a common rule. As we talk about it, death in Babylon 5 is also final (Sheridan was kept in a "moment between" - and also note that is also a world were souls definitly exist).

You do have a point but it's not as big as it might seem.

We can also add that many deaths followed by resurrections are demishing the effect of the first death, no? I mean Superman died... but what does that mean? He got better. I think you would agree that the "punch" of his death was made smaller by him coming back?
Instead of a final moment after which a person is gone and out of the story... it just came back.

[Snake-Aes]

People still grow attached to their lives. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html)

[Kish]

Mikos surroundings could have afforded it if she had not alienated herself with everyone else - and if everyone else was not in a fight that was lost.
Also, this covers only one part of the issue I talked about. She is not "gone", only dead.

Not gone? Ten gold says Miko will never appear in another (non-flashback) strip.


Question: So you tell me that death in a world with a known afterlife and the option to resurrect is the same as in a world without all that?
Your original claim was that death in a D&D-based world was inherently cheaper than death in any other world.

The same? Of course not. It's different in a setting where resurrection exists, from a setting where death is final but it's possible to seem effectively dead from outside and still not be dead (the Harry Potter universe), versus the Vorkosigan universe with cryofreeze, versus something like our modern world where resuscitation is possible for a very short amount of time, versus a world where dead is permanent and coughing once or pricking your thumb on a rusty nail means you'll probably be dead soon. It's different in a setting where the full details of the afterlife is known, versus one where the existence of the gods and some kind of afterlife is known, versus one where everyone goes to oblivion upon dying, versus one where it's simply unknown.

Do you recognize the difference between the statements, "A and B are different," and, "A is cheaper than B"?

[snafu]

Death is like being forcibly removed to another country where it takes 5,000 gp to get back from. I know i'd be sad if my mom left for another country and i couldn't see her again for 20 years.

Now there's a thought. Why doesn't Haley's father kill himself - or recklessly attack his jailors until killed? True Resurrection is going to be a lot cheaper than the ransom Haley's trying to save up for.

[Snake-Aes]

Now there's a thought. Why doesn't Haley's father kill himself - or recklessly attack his jailors until killed? True Resurrection is going to be a lot cheaper than the ransom Haley's trying to save up for.

good old soulbind, if they really want that ransom...
otherwise, I don't know.


A fun example of cheap death is Sckharshantallas, kingdom of the minor god and red dragon king Sckhar. He does not hesitate to kill his minions for their faults. Generally he resurrects those. Sometimes just to kill them again.

[Ancalagon]

Not gone? Ten gold says Miko will never appear in another (non-flashback) strip.

Did you read what I wrote in my initial post?
Miko will not get shown anymore. But that does not have to do with the fact that she is "dead and gone" but that Rich decides not to show her because that would "reduce the punch of her death"!



Your original claim was that death in a D&D-based world was inherently cheaper than death in any other world.

Yes, that was a bad formulation. I re-formulate: My point is that a visible afterflife, the knowledge that souls that go there, and the option to resurrect characters reduces the punch of death.
Better?


The same? Of course not. It's different in a setting where resurrection exists, from a setting where death is final but it's possible to seem effectively dead from outside and still not be dead (the Harry Potter universe), versus the Vorkosigan universe with cryofreeze, versus something like our modern world where resuscitation is possible for a very short amount of time, versus a world where dead is permanent and coughing once or pricking your thumb on a rusty nail means you'll probably be dead soon. It's different in a setting where the full details of the afterlife is known, versus one where the existence of the gods and some kind of afterlife is known, versus one where everyone goes to oblivion upon dying, versus one where it's simply unknown.

Do you recognize the difference between the statements, "A and B are different," and, "A is cheaper than B"?

Sure. "A and B" are different and as a result in this case here, "A is cheaper than B and thus does not have the punch it has in A".
In this case it is about "death in A", where "A" is "our world and the idea of death that is rooted in that" and "B" is the "oots world".

Miko's end is only as awesome and unique as it is because Rich decided not to show us all the things he could show us. Which is basically ignoring that aspect of his world because it would decrease the power of his final miko-panel.

[SoC175]

You are making it too simple. D&D has an proven afterlife, we do know that people do have souls that go on, the afterlife is similar to life, just without a body (means your personality and memories are intact and not lost). Actually that's the OotS-world-afterlife. In D&D-afterlife people lose all personality and memories and only very, very few ever get them back.

[Optimystik]

Actually that's the OotS-world-afterlife. In D&D-afterlife people lose all personality and memories and only very, very few ever get them back.

Assimilation happens in both OotS and D&D. It just takes such a long time that we're going to be unlikely to see it in the comic.

[Raging Gene Ray]

I remember hearing something about Rich saying that part of the reason he made Roy stay dead for so long was so it would remind readers that death isn't just a minor inconvenience.

Of course, he knows that this was only due to the circumstances and points it out a few times.

[WreckedElf]

Well it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that changing Death from an all powerful inevditiable and irreversible transistion into an unknown state, into a major inconveinence that those with enough resources can easily undo, significantly reduces the natural dramatic impact.

However I'd like to point out that The Giant does an awesome job at creating drama despite the nature of D&D death.

To me, there were many other elements that added drama to Miko's death that were not weakened because she 'could' be raised if someone were to take the time to do so.

And to give non-Miko examples, look at the the scene where Roy as a spirit attempts to comfort Celia when Haley is about to be Killed by Crystal, and the scene where Celia responds to learning about Roy's death. To me those were great moments of creating drama despite the 'cheap death' in D&D.

However some moral arguments get weakend a bit, for example: Celia not wanting to kill people. In a permanent-death world non-violence is noble because you risk a suffering a permanent end to prevent your enemies from suffering that end. In a world of D&D-death you could just slaughter everyone then pay for their ressurection later if you felt so inclined, and perhaps make it up to them somehow. No harm no foul eh? If Oots was a permanent-death world Celia would be noble for her refusal to kill people even when it could help her, but under D&D rules, she comes across as just being picky about the principle of the matter.

Reguardless, I restate my assessment that The Giant does an awesome job with creating drama concerning death, despite the lessened impact of character mortality.

[Raging Gene Ray]

In a permanent-death world non-violence is noble because you risk a suffering a permanent end to prevent your enemies from suffering that end.

Many people IRL who would risk death to prevent others, even their enemies, from suffering do so mostly because they have faith in a sort of afterlife.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of real-world religion, but I'm just pointing out that belief in an afterlife and pacifism are not mutually exclusive.

[Mc. Lovin']

Surely the main point of the last book was to show that death has a huge impact on people?

[ericgrau]

Trap the soul, problem solved.

Or at the very least it's still a lost level, which is a significant sacrifice yet without keeping the player from continuing the story of his character. In a book if someone dies there are a dozen others with rich backstories to continue the adventure. In D&D, the PC twiddles his thumbs or starts with a blank story. Keeping his character actually increases depth to the plot, while a cost in gold and level loss for a ressurection makes death still something to be feared.

[Herald Alberich]

Miko's end is only as awesome and unique as it is because Rich decided not to show us all the things he could show us. Which is basically ignoring that aspect of his world because it would decrease the power of his final miko-panel.

And? I think you have a point in general that resurrection in any form :belkar: "reduces the impact of character mortality". But I don't really see the problem, because it's an established element of the setting the Giant chose to work in. The challenge for him and for any other author (superhero comics come to mind) is to work around that limitation to create good storytelling anyway. If you think he hasn't done that well enough, fine, but as it stands, what's the issue here?

In the specific case quoted, it doesn't seem to me like the Giant went out of his way to ignore the afterlife and the remote possibility of resurrection for a secondary character. Do you think he should have shown this, just because it theoretically could happen? I don't. He doesn't need to call attention to that "aspect of his world" just because it exists.

[Fish]

If only Rich had had Vaarsuvius kill those dragons in some sensible and permanent way, like pushing them to their deaths in Reichenbach Falls.

[Procyonpi]

I think a re-occurring joke in this comic is, as Belkar put it, "reduced impact of character mortality." In most real games, though, it's a bigger deal - losing a level is not something that can be shrugged off for most characters, and for low-level characters, it isn't even worth it.

Also, the DM can use all sorts of house rules / plot devices to make bringing someone back to life harder or impossible, and there are ways to permanently kill someone.

And really, even if resurrection wasn't allowed, the DM could have any NPC not be dead because they had (insert random made up magic item, spell, or other Macguffin here) that allowed them to cheat death.

[archon_huskie]

How cheap death actually in the oots-verse is the fact that basically an entire thieves guild got resurrected. Not only the leaders, but even the low members. If "death is death" seems, usually*, to be only an economic question and, if you ask me, that alone takes out a lot of what "death" usually means.


Nope. Haley never handed over that money so none of the thieves have been ressurected.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html

[Corporate M]

while a cost in gold and level loss for a ressurection makes death still something to be feared.
That isn't really fair to the player to make them lose a level. Then he's basically worth less then all the other characters. It isn't about optimal builds but a direct assault.

There's no reason ressurection can incur penalties by just wasting resources, the possibility of failure, and the roleplaying aspect. You know, some people might not believe it's actually you that cameback. (Especially your greiving family) They might think you're a demon in disguise, or they do know it's you that cameback, and it upsets some people because they just dealt with you dying and now all of a sudden you're back.

There's lots of ways to go about it that don't incur permanent penalties on a player.

[Harr]

The immediate answer I would give to the OP of this thread would be: So what?

Really... the entire thread is based upon the assumption that "death" needs to have this big "punch".

Really...? Does it?

No. It doesn't.

It doesn't need to have any punch at all. Being taken out of the story does. Miko was taken out of the story for the things she did. We will never see her again (barring flashbacks). That's all the punch the story needs.

Aside from that, this entire argument is based on trying to make people believe that the story needs some other type of punch that it doesn't have, specifically from character "death". "You guys!! You guys!! Death needs to have a punch, you guys!! Why doesn't it have a punch??? It NEEDS a punch!!!" Uh, no, it doesn't. This is patently not true.

As anyone can see by simply reading the frickin' comic.

Cheers :smallsmile:

[DeltaEmil]

Nope. Haley never handed over that money so none of the thieves have been ressurected.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.htmlActually, she only tells Crystal that she won't pay Bozzok any more money and that she's not part of the guild at all despite the agreement done by Celia and Hank.

Hank did probably take most of her money away before they went to get Roy's remains from the golem maker.

She didn't even have the +5-arrows from Eagle-EyedOld BlindBrainy Pete anymore, and not that much to teleport around.

[Herald Alberich]

The immediate answer I would give to the OP of this thread would be: So what?

Really... the entire thread is based upon the assumption that "death" needs to have this big "punch".

Really...? Does it?

No. It doesn't.

It doesn't need to have any punch at all. Being taken out of the story does. Miko was taken out of the story for the things she did. We will never see her again (barring flashbacks). That's all the punch the story needs.

Aside from that, this entire argument is based on trying to make people believe that the story needs some other type of punch that it doesn't have, specifically from character "death". "You guys!! You guys!! Death needs to have a punch, you guys!! Why doesn't it have a punch??? It NEEDS a punch!!!" Uh, no, it doesn't. This is patently not true.

As anyone can see by simply reading the frickin' comic.

Cheers :smallsmile:

Thank you, that was basically what I was trying to get at, but I hadn't gotten it straight in my mind yet.


Actually, she only tells Crystal that she won't pay Bozzok any more money and that she's not part of the guild at all despite the agreement done by Celia and Hank.

Hank did probably take most of her money away before they went to get Roy's remains from the golem maker.

She didn't even have the +5-arrows from Eagle-EyedOld BlindBrainy Pete anymore, and not that much to teleport around.

What? She still has the pink bow that imparts the +5 Icy Burst to her arrows. It's on her back all the time. You can see the icy glow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) when they're fighting the bugs.

As for her money, she has enough to ransom her father now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html). I don't think Crystal's magic jewelry made up for losing all that money to the guild, which implies that she didn't lose it. We don't see it because it's in all of her Bags of Holding.

[JonestheSpy]

I think Ancalagon's point is entirely true - in a world with a certain afterlife and resurrection magic, death loses quite a lot of its sting. And despite some folks' assertions, in the vast majority of fiction outside of comic books - speculative and otherwise - dead means dead.

That said, Herr Burlew is working in a framework of DnD conventions (and doing so in a pretty high-level campaign, as opposed to Goblins where the power level is generally quite low), so resurrection and such like stuff are part of the package, and he mines it for humor like he does everything else, e.g. the revolving door afterlife. But death still packs a punch in the strip, I think.

[GoC]

Why are we only considering the impact of resurrection? Surely the certain knowledge of a karmic afterlife has a greater impact on morality?
Killing good dirt farmer villages is suddenly an act of mercy...

[Souhiro]

The death isn't so "Cheap". My poor players still can't achieve the 5000GP for the basic Raise spell (They only can raise as much as 3500, selling even their swords)

And even, de-levelling can be so harmful, that you can be useless, and utterly re-dead. Roy himself is now the lowest level party member. True, that an epic cleric can choose the Ignore Material Components Feat, and become a Free Resuct'o'matic, but until then...

[ericgrau]

That isn't really fair to the player to make them lose a level. Then he's basically worth less then all the other characters. It isn't about optimal builds but a direct assault.

There's no reason ressurection can incur penalties by just wasting resources, the possibility of failure, and the roleplaying aspect. You know, some people might not believe it's actually you that cameback. (Especially your greiving family) They might think you're a demon in disguise, or they do know it's you that cameback, and it upsets some people because they just dealt with you dying and now all of a sudden you're back.

There's lots of ways to go about it that don't incur permanent penalties on a player.

Having no penalty is what causes PCs to be careless about death. This is the immediate problem on all DMs who try to remove the penalties because they don't like them. Being a level behind isn't the end of the world, and you gain xp faster so you get it back soon enough.

[Ancalagon]

Having no penalty is what causes PCs to be careless about death. This is the immediate problem on all DMs who try to remove the penalties because they don't like them. Being a level behind isn't the end of the world, and you gain xp faster so you get it back soon enough.

I have observed that players for whom that problem exists also cause much more headache. A player who sits at your table and is not able at all to come up with some reason why his character should fear death is probably a pretty sucky roleplayer anyway. If he is not able to play this without being forced he also is not able to play other necessary things (that you simply cannot force him to do).

No offense to anyone who reads this and has to be forced to fear death via some game-means. It's just my personally preferred style of play that some things simply should work without getting forced...

Apart from that... a DM can force fear about death with other means than with level-loss. And even apart from that... why do you get "less experienced" by... experiencing something?

[Kish]

I find both the concept that, "You can't remove a character's level, the character's power is hugely important" and the concept that "the player needs a less-powerful character if his/her character dies, or s/he won't care about his/her character dying" aimed at a set of (anti-roleplaying) assumptions I don't wish to grant.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, I'm somewhat torn around in this debate.

On one hand, it's nice that "death" has some longer-lasting effects, on the other hand, I think a character should NEVER loose levels (for any reason). At least not as long as you gain levels by "experience".

A "level" is something that you are and gained and having spells or monsters or resurrections taking that does not really... fit.
I also think it only happens because it's the only way the authors of the rules had to "somehow make characters less powerful".

Yet, in the end, it does not really matter, I think. Everyone can houserule it as they like.

[Kish]

In previous editions, you lost Constitution whenever you were raised from the dead. I suspect the change to level loss is because they wanted to make the loss less bad and less final ("You can earn the level back," vs. "You are permanently less healthy, and less likely to survive your next resurrection; keep it up, and your chances of being resurrected will drop each time you die, until they finally reach 0% if you're lucky enough to get that far") but still wanted it to be something to avoid.

[Ancalagon]

Yes, I agree to that theory. But I still think it's a rather bad solution and still obviously an emergency-action. I bet they debated hours, weeks, or even years about what to do.

[Tass]

How come that nobody has mentioned yet that Rich actually does have a very punchy death waiting in the story - the snarl?

Since the snarl destroys soul, people who get snarled lose not only their remaining earth years, but an eternity of afterlife.

[resound]

Speaking of D&D death (not just OOTS D&D death), a lot depends on the GM or DM, and their leniency or mercilessness. It is not always certain that a PC will be allowed to come back by a GM. When a PC dies (and isn't allowed to come back), it could become an NPC in the afterlife, but the GM typically makes that decision. I've seen an instance where a GM resurrected a PC, but converted him into an NPC, and periodically brought him back for story embellishment. This certainly stings the player!

[Optimystik]

How come that nobody has mentioned yet that Rich actually does have a very punchy death waiting in the story - the snarl?

Since the snarl destroys soul, people who get snarled lose not only their remaining earth years, but an eternity of afterlife.

My theory is that
The souls of those "killed" by the Snarl reside on the planet in the rift (which may be World 1); trapped perhaps, and too damaged to be revived, until the Snarl is dealt with and they can be sent to their proper afterlives.

It would be too sad for presumably good people (like Mijung, and maybe Kraagor, and the Eastern gods) to be just wiped clean from reality.

[lio45]

Common people's faith in the afterlife is almost like the ones here... people DO believe, or at least try to. They have extra assurance in the fact priests do divine mojo all the time...but even then they can't tell it really comes from a god with it's own paradise until they go there. Dieing is scary.

I would disagree.

I, a human living in the real world, do not know anyone who has been resurrected and can therefore tell me all about the "afterlife" the way Roy can with his fellow party members.

It's completely different.

[Snake-Aes]

Well...there was that guy once...

[KBF]

Now we are sliding into a debate of why people follow religion. Lets not.


The immediate answer I would give to the OP of this thread would be: So what?

Really... the entire thread is based upon the assumption that "death" needs to have this big "punch".

Really...? Does it?

No. It doesn't.

It doesn't need to have any punch at all. Being taken out of the story does. Miko was taken out of the story for the things she did. We will never see her again (barring flashbacks). That's all the punch the story needs.

Aside from that, this entire argument is based on trying to make people believe that the story needs some other type of punch that it doesn't have, specifically from character "death". "You guys!! You guys!! Death needs to have a punch, you guys!! Why doesn't it have a punch??? It NEEDS a punch!!!" Uh, no, it doesn't. This is patently not true.

As anyone can see by simply reading the frickin' comic.

Cheers :smallsmile:


So you don't agree that the comic would be more exciting if there was some actual potential for character death now? Seeing as they have plenty of gold and a high level cleric? Because that's what's being discussed.

It takes more than being chopped in half for a main character to leave the story. There needs to be a LOT of other extenuating circumstances. Such as Shojo's unwillingness to return, Miko being totally forgotten, or evil magics that it seems are a big deal, from that one strip I don't feel like digging up. You know uh, V suggested it? ..Whatever. What I mean is, it makes the storytelling drastically more laid-back, but no one is saying Rich isn't doing a good job at dealing with it.

It's obviously making it difficult though. See that one strip, where the Oracle has to spend the whole thing explaining that Belkar will leave the story for real? Citing these sources is too hard, I quit. Point is, it's an obstacle that doesn't seem to actually help storytelling. People tend to hate comic book resurrections, don't they? Virtually no other media does it for a good reason. Once again, Rich is doing a good job with it but there's reason to believe his job would be easier if DnD had 'realistic' deaths.

[Optimystik]

People tend to hate comic book resurrections, don't they? Virtually no other media does it for a good reason.

Only comic books? You're kidding, right? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathIsCheap)

[Herald Alberich]

Only comic books? You're kidding, right? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathIsCheap)

I was wondering when someone would post that link. I might have myself if I'd remembered the name. So, yes, it's a trope, a common storytelling element. Tropes are Tools (not necessarily good or bad), and it depends on how the author uses them.

Rich was stuck with this one as a feature of the D&D-type universe he uses. He rolls with it pretty well, in my opinion. If the argument is that resurrection cheapens death ... yeah. That's ok as long as you don't let it stop you.

[Rotipher]

The other issue here, though, is the established afterlife. That is a difference from the real world, but--despite Roy's speculation that a world where there was no explicit proof of an afterlife would be a much more peaceful one--most of the characters in the comic seem to value their lives as much as they would if they didn't know there was an afterlife. Therkla's the only one who actually valued hers less because of the knowledge of an afterlife.

Even if you know for an indisputable fact that you're going to a nice place when you die, can you be sure that everyone whom you care about will be going to the same place? Will you pass up the chance to accomplish something meaningful in your life -- raise a family, craft a masterpiece, become a legendary hero -- any more lightly? Would you be content to leave everything you've ever known behind, without a backward glance, even if it's not always been perfect?

[Nilan8888]

I think a word should be said on just the impressionistic value of death even in a world that obeys D&D format.

Think about it this way: most people even in the OOTS only "know" what happens when they die. They don't know it as a personal experience. Roy does now and you can in some comics see it's effect. In fact considering the conversation he has with Celia there's an amount of irony there: he himself mused that people would take death more seriously if there wasn't an after life or it wasn't known... suggesting that this would be a good thing... and now that he has died, he's sort of fallen right into the sort of attitude he was cautioning against.

Funny how sometimes people can lose wisdom after formative experiences instead of gaining it.

Also consider a risky activity that you have never done. Bungee Jumping, skydiving, whathaveyou. Even though you know everything will be all right, how many people SERIOUSLY undertake these things for the first time without a little trepidation?

Then add to that two other factors:

1. In a skydive or bungee jump, as an onlooker you can more or less SEE everything that happens to another person that goes through it.

2. The expectation for undertaking these sorts of activities is that it will not physically hurt.

And also on top of all this, remember that this is a comic written for readers in RL, not for an inhabitant of the OOTS world. Naturally in reading it when we see a death, our gut reaction and instinct is going to at least initially side with thinking of the person dead for GOOD. The first time you see Miko cut in half, you're probably going to think "Good-bye Miko" for at least a couple seconds before it dawns on you that "wait, she can just be ressurected".

And there's a good deal of worth in that inital gut reaction.

Add in enough of this and I think there's still 'punch' to be had in a character's death. Really I think the only thing that maybe takes away a bit is that once a character is dead at some later point maybe Rich has to come up with a little exposition on why a character cannot be raised if that character is important enough. But that's work after the fact: the best thing to do I think is to write toward a good and reverberating climax to your story arc, and work out those sorts of details for the reader at later point.

[Erts]

Well, yes, the afterlife is proven, but people believed in an afterlife almost universally until that there was only a few centuries ago. (Not wanting to bring real world religion into this.)

And usually death is permanent. Most people can't afford the 5K gold, and if they are not resurrected in a century or two, no one will remember them anyways.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Also consider a risky activity that you have never done. Bungee Jumping, skydiving, whathaveyou. Even though you know everything will be all right, how many people SERIOUSLY undertake these things for the first time without a little trepidation?

Then add to that two other factors:

1. In a skydive or bungee jump, as an onlooker you can more or less SEE everything that happens to another person that goes through it.

If you know you'll be fine after then it's not risky. One of the main reasons for people freaking out before trying these things for the first time is that despite all of the backup parachutes, it is easy to imagine a horrible accident and the consequences of it.
And on the point you mentioned, you know what it would be like to skydive before doing it, having listened to people who have done it before, but you haven't experienced it. In oots or DnD 'verse, people can have a pretty good idea of what's in store for them in their afterlife from knowing people who have been rezzed but still have a fear of death because until they experience it themselves, they can't truly know what it will be like, and if they don't know what it's like, they would hesitate to bring it about, they're going to die eventually and they might as well live a long life on this world, in case the next isn't all it's chocked up to be.

Edit: Sorry about the run on sentence above.

[Nilan8888]

If you know you'll be fine after then it's not risky. One of the main reasons for people freaking out before trying these things for the first time is that despite all of the backup parachutes, it is easy to imagine a horrible accident and the consequences of it.

Well first of all I didn't say it WAS risky, I said compare it to something risky.

Add to that the fact that... you can't imagine a horrible accident happening when you actually die? What if you're wrong about the afterlife you get? What if you get overlooked and skitter right out of the afterlife and into nothingness? Whatever number of accredited expert skydivers you can find to tell you a horrible skydiving accident will not happen, in the world of OOTS you'll find a lot fewer accredited experts on the afterlife that could tell you the same thing with as much certainty. High level clerics and such are a rarity after all.

If you like, you can compare it to diving from a very high height into a deep end pool. You watch your friends go one by one and everyone is perfectly all right.

But when it comes time for YOU for the first time, aren't you going to feel at least a little tense? Don't people still completely chicken out? The logical part of your brain tells you one thing, but your instinct is saying something different.



And on the point you mentioned, you know what it would be like to skydive before doing it, having listened to people who have done it before, but you haven't experienced it. In oots or DnD 'verse, people can have a pretty good idea of what's in store for them in their afterlife from knowing people who have been rezzed but still have a fear of death because until they experience it themselves, they can't truly know what it will be like, and if they don't know what it's like, they would hesitate to bring it about, they're going to die eventually and they might as well live a long life on this world, in case the next isn't all it's chocked up to be.

You misunderstood that point. I wasn't talking about going by second-hand information by talking to people who HAVE skydived. I mean you can actually go out and WATCH THEM skydive. Or dive into water. Doesn't take much.

But to watch someone go to the afterlife? Can't really see that from an observer's POV. Even watching someone get rezzed is pretty rare.

[multilis]

"Miko's death is as final as any that exists in speculative fiction, because any story can reverse death at the author's whim..."

Because this is DnD with relatively easy rez compared to average fiction, difficulty of rezzing Miko isn't that much higher than Roy.

A member of resistance could have found and recognized her remains, and saved body or part of it. Lots of factions, one might value her highly for many different reasons, including some comic misunderstanding ones (eg heroic martyr who stopped ruling conspiracies). Factions such as elves probably have paladin friendly high level clerics.

***

In contrast Lord of the Rings, would be much harder for Boromir to be rezzed, not even clear if Gandalf was rezzed or instead revived from near death experience. (In Gandalf's case, he was more than human, he was helped by supreme deity, and still was in very bad shape after possible rez)

I agree that for main charactors, "D&D death" takes much of the punch out of "Death" compared to average fantasy fiction.

[The Succubus]

I know - why not ask Lirian and Durokon(?spelling) how easy it is to be raised from the dead!

[EthanRayne]

I know - why not ask Lirian and Durokon(?spelling) how easy it is to be raised from the dead!

They couldn't be raised from the dead because Xykon soul-trapped them in a black diamond. For people, without evil spellcasters as enemies it's not that hard as long as they're near a high-level cleric.

[Zxo]

It's not that bad. Resurrection is difficult enough to make it impossible if the DM wants it. Recovering the body, getting diamonds, getting a cleric, the soul wanting to return - all this can be difficult enough to make it out of reach if the story requires it. Remember how long it took with Roy? A small number of very rich and well connected people like the Oracle may have no problem with it, but for the rest it is difficult enough to make death a sufficiently dramatic event, story-wise.

As for all the questions "why X wasn't rezzed" (Miko, ABDs son...) there's always the Shojo answer, if nothing else explains it - they did not want to return, for whatever reason - afterlife too good, or being too embarassed to face the living, or whatever.

[factotum]

As for all the questions "why X wasn't rezzed" (Miko, ABDs son...) there's always the Shojo answer, if nothing else explains it - they did not want to return, for whatever reason - afterlife too good, or being too embarassed to face the living, or whatever.

ABD's son was disintegrated and his ash sank into the swamp. She couldn't find any part of the body, so True Resurrection would have been needed to bring him back--and 17th-level clerics seem to be an extreme rarity in the OotS-verse. (This isn't Forgotten Realms, where the bartender at every village is a 9th level fighter and the town doctor is a 12th level cleric!).

[Agi Hammerthief]

using D&D for discussing the "in world with resurrection death lost its sting"
is rather cute

I suggest reading Altered Carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon) by Richard K. Morgan to go more in depth

my 2p on topic:

Resurrection spells don't take the punch out of Death because


as has been pointed out most can't afford the GP cost
anyone who can easily afford the diamonds is worth the extra trouble to make sure they stay dead when assasinated.


plus:


Even true resurrection can't restore to life a creature who has died of old age.

[snafu]

Will you pass up the chance to accomplish something meaningful in your life -- raise a family, craft a masterpiece, become a legendary hero -- any more lightly?

'Meaningful'. In a life that lasts a few decades, whose sole long-term significance is as a qualification for a new life on another plane whose duration has no upper bound. What's 'Meaningful'?

Never mind removing the punch from Death. This cosmology takes all the significance out of Life. Everything you do in the world that you think is so important - all it's actually for is to earn you tickets to the afterlife of your choice. Craft a masterpiece? In time it will crumble, to rust or to rot. Become a legendary hero? In time you will be forgotten. Raise a family? They too will die, and though you may have descendants in the long term, they too will forget you. And you'll still be there in another dimension. That's the only thing in your life that lasted: that by what you did in life, you got to some alternate reality. On the scale of your existence as a whole, the period we call 'life' is negligible; it's only important in that it determines your place during the unboundedly long period afterwards.

Life becomes a game whose sole objective is to optimise the alignment meter. Nothing else matters long-term. Just pick your target afterlife, and then suck up to the god in charge to make sure you're on the guest list.

I suppose it works well enough as a motivating factor for a character in a game of heroes and villains and monsters, but it strikes me as nightmarish. Positively terrifying! I mean it's cosmic horror straight out of Lovecraft: inhuman creatures of vast power judging you according to mysterious standards, condemning you to a fate for unlimited time from which not even death provides an escape... Yikes! Better make _really_ sure those guys are happy!

[Gitman00]

I was wondering when someone would post that link. I might have myself if I'd remembered the name. So, yes, it's a trope, a common storytelling element. Tropes are Tools (not necessarily good or bad), and it depends on how the author uses them.

Rich was stuck with this one as a feature of the D&D-type universe he uses. He rolls with it pretty well, in my opinion. If the argument is that resurrection cheapens death ... yeah. That's ok as long as you don't let it stop you.

Interestingly, Miko scores a 2.7 on the Sorting Algorithm of Deadness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfDeadness), putting her somewhere between "Be Back Soon" and "Maybe Back Later".

[Knaight]

What are the specifics of how you scored it? I got a different score.

[Gitman00]

What are the specifics of how you scored it? I got a different score.

Cause of Death: 3 - Sacrifice
Genre: 1 - Back from the Dead. There is an explicit resurrection mechanic, after all.
Body Found: 4 - Dead and Buried. We explicitly saw the X's in her eyes.
Reaction: Doesn't really apply, since the only witness was the ghost who took her to the afterlife.
Last Words: 3 - Final Speech (I think the conversation with Soon counts)
Characterization: 2 - Regular. She was a long-running major antagonist.
When did she die?: 2 - Same Year (okay, okay, it was back in '07, but still... same year in-story)
"Died" and come back?: 4 - Not yet

19/7~2.7

[Ancalagon]

[B]Last Words: 3 - Final Speech (I think the conversation with Soon

If that's not a glaring 4 or even a 5 (yeah, I know that table) than I don't know.

[Snake-Aes]

If that's not a glaring 4 or even a 5 (yeah, I know that table) than I don't know.

The entire death scene is about her resignation. And at no point a half-spoken death or "ohcrap" realization. Given the weight of that death, it does fit as a last speech.

Except it was more likely written to KEEP her from coming back.

[Gitman00]

The entire death scene is about her resignation. And at no point a half-spoken death or "ohcrap" realization. Given the weight of that death, it does fit as a last speech.

Exactly. A 4 requires her to either be cut off mid-sentence or have an Oh Crap reaction.

For the former, see [Wash] in the finale of Serenity: ["I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I s..."]
For the latter, in The Lion King, see the look in Mufasa's eyes as he realizes Scar's true intentions.

[Knaight]

Still, reaction 4 is appropriate. Tsukiko walks by and remarks that Miko would be pretty useless as an undead. Bond One Liner, kind of, given who was around when she died and all. As for Genre, I would say Killed Off for Real, not Death is Cheap. Roy came back after long effort, Jirix came back due to being close to two incredibly powerful beings, and nobody else has. So a 3 there, not a 1.

[Gitman00]

Still, reaction 4 is appropriate. Tsukiko walks by and remarks that Miko would be pretty useless as an undead. Bond One Liner, kind of, given who was around when she died and all. As for Genre, I would say Killed Off for Real, not Death is Cheap. Roy came back after long effort, Jirix came back due to being close to two incredibly powerful beings, and nobody else has. So a 3 there, not a 1.

Okay, I can buy the Bond One Liner reaction. That makes sense, and brings her score up to 23/8=2.875. I'm sticking to my guns with the Genre though, since we know for certain that resurrection can and does take place, and several characters have come back who were explicitly and unequivocally killed. Along with the two you mentioned, the oracle was raised with little fanfare, and Eugene Greenhilt has several dates listed on his gravestone.

[Sholos]

Okay, I can buy the Bond One Liner reaction. That makes sense, and brings her score up to 23/8=2.875. I'm sticking to my guns with the Genre though, since we know for certain that resurrection can and does take place, and several characters have come back who were explicitly and unequivocally killed. Along with the two you mentioned, the oracle was raised with little fanfare, and Eugene Greenhilt has several dates listed on his gravestone.

The Oracle schedules his resurrections and has a fairly decent steady cashflow to support it. Eugene was a close personal friend of a high-level cleric. Neither could be considered an average situation, and neither support the theory that Death is Cheap in OotS.

[Ancalagon]

The thieves' guild got resurrected as well.

Yes, they are part of a powerful organisation that has ties to a powerful church of Loki (and proabably others) but two dozen low-level mooks? Come on... I'd like to follow your line of argument all seen resurrections were special but the thieves' guild resurrections make Death to appear quite cheap.

[Snake-Aes]

It is cheap in the sense that the necessary resources to get a raise are cheap for most important people. It doesn't take more effort than "find a cleric past level 9" and "get some diamonds". As I pointed out earlier...this is hella difficult for a commoner, but almost anyone linked to adventurers or high level pc class entities can be resurrected faster than reading a book by Ben Dover and Taye Kitt.

It's cheap as in the necessary resources are very "mundane", and anyone of importance is likely to have access to it quickly.

[Ancalagon]

It's cheap as in the necessary resources are very "mundane", and anyone of importance is likely to have access to it quickly.

Who says every jeweller around the corner of some "normal sized city" has 5k of diamonds just "happen to lie around". We should not forget that 5k gold is very, very much (for anyone but adventurers and kings).

Being able to afford something also does not mean it's available. This does not mean I would restrict a player from buying those diamonds to get a party member back, but in the case of the thieves' guild, it's quite a stretch they can find like diamonds worth around 100k in the city, just for resurrections.

As much as I like the Rich's work - but the use of the "reset button" to get the mooks from the Thieves' Guild back on their feet was a very bad idea (for like two or four reasons). I really think it's one of his very, very rare screwups so I'd rather try to forget it than discuss a lot about it. ;)

Anyway: As I said, I'd like to follow your argument that death is not cheap and that death in the oots-world "usually" means gone as only rather high-level chars can get back from the death (they have the connections and friends who have the resources) but the mass-resurrection of the thieves' guild really sinks the boat on that.
If a very greedy organisation has the ressources and the will to get back ALL mooks (and not like... the most valuable and able half of them) then it CANNOT be such a big thing in that world in general.

[Teddy]

As much as I like the Rich's work - but the use of the "reset button" to get the mooks from the Thieves' Guild back on their feet was a very bad idea (for like two or four reasons). I really think it's one of his very, very rare screwups so I'd rather try to forget it than discuss a lot about it. ;)

Have we actually been shown any resurrected mooks from the Thieves' Guild? I doubt that the Guild really had any plans on using up that much money in raw diamonds just to get a few first level mooks on their feets again, neither before nor after Haley refused to give them her money.

[Gitman00]

The Oracle schedules his resurrections and has a fairly decent steady cashflow to support it. Eugene was a close personal friend of a high-level cleric. Neither could be considered an average situation, and neither support the theory that Death is Cheap in OotS.

Okay, fair enough, if that was all the category encompassed. However, it also includes "Back From The Dead". In other words, if we know for sure that, in this setting, someone who has died without question can still come back, that's still a "1". Of course you can explain away each occurrence of resurrection by saying there were special circumstances. However, the fact remains that three characters have explicitly been returned to life "onscreen," and a resurrection mechanic is in place that most everyone in the setting is aware of and could use if they raised enough cash.

Remember, when we say "death is cheap," we're not talking about random mooks. Obviously your average schmuck couldn't raise half a million bucks (translated to US economy, if 1cp is equivalent to US $1) for a resurrection. We're talking about the story's named characters. In Marvel Comics, for example, just about every main hero and villain has been killed and brought back at some point. Every instance has an explanation that won't work for Joe Average on the street, but for the story's main characters, death is rarely final.

Really, it's a testament to Rich Burlew's writing skill that he can still make death meaningful in such a setting, and that's the reason we can debate this. Within this genre (D&D), death IS cheap. Within this particular story, because of strong characterization and effective writing, death is not as cheap as it could be.

Which ties this back into the main topic (see how I did that? :smallwink:). A sufficiently skilled writer can still give death a "punch," even in a D&D-based setting. With Miko, I believe he did that very effectively. She was very much a tragic figure, brought down by her hubris, unwilling to repent, and she quite literally self-destructed. No one witnessed her passing or really misses her, so the only way I can see her coming back is if by some deus ex machina she gets a redemption arc. She got a dramatic exit speech and her hero escorted her to her final rest.

With Roy it's even more poignant. He was the first major protagonist to be killed, it was done in an extremely shocking way, and up to that point we hadn't seen any on-screen resurrection. It wasn't until 41 pages later that we saw him in the afterlife, which drove home the fact that he was really dead. With the delay of several months in-story and over a year out-of-story before he was resurrected, and plenty of drama in between, there was some doubt as to whether he would be resurrected even though we knew it was possible. Kudos to Rich, for creating such excellent drama and tension, even in a comedic comic!

[Ancalagon]

Have we actually been shown any resurrected mooks from the Thieves' Guild?

The will do that was proven. That's all I know about how resurrection is apparently seen by them which indicates it's not really a big deal.

[Optimystik]

Have we actually been shown any resurrected mooks from the Thieves' Guild? I doubt that the Guild really had any plans on using up that much money in raw diamonds just to get a few first level mooks on their feets again, neither before nor after Haley refused to give them her money.

Actually, Haley says the thieves are "mid-high level." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0603.html) So it's possible the Guild considered it worthwhile to pay for their rezzes.

The Church of Loki may have chipped in as well, since they are in the guild's pocket.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, Haley says the thieves are "mid-high level." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0603.html) So it's possible the Guild considered it worthwhile to pay for their rezzes.

Yes, but given how easy they were slain by Haley and Belkar, it cannot be "mid to highlevel" in the sense of "7 to 15". I think she's a bit scared there and makes it worse than it is.

AND you can also argue Hank assumed Haley would pay for most of the cost anyway (due to the contract) so he spend more than he would have spent usually but it still leaves the aftertaste that bringing the dead back isn't really restricted to "special cases".

[factotum]

The will do that was proven. That's all I know about how resurrection is apparently seen by them which indicates it's not really a big deal.

But the Guild were effectively expecting Haley to pay for those resurrections, and they may well have assumed that, being an adventurer, she'd have access to a lot more high-value diamonds than they'd be able to get their hands on.

[Ancalagon]

But the Guild were effectively expecting Haley to pay for those resurrections, and they may well have assumed that, being an adventurer, she'd have access to a lot more high-value diamonds than they'd be able to get their hands on.

If THAT is how they make their business deals I wonder how they survived this long.
Really, who did expect that Haley would keep the bargain? Hank must be truely stupid to assume that, especially BEFORE receiving any money from Haley.

[Snake-Aes]

Yes, but given how easy they were slain by Haley and Belkar, it cannot be "mid to highlevel" in the sense of "7 to 15". I think she's a bit scared there and makes it worse than it is.

AND you can also argue Hank assumed Haley would pay for most of the cost anyway (due to the contract) so he spend more than he would have spent usually but it still leaves the aftertaste that bringing the dead back isn't really restricted to "special cases".

There was at least one level 8 rogue. That's already above average by a reasonable margin.

[Ancalagon]

There was at least one level 8 rogue. That's already above average by a reasonable margin.

Yes. That's my point.

OotS seems to use the the system were "level 3 is considerably more powerful than a normal guy", while "level 5 or 6 is already quite powerful" (Daigo, Kazumi), and level 10 is A LOT (Hinjo is like level 12ish).

Level 15+ is simply beyond what most people can grasp.

So we cannot expect a lot "mid to highlevel" chars in a Thieves' Guild.

We do know of at least one she's level 3 (Rouge/Bard/Sorcerer (or so)).
Thus, I think Haley more talks about "level 2 to level 8 characters", while most probably are below level 5, which is much more reasonable (and is also more in line with the fight we saw).

[Snake-Aes]

If that.
So we have a dissonance here:
Powerful characters are rare. People got used to think everyone and their dog has 7 or more levels but it's just not like that.
Resurrection is too expensive for a commoner, but rather cheap for nobility and above-average adventurers.
The availability of the material component seems to be quasi-mundane, though it did cost more or less everything Haley had.

[Ancalagon]

The thing is:
I think we did not really have a dissonance here. Higher level spells (getting back from the dead) for high level people (adventurers with buddies) or people who can simply buy it (nobility) - until Rich had an entire Thieves' Guild ressurected.

[Snake-Aes]

Getting the spells and the money was simple, given Haley was well past 200k gold... but the diamondz!
If there weren't enough clerics with the spell, they could just schedule more over the next days

[Ancalagon]

The spell (raise dead) in itself doesn't seem to be an issue (in contrast to Resurrections or True Resurrections). A major city seems to have level 9+ clerics for such (level 5) spells.

[Optimystik]

Yes, but given how easy they were slain by Haley and Belkar, it cannot be "mid to highlevel" in the sense of "7 to 15". I think she's a bit scared there and makes it worse than it is.

They were easily slain because the plot demanded it (especially in Belkar's case.) Also, the Order is wearing considerable magic items.


AND you can also argue Hank assumed Haley would pay for most of the cost anyway (due to the contract) so he spend more than he would have spent usually but it still leaves the aftertaste that bringing the dead back isn't really restricted to "special cases".

Of course he spent more than he should have. He says as much himself. "I'm not really worried, given our recent windfall" or somesuch.


The spell (raise dead) in itself doesn't seem to be an issue (in contrast to Resurrections or True Resurrections). A major city seems to have level 9+ clerics for such (level 5) spells.

Not to mention, I'm willing to bet that Greysky is Loki's seat of power (given the prevalence of thievery there, and the presence of his temple.) So his high priest, among others, may be there as well.

[Ancalagon]

They were easily slain because the plot demanded it (especially in Belkar's case.) Also, the Order is wearing considerable magic items.

You find it more likely there are level 10+ chars that are easily slain due to plot than to assume that they were indeed five or more levels lower?

Also, the only base for the assumption for the thieves to be higher level is Haleys one-liner, while the base for the assumption the thieves are lower level is much broader:
We do know about a few of them that they are in the range of level 3 (Origins), we do know that Haley was in that range as well when she was in the guild (she was around level 8 at the beginning of DCF and said to Vaarsuvius in Origins she gained "a few levels since she started adventuring".
That totally matches.
Also, why should we assume "common thieves" in the guild have like 10 levels more than "common soldiers" in Azure City (Daigo and Kazumi were like level 4 or so).
Add in how the core-rules handle levels (the legendary characters in the CS are like level 17 to epic) while some more "known" chars are put around to level 8 to 12.
If you look at how a Red Wizard Enclance in the FR is handled for example, you see the most guys there are like level 1 to 3 with a level 5 leader or something.

No, the thieves were not "high- to mid-level and died due to plot", they simply were level 3ish and got cast aside by level 14ish attackers (Belkar and Haley).
(Just before someone brings it up: Belkar's handling of Chrystal and Bozzok on the other hand was due to plot!)



Of course he spent more than he should have. He says as much himself. "I'm not really worried, given our recent windfall" or somesuch.

Ok, maybe there's more than the obvious reason why Bozzok is the leader and Hank just the head goon. It was a rather stupid descision by him.



Not to mention, I'm willing to bet that Greysky is Loki's seat of power (given the prevalence of thievery there, and the presence of his temple.) So his high priest, among others, may be there as well.

Yes, that might be. But what does that change for the "general" outline? And how do we know what level the "high cleric of Loki" is? If he's not an adventurer or has other means to gain lots of xp, it might very well "high priest" is more a title than the reflection of an actually "high level". We don't know... but I'm not sure if it matters what spells he can cast or cannot cast.
We have no idea IF it is actually the central place for Loki-worship, we have no idea if the High Priest is there, we have no idea what his level is... and even if he was like level 15: what would that mean in general for other cities?

[Optimystik]

You find it more likely there are level 10+ chars that are easily slain due to plot than to assume that they were indeed five or more levels lower?

All of Belkar's kills are due to plot. His build is just that awful as written.


Also, the only base for the assumption for the thieves to be higher level is Haleys one-liner, while the base for the assumption the thieves are lower level is much broader:

Haley's "one-liner" is very important. A) she knows these people, having grown up/worked with them, and B) she is the Giant's primary vehicle for bridging narrative with game mechanics.

[Ancalagon]

All of Belkar's kills are due to plot. His build is just that awful as written.

Belkar's plot-power seems to kick in in special cases. He DID fight the mooks. So outside of his plot-cheating (in non-mook-fights or in LARGE battles he should not win), he is also bound to levels. But let's forget about Belkar, as he plot-cheats too often to base anything on him.

Let's focus on Haley killing the mooks. She's no plot-cheater and my argument still stands. As well as the other reasonings (you know, those that you dropped ;)) that point more to a lower levels in the thieves guild than higher ones.


Haley's "one-liner" is very important. A) she knows these people, having grown up/worked with them, and B) she is the Giant's primary vehicle for bridging narrative with game mechanics.

Well, even if the one-liner is in contrast to what we learned in Origins? Haley was one of the best thieves in the guild (usually translates to "highest level"), she did gain "a few levels" as adventurer but still was level 8 at the beginning of DCF?
IF the average of the thieves was level 8 (which is the LOWER border for "mid- to high-level"!) and Haley was "one of the best thieves of the guild", that would put her like... three levels above the "average", so she'd be level 11.
Now she tells Vaarsuvius she "made a few levels since she began adventuring". What is a few? More than 2, maybe not more than 6. So let's say 4.

Following that line of thought, Haley would have been level 15 at the beginning of DCF. And note that I put the level-limit for "mid- to high-level" on the lowest border!

Also, a guild of like 20 or 30 level 10ish thieves must be the most powerful organisation in the world (given that an army usually only consists of level 1 to 3 (NPC-classes, MUCH more 1 than 3) soldiers, a few level 5ish commanders and very few higher bosses).
And as we saw in the battle of Azure City, Rich DOES follow that level-balance in OotS-world. Why should the thief-organisation be so much more powerful than the soldier-organisation?


Something really does not fit.

[Optimystik]

Let's focus on Haley killing the mooks. She's no plot-cheater and my argument still stands. As well as the other reasonings (you know, those that you dropped ;)) that point more to a lower levels in the thieves guild than higher ones.

I "dropped" your reasoning because discussing their levels really doesn't mean anything until we know how Rich defines "mid-high level."

Your original point was that the TG shouldn't be reviving 1st-low level rogues. They can be 5th or 7th and still be "mid-level" depending on how he defines that (Qarr, for example, considers even 10 to be high (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0625.html)) without contradicting anything we've seen.

EDIT: On a look back I see it was Teddy and not you that was giving the "first level" figure, but I still see nothing wrong with raising 5th-level rogues if they have the resources. (Or think they do, anyway.)



IF the average of the thieves was level 8 (which is the LOWER border for "mid- to high-level"!)

Where is your source for this "border?"

[Ancalagon]

Where is your source for this "border?"

There seem to be two general ideas about what "mid-levels" mean (roughly).
One is like level 5+ to maybe 10, the other is 8ish to 15ish.
As you seemed to disagree that the thieves were lower level (this is what this is all about, lower level would be 1 to maybe 7), I assumed you'd belong to the people who tend consider "mid levels" to be around "level 10" (the second group).

I based my argument on that to show the your estimation (majority of the rogues are much higher than 1 to 5) is somewhat off by explicity stating in what level they should be (based on the SOLID info we do have from Origins and the info the order started around 8 to 9).

You now said you "dropped" my reasonings because they are worthless as we do not know how Rich defines "midlevels". Which does not make sense, as my reasoning was not about that at all.

In fact, I understood it that you based your assumption the thieves must be higher on that (and you said "Haley knows they are mid- to high-level because she worked with them etc). Sometimed I tried to proof should not be done - as everything else that we a) DO know or b) that seems to be the balance of the world does not seem to support that.

Was I wrong and you were with me all the time?

[Optimystik]

Was I wrong and you were with me all the time?

I wasn't agreeing with you that reviving the Guild would be a waste of resources. It would be if they were indeed first level as Teddy believed, but my quote was intended to show that they could not possibly be that low. No matter what threshold we use to define "mid-levels," I'm pretty sure level 1 is not included there. :smallsmile:

Now, if you're asking do I agree with your definition of mid-levels, I'd have to ask you which one you're using.

[Ancalagon]

I wasn't agreeing with you that reviving the Guild would be a waste of resources. It would be if they were indeed first level as Teddy believed, but my quote was intended to show that they could not possibly be that low. No matter what threshold we use to define "mid-levels," I'm pretty sure level 1 is not included there. :smallsmile:

Actually, I think it is. We do know for a fact that at least a "third level" character was involved and we do know the entire guild attacked.
As I assume (based on things I wrote twice already) the guild mostly constists of characters of 1st to 5th level...

My point is that Haley's estimation of "lots of mid- to high-level-characters" is simply wrong. She's at the brink of a battle against a very large force.
You put a lot of credit into it because you assume Haley is Rich's voice there?


Now, if you're asking do I agree with your definition of mid-levels, I'd have to ask you which one you're using.

I did use the definition of 7/8 to 13/15 above (because I thought that was yours). So that is what you have to look at when talking about the above.

MY personal definition is that "mid levels" go like from 5 to... 10. Or 4 to 9 or something. But I also consider level 9 or 10 characters to be pretty powerful (look at the spells casters get). To throw in more details: I think that "most" characters in the world are like level 1 to 3. (A level 1 guy would be a normal soldier, while a level 3 guy would be a sergeant, some level 5 lower officer while the captain of a king would be quite powerful and level 10).

And I'm not asking if you agree with my definitions, but if you agree to the conclusions I draw (after you know what definitions I say).

To make it clear what this is about: Right now (and for the last posts) we have been arguing (at least I did that) about the level-range of the attackers. If we have that, THEN we can decide if we agree or disagree if the "lower end" of them was worth to get resurrected - or, to be more specific, if it was possible to resurrect them, given what it should cost -> and with that we are back to the beginning of the argument (we went from stage 1 (is it worth to resurrect the lower ones of the died thieves), to stage 2 (how common/expensive is resurrection in the OotS-world), to stage 3 (the level range of the attackers), now we talking about stage 3 so it is possible again to backtrack to 2 and 1 (which is the initial issue we argued about).
After having that meta-layer sorted out, I go to the shower (and I will still wear my magic jewelery!). ;)

PS: You are very bored, no? I for sure know I'm procrastinating today. ;)

[factotum]

If THAT is how they make their business deals I wonder how they survived this long.
Really, who did expect that Haley would keep the bargain? Hank must be truely stupid to assume that, especially BEFORE receiving any money from Haley.

Then why did he agree to the deal at all? He cut the deal with Celia in a room with a closed door--he didn't know Haley was actually winning the fight and therefore had no reason to negotiate on that basis. All the evidence indicates that Hank most definitely DID expect Haley to pay her part of the deal, or he wouldn't have dropped the line about "a recent windfall" so easily into the conversation.

[Ancalagon]

Then why did he agree to the deal at all?

THAT is an interesting question.


All the evidence indicates that Hank most definitely DID expect Haley to pay her part of the deal, or he wouldn't have dropped the line about "a recent windfall" so easily into the conversation.

Yes, why did he do that? He knew Haley, he knew he had no real power to keep her from leaving the city, he knew he was not negotiating directly with her... so why didn't he even think of the possibility Haley might not feel bound by that contract?
It was a totally stupid thing by him to assume he would get the price for the bear's hide - at a time when the trap was set but the bear wasn't yet caught.

As I said, the summary for this is "It was stupid".

[Optimystik]

Actually, I think it is. We do know for a fact that at least a "third level" character was involved and we do know the entire guild attacked.

"At least 3rd" can be anything from 3 to Epic. I'm sorry, but I can't think of any definition of "mid-level" that could include a 1st-level character.


My point is that Haley's estimation of "lots of mid- to high-level-characters" is simply wrong. She's at the brink of a battle against a very large force.
You put a lot of credit into it because you assume Haley is Rich's voice there?

Haley is always Rich's voice when mentioning game terms. Nobody in the game universe is supposed to even know what "levels" are, but she always does; just like she knows which spells are not core (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html) despite having neither Know (Arcana) nor Spellcraft as class skills.


I did use the definition of 7/8 to 13/15 above (because I thought that was yours). So that is what you have to look at when talking about the above.

I used no such range, so no, I don't have to do any such thing.

In the context of OotS, I'd say most characters top out around 10 (judging from Qarr's remark) so that mid-level is in the 4-6 range.


And I'm not asking if you agree with my definitions, but if you agree to the conclusions I draw (after you know what definitions I say).

That Haley is wrong about something she has no reason to be wrong about? No, I don't agree. Nor do I agree that the Guild was wasting resources by rezzing everyone. It would not help their reputation if it came out that half of them died while trying to assassinate a blind old man. (Remember that Hank is spinning the attack to say that Pete was the target. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0621.html))


PS: You are very bored, no? I for sure know I'm procrastinating today. ;)

I'm at my most productive when I can multitask :smalltongue: Anyway, it's friday!

[Kish]

Hank knew Haley. Which is to say, not to put too fine a point on it,
(OtOoPCs)he knew she had spent years letting Bozzok take nearly all her "earnings," and until her father's ransom note pushed her into crisis, she didn't even suggest walking away as a possibility.

In other words, he expected her to act like an imbecile because the Haley he knew did act like exactly that kind of imbecile, for years.

[Sholos]

Haley is always Rich's voice when mentioning game terms. Nobody in the game universe is supposed to even know what "levels" are, but she always does; just like she knows which spells are not core (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html) despite having neither Know (Arcana) nor Spellcraft as class skills.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I have to nitpick that all the other characters are very much aware of levels, in all meanings. Heck, that's one of the jokes in the very beginnings.

Anyways, carry on!

[Optimystik]

I agree with everything you're saying, but I have to nitpick that all the other characters are very much aware of levels, in all meanings. Heck, that's one of the jokes in the very beginnings.

Anyways, carry on!

That's true, but I didn't want to muddy the issue by considering when various characters were being "in-character" and when they were going meta. We can generally rely on Haley to do so on a regular basis, after all :smallsmile:

e.g. she's the only character that will mention Sense Motive when not trusting someone, etc.

[Ancalagon]

In the context of OotS, I'd say most characters top out around 10 (judging from Qarr's remark) so that mid-level is in the 4-6 range.

How comes that you don't see a problem with a guild filled with people that must be quite near that limit then?
We'd see a massive power-pool in the thieves' guild in that case.

There's two options:
A) The Thieves' Guild is much stronger (in regard to powerful members in the range of level 4 to 10 (your midlevels up to what Qarr considers powerful)) than "other organisations". In that case I'd ask: Why? What makes this guild so much more powerful than all other possible organisations (including armies etc)?

B) The Thieves' Guild isn't much stronger than other organisations and it's quite normal that such a group (any big enough group) has a lot of characters (even most!) in the range of 4 to 10.
In that case, it'd shift the perception of what "powerful" means. Imagine everyone was a superhero in a world). So it'd be barely logical to consider 4-6 as "midlevel", as "highlevel" would start around 7 or 8. But if a "usual member of the X-guild" is already level 5, then level 8 isn't THAT high anymore.

But to sum it up: We started to argue about what level the chars Haley fought could be. I said most would be 1 to 5ish, you disagreed and claimed that could not be and Haley/Belkar would need to be plot-cheating to win the fights as they did - and now we agreed that "midlevel" would be 4-6 six (+ maybe a few leaders which are the "high level chars") and I really think we have arrived in the range where a level 14 character can kill those "midlevel guys" without much cheating (as was shown in the comic).
Haley used some sneak attacks and later some +5 bow. Belkar struck from cover (and seems to be pretty combat-optimised anymore, however it was accomplished) and had help of the cleric. Maybe they cheated a bit, but not that much.

I actually think the current point of this debate is one I can live with. ;)

[GoC]

The Oracle schedules his resurrections and has a fairly decent steady cashflow to support it. Eugene was a close personal friend of a high-level cleric. Neither could be considered an average situation, and neither support the theory that Death is Cheap in OotS.
...
Ok, compare OotS where we have resurrection mentioned multiple times to a Tarantino film.
OotS is roughly comparable to comic books in terms of resurrections of named characters. Can you think of ANY other serious non-comic universe that is more resurrection prone than OotS?
The universe quite clearly has resurrection as a possibility.

Hmm... Now that I think about it the comic book metaphor that could explain the strangely high level of firepower in a thieves guild. It's like Gotham and Metropolis!

[Optimystik]

How comes that you don't see a problem with a guild filled with people that must be quite near that limit then?

What gave you the idea that they aren't? The only ones we know are higher level are named Characters; Crystal, Bozzok, Hank and the AT guy. Maybe even Yor and Jenny. That's 6 thieves out of a couple dozen of nameless mooks, all of whom could be around levels 5-6.

[factotum]

e.g. she's the only character that will mention Sense Motive when not trusting someone, etc.

That might be because she's the only one who has any decent ranks in Sense Motive, though!

Incidentally, we know at least one of the thieves was pretty darned low level--the one who runs away rather than flank Haley for Bozzok says, "Screw this, I only have 14 hit points!". That would suggest she was only 4th level, assuming average hit points for a Rogue and no CON bonus. (It's also one of the situations where a non-main character says something they shouldn't really have known about the world they live in--I personally believe everyone in the Stickverse knows this sort of information, not just Haley and the rest of the Order).

[Jagos]

That might be because she's the only one who has any decent ranks in Sense Motive, though!

...I personally believe everyone in the Stickverse knows this sort of information, not just Haley and the rest of the Order).

??? I find this odd. Almost every main character (villain or otherwise) has had the 4th wall broken with this information at least once. It's just one of the rules that they know.

[Ancalagon]

What gave you the idea that they aren't? The only ones we know are higher level are named Characters; Crystal, Bozzok, Hank and the AT guy. Maybe even Yor and Jenny. That's 6 thieves out of a couple dozen of nameless mooks, all of whom could be around levels 5-6.

If you think that then why did you assume Haley/Belkar had to "plot kill" their enemies in the "mook fight"?
That's what started this entire discussion.

[JonestheSpy]

I wasn't agreeing with you that reviving the Guild would be a waste of resources. It would be if they were indeed first level as Teddy believed

Unless they were thought of as, y'know, people.

[Kish]

Ah yes, that Bozzok, definitely the type of guild leader to offer Resurrection-covering medical insurance to new recruits and never dream of declaring it null and void when they die without stealing enough for him to cover the cost of the resurrections.

[GooeyChewie]

I'm sure the thieves will be charged individually for their resurrections from their future profits.

[Teddy]

I wasn't agreeing with you that reviving the Guild would be a waste of resources. It would be if they were indeed first level as Teddy believed, but my quote was intended to show that they could not possibly be that low. No matter what threshold we use to define "mid-levels," I'm pretty sure level 1 is not included there. :smallsmile:

Perhaps I should add that I don't believe that most of the thieves hunting Haley were first level, but I do believe that most of them weren't especially high in level, and I don't think that the Tieves' Guild would pay too much to resurrect low-level rouges in a city whose economy seems to be based on criminal activity, and thus should be full of young and promising talents in thievery.

[Rotipher]

Everything you do in the world that you think is so important - all it's actually for is to earn you tickets to the afterlife of your choice. Craft a masterpiece? In time it will crumble, to rust or to rot. Become a legendary hero? In time you will be forgotten. Raise a family? They too will die, and though you may have descendants in the long term, they too will forget you. And you'll still be there in another dimension.

Yes, your masterpiece will crumble, your descendents will die, your legend will be forgotten ... among mortals. But the inspiration your masterpiece provides may lead another person to excellence, earning them a better afterlife. Your child may not live forever, but they'll have an eternity in an afterlife of their own ... if, that is, you achieve the goal of raising that child in the first place. Nobody will remember your heroism ... but the people you rescue will see, in your deeds, proof that Good can triumph over Evil, and so may find renewed faith in Goodness that will bring them to a better afterlife. The existence of an eternal afterlife doesn't only apply to you: it's got consequences for everyone.



That's the only thing in your life that lasted: that by what you did in life, you got to some alternate reality. On the scale of your existence as a whole, the period we call 'life' is negligible; it's only important in that it determines your place during the unboundedly long period afterwards.

That may or may not be the way in which gods and outsiders view the "big picture". It's not how individual Stickverse mortals view it -- mortals, who simply can't comprehend the timeframe of "eternity", and won't do so until they've been dead too long to mind having been forgotten -- nor is it how we readers, who lack trillions of years of perspective, can view the issue except on a theoretical basis. Who are we to assume that a soul which has been a resident of the afterlife for so long is going to find anything distasteful about the system? We're handicapped by our short-term way of thinking; to us, "forever" is just a word.

[JonestheSpy]

Bumping this up in the context of the outrage over the hobgoblin couple killed by the fleeing insurgents. Lots of folks of the view it was of it a morally reprehensible act, not justifiable regardless of the circumstances.

Lot muddier in a world with Raise Dead though. I think the elves could make pretty good argument for saying (even if they didn't hate and kill goblins as a matter of course) - "Hey, we couldn't let them destroy our prison break out, so we killed em. We know from our intelligence reports they have clerics high enough to raise them, so if the goblins stay dead the moral responsibility is on their side, not ours. Especially as we are NOT in a position to raise our fallen if they are captured and executed, or killed on the battlefield."

edit: "And if they turn their dead into zombies instead of raising them, that just proves all the more that they're the Bad Guys and our side is morally justified."