PDA

View Full Version : Raise Dead and Royal Succession



SirKazum
2014-12-09, 12:52 PM
I don't know if this topic has been raised before, because it sounds relevant enough to me - but, given that D&D worlds have ways to bring back the dead, how does that affect matters of royal succession? BTW, the reason I'm asking this in World-Building is because the answer is of course highly arbitrary, and depends on whatever a kingdom's laws (or, more to the point, the setting's creator) decides to be valid. So consider this more as a topic for discussion than an actual question.

My take on it is this: In the real world, many bloody wars (such as the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years' War) were fought because of poorly-defined succession rules that failed to clarify nitpicky detais such as whether gender or bastardry count when determining blood relation. At least in the United Kingdom, that problem has since been remedied with extensively-detailed succession laws (the fact that those wars happened probably has something to do with it), but the fact remains that these questions weren't addressed until they became a problem. So I imagine something similar happening in a D&D setting. Some king (let's name him Joe) dies, his son Joe II automatically takes the throne thereafter as expected, but then Joe's good friend Brother Clericton casts Ressurrect on him. Assuming Joe II is selfish enough and/or estranged enough with his old dad (which, come on, isn't that unlikely), we've got two pretenders to the throne that may both be completely legitimate in their claim, depending on how you interpret the succession rules. And that sounds like the sort of thing that would happen several times, in different kingdoms, until someone comes up with a rule to settle the matter for good.

So, what could that rule be? Again, that's highly subjective, but I think a reasonable solution would be to instate a "grace period" during which a ruler may be brought back and get to keep their title. It's a compromise solution between the two extremes of "succession happens at the moment of death, PERIOD" and "once a ruler, always a ruler, no matter how long you stayed dead" that I think is quite reasonable because 1) in D&D, especially at higher levels, death is a much less final thing than in real life. When someone dies, you don't immediately treat it as the end of their career, and there's a reasonable expectation they'll come back. So losing your crown immediately upon death sounds too harsh for me; 2) on the other hand, some spells may bring people back to life a really long time after they die, and you just can't keep a kingdom on hold for that long. There are practical matters to be considered, life has to go on.

So what would that grace period be? I think a reasonable baseline is the time limit to bring people back from the dead in the various D&D spells. Raise Dead, which is generally the most accessible spell (being the lowest level, excluding the druid's Reincarnate, because druids are presumably less accessible than clerics) is 5th level, which means a 9th level cleric can cast it, and it's got a time limit of 1 day/level. So our baseline here is 9 days. Let's call it 10, for a nice round number. That seems reasonable enough to me - a king is the most important person in a kingdom, and you'd think he'd have high-level clerics more or less close by, even if just because a realm's capital is a likely place for high-level adventurers to hang out. And convincing or paying a cleric to raise someone as important as a king shouldn't be that hard. So it's mostly a matter of finding a suitable cleric in time - and 5 days to reach a cleric plus 5 days for the cleric to get to the king sounds like a plenty comfortable enough timeframe. More than that, and you'd start keeping the kingdom in a tricky, relatively unstable situation for too long.

So, under these rules, it should go like this: when king Joe dies, the next in like for succession - say, his son Joe II - steps up as Prince Regent until the 10-day grace period ends. At the end of that period, Joe II becomes king, and is crowned accordingly. If Joe I is ressurrected after those 10 days are over, tough luck - the crown already legally belongs to his son. Joe I then could remain as an advisor or something, whatever it is that a retired king could be (Pope Benedict XVI comes to mind). Of course, Joe I would still be a highly influential figure, possibly to the point that Joe II is little more than a puppet (depending on the two kings' dispositions), but that's another matter. Other questions might arise - does Reincarnation count? What about becoming undead (say, a lich), does that count as dying or not? Those of course could be fodder for endless conflicts, not to mention the fact that different nations might handle the issue differently - one nation might enforce the "once you die, you're out" rule, leading to a multitude of disgruntled ex-kings roaming about, while another might consider a famous ruler who died long ago to be still the only rightful king, awaiting ressurrection, and everyone who's come along since then is considered as a Regent who'd have to give up their power if this ancient king returns.

So what do you think? How have you handled this in your settings, if at all?

felinoel
2014-12-09, 09:52 PM
Personally if I were a king I would have make it a law to always raise me, no matter what.
Raised over and over and over and over again forever, forever king. Not sure why anyone would do it differently.

It's good to be the king.

SirKazum
2014-12-09, 10:40 PM
That would depend on how long you can fend off pretenders to the throne. Some rulers might be able to pull that off, others not. There's also the matter of dying of old age. And you'd have to have clerics that support your cause - it's one thing to decree a law, it's quite another to get it enforced after you're dead, so you'd still need some popularity. In any event, I think there would be an incentive to avoid that in most places as people in the line of succession wouldn't like it if their chances to maybe one day ascend to the throne were shot down altogether. But sure, some realm out there could have that, depending on the circumstances.

Aergoth
2014-12-09, 11:04 PM
There's a couple ways to handle this.

First, remember that the person being raised can always refuse it, assuming that someone tries to resurrect the king and he doesn't want to come back.

Second, there's always the Girl Genius clause. In the webcomic Girl Genius, being filled with mad scientists means that resurrection of the dead is pretty old hat, and it's recognized as law that anyone who has formally died and been brought back to life is removed from succession as though they'd abdicated. This might be useful to prevent tyrants from hanging around if you happen to choose not to try to outlive them.

Third: What if it goes wrong? No one says that just because the king looks like the king that he is still the king. There's a lot you can do to disguise your appearance, and let's say that your poor nigh-immortal forever king is just stretched too thin from all these trips back and forth across the graveyard fence and you try to bring him back. The body gets up. And it walks and it talks and it looks like the ruler of your country, it speaks with his voice, but it isn't him.

Fourth: People are going to find ways to kill you dead. Your cleric only knows Raise dead? Fine, Disinitegrate. True Resurrection costs money and your treasury is not nigh infinite.

Landis963
2014-12-09, 11:05 PM
I'd have it so that in the king's will he either names a successor or commands the pope or equivalent to rez him at such-and-such time (Of note: the pope will be required to be a member of the cleric order, and be of sufficient experience to undertake such a ritual), with stipulations in his will as to how long the newly revived king will reign before the process must repeat (Possibly forcing the issue with a ceremonial poison mixed into the ink, I haven't decided). Which will work all fine and dandy until it doesn't, at which point the grand game of intrigue and civil war begins. :smallamused: *taps fingers together* Eeeeexcellent.

SirKazum
2014-12-10, 07:08 AM
One detail that just occurred to me is that securing a king's body when he dies becomes especially important in a D&D world. Sure, you can True Ressurrect without access to the corpse, but that's very difficult and costly, and while the king can simply refuse to come back if enemies try to raise him, they can still Speak with Dead to try and extract secrets or whatever. Also, what about political enemies who happen to have the same alignment? That's not a particularly unlikely scenario, so a rather paranoid political figure might refuse to come back at all anyway. And yeah, a few cases of kings "coming back wrong" or abusing the timing of ressurrection vs. aging to remain ruling for an absurd amount of time might lead to additional rules to protect the kingdom.

And now that you mention it, there's also the matter of impostors (doppelgangers, Disguise Self etc.) - what measures do you imagine there being in place to prevent that? Secret code-phrases that are regularly tested? Acquiring those would become a major strategic espionage objective, because it could potentially give you the ability to completely control a foreign nation. Antimagic zones that the king regularly has to go through as per established custom? That sounds like a tighter security measure... is there any way to break it though? Interesting things to consider...

Hytheter
2014-12-10, 07:46 AM
Personally if I were a king I would have make it a law to always raise me, no matter what.
Raised over and over and over and over again forever, forever king. Not sure why anyone would do it differently.

It's good to be the king.

Most raising spells I can think of don't reverse old age though

Aedilred
2015-01-04, 06:39 PM
When I've GMed a (self-created) setting where this might have been relevant, I've assumed the existence of a law which prevents resurrection or other raising of a deceased sovereign except by specific agreement of whatever government exists in the absence of that sovereign (assuming there is one). This might be an Imperial Senate, a privy council, council of regents, or even the successor himself.

IC the justification is that it prevents clerical meddling in the succession, foreigners gaining control over the sovereign's body (capturing it in battle) and tricking him into returning, priests or necromancers somehow gaining control over the sovereign during the raising, and limits the possibilities for pretenders. It also provides an avenue for poor kings to die off early - not necessarily even suspiciously - and allow the kingdom to recover rather than being obliged to restore them. In principle a good king who's died before his time or has left a minor heir could always be raised, even in practice they never would be.

OOC the motivation is obvious. Also, it potentially provides more opportunities for politics: will the new regent assent to raising the old king, or try to hang onto power for himself? etc.

SirKazum
2015-01-04, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I guess it does make sense. It could still make for interesting conflicts if a dead sovereign gets ressurrected against the will of the current government though. Even if that's illegal on its face, the fact still remains that the king or whatever is right there, and that can't be ignored. I imagine there would be people supporting either side of the dispute (the ressurrected king vs. the new regime), especially if the old king was popular and/or had a strong power base, with an ensuing civil war.

DoomHat
2015-01-04, 08:18 PM
Cynically, the entire reason for bloodline succession is so that a sovereign can rule (in at least some small way) perpetually.

Qin Shi Huang famously spent the last decade of his life searching for a path to immortality. Anyone willing and able to seize large scale power isn't going to let it go over a little bureaucratic technicality like having been dead for a while. Historically, the priestly class has been the state's PR department, assuring the masses of the Glorious Leader's Divine Mandate. If those priests are able to demonstrate Heaven's approval by restoring him from every assassination, failed battled, and old age itself, more's the better.

Coronation ceremonies (and the like) in almost every society are overseen by the local religious leaders and/or contains some form of religious observance. If the clerics control a means of restoring their sovereign repeatedly from being slain, it's likely they also have a grip on succession. Claims (legitimate or otherwise) of prophetic visions sent by the local deity would/should be enough to declare someone, anyone really, the new sovereign.

There would likely be a lot of swords pulled from stones around the time a given ruler, for what ever reason, begins to tax their deity's patience.

If a ruler operates without the expressed consent and backing of a god, they would probably rely on Arcane power instead. Leading inevitably to a significant number of liches.

Interestingly, this might imply that the reputation of liches as "evil" might be manufactured by the churches, out of frustration with their monopoly being threatened.

Yora
2015-01-05, 10:54 AM
Yeah, I guess it does make sense. It could still make for interesting conflicts if a dead sovereign gets ressurrected against the will of the current government though. Even if that's illegal on its face, the fact still remains that the king or whatever is right there, and that can't be ignored. I imagine there would be people supporting either side of the dispute (the ressurrected king vs. the new regime), especially if the old king was popular and/or had a strong power base, with an ensuing civil war.

Since in pretty much all cases I know a king can abdicate without being dead, having a living former monarch around doesn't have to negate the current monarchs claim to the throne.
Once the new monarch is officially crowned according to the legal procedures of the realm, he is the new king and the reign of the old king is over. If the old king comes back, his reign still is over. You can't take back an abdication because you changed your mind, so I would say you can't get your throne back from returning from the dead either.

However, it still leaves open at which point the herald or high priest declares "the king is dead". Declaring the king dead while his 10th level cleric is preparing a "raise dead" spell would probably be considered cheating. Just because breathing and heartbeat stopped doesn't mean you're dead dead in our world. Or as the saying goes "no hypothermia victims are dead until they are warmed up and dead".
Maybe an obligatory waiting period of one month between the old king no longer living and the new king being crowned would become an accepted standard procedure. Though you could still have interesting disputes in cases where resurrection was on the way but didn't reach the corpse before the waiting period was over. Supporters of the old king could make a good case that it shouldn't count if everyone knows the old king will be back soon.

Eldan
2015-01-05, 11:07 AM
I solved it, at least in one monarchy in my setting, with a royal blood template that is lost upon death and bestowed upon the worthiest heir.

In that setting, the Emperor (or Empress actually, at the time), glows with bright light and has blue skin. As long as they live, the entire land, which has no sun, is bathed in golden light which heals all injuries (over days, not instantly) and makes plants grow abundantly. Upon death, the land goes dark, normally for three days, until the new heir is crowned in the temple and gains the Imperial Power.

Resurrecting a dead Imperial does nothing. It has been tried.

SirKazum
2015-01-05, 11:50 AM
Well that *does* make it a helluva lot easier, I guess :smalltongue: I had a somewhat similar (though not quite as dramatic) setup in a kingdom in my main fantasy world a while back, whose ruling dynasty had a strong relationship to the region's pantheon of gods (the founder of the dynasty actually became the lesser god of Nobility and Royalty upon death). As in, only the Emperor could directly worship the head of the pantheon, as has happened in a few historical civilizations. So the ruling Emperor had three artifacts - a crown, a scepter and a sword - blessed by the gods, and the crown in particular had, as one of its powers, the ability to tell whether someone is the rightful Emperor, since all of its many gemstones would light up when touched by its rightful holder. (If a legitimate noble touched it, a single gem would light up.) The full powers of the three artifacts were only accessible to the rightful ruler as well, so that's another tell. The kingdom of course had rules for inheritance, but what the crown really told you was whether the head of the pantheon agreed that the person in question is the rightful ruler. I don't recall coming up with hard-and-fast rules for handling spells that bring back the dead, but I think I came up with the idea of a "grace period" of like 10 days or a fortnight at that time, when thinking about it. But of course, the whole discussion still stands for kingdoms that lack such divine or supernatural means to set the issue to rest.

sktarq
2015-01-06, 11:22 AM
For me the most common version is a waiting period. Clever kings can have set ups to prevent death from being permanent and if there is a lack of viable successors higher level forms can be used to bring back a well regarded member from a couple generations back to reset the bloodline. Built a campaign around that concept once with two different priesthood bringing back two claimants and the war that followed.
One other option is that since there are gods and often a god of royalty/rulership etc that the god in question defines the rules. Perhaps "Royal Blood" is a minor template that actually is a form of Divine right and death removes it.
Also since there are magic items that can effectively cast raise dead like spells you'd thing most kings would make it a point to acquire one as early in their reign/dynasty as possible.
As for the security issues of antimagic zones etc for imposter kings etc - I generally see this area as why most people don't have access to magic day to day. The royal court soaks up most of the market. Not just for the king but for his valet (who may be a doppelganger, dominated, possessed, or just unhappy) to his advisors too.
Finally all this bringing royals back would play out just as much in the noble and higher merchant classes-it may well be that the royals have to play along with a law written to deal with inheritance (and inheritance taxes) in this far larger class.
Also bringing back so many of the elite-would make people a lot more comfy with necromancers I'd think. The basic horror of bringing back the dead would fade somewhat. The difference with a warlord with a fanatic troop base would be smaller.

jqavins
2015-01-06, 01:12 PM
Proposed system, viable for kingdoms that are generally stable and of generally NG to LG alignment. (I've been reading a lot of Mercedes Lackey lately, so thinking of how it would go in a place like Valdamar if resurection magic were available and without the business of being a herald.)

The hier is usually the oldest living direct decendant of the reigning monarch, if there is any.

Such a one may refuse the position.
Conviction of a major crime disqualifies a potential heir.
A potential heir deemd unsuitable by the monarch and 2/3 of a senate, privy council, etc. (Council) may be disqualified.


If there is no qualified decendant, the monarch designates one of his/her siblings, if any, as heir, subject to the exceptions above.
If there is neither a decendant nor a sibling qualified, the monarch designates anyone else of royal blood, subject to the exceptions above and to a simple majority of the Council.
If the heir is under age, the heir's regent is designated by the monarch subject to a simple majority of the Council.
In the event of the monarch's death by natural causes, resurection is forbidden.
In the event of the monarch's death by accident or violence, resurection is required if possible.

Upon the monarch's death by accident or violence, the heir or heir's regent takes power during a waiting period of a fortnight.
If the monarch is resurected during the waiting period, he/she regain's the crown and the heir (and heir's regent, if any) regains his/her position.
If the monarc cannot be resurected within the fortnight then the heir (or regent) along with a 2/3 majority of the Council may declare an extension for a second fortnight; the waiting period may only be extended once.
If the monarch is not resurected by the end of the waiting period, the heir is coronated and becomes the new monarch.


For purposes of succession, undead is dead. Period.
For purposes of succession, reincarnation is not resurection, but rather creates a new person.

This new person is considered of royal blood and therefore eligible to become heir if there are no decendants or siblings, but has no other place in the succession.


If a dead monarch is resurected after the heir has been coronated, he/she becomes a retired monarch, equivalent to a monarch who has abdicated.

A retired monarch is legally entitled to a seat on the Council, but is not required to accept it.
A retired monarch is usually one of the reigning monarch's trusted advisors (since the reigning monarch is probably his/her son, daughter, brother, or sister.)
If the reigning monarch has no living decentants or siblings, a retired monarch, if there is one, is the customary and expected choice for heir (though a reincarnated monarch has no different standing than any other member of the royal extended family.)



OK, most of this has been suggested earlier in this thread, but I like to summarize and systemify stuff. Naturally, it would likely not be so clear cut in kindoms that are not such nice places.

SirKazum
2015-01-06, 02:10 PM
Maybe a little too democratic for a typical medieval kingdom, but I like your system :smallsmile: Seems to cover all bases.

Tragak
2015-01-11, 03:37 PM
If a King/Queen is injured and then nursed back to health, is s/he necessarily removed from the throne? Maybe some societies would see Raise Dead the same way.

ReturnOfTheKing
2015-01-11, 04:21 PM
Trouble is, if you're king, you're not going to want a fair system that makes sense and helps prevent your kingdom falling into chaos. You're going to want a system that ensures you have power, as much as possible and for as long as possible, long after they pry the sceptre out of your cold, dead fingers and resurrect you, regardless of whether it's fair to all parties involved.

SirKazum
2015-01-11, 05:20 PM
Well yeah... assuming you have absolute power over your realm. Which, despite what monarchy sounds like, most kings actually don't - and the ones who think they do often find out they're wrong the worst way. There are all sorts of power sources vying for control of a given kingdom - the king, nobility, clergy, the military, maybe powerful trade guilds (depending on the kingdom), and so on. The king gets to play "absolute ruler" only as long as the other parties are getting their share of the cake, otherwise they'll go all Magna Carta on your butt. In practical terms that concern this thread, monarchy generally draws its legitimacy from a set of principles that are above the king himself, since they're what makes him king. Be it divine right, tradition, a Constitution or what have you, the idea is that there is such a thing as "being a legitimate ruler" which is not something you decide for yourself as a prospective king. That's where rules like these come in - and, as I said, the monarch him or herself isn't the only stakeholder who gets to decide these things. Plus, the same rules tend to apply at all hierarchical levels of nobility - determining who inherits a county, duchy and so on - and dealing with way-too-powerful immortal vassals is something no king really wants. Death can be a terribly convenient thing when you have people who are a pain in the ass but are entitled to their office and can't be removed from it while they live. Sure, you could say something like "titles pass on to the next heir if the current holder dies and gets brought back EXCEPT for the king, who can be brought back indefinitely and never lose the crown" but then the whole "legitimacy" thing starts to get shaky. And, once again, a king needs support to stay in power. Legitimacy is important. I can see some kings with a strong power base keeping themselves in power for centuries, whether with ressurrection or with lichdom or what have you, but that's an inherently unstable setup that depends way too much on one individual's power, and would have too many people working to bring it down and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.

jqavins
2015-01-12, 09:46 AM
Trouble is, if you're king, you're not going to want a fair system that makes sense and helps prevent your kingdom falling into chaos. You're going to want a system that ensures you have power, as much as possible and for as long as possible, long after they pry the sceptre out of your cold, dead fingers and resurrect you, regardless of whether it's fair to all parties involved.

Well yeah... assuming you have absolute power over your realm... [deleting many other fine points]
Also assuming every absolute monarch is a despot who wants to go on like that forever. Some are proud parents who want to see their children succeed them. Some actually want what's best for their kingdoms. Some people just get tired of being in charge and want to retire. Sure, those are probably in the minority, but I'll bet it's a larger minority than our jaded, cynical selves tend to assume.

Solaris
2015-01-14, 02:07 PM
I handled this question in my Egyptian-themed setting by having the pharaoh begin his rule after he died - he rules as an undead greater mummy. When his heir (who has certain duties and powers of his own) dies, the old pharaoh retires to the Valley of the Kings and the heir is reanimated as a greater mummy to rule next.

jqavins
2015-01-14, 05:25 PM
I handled this question in my Egyptian-themed setting by having the pharaoh begin his rule after he died - he rules as an undead greater mummy. When his heir (who has certain duties and powers of his own) dies, the old pharaoh retires to the Valley of the Kings and the heir is reanimated as a greater mummy to rule next.
As Hedley Lamarr would say, "Kinnkyyyy."

But what if some trouble making "good" cleric destroys the mummy? Do they kill the heir in order to reanimate him?

Solaris
2015-01-15, 09:41 AM
As Hedley Lamarr would say, "Kinnkyyyy."

But what if some trouble making "good" cleric destroys the mummy? Do they kill the heir in order to reanimate him?

The priests reanimate the mummy (he is the earthly incarnation of Osiris, after all; it wouldn't do to have him killed because that would throw the entirety of the afterlife for a loop). The rule of the previous pharaoh isn't dependent on his unlife, it's dependent on the heir's life.

If you really want to mess with the system, perma-kill the mummy's living family. Without an heir, the pharaoh will reign eternally. That doesn't seem like such a big deal... until you realize how stubborn old people can get about, say, new technology or cultural shifts.

jqavins
2015-01-15, 12:39 PM
The priests reanimate the mummy (he is the earthly incarnation of Osiris, after all; it wouldn't do to have him killed because that would throw the entirety of the afterlife for a loop).
Are you saying it's just impossible to perma-kill the mummy? By first a double-his-level cleric turning him and then burning the remains and melting the ashes into glass, grinding up the glass and scattering it at sea, for example?

Solaris
2015-01-18, 06:50 AM
Are you saying it's just impossible to perma-kill the mummy? By first a double-his-level cleric turning him and then burning the remains and melting the ashes into glass, grinding up the glass and scattering it at sea, for example?

Assuming the good cleric wants to kill the neutral-or-good, usually spellcasting leader of a fairly neutral (if a bit squicky for non-natives) country and has the means to do so?

Revive undead is a fairly accessible spell, and that's without divine intervention (IE: miracle). He already died once to get the throne - the local laws/traditions are far more concerned with getting the pharaoh back on the throne than that temporary termination of necromantic function.

Avaris
2015-01-18, 05:44 PM
Just to flip this question on it's head a bit: why would a society where resurection is available have a succession system based on the death of the incumbant at all? I feel that the scenario presented is applying magic to a real world problem which wouldn't exist in the same way in a setting. Naturally, this gives opportunities for interesting twists.

The traditional succession system persumeably developed because death was difficult to predict, so a stable and predictable claim was needed. Violent death in particular was an issue, as was disease: magic deals with both of these, for the wealthy at least. The main threat to the ruler is therefore old age, and that can be planned for.

The other thing a succession system needs to do is give a kingdom the 'best' ruler. Persumably part of the reason succession law based on bloodlines developed was due to the children of the monarch being trained to rule, therefore they are best at the job. In a fantasy setting, this means that a ruler reaching old age may no longer be the best person for the job, as they start to lose mental faculties. They might not like it, but I suspect society expectations would evolve so that older rulers are seen as having flaws due to their age.

So what other succession rules might make sense?a few ideas:
- a system based on rule by the young: once a member of the ruling family comes of age, they become ruler. The age at which this happens may vary, but I'dthink 20 to 30. Naturally, this has problems for the eldest child if the system says that their siblings also get a go...
- designation by the previous ruler. Old age will eventually claim everyone, so the ruler is expected to designate an heir for when they finally die of natural causes. The next ruler is predictabl, and wants to stay in their predecessors good books so as to remain heir designate
- reco-rulership. There are two rulers: the old and the young, who is normally of the next generation. Once old age claims the older ruler, a new younger ruler is crowned, but there is still a ruler able to handle day to day stuff while waiting for a ressurection or coronation. Could do fun things with this idea actually: maybe there is always a king and a queen, so they typically alternategender with each generation?

jqavins
2015-01-19, 08:55 AM
The other thing a succession system needs to do is give a kingdom the 'best' ruler. Persumably part of the reason succession law based on bloodlines developed was due to the children of the monarch being trained to rule, therefore they are best at the job.
I question this premise. It's nice when it works like this, but I think the origin of succession is good old fashioned inheritance. "This kingdom is mine, and I'm going to pass it on to my son." Simple as that.

Banjoman42
2015-01-23, 05:24 PM
One solution is just a misunderstanding of magic. Maybe the cities have heard of people returning from the grave, but they either dismiss it as a legend or interpret it to mean raised as undead. Priests of 11th level (or higher) are hard to come by, and they might keep their powers a secret even if they can bring back the ruler.

White Blade
2015-01-26, 10:30 PM
I'd handle it the way that the Catholic Church handled excommunication. It's the whip that the religious leaders use to keep rulers in line - Depending on the land and the alignment of the patron gods, that might be awesome or terrible. I would definitely make it illegal to resurrect someone if you are not the ruling religious order. If there is a tight pantheon, the King (if he exists at all) would only rule as long as he has favor or lives. This is a balancing act - You can go out of favor with the present Ecclesiarch, but you can't stay there too long. You can oust him for another, more suitable Ecclesiarch, but only if that Ecclesiarch has suitable power to raise you from the dead. Really old monarchs would be freer than their younger compatriots - But the older a monarch got, the less motivation the clergy would have to kowtow to him.

If a ruler maintains the favor of the Gods, he rules with greater strength and longevity, but he still has to contend with angry and cunning nobles. Or the clergy of darker gods (animate dead - level 3 spells),