Is it Too Easy to Cheat Death?

[Gale]

I’ve always wondered what people thought of the resurrection spells in Dungeons & Dragons. It seems the miraculous act of coming back to life is made fairly trivial by them. The party simply brings their fallen ally to the local cleric, pays them around 5,000 gold pieces to cast Raise Dead, and instantly they’re alive again. Even within the limitations of the spell, which require the body to be intact, this still seems too easy. Other spells like Resurrection don’t even require the body to be intact at all. They can be disintegrated into dust and still be revived. True Resurrection doesn’t even have that requirement; its only requirement is that the caster unambiguously identifies the deceased. I’m aware these spells do not work if the victim has died of old age of has their soul trapped somewhere. But these restrictions usually don’t apply.
I only complain about this because it seems to make death less meaningful. Characters don’t have to remain deceased. One can simply cheat death with magic. It feels cheap and honestly makes me question the legitimacy of death altogether. I’ve considered removing the spells from my campaigns before because of how much they complicate things. A murdered king is only an interesting plot-hook until someone begins questioning why no one bothered resurrecting him.
Honestly, I wonder why these spells exist in the game with such little limitation. Are they actually fair and justified? Or are they simply too powerful?

[Der_DWSage]

The problem with removing revival spells altogether is that it makes high-level D&D fairly...well, it's called Rocket Tag for a reason. Save-Or-Die spells become infinitely more common, huge amounts of damage, unlucky rolls...and at high levels, you tend to have a lot more emotional investment in your characters.

However, there's a method I used for restoring the legitimacy of death while not significantly impacting adventurers of all kinds-you make it so that the soul has to be primed for revival, whether via a skill check, a spell, or some kind of anointing ceremony. The method I use is in the spoiler below.


School:Necromancy
Level:cleric/oracle 1, Adept 1, Bard 1, Inquisitor 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1, Druid 1

CASTING
Casting Time:1 minute
Components:V, S, F (Item worth at least 1 GP)

EFFECT
Range:touch
Target:Living creature touched
Duration:1 Year
Saving Throw:Will(Harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

Description
At the end of the ceremony, the target's soul is tied to the Focus that was used. This allows them to be brought back from the dead through the use of spells such as Reincarnate, Raise Dead, and other spells that are used to revive others. Such spells do not function unless the Symbol is used. Additionally, the Focus allows anyone who picks it up to Speak With Dead if the wearer dies, but only to ask the spell's target where the body is and how it died. It is very possible the target does not know, as they can only view whatever was in their immediate vicinity.

The focus used in the spell is different for most. For beloved pets, it's usually their identification tag. For the middle-class, a wedding ring or favorite garment. For the higher class, it tends to be something more ornate, like a bejeweled heart or a piece of adamantine jewelry. The spell can be renewed at any point in time, and the same focus may be used each time. For adventurers, a family heirloom or friend's gift is often the Focus.

But getting back to your original point-I'm pretty sure the original justification for the spell was 'adventurers.' And just like many core spells, they break down when you apply things meant for adventurers to the world at large. For adventurers, the spell is perfectly balanced and fine. You died due to some bad rolls/a save-or-die spell/didn't see the ambush coming/falling in a trap, big whoop, you're fine again so long as your body wasn't too mangled. For others who can afford the spell...yeah, it removes a lot of potential drama unless you specifically plan for it with even higher level magic. (Which is why I like my method above, a cunning killer can just stab the king and break/steal/ransom the Focus without ever having to touch magic or the Assassin PrC.)

[Riculf]

The main DM for the campaign I've played in for over 20 years has a similar feeling. He has added a large number of caveats in (you have to go on a quest to a specific location etc). Sometimes it just doesn't work due to "divine" intervention of some sort.

However, we didn't want to invest vast amounts of time in something and have the narrative shut off at random moments either so we designed an in-house Fate system where you could "dodge" death for particular characters providing you had accrued enough fate points.

[ApologyFestival]

3.5/PF characters can have an awful lot of time and love invested in them, especially come the time the fee for resurrection is affordable. Also, for better or for worse, by those levels characters can be killed with no input on their part beyond a dice roll--if they're lucky. The resurrection spell, and all like it, recognise that losing a beloved character sucks, and a high fantasy game doesn't have to bend to realism. Death is still meaningful. The fee is beyond all but wealthy nobles, heroes, and those in the service of a deity. The level loss is harsh and leaves the recently deceased considerably weakened until they catch up with their companions.

As to whether a murdered king is an interesting plot-hook in D&D: Nope. At least, not without a little bit of thought as to the consequences of resurrection for the rich and powerful. In the event of a plain old assassination, the king gets resurrected and his court wizards and spies beef up his defences and start plotting revenge. That can be used as a hook for a once-kind king losing control of his court and becoming a figurehead, as the court wizards seize power under the guise of it being for the king's protection. Maybe the wizards plotted the assassination, knowing that they could bring the king back, and knowing that they would be the ones investigating his death. Or, more simply, maybe the player characters are employed by the king to find the people who killed him.

Or, if you want the same end result, consider what hoops a guild of assassins would have to jump through to make sure a target stays dead. Soul traps, kidnap rather than murder, mind switch to a new body, placed in a private sanctum, thrown into a sphere of annhilation, gifted to a devil with a penchant for collecting royalty...

Isn't that so much better than a single man dressed in black, armed with a pointy dagger, knifing a king in the back?

D&D is way more interesting if you consider the weird and wonderful stuff it offers, not least spectacular magic that changes peoples' lives, and weave it into your story.

[Summerstorm]

My opinion on that is "Yes"

Bringing someone back should be either impossible (Talk with dead or have some have influence from beyond the grave (Ghost, blessing, helping hand etc. is fine) But having your friend or some dude with a funny hat in the temple get you back like that after visiting some pawn-shop with some loot - eugh. Death is such a fun topic, a great storytelling-tool...

Also it take away the seriousness of combat, decisions. But i agree that you need to have easy-resurrections in a game as weird as D&D sometimes. (That guy just pointed at you and you are dead, no fault of your own. Yay... and we have this dozens of times a week)

So my characters nearly always will NOT come back if an attempt is made. Only the most crazy, single-minded and fanatical will leave paradise/hell for another attempt at getting murdered in a terrible life of chaos and suffering.

[Eldariel]

It's simply a paradigm shift. Once you stop thinking of "how to kill someone" and start thinking "how to take them out for as long as possible" ("permanently" in some cases), it begins to work just as well. Instead of killing someone, you can just rewrite their brain once they're on your mercy, or trap their soul (and carry their soulstone around) or take over their body or cast them out of time for millenia or cast them to Far Realms or fast time plane where they age to death in a couple of Earth days or move their consciousness to a frog or do any number of things that both, incapacitate the opponent and prevent resurrection. Instead of killing the king you dethrone him and make him lose his worldly possessions. Beating him unconscious might or might not be involved but that can be quite challenging with a king properly prepared anyways (well, the whole campaign would be; most kings have formidable powers at their command and they probably have been attacked by powerful things before so they aren't like to be entirely unprepared).

Killing someone who isn't a superhigh level caster is fairly easy. As such, bringing them back shouldn't be that big of a deal either; it's a lot of work and effort over nothing if your multiyear campaign character dies due to a lucky roll from an Orc. The fact that death has a cost (gold and XP or a level) but it's still eminently manageable gives high level D&D its flavor; the characters are mortal but they don't stay dead for long, but there's a plethora of fates worse than death. Indeed, resurrection can directly factor into high level combat; Contingent Revivify trivially restores a downed character to battle. It's simply a switch in the system that positions it squarely within a certain niche, and players can think inside the box to solve those problems.

Also note that most villages don't have level 9 Clerics for resurrection and the spell is quite expensive and losing a level is a significant cost so it's not like resurrection becomes a trivial matter until the game surpasses the "superhero"-point in power; often it can be straight-up impossible and often costly even when possible (I remember our first 3.5 party having to pool all our resources together to buy a resurrection for a level 9 character). Mostly resurrection just ensures that players don't have to switch characters and it's plausible to run a whole story with merely a single character without having to enjoy the great experience of "not playing at all" due to having died earlier in a game session. There's a cascade influence in-game from it but is that negative? I don't necessarily think so. In a high fantasy world, it makes perfect sense and things can still die of old age anyways.

[Wacky89]

You have to remember that it's maybe 0.5-1 % of the world's population that has the gold nessecary to get revived.

[atemu1234]

Short answer? Yes.

The problem is, you can't not have them. If there was no means for resurrection, you'd have more and more issues with player mortality. So you have a choice: invalidate death as an issue, or make it so that every player has to have 1-2 spare character sheets. Now, I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground.

For example, the rules from Heroes of Horror I find interesting, because they make death simultaneously cheap but add an element of risk to it; should I bring Legolf the Paladin back, knowing he could be brought back with a demon in his body instead of his soul? These questions lead to interesting roleplaying dilemmas, and people may choose to leave their character dead and make a new one, or hang the cost and bring back a monster.

[Karl Aegis]

Heroes get extra lives. That is what makes them heroes. There are very few instances of heroes not having extra lives in media. Most heroes can take fatal damage and just get back up. If you keep count of how many times a hero dies it does get ridiculous after a while.

[atemu1234]

Heroes get extra lives. That is what makes them heroes. There are very few instances of heroes not having extra lives in media. Most heroes can take fatal damage and just get back up. If you keep count of how many times a hero dies it does get ridiculous after a while.

As do villains. The problem is, in D&D, you're not required to play either.

Also, at least when, in fiction, a hero dies, they don't get brought back in ten minutes by a run-of-the-mill cleric. If they're actually dead, they get a story arc. If they aren't they get to get healed. Now, I have no problem with this system except, over time, it tends to devalue life in-game. Who cares about charging the enemy, when Death Is A Slap On The Wrist?

[Maglubiyet]

It hasn't come up in many of my campaigns but when it does, resurrection has been a big deal.

First off you're not going to get some random corner-store cleric to perform this - it's going to be one of the elder clergy of the temple's hierarchy, if not the high priest him/herself. That means travel to a large city, which might be problematic if the adventurers are lost in the underdark or far out in the wilderness/planes/wildspace.

Second, the priests are not going to perform this for just anyone who shows up with a pile of gold. It matters to them who they are bringing back and how that person's actions, alignments, religion, etc are going to affect their temple. A notorious criminal, member of an opposing temple or alignment, or even a supporter of the wrong royal heir might find themselves out of luck.

So the PC's either have to be an active part of that church or will have to become a part, through some service, regular attendance, quest, Vow, etc. This has always led to a new direction in their adventuring.

In short, death doesn't stop my players but its consequences are not trivial either.

[Killer Angel]

Resurrectin spells were present in the older editions, but they come with a permanent loss of Con, and a percentage of the spell not working.
So, the money were trivial, but there was still a risk, and at a certain point, it was not possible to be resurrected.

[kalasulmar]

I use a 3 strikes and you're out policy. As in no res after 3rd death. Current group only has one member on their "last life." And he is constantly reminding the entire table of that fact.

[Necroticplague]

Cheating death is easy. Cheating things that cheat death is also pretty easy. The assassination plot can continue on if the assassin used a thinaun dagger. Then, it becomes a matter of not only trying to track down the killer, but also trying to find the kings soul so you can bring him back.

[BilltheCynic]

IMHO, it does devalue death, but that also makes those times when someone genuinely dies or worse all the scarier. The king's been stabbed by an assassin? No big, happens every other week. The king's been stabbed by an assassin then had Barghest's Feast cast on him? The entire kingdom is in turmoil. You could even say that because the nobility and other powerful people don't take death too seriously, they don't make plans or contingencies for if someone did manage to permanently axe them, increasing the panic and chaos all the more.

[Mr.Moron]

I always run games in settings with perma-death. Where either calling back the dead is just beyond the realm of mortals or where nothing actually persists beyond death to revive. So obviously the standard suite of Resurrection spells is unavailable.

It certainly makes death scarier. I actually tack on a plot armor mechanic to balance this out. In the end from a game play perspective this still makes character "Death" something of a resource and risk management game but leaves all the narrative impact of death intact.

[sideswipe]

A murdered king is only an interesting plot-hook until someone begins questioning why no one bothered resurrecting him.
Honestly, I wonder why these spells exist in the game with such little limitation. Are they actually fair and justified? Or are they simply too powerful?

well any assassin killing a king would be aware he would be alive by morning so would use something to keep him dead.

[Nibbens]

Lets not also forget that death effin HURTS. We tend to not think about it in terms of gameplay (we're not actually in pain as our characters are) but getting your guts ripped out and eaten by a troll is not going to be a very quick event.

At the very least, 3.X has a "trauma" cost in the form or XP or a level. Even if your death was quote unquote 'painless' - the shock could cause some form of PTSD when you come back, which fits nicely with the XP loss etc etc.

The only one to buck this system (at least that I know of) would be PF - having nothing other than a GP cost associated with it.

[TheIronGolem]

As do villains. The problem is, in D&D, you're not required to play either.

Also, at least when, in fiction, a hero dies, they don't get brought back in ten minutes by a run-of-the-mill cleric. If they're actually dead, they get a story arc. If they aren't they get to get healed. Now, I have no problem with this system except, over time, it tends to devalue life in-game. Who cares about charging the enemy, when Death Is A Slap On The Wrist?

What you're forgetting is that heroes are almost always fighting for higher stakes than their own lives. Sure, getting roasted by the dragon might be a mere inconvenience to the paladin, but while he's in the celestial penalty box that dragon is running amok devouring innocent villagers. So there's still plenty of reason to care if he lives through the fight or not.

[Frostthehero]

If my characters resurrect too many times, I usually just drop more maruts than you can shake a bone at on them. This generally solves the problem.

[Kiarthros]

I feel like a lot of people are forgetting to add is that almost any resurrection spell requires the soul of the one being resurrected to choose to come back. If they go to Elysium, there's a compelling force to stay usually. Additionally, most spirits don't feel like coming back to life as their souls are content, which is especially true of the average individual.

Keeping this in mind, if they cast the spell and the soul chooses not to return, then the spell is wasted, all those expensive components. Reminder that resurrection has penalties for caster and resurrected. Another reminder that players get much higher level than most NPCs. The usual max level is around 7 or 8.

Also important to Note is that the spells component is in diamonds usually. What if there just aren't enough diamonds to buy? Or perhaps if the spell demands A DIAMOND worth X GP is there such a diamond?

[lord_khaine]

I will second the chorus of voice explaining why its just needed with those spells. Its a combat focused game. And combat is really, really lethal. Often its as little as a unexpected critt from an axe while the fighter were at ½ health, or a failed reflex save for someone squishy to end with the party needing a replacement.

That again can lead to some problems. Firstly, if party members repeatedly dies, then its hard to keep a sense of continuity. What does it matter that the original party swore vengeance on Azra the Black Sorcerer for burning down the tree of light, if everyone from that part is dead?

And it can also lead to loss of attachment for your character.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't mind player characters shrugging off death. The game's way too dangerous and random and swingey to take that away.
What bothers me, as a DM, is having to find excuses why important NPCs can't be revived. It really destroys a lot of narrative options when a leader or influential/powerful person who's been killed can just be brought back for some diamonds.

What I like is spells like Revivify and the Reincarnation version ("Last Breath"?), which have to be used very shortly after the person dies but are lower level and cost than the core revival spells. The 1 round limit is a bit too harsh and should probably be extended a bit to give some wiggle room for people mid-combat who perhaps can't immediately attend to the fallen comrade, but the idea is in the right place.
I fluff those spells such that you're not even actually truly "raising" them. You use the spell so soon after the fatal wound that the soul hasn't left the body yet, and it's more of a super-last-second cure.
I make Revivify available to more classes and heavily encourage using it and its little brother, Close Wounds.

[torrasque666]

Bring back System Shock.

[WesleyVos]

Short answer? Yes.

The problem is, you can't not have them. If there was no means for resurrection, you'd have more and more issues with player mortality. So you have a choice: invalidate death as an issue, or make it so that every player has to have 1-2 spare character sheets. Now, I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground.

For example, the rules from Heroes of Horror I find interesting, because they make death simultaneously cheap but add an element of risk to it; should I bring Legolf the Paladin back, knowing he could be brought back with a demon in his body instead of his soul? These questions lead to interesting roleplaying dilemmas, and people may choose to leave their character dead and make a new one, or hang the cost and bring back a monster.

This is actually the first time I read those rules, and I like them! That is a great way to handle death in game - gives some meaning to PCs and NPCs dying.

[Luccan]

Until the players can cast it, it's as easy as the DM makes it. Recommendations without changing rules: 5th level spells should not be so easy to find that any two-bit cleric can raise people from the dead. Keep in mind you'd need to be at least 9th level to do so. Res and True Res should be even rarer. Secondly, at most a Raise Dead has a 20 day time limit. If it takes more than a week to get between [adventure place] and The Temple of Convenience, you'll be under pressure to even make it in time, assuming the person your asking it from isn't nearing the top of the D&D food chain. Third, a temple has expenses. They should be charging more than spell cost, particularly if you aren't even bringing the components yourself. Fourth, great you have the spell now. Where are you carrying thousands of gp worth of diamonds, again? (this one is probably easier to get around, if you have magic marts).

Now, once the players have these spells (or at least ones better than Raise Dead, which has limitations I feel aren't being given enough credit), it's easier to bring them back, but at that point, the game has changed. Keep in mind that E6 exists for a reason. It keeps you in a range of game where death is still a serious threat. Past a certain point, D&D PCs are near godly.

Ways to change the rules to make it harder (without completely removing the spells):
1. All dead raising spells have the same time limit as Raise Dead, unless you go to [special location]

2. Change the material components to something significantly rarer or more costly

3. Have some ordeal that must be overcome by the party during/in order to complete the resurrection.

[Endarire]

Maybe it's too easy to get revived, but...

1: That's very context-sensitive.

2: That's more about fixing death after it happened than cheating death.

3: Do you really want to play a Roguelike or other game with permanent character death?

The game is already stacked in such a way that iterative probability works against the PCs. Enemies need not survive any encounters against the PCs, but a PC is somewhat expected to survive (or revive from) a series of encounters and challenges. It's ultimately a matter of fun and engagement: How engaged are you with a character that you want for story purposes? If the group is OK with playing a meat grinder, so be it; however, my tabletop experience has shown that to be the very big exception with video games filling the 'disposable character' role much more easily.

As GM, you can choose to make reviving PCs less likely or more annoying, but how does that make the game more engaging for the players, especially for those with dead/petrified/soul tapped/etc. characters?

[BlackOnyx]

Some good points here. As much as I like the idea of permadeath campaigns, I'm starting to see how simply nixing all forms of resurrection might make for some unfulfilling character deaths.


That in mind, I wonder if introducing some sort of temporary "limbo" mechanic between life and death might keep death relevant while preserving most game mechanics. Basically, a system that looks something like:


Life > Limbo (temporary) > Death (permanent)


The recently deceased would remain in limbo based on the "weight" (xp, HD, ECL, however you want to sort it) of their respective souls. Maybe 1 week/HD (or 1 day/HD, if you wanted to increase the urgency factor) after death.


After that, they would dissipate, passing on into the true afterlife (void, paradise, unknown, etc.). Beyond that point, further interaction would be impossible. Even for the gods.


Narratively, I feel it works. Whereas your common folk might only have a week until "true death," your 4th/5th level PCs have the better part of a month to get things sorted out. Over four months if you're nearing 20th level.


In this way, long dead parents stay dead, evil villains stay slain (if proper precautions are taken), and death isn't nearly as much of a handwave for PCs. The clock is always ticking.


(As an added bonus, I think this context really boosts the attractiveness of necromancy. Those afraid of the unknown would likely resort to all sorts of spells & rituals to stay alive. Soul trapping, binding, undead raising, and the like.)

[Mnemnosyne]

I prefer the older method from previous editions where constitution went down each time you got resurrected. Of course, that wouldn't even be as much of a penalty as it was back then, since there are more ways to increase stats, but it'd still be a permanent loss if your base Con goes down. You can only have so many increases to it, so losing a point of con is still losing a point off your theoretical max ever constitution, even if you regain it through a level increase or something.

I also liked the resurrection survival chance: each time you try to get resurrected, you have to roll to survive the resurrection, and if you fail, the components are used up, one point of constitution is gone, but you're still dead and need to roll again next time (with a lower chance of succeeding because res survival chance is based on con).

It all combines to give a cushion, but an uncertain cushion, because you might fail your survival chance and then lose another point of con and maybe your friends won't spend the extra resources to try yet again. Or you might even fail twice in a row. How many tries before it's just not worth it to try and resurrect you? An uncertain cushion makes death somewhat scarier than just a simple 'I have four more lives' or a flat time limit on resurrection.

[Crake]

For all the people advocating to make death more permanent, dangerous or just all around a heavier hitting ordeal, consider this: If you want death to be more meaningful, then you need to also make it harder to die. There's a reason raise dead and resurrection are so heavily baked into the system, hell, back in 3.0 reincarnate was free, raise dead was 500gp, resurrection was 1000gp and true resurrection was 5000gp, so compared to back then, things are quite a bit more expensive.

These things are baked into the system for a reason though. Let's face it, in 3.5 dying is easy. Like... very easy. One misstep, one bad roll, one nasty crit and bam, dead character. The "boss" level encounters almost invariably expect people to die. If you want to fix that, change it so that dying is harder. An example would be to make dying a condition, rather than a hit point state, and have save or die spells instead put you in the dying state. Then have spells like destruction or disintegrate function only on dying characters, so they aren't an offensive action, but rather a finisher once you've already got someone dying, a way to remove the body.

That's just a simple example, I'm sure someone could make a more elegant system, but the fact is, if you want to make dying more meaningful, you need to also make it harder, a rarer occurance.

[ericgrau]

Yeah the spells are needed for when adventurers roll low.

What I wonder more is how villains stay dead. If you have some kind of villainous plot it seems like the easy way to do it is to get 10,000 gp and ressurect an old villain or 10. Assuming his lackeys are wiped out and haven't done so already.

Heck, pool together 25,000 gp, open up a history book, and start raising ancient evils. Only reason not to is because somebody already did it long ago and the adventurers switched to soul trapping. So next you have to wonder why there aren't ancient soul gems hidden all over the place, just waiting to be dug up from forgotten temple ruins.

[Eldariel]

Yeah the spells are needed for when adventurers roll low.

What I wonder more is how villains stay dead. If you have some kind of villainous plot it seems like the easy way to do it is to get 10,000 gp and ressurect an old villain or 10. Assuming his lackeys are wiped out and haven't done so already.

Heck, pool together 25,000 gp, open up a history book, and start raising ancient evils. Only reason not to is because somebody already did it long ago and the adventurers switched to soul trapping. So next you have to wonder why there aren't ancient soul gems hidden all over the place, just waiting to be dug up from forgotten temple ruins.

Who's saying there aren't? That's like 50% of the grand evil plots, releasing Sealed Ancient Evil #259 from its prison to wreak havoc and destruction upon the world. Death is an awfully inconvenient way to kill, as I noted earlier. Souls need to be trapped, annihilated (the most permanent way to get rid of someone is to use their soul as a spell component; boom, gone forever), minds rewritten into different entities entirely, killed through aging, permanently turned into toads ensuring the mental save failure, or some such.

That said, True Resurrection also requires access to the spell. Which is far more of a thing than accessing 25000gp. And it only works for 10 years/CL and only if the target is currently not living as an undead somewhere. So just animating your adversaries as undead and putting them some place safe works quite well as well. And there's the problem that even if you resurrect an ancient evil, there's no guarantees they'll spare you so most evils will probably be wary of doing so blindly. Only the nihilist strain might consider it and even there, there are other means.

[Crake]

Yeah the spells are needed for when adventurers roll low.

What I wonder more is how villains stay dead. If you have some kind of villainous plot it seems like the easy way to do it is to get 10,000 gp and ressurect an old villain or 10. Assuming his lackeys are wiped out and haven't done so already.

Heck, pool together 25,000 gp, open up a history book, and start raising ancient evils. Only reason not to is because somebody already did it long ago and the adventurers switched to soul trapping. So next you have to wonder why there aren't ancient soul gems hidden all over the place, just waiting to be dug up from forgotten temple ruins.

Most of my mid to high level villains usually come with a contingent teleport/word of recall, combined with a contingent revivify and contingent heal to bring them back to life without level loss, heal them for 150hp, remove most status ailments, and bring them to safety.

Generally speaking, in my games keeping a villain dead usually comes with making their peers lose respect for them, to make them not worth bringing back from the dead. This usually involves repeated humiliation and defeat, but can be achieved through other means. After all, if the villain dies without a contingency, maybe his number 2 decides he can do a better job and takes over.

[ericgrau]

Clearly I haven't played with paranoid enough adventurers. Oh well, since I'm DM, time to change that.

"I thought we killed him?
"We did kill him"
"I got better."
"What?"
"Yeah, all it took was a resurrection spell."
"But... that's for us! You're supposed to stay dead."
"N'uh."

[zergling.exe]

No one noticed this thread is from 2015?

[Blackjackg]

No one noticed this thread is from 2015?

Thread necromancy. Strangely appropriate.