Why a good cleric won't resurrect everyone he can?

[With a box]

Because,if he decided to not resurrect a person, It's like saying his/her life isn't worth 5k(or 10k) gp, and it doesn't look like a good person would say..

[Jormengand]

The same reason that a good doctor won't save everyone he can.

[eggynack]

The fact of the matter is, that a given person's life isn't worth that much money isn't just something that a good cleric would say. It's something a good cleric must say. Even if we just assume raise dead as the cleric's sole life saving resource, a cleric who seeks them out will absolutely find more dead folk than they can afford to save. It's just a fact of life, especially in a dangerous world of fantasy. So, raising everyone on sight is a vastly inefficient use of resource in comparison to something as simple as only raising those you consider worth it. It's a fact, and a tragic one, that our lives can absolutely be given a price, and that price is often lower than it needs to be to make a person worth saving. After all, once you're out of money, you don't even have the option of saying that a given life is worth that money.

And that's just looking at things from a raise dead triage perspective, where each saved life is selected such that that life will save maximum projected lives down the road. If a cleric uses their money to improve their own power, instead of on raising folks, then they'll become more effective to the point where they'll likely save even more lives than a selective raise dead plan. You can place a probability on a given dead person doing large quantities of good if given the opportunity, but in the end, unless there's some serious reason otherwise (the target's a party member, or a big good), you're really the only person you can count on to really do the things that need to be done. And, of course, preventing death means the same thing as ending it, and likely comes cheaper. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that absolutely applies when it comes to investing in weapon based preventative measures.

[AvatarVecna]

A lot of it comes down to the basic law of economics: there's just not enough resources in existence to pull it off; people are dying faster than they can be raised, and the money necessary to raise them grows too close to infinite to ever be possible (outside of infinite everything shenanigans, but at that point, you've already thrown logic and reason out the window). Even with the most pragmatic outlook, it's just not feasible to raise everybody from the dead...and that's assuming that a cleric (who's belief in their deity is strong enough to grant them magic powers) isn't going to have any religious hangups with bringing the dead back to life.

On to the direct limitations of the spell! Firstly, the spell line can't bring back those who died of old age, so that's a good chunk of targets unavailable. Secondly, the corpse's spirit gets to know the alignment of the person trying to raise them, and might choose not to come back (which is fairly likely in most cases, considering they're probably chilling in an afterlife dedicated to their alignment, since that's totally a thing in D&D). Thirdly, some people have been dead so long, they just can't be raised at all, even if they did die young and actually wanted to come back. Fourthly, being raised either reduces your level or your Constitution (unless we're talking True Resurrection), and that's gonna sting. Fifthly, there's ways to keep people from returning from the dead (Trap the Soul, Soul Bind, some obscure weapon material, and so on).

On to the indirect limitations! Firstly, as mentioned, the cleric in question might have religious reasons not to go around raising everybody; if nothing else, keeping the veil between life and death sacred is a way to make sure that death isn't viewed as a revolving door (as it so often is viewed by adventurers). Secondly, suppose the person in question was a terrible person (cannibal, serial killer, pedophile, whatever); should the cleric bring them back anyway? Thirdly, consider the consequences raising the dead would have on someone in a hereditary position of power: if the king dies and gets resurrected, his eldest son is gonna feel ripped off, at least a little bit, and that's the simplest case; in more complicated power struggles, it's best to leave that whole thing alone, if for no other reason than to keep the church and state separate.

[Nibbens]

The same reason that a good doctor won't save everyone he can.


Interesting take - this sentiment brought me to researching the Hippocratic oath which states two separate things " If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God"

and

"I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick."

Two solid reasons for not rezzing every person who dies (if we are to compare the D&D cleric to a doctor). 1) don't play god, and 2) doing so may adversely affect the family who cannot afford the 5K or 10K diamond dust to do so.

Even if the cleric does not charge the family, but takes the burden upon himself, he "becomes" family in a sense - and is thus putting himself under economic strain (which would be extreme, rezzing everyone in the world).

However, real world docs with Hippocratic oaths and D&D clerics are very different things - so I think the question still remains valid. While a costly endeavor, could not rezzing every person you see constitute as a "not good" act - sort of a neutral sentiment?

[Venger]

Because,if he decided to not resurrect a person, It's like saying his/her life isn't worth 5k(or 10k) gp, and it doesn't look like a good person would say..

that's basically like asking why doctors don't treat everyone for free and never do anything else with their lives.

even if it were possible for them to heal everyone they ever came across, they need to eat and sleep and go to their kids' soccer games. plus it takes a lot of money to power expensive machines or develop new surgical techniques, just like how a cleric will need money for a lot of diamond dust.

in addition to the points eggynack made (fairly analagous to why healing in combat isn't viable, since we're discussing clerics: you could play ketchup healing some damage an enemy did to your friend and let him attack again next round, or you could neutralize the enemy and prevent him from doing any damage whatsoever, same as a cleric fighting fiends to prevent them from killing people instead of spending all his time patching up the refugees left in their wake) it's important to remember that some of these spells require the departed to be willing to come back.

the whole population isn't adventurers, so not everyone necessarily wants to respawn after being killed. not only because they may have had nothing else going on in their boring npc lives, but it's also important to remember that in many D&D settings, many heavenlike afterlives explicitly exist, and chilling out there may be preferable to any given NPC's foreseeable future of dirt farming for 2cp/day.

since raising the dead is something that' hardly a secret in D&D, I'm sure that people would work it into their wills (especially since by the RAW, everyone can read and write every language they can speak, so even the local chicken farmer would be able to do this if he could save up to buy some paper to scribble on) the same way people in real life have "do not resuscitate," I'm sure D&D people would have a "do not rez" order, medical bracelet, or tattoo if they didn't want to be rezd if they were killed by a wandering owlbear.

so even if it were possible, not everyone would actualy want you to, and if you're a good (not Good) cleric, you'll actually respect their wishes.

[Spore]

He would if he could afford this for every victim. But because it creates inequality, massive strain in a society and possible bad blood (not counting the envy and hate such an act generates). It's basically summed up like this: Human nature is why we can't have nice things.

1) Ressing the mayor's daughter but not the miller who both died in a freak monster attack blatantly shove the issue of social classes into the people's faces. If you have an ill-mannered public or some demagogue, you can have a situation where the mayor and his daughter are quickly killed by the public.

2) Backing of the church: Not everyone in your faith is good aligned. Also your money is more often than not considered church property and they need it probably to help somewhere different. I would rather safe a city of tenthousand by using silver dust in magic circles and to pay a angelic protector rather than ressurecting a girl in some other town.

3) Politics: Step back from logic because backing a good organization such as a church can be done even by evil people in order to improve their reputation. If the supporter thinks ressurecting someone is not good and he will stop funding you you will possibly kill other people with the missing money.

4) Classical hero excuse: If you lack equipment to fight the vile destroyerdemon whole nations can be in danger. This way, an ressurection is rather invested in a useful tool to dispatch the evil.

In sum: Your actions are not only derived from your character's alignment. The environment also is a big factor. Politics, church politics and where you use the money to do the most good is important.

[Zaydos]

Because the Fates will get mad and force the gods to kill you.

Ok more seriously, eggynack listed the absolute reason, there are limited resources and you cannot resurrect everyone who died there just aren't the diamonds for it, better to save them for those people who can go forth and save 100-1000000 people. AvatarVecna listed other good reasons. If they're a Good aligned person they're in paradise and you're just pulling them back to... um... till a field? If they're Evil then well do you want them back? And that's assuming the gods don't object. They might be fine when it's one or two people every once and a while, but I doubt the gods of Law and/or Death will be happy about raise spam, and heaven's forbid if you do it for profit think the good aligned gods would approve of such greed?

[AvatarVecna]

Also, since the issue of politics was brought up: the gods of death/the afterlife probably aren't going to be too happy about you raising everybody, and they'll respond to this perceived imbalance by having their own clerics go out and kill people...and it's so much easier to kill people than to reverse death. Honestly, it's best to not upset the balance that much, if for no other reason than to keep the gods from going on a warpath.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a dragon...

[Flickerdart]

Casting raise dead undoes a single death. Casting flame strike can prevent dozens, by slaying an agent of Evil.

[Psyren]

OP should probably read the Cleric Quintet - Cadderly, a powerful cleric, has to wrestle with this exact same question.

[Bad Wolf]

Also, there's a construct that will hunt you down if you do that repeatedly.

[Extra Anchovies]

Also, there's a construct that will hunt you down if you do that repeatedly.

Yup. If you're Lawful, you may very well want to respect the fact that dead means dead. Maruts don't like it when you resurrect too many people.

Also, a cleric has to choose between spending their money on raising the dead or on fighting the cause of these early deaths, and they may decide that they can make more of an impact doing the latter (5k GP is a hell of a lot of money in a standard D&d setting).

[Snowbluff]

I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) don't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm) get (http://therafim.wikidot.com/dweomerkeeper) it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm)

[AvatarVecna]

Even if you use methods to get around the gp/XP cost, you still spend the time, and you still have to deal with the limitations of the spell, and you still have to survive the greater powers of the universe trying to either destroy you or rebalance the afterlife by killing people.

[Venger]

Also, there's a construct that will hunt you down if you do that repeatedly.


Yup. If you're Lawful, you may very well want to respect the fact that dead means dead. Maruts don't like it when you resurrect too many people.

Also, a cleric has to choose between spending their money on raising the dead or on fighting the cause of these early deaths, and they may decide that they can make more of an impact doing the latter (5k GP is a hell of a lot of money in a standard D&d setting).

maruts are an absolute joke. if he can take you down at lvl 15, you deserve to be killed.

[KillianHawkeye]

Aside from all of the great reasons that have already been listed, a cleric also has to realize that death is a natural part of life. Everyone has to die sometime (or else the inevitables will come for ya!), and in most cases it's not for the cleric to decide whether or not someone deserves more time. They're servants of the divine; only the gods can truly decide one's fate. Thus, resurrections are typically reserved for those who are still badly needed in the world of the living, or anyone who can afford to pay an appropriate tithe to the church.

[Prime32]

maruts are an absolute joke. if he can take you down at lvl 15, you deserve to be killed.If you're an NPC, then maruts don't care about whether they're a level-appropriate encounter. If an lv1 character manages to screw around with life and death too much, he's getting a marut.

Plus the stats in the Monster Manual are only for the baseline models. If a character is worthy of a marut's attention, but obviously too strong for a marut to deal with, then he'll be attacked by an advanced marut with class levels. If you annoy Mechanus enough then they'll dedicate an entire forge to the problem and send in waves of super maruts custom-designed to kill you, using the memories of each model you destroy to improve the next.

[VoxRationis]

"Death is a natural thing... We cannot resurrect every yeoman who falls." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUksDJCijw) (1:21:22)

[Extra Anchovies]

If you're an NPC, then maruts don't care about whether they're a level-appropriate encounter. If an lv1 character manages to screw around with life and death too much, he's getting a marut.

Now I'm imagining a Dweomerkeeper cleric going around rezzing every corpse he finds, oblivious to the fact that immediately after he leaves a Marut Plane Shifts in and kills the person he raised.

[Zaydos]

Now I'm imagining a Dweomerkeeper cleric going around rezzing every corpse he finds, oblivious to the fact that immediately after he leaves a Marut Plane Shifts in and kills the person he raised.

Yeah that's pretty much where my mind immediately went as well.

[Snowbluff]

That's what the solars are for. :smalltongue:

EDIT: And 2 second of research says the Marut are after me, not my subjects.

[Milo v3]

That's what the solars are for. :smalltongue:

EDIT: And 2 second of research says the Marut are after me, not my subjects.

Hmm... but the people being rez'd would count as accomplices wouldn't they?

[Extra Anchovies]

That's what the solars are for. :smalltongue:

I mean, if you want to do that, go ahead, but there likely aren't many 17th-level casters running about in your campaign setting (and if there are, you're either in tippyverse or are very good at suspending disbelief).


Hmm... but the people being rez'd would count as accomplices wouldn't they?

Agreed. "You have upset the balance of life and death by returning from the grave. BALANCE MUST BE RESTORED."
(I use orange for lawful neutral)

[Darkweave31]

You could always use an infinite wish loop to systematically place a contingent true resurrection for every creature you'd like to save from a premature death. Seems like something a certain chaotic insane wizard I played would do to screw with the maruts. True resurrect them on a demiplane and convince them it's the afterlife and that he's their god. Damn I wish I had thought of this at the time.

[Snowbluff]

Hmm... but the people being rez'd would count as accomplices wouldn't they?

Nope. That's not what it says. It's for people who are extending their own lives, with an exception for gross amounts of rezzing others. Those are the valid targets.

[Extra Anchovies]

Nope. That's not what it says. It's for people who are extending their own lives, with an exception for gross amounts of rezzing others. Those are the valid targets.

Wouldn't being resurrected count as using "unnatural means to extend [a person's] life span"? If magic (e.g. lichdom, the Steal Life spell) counts, then a case is to be made for resurrection magic in particular.

[Bad Wolf]

If you're an NPC, then maruts don't care about whether they're a level-appropriate encounter. If an lv1 character manages to screw around with life and death too much, he's getting a marut.

Plus the stats in the Monster Manual are only for the baseline models. If a character is worthy of a marut's attention, but obviously too strong for a marut to deal with, then he'll be attacked by an advanced marut with class levels. If you annoy Mechanus enough then they'll dedicate an entire forge to the problem and send in waves of super maruts custom-designed to kill you, using the memories of each model you destroy to improve the next.

Also, the fact that the very incarnations of Law are coming after you means its something that could destabilize the multiverse.

[Taveena]

If a character is worthy of a marut's attention, but obviously too strong for a marut to deal with, then he'll be attacked by an advanced marut with class levels.

Unfortunately, not the case. Inevitables only ever advance by adding Construct HD - while they COULD advance through class levels, these are lost every time they go back to their Forge to get their memories wiped, while HD remain constant. The only Maruts with class levels would be one that had gone rogue and decided not to reset itself.

[Bad Wolf]

Unfortunately, not the case. Inevitables only ever advance by adding Construct HD - while they COULD advance through class levels, these are lost every time they go back to their Forge to get their memories wiped, while HD remain constant. The only Maruts with class levels would be one that had gone rogue and decided not to reset itself.
Do you have the elder evils book? There's a construct that does this.

[Zaydos]

Unfortunately, not the case. Inevitables only ever advance by adding Construct HD - while they COULD advance through class levels, these are lost every time they go back to their Forge to get their memories wiped, while HD remain constant. The only Maruts with class levels would be one that had gone rogue and decided not to reset itself.

Ecology of the Inevitable specifically says that they do. Elder Evils has a Kolyarut with class levels. Maruts are the least likely to advance with class levels because they tend not to interact with human civilization. They never come out of the forge with class levels, but they will pick up class levels, and weird tactics, if they keep failing (they don't reset themselves till they succeed and not immediately even then).

[Snowbluff]

Wouldn't being resurrected count as using "unnatural means to extend [a person's] life span"? If magic (e.g. lichdom, the Steal Life spell) counts, then a case is to be made for resurrection magic in particular.

Well, two problems:

1) It cites unnatural, referring to things such as lichdom.

2) If you're assuming that the subject is the one performing the action (technically, they are not the ones using the spell), they only did so once, which doesn't qualify repeatably using raise dead, making them beneath the attention.

Logic'd. :smalltongue:

[Extra Anchovies]

1) It cites unnatural, referring to things such as lichdom.

It actually doesn't list any examples :smallconfused:

[Snowbluff]

It actually doesn't list any examples :smallconfused:


Any who use unnatural means to extend their life span (such as a lich) could be targeted by a marut.

I don't know about that, 'Chovies.

[Zaydos]

Wait... Elan use unnatural means to expand their lives. Does that mean maruts are trying to exterminate the whole species?

[Psyren]

If you're an NPC, then maruts don't care about whether they're a level-appropriate encounter. If an lv1 character manages to screw around with life and death too much, he's getting a marut.

Plus the stats in the Monster Manual are only for the baseline models. If a character is worthy of a marut's attention, but obviously too strong for a marut to deal with, then he'll be attacked by an advanced marut with class levels. If you annoy Mechanus enough then they'll dedicate an entire forge to the problem and send in waves of super maruts custom-designed to kill you, using the memories of each model you destroy to improve the next.

At the very least they'd send something stronger than an inevitable eventually. After all, to defy the will of an inevitable is to defy Law itself, and your crimes would spiral beyond the initial charge of repeated resurrections.

[Snowbluff]

Except there is no "they" with greater means, as far as I can tell. It's not actually a universal law that a higher power is interested in.

EDIT
Actually, Maruts going after people who ressurect people with Raise Dead doesn't make much sense when you look at the fluff.

“Everyone dies eventually.”
This text refer Raise Dead doesn't actually violate this. It does nothing about dying from old age. They will die eventually.

The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.

[Psyren]

That's fair - but repeated Reincarnate would.

[Extra Anchovies]

I don't know about that, 'Chovies.

Thanks for checking the actual book. The d20srd page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/inevitable.htm) omits the parenthesized clause.

[Snowbluff]

No problem. I was reading out of the Monster Manual because it was a fluff problem. :smalltongue:

That's fair - but repeated Reincarnate would.

Oh, yeah, that would do it.

Also, the more I read about the inevitable, the more I reach a certain conclusion. Law is dumb. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid) Seriously, a series of inevitables dedicated to freeing Pandorym? I wonder how many contracts they would screw up if they succeed. Of course, watching Mechanus build more inevitables to kill Mechanus would be a suitable end for a pointless and needlessly destructive plane.

Red Knight and Wee Jas are where it's at. If you need a lawful fix, go with them. :smalltongue:

[Venger]

Also, the fact that the very incarnations of Law are coming after you means its something that could destabilize the multiverse.

No it doesn't. Law is synonymous with stupidity in D&D. case in point--


Do you have the elder evils book? There's a construct that does this.

oh, someone mentioned it for me.

Obligatum is not one, but at least seven inevitables who is trying to free Pandorym because of Reasons.


I don't know about that, 'Chovies.

this is exactly what makes maruts so ridiculous. the bulk of their abilities don't work on liches at all. by the time one was an appropriate CR, (or even before, really) the lich would eat this guy for lunch.


Wait... Elan use unnatural means to expand their lives. Does that mean maruts are trying to exterminate the whole species?
probably. that seems exactly like something the Lawful types would do.

[Extra Anchovies]

Red Knight and Wee Jas are where it's at. If you need a lawful fix, go with them. :smalltongue:

*looks up Red Knight*

Huh. The wiki page says she "was" a deity. Did she just never re-ascend after the Time of Troubles?

[Psyren]

*looks up Red Knight*

Huh. The wiki page says she "was" a deity. Did she just never re-ascend after the Time of Troubles?

No, she was around post-ToT. It might be saying "was" due to the Spellplague?

[Scheming Wizard]

Does everyone even want to be resurrected? Divine magic is as natural as gravity in the campaign world. That means everyone from the king to the commoner knows the deities are real and that their heavenly realms are real as well. If you ever read manual of the planes or even the DMG all of the upper planes read as "there are flowery fields and crystal towers and everyone has all the cotton candy and fluffy kittens they could ever want."

Unless someone had something they really needed to do on the material plane or wasn't going to an upper plane when they died I'm surprised people allow themselves to be resurrected at all. I mean farming in the field all day isn't that great of an existence especially when you are getting older and more worn down and decrepit every day.

This is also a world with magical plagues, dragons, and zombies as well.

[Venger]

Does everyone even want to be resurrected? Divine magic is as natural as gravity in the campaign world. That means everyone from the king to the commoner knows the deities are real and that their heavenly realms are real as well. If you ever read manual of the planes or even the DMG all of the upper planes read as "there are flowery fields and crystal towers and everyone has all the cotton candy and fluffy kittens they could ever want."

Unless someone had something they really needed to do on the material plane or wasn't going to an upper plane when they died I'm surprised people allow themselves to be resurrected at all. I mean farming in the field all day isn't that great of an existence especially when you are getting older and more worn down and decrepit every day.

This is also a world with magical plagues, dragons, and zombies as well.

I already said all that stuff, so of course I agree with you :smalltongue:

this is especially true if you're playing a greyhawk game. even if you're not a particularly pious guy, you know if you don't pay lip service to ome kind of god, your ass is getting nailed to the wall of the faithless after you die, so there aren't going to be any people refusing to buy in for pascal's gamble.

only adventurers, whose goal in life is to be murderhobos (since you can't accrue xp as a petitioner) have something they can't get in their afterlife of choice.

[Jergmo]

If the maruts don't get you, VHAILOR surely will!

[LudicSavant]

The same reason that a good doctor won't save everyone he can.

Except there are tons of charitable doctors that do exactly that.

[NichG]

The premise need not hold. There's no reason why the 'natural order' should a priori be the case in which people aren't brought back or are brought back sparingly. You can just as easily have a universe in which death is an unnatural curse laid upon the world by a vengeful dark deity that was sealed away, so that suffering and loss would continue to exist even if the deity couldn't personally spread them. Or one where death is a trial, the ultimate test of humanity, and that conquering death is humanity's god-given task (with clerics being heralds to show that yes, it can be done, and to inspire others to drive back death themselves). So all of these things aren't givens, they're setting choices. It can very well be that in a given setting, a good cleric will in fact resurrect everyone they can.

Now, It is a factor that a good cleric probably can't resurrect everyone. But there's nothing wrong with them trying - taking over the world's diamond production, providing pro-bono resurrections, instituting tithes and lotteries to keep the process fair, etc. Even clerics whose mission is to find ways to make the process even cheaper, even more wide-spread, so that everyone can eventually be brought back.

Part of the reason that feels like it might be somehow 'wrong' is because it makes the world a different place than we're accustomed to thinking about. We see a lot of grey areas that we haven't thought through that could have negative consequences. But we haven't yet thought of how to fix those consequences, so our initial thoughts follow along the premise that they will go un-fixed, which creates a negative bias.

[ryu]

The premise need not hold. There's no reason why the 'natural order' should a priori be the case in which people aren't brought back or are brought back sparingly. You can just as easily have a universe in which death is an unnatural curse laid upon the world by a vengeful dark deity that was sealed away, so that suffering and loss would continue to exist even if the deity couldn't personally spread them. Or one where death is a trial, the ultimate test of humanity, and that conquering death is humanity's god-given task (with clerics being heralds to show that yes, it can be done, and to inspire others to drive back death themselves). So all of these things aren't givens, they're setting choices. It can very well be that in a given setting, a good cleric will in fact resurrect everyone they can.

Now, It is a factor that a good cleric probably can't resurrect everyone. But there's nothing wrong with them trying - taking over the world's diamond production, providing pro-bono resurrections, instituting tithes and lotteries to keep the process fair, etc. Even clerics whose mission is to find ways to make the process even cheaper, even more wide-spread, so that everyone can eventually be brought back.

Part of the reason that feels like it might be somehow 'wrong' is because it makes the world a different place than we're accustomed to thinking about. We see a lot of grey areas that we haven't thought through that could have negative consequences. But we haven't yet thought of how to fix those consequences, so our initial thoughts follow along the premise that they will go un-fixed, which creates a negative bias.

I take it even a step further. Assume it's not the natural order. My response? Screw the natural order. In absence of magic or technological advancement to have our own say in the matter we'd be a relatively small band of hunter gatherers living in the Savannah, searching for food every day so as not to starve, and cowering around the fire at night in hopes that numbers of people armed with spears would be enough to ward off the nocturnal predators. You know if we HAD the fire and the spears...

[Yahzi]

In a world where a skilled laborer makes 1 gp a day, 5,000 gp is a substantial sum. Without modern banking it's simply going to be too difficult to raise everyone.

That said, the reason good clerics don't go around raising everyone is the same reason that: there are modules with murder mysteries and 3rd lvl clerics, there are published adventures where the Baron's wife died in childbirth, there are plagues - all easily preventable with low-level magic. Basically, D&D is stupid.

The game was conceived as a contest between the PCs and a BBG. Those two groups were supposed to be the only powers in existence. The reason a good cleric wasn't out healing all these people is because the PCs were the only good clerics with any real power. The idea that all of this magic would make a medieval society impossible was simply not on the radar: PCs only cast spells in dungeons and/or combat. Just look at Raise Dead: it specifies how many HPs and spells you return with. Who the heck could possibly care about that - unless the designers intended for it be used in the middle of a combat?

Wall of Iron, Continual Flame, Prestidigitation, the list of spells that utterly modify medieval society is long. People used to show their wealth by burning more than one candle at a time. The spices and colors that P. creates drove entire global economies. And so on.

I have tried very hard to create a medieval society that works with D&D rules. To do so I had to change two things: 1) XP is a tangible resource you can harvest from peasants, and 2) the XP curve has to double at every step. Once you do that, it's amazing how well things work out - and the answer to your question becomes obvious. Even by 3.0 rules (where Raise Dead is only 500 gp) at least 3 people have to die for one person to be raised.

[Killer Angel]

Because,if he decided to not resurrect a person, It's like saying his/her life isn't worth 5k(or 10k) gp, and it doesn't look like a good person would say..

I believe you're confusing "good person" with "saint".


Except there are tons of charitable doctors that do exactly that.

And they can because people gives them money to help other people.
We're talking 'bout 5.000 gp per raise dead, here.

[prufock]

There is one good reason that I don't think has been brought up yet. You're assuming that being alive in D&D is better than being dead. In D&D, unlike real life, the afterlife is an objective reality, like alignment - and those two are linked. Good creatures go to one of three "paradise" planes, so bringing them back to a world of pain and suffering may not even be a good act. Those who were evil go to some version of hell, and thus get deserved punishment. Bringing back an evil creature probably isn't a worthwhile use of a good cleric's time.

[Milo v3]

What is the neutral afterlife like? I mean, most people would likely be neutral rather than one of the extreme alignments.

[Bad Wolf]

What is the neutral afterlife like? I mean, most people would likely be neutral rather than one of the extreme alignments.

As boring as you'd expect. Except for Limbo, that place is wild.

[Psyren]

What is the neutral afterlife like? I mean, most people would likely be neutral rather than one of the extreme alignments.


As boring as you'd expect. Except for Limbo, that place is wild.

From the little I've read in afroakuma's thread, Sigil is anything but boring.


There is one good reason that I don't think has been brought up yet. You're assuming that being alive in D&D is better than being dead. In D&D, unlike real life, the afterlife is an objective reality, like alignment - and those two are linked. Good creatures go to one of three "paradise" planes, so bringing them back to a world of pain and suffering may not even be a good act. Those who were evil go to some version of hell, and thus get deserved punishment. Bringing back an evil creature probably isn't a worthwhile use of a good cleric's time.

Against their will, yeah, but resurrection requires volition so there's no chance of bringing someone back to suffering they didn't sign on for.

More importantly, there's another angle to look at this from. Bringing a good person back to life means bringing more good back into the world - and their good deeds stand a chance at converting someone else through kindness. Bringing an evil person back could easily save them now that they've had a taste of the horror awaiting them if they don't repent. So it's not quite as cut and dry as "you're denying someone paradise" or "you're keeping a bad person from punishment and there's no point."

[Bad Wolf]

You don't go to Sigil when you die...

[Segev]

Reincarnation wouldn't violate any rules about everything eventually dying, either. The whole idea behind the "reincarnation cycle" is that you die and are reborn; the reincarnation spell just does it at an accelerated pace and with your new life retaining old memories.

(In point of fact, the resurrection line of spells wouldn't violate it, either; you did die. You just came back.)



Honestly, Inevitables always struck me as poorly thought-out. The rules they supposedly enforce are more arbitrary and less consistently applied than the rules by which most CE tyrants dominate their gangs.

[Jahkin]

Because,if he decided to not resurrect a person, It's like saying his/her life isn't worth 5k(or 10k) gp, and it doesn't look like a good person would say..

Most people seem to be responding with something along the lines of, "they can't afford to" which is correct, in as far as it goes, but that just seems to me to be moving the goal posts. The question then becomes why doesn't a good cleric, or good church for that matter consisting of many clerics, use their power to work toward reducing the cost of resurrection? It seems to me that it would not be particularly hard for a church with access to a number of high-level divine casters to automate or semi-automate the production of diamond dust (or diamonds) to the point that the expense becomes trivial. Off the top of my head, binding various outsiders to constantly produce the stuff through assorted SLAs, setting up permanent mining operations on the Elemental Plane of Earth next to a diamond the size of a moon, or simply constructing a magical trap to produce diamonds when activated. Given that the economic limitations are actually relatively easy to overcome, wouldn't it become morally imperative for a good cleric/church (especially a NG one) to do this?


The premise need not hold. There's no reason why the 'natural order' should a priori be the case in which people aren't brought back or are brought back sparingly. You can just as easily have a universe in which death is an unnatural curse laid upon the world by a vengeful dark deity that was sealed away, so that suffering and loss would continue to exist even if the deity couldn't personally spread them. Or one where death is a trial, the ultimate test of humanity, and that conquering death is humanity's god-given task (with clerics being heralds to show that yes, it can be done, and to inspire others to drive back death themselves). So all of these things aren't givens, they're setting choices. It can very well be that in a given setting, a good cleric will in fact resurrect everyone they can.

Now, It is a factor that a good cleric probably can't resurrect everyone. But there's nothing wrong with them trying - taking over the world's diamond production, providing pro-bono resurrections, instituting tithes and lotteries to keep the process fair, etc. Even clerics whose mission is to find ways to make the process even cheaper, even more wide-spread, so that everyone can eventually be brought back.

Part of the reason that feels like it might be somehow 'wrong' is because it makes the world a different place than we're accustomed to thinking about. We see a lot of grey areas that we haven't thought through that could have negative consequences. But we haven't yet thought of how to fix those consequences, so our initial thoughts follow along the premise that they will go un-fixed, which creates a negative bias.

I agree with much of this; there seems to be a presumption at play that rests on the Appeal to Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) fallacy.

[Segev]

It seems to me that it would not be particularly hard for a church with access to a number of high-level divine casters to automate or semi-automate the production of diamond dust (or diamonds) to the point that the expense becomes trivial.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a nonsensical-to-common-sense but logical-by-RAW answer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html) to this.

However, of some interest, a magic item that any cleric could use that was command-word activated to raise dead would cost 231,700 gp (except its price makes it epic, so it decatuples). I forget the breakpoint for epic item pricing, but if it's 200k gp, then an item usable 4/day would only be 185,360 gp.

That'd actually pay for itself after you'd raised 38 people.

Of course, this still costs levels and/or Con...

[Psyren]

You don't go to Sigil when you die...

No, you'd go to Outlands, but Sigil's in the middle and Petitioners can drop in if they're bored.


Reincarnation wouldn't violate any rules about everything eventually dying, either. The whole idea behind the "reincarnation cycle" is that you die and are reborn; the reincarnation spell just does it at an accelerated pace and with your new life retaining old memories.

But not retaining memories is the whole point of the cycle. If you're allowed to just hang onto everything in a shiny new body, where's the cycle?

[Segev]

But not retaining memories is the whole point of the cycle. If you're allowed to just hang onto everything in a shiny new body, where's the cycle?

Ask the druids; it's their spell.

While that sounds flippant, I do mean it: druids can't have spells whose very straightforward effect is "unnatural;" they worship and get power from nature.



From a more justification-making standpoint, part of the reincarnation cycle is learning from your past lives. Particularly enlightened souls are supposed to be able to remember said lives. Perhaps the druid spell grants this blessing of enlightenment to a limited degree.

[Jormengand]

Except there are tons of charitable doctors that do exactly that.

Only, they won't. Go and look up things like triages, QALYs, and so forth - they're all basically methods of going "Is this person worth saving?" And sometimes, the answer is "No".

[Flickerdart]

No, you'd go to Outlands, but Sigil's in the middle and Petitioners can drop in if they're bored.
Isn't it on top of a massive spire? Can petitioners climb it?

[Jahkin]

Isn't it on top of a massive spire? Can petitioners climb it?

Finding an access portal shouldn't be too hard, but you are correct: it is actually impossible to climb up to Sigil as the spire is (somehow) infinitely tall.

[Snowbluff]

(somehow) infinitely tall.

*pfft* You think in such three dimensional terms.

[Bad Wolf]

Also Nerull and other death gods would kick up a fuss.

[Flickerdart]

Finding an access portal shouldn't be too hard, but you are correct: it is actually impossible to climb up to Sigil as the spire is (somehow) infinitely tall.
Isn't the whole thing about Sigil portals that they don't look out of the ordinary? With the Outlands being flat and featureless (from what I recall anyway) it might be hard to recognize something as a doorway of any kind, never mind a portal to Sigil.

[Psyren]

Isn't it on top of a massive spire? Can petitioners climb it?

No but there are portals leading up there and nothing stopping you from going into one, at least not in MotP.


Isn't the whole thing about Sigil portals that they don't look out of the ordinary? With the Outlands being flat and featureless (from what I recall anyway) it might be hard to recognize something as a doorway of any kind, never mind a portal to Sigil.

"Flat and featureless?" There are libraries and forests in Outlands; Obad-hai and Boccob live there for starters. There are also portal-towns.


Ask the druids; it's their spell.

While that sounds flippant, I do mean it: druids can't have spells whose very straightforward effect is "unnatural;" they worship and get power from nature.

This argument is fallacious; good clerics can cast flamestrike, that doesn't mean they're allowed to go around nuking the marketplace. Just because you're given the power to do something is not license to do so indiscriminately or without cause; Druids are trusted with various powers and expected to use them responsibly, and reincarnate is no less subject to that than Shambler is. And yes, I would indeed argue that reincarnation in lieu of the normal death-rebirth cycle is indeed not natural; if it were, we would all be coming back to life as young adults naturally with all our class levels (minus one) intact, and all our memories.

[eggynack]

Most people seem to be responding with something along the lines of, "they can't afford to" which is correct, in as far as it goes, but that just seems to me to be moving the goal posts. The question then becomes why doesn't a good cleric, or good church for that matter consisting of many clerics, use their power to work toward reducing the cost of resurrection? It seems to me that it would not be particularly hard for a church with access to a number of high-level divine casters to automate or semi-automate the production of diamond dust (or diamonds) to the point that the expense becomes trivial. Off the top of my head, binding various outsiders to constantly produce the stuff through assorted SLAs, setting up permanent mining operations on the Elemental Plane of Earth next to a diamond the size of a moon, or simply constructing a magical trap to produce diamonds when activated. Given that the economic limitations are actually relatively easy to overcome, wouldn't it become morally imperative for a good cleric/church (especially a NG one) to do this?
Because a given church can't afford to either. If we're approaching this from a common sense standpoint, rather than a game rules standpoint, then automating the production of diamonds just reduces the cost of diamonds such that you need more to raise someone from the dead. Meanwhile, when you open things to that kind of scale, you're looking at even bigger costs than diamonds, because finding and raising folk eats time like crazy. And, more to the point, a given good church, just like some cleric who's a member of said church, has better things they could be devoting resources to. Now we're working at even higher levels of power, and instead of fighting some individual villain, we're dealing with major global threats that could destroy all life.

Of course, as you and others have alluded to, there are ways to obviate the various costs of raise dead such that it's far more viable to accomplish this. That's a thing which works on a church or individual level, so I don't see much point in going macro on it. Under that assumption, there are two reason sets, one in game and one out. out of game, some games are relatively low power such that wish looping or calling or gating or whatever's being used is a level which is outside the realm of reason. Assuming cost is the only issue, and further assuming that these things are allowed, then semi-conditionally raising folk (cause some folk are evil and whatnot) on a constant basis makes sense. In game, you mostly arrive at the stuff that other posters are bringing up, involving personal philosophy and inevitables and whatnot.

Edit:
This argument is fallacious; good clerics can cast flamestrike, that doesn't mean they're allowed to go around nuking the marketplace. Just because you're given the power to do something is not license to do so indiscriminately or without cause; Druids are trusted with various powers and expected to use them responsibly, and reincarnate is no less subject to that than Shambler is. And yes, I would indeed argue that reincarnation in lieu of the normal death-rebirth cycle is indeed not natural; if it were, we would all be coming back to life as young adults naturally with all our class levels (minus one) intact, and all our memories.
True, especially because druids can pull things that even more folk would term unnatural. Aberration wild shape is right there, for example, as is my ever-growing set of druidic necromancy methods. As I've often pointed out, one need not necessarily consider either of these things unnatural, but by the same token, plenty of druids likely do consider them unnatural. I somehow doubt that anyone's arguing that all druids are pro-necromancy.

[prufock]

Against their will, yeah, but resurrection requires volition so there's no chance of bringing someone back to suffering they didn't sign on for.
Then you're looking at an issue where the cleric may be wasting time and diamonds for little accomplishment. Even assuming we have a way to make infinite diamonds, it's still a % wasted effort that a high-level cleric could put to greater use.


More importantly, there's another angle to look at this from. Bringing a good person back to life means bringing more good back into the world - and their good deeds stand a chance at converting someone else through kindness. Bringing an evil person back could easily save them now that they've had a taste of the horror awaiting them if they don't repent. So it's not quite as cut and dry as "you're denying someone paradise" or "you're keeping a bad person from punishment and there's no point."
Still, they only come back if willing. A good creature can still do good on the outer planes. An evil person might atone, but there's still wasted resources.

[Segev]

This argument is fallacious; good clerics can cast flamestrike, that doesn't mean they're allowed to go around nuking the marketplace. Just because you're given the power to do something is not license to do so indiscriminately or without cause; Druids are trusted with various powers and expected to use them responsibly, and reincarnate is no less subject to that than Shambler is. And yes, I would indeed argue that reincarnation in lieu of the normal death-rebirth cycle is indeed not natural; if it were, we would all be coming back to life as young adults naturally with all our class levels (minus one) intact, and all our memories.

Your analogies are flawed; were I arguing that reincarnate could in no way be used to ever violate what druids are supposed to stand for, you might have a point.

However, my argument is that reincarnation cannot, in its most straight-forward use, be a violation of the very thing druids venerate to get that power.

"A cleric using flame strike on a market square" is not "the most straight-forward use." You have to add an obviously inappropriate target.

"A druid reincarnating a despoiler of nature" would similarly be a violatory use of the spell, barring even more extreme mitigations (such as using the reincarnation as a form of attempted redemption or karmic punishment...though why the target would choose to come back to that is another question).

The points being made about raise dead spamming being a "violation of the natural order" and thus calling down Inevitables are what I was addressing. Gods are not all inherently in agreement with "the natural order," so some gods - even Good ones - might well support their clergy spamming raise dead in the name of mercy and kindness, even if such extensive use of that spell were a violation of "the natural order."

However, a druid's spell cannot be inherently a violation of "the natural order" any more than a cleric's spell could inherently be a violation of their god's precepts. (And if spamming raise dead is a gross violation of "the natural order," then doing it at all is at least a minor one.)

Therefore, reincarnate must be kosher by "the natural order."

Sure, a druid could use it in a "wrong" fashion, but just using it, even repeatedly, is not and cannot inherently be a violation of the natural order any more than using, say, produce flame is.

[Psyren]

Then you're looking at an issue where the cleric may be wasting time and diamonds for little accomplishment. Even assuming we have a way to make infinite diamonds, it's still a % wasted effort that a high-level cleric could put to greater use.

All true, but that becomes an economic issue rather than a moral one. A good deity wouldn't penalize you for trying to revive someone in good faith, and if they refuse to come back, the lost diamond would simply be a mortal lesson. Hell, if the deity doesn't want you to even try, they can simply not give you raise dead that day and stick Commune in there instead. ("Call me." -Boss)



Still, they only come back if willing. A good creature can still do good on the outer planes. An evil person might atone, but there's still wasted resources.

Indeed, there is a nonzero chance that an evil creature fails to take advantage of their second chance and ends up blowing it again. But since redeeming evil is described as "the greatest act of good one could ever hope to accomplish" (BoED pg. 8), it would seem that the risk of failure might be worthwhile to many good clerics and deities.



Sure, a druid could use it in a "wrong" fashion, but just using it, even repeatedly, is not and cannot inherently be a violation of the natural order any more than using, say, produce flame is.

Why are you assuming "using it repeatedly" cannot possibly be "the wrong fashion?"

Consider that Druids also get Contagion. They are given this spell for a reason, but using it indiscriminately can cause a plague and wipe out an entire forest worth of animals as they transmit the disease between one another. Would the Druid not fall for this, or have other Druids consider them an enemy?

[eggynack]

Your analogies are flawed; were I arguing that reincarnate could in no way be used to ever violate what druids are supposed to stand for, you might have a point.

However, my argument is that reincarnation cannot, in its most straight-forward use, be a violation of the very thing druids venerate to get that power.

"A cleric using flame strike on a market square" is not "the most straight-forward use." You have to add an obviously inappropriate target.

"A druid reincarnating a despoiler of nature" would similarly be a violatory use of the spell, barring even more extreme mitigations (such as using the reincarnation as a form of attempted redemption or karmic punishment...though why the target would choose to come back to that is another question).

The points being made about raise dead spamming being a "violation of the natural order" and thus calling down Inevitables are what I was addressing. Gods are not all inherently in agreement with "the natural order," so some gods - even Good ones - might well support their clergy spamming raise dead in the name of mercy and kindness, even if such extensive use of that spell were a violation of "the natural order."

However, a druid's spell cannot be inherently a violation of "the natural order" any more than a cleric's spell could inherently be a violation of their god's precepts. (And if spamming raise dead is a gross violation of "the natural order," then doing it at all is at least a minor one.)

Therefore, reincarnate must be kosher by "the natural order."

Sure, a druid could use it in a "wrong" fashion, but just using it, even repeatedly, is not and cannot inherently be a violation of the natural order any more than using, say, produce flame is.
But then we can just kinda move on to more natural order violating things. Like, I dunno, blackwater tentacle, whose primary use is negative levelling people, and where success ultimately creates wraiths if you do well enough. That's the primary use of the spell, or at least it's what happens if the spell is used normally. Or, how about wild shaping into a myconid sovereign or yellow musk creeper for a plant zombie army. Or, maybe animate with the spirit, where you forcefully insert a good outsider into a dead being to give it some semblance of life. I'm not saying that these things are necessarily against every druid's code of conduct, but they have effects whose intrinsic nature would be considered against the natural order by either a decent amount of druids, or even a majority of them.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that "casting reincarnate repeatedly to stop people from dying" is the same situation as "casting blackwater tentacle repeatedly to make wraiths." In both cases, casting it only a few times is fine, but repeated casting isn't, and it's the druid's responsibility to have the wisdom to know when to stop.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that "casting reincarnate repeatedly to stop people from dying" is the same situation as "casting blackwater tentacle repeatedly to make wraiths." In both cases, casting it only a few times is fine, but repeated casting isn't, and it's the druid's responsibility to have the wisdom to know when to stop.

So that's why there's the wisdom requirement!

Hmm... maybe the universe doesn't like giving out power to idiots (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) but might if you make nice-nice to it... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer)

:smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that "casting reincarnate repeatedly to stop people from dying" is the same situation as "casting blackwater tentacle repeatedly to make wraiths." In both cases, casting it only a few times is fine, but repeated casting isn't, and it's the druid's responsibility to have the wisdom to know when to stop.
Pretty much, though I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that a druid casting blackwater tentacle repeatedly for a wraith army isn't fine. Some druids probably think that making even one wraith is anathema, and others are probably fine with doing so to any degree they wish, and either way is fine. There's not all that much in the way of a druid code of conduct, and natural is a particularly finicky term, open to a broad range of interpretation.

In any case, I think this speaks to a more fundamental issue with the claim at hand. Just because something's source is natural, that doesn't mean that that thing is natural. Natural things can be used to unnatural ends, and sometimes even the most basic uses of those things are unnatural. Thus, being on the druid list, and therefore capable of having nature as a fuel, does not per se make a spell natural, or make the things that spell does natural. By the time we're at the primary effects of a spell, we're already about two steps removed from nature, and by unintended effects, I suspect we're three steps removed. There's a lot of room in those steps for the natural to become unnatural.

[Snowbluff]

Eggy, post in the guardian's thread. D:

[ace rooster]

I view divine magic as a bit like having a company credit card. The 10 grand is change next to the power that it actually costs your god, but provided you use it for something important then they don't mind. Raising random commoners is not important enough to justify it, though you will still be able to do it until your god notices.

[eggynack]

Eggy, post in the guardian's thread. D:
But Snowbluff, what of my ridiculous multi-paragraph essays on both the natural and the infeasibility of mass raise deads assuming a relatively mid-op environment? What of them?

[Segev]

If the argument is that casting these spells too much is what violates the natural order, then the question becomes, "How much is 'too much?'"

I mean, we're using the idea of a Marut coming to punish people as the indicator that it's against the natural order, right? As creatures of supreme law, Inevitables must have precise rules by which they operate. There must be a number below which it is okay to keep bringing people back, and at or above which you've violated the natural order. How do we determine what this is?

[VoxRationis]

It probably has something to do with the total impact it has on the death rate; once it is affected beyond some arbitrary percentage, which is probably setting-dependent (i.e., in a high-magic, let's-have-silly-fun campaign, it's probably too high to worry about, but in a grimmer setting, you might get flak for resurrecting the chieftain of a barbarian tribe twice, because his tribe only has about 80 people in it), Mechanus intervenes.

[Snowbluff]

But Snowbluff, what of my ridiculous multi-paragraph essays on both the natural and the infeasibility of mass raise deads assuming a relatively mid-op environment? What of them?

Eggy, I've got to get you guys to the next plot points. You've mysteries to solve, like the blood soaked journal.

[Gnoman]

Or, more likely, it has to do with how often you resurrect someone needlessly. Bring back a farmer with a half-dozen kids too small to work the family farm who got stepped on by a giant? Fine, he still had a purpose to serve. The farmer's grandfather who has been relegated to a life of leisure because his arthritis no longer allows him to work, and who slipped and fell off a cliff? Let him rest, he's led a full life and shouldn't be brought back to sit on the porch another ten years. The same with kings - raising an assassinated ruler with a disputed succession is needful, raising a warrior-king who fell in victorious battle, leaving his fine son to take the reins is needless. For adventurers, raises are usually needful - they arise spontaneously in times of crisis and they tend to drift into peaceful retirement when the crisis is over - between those times they still have a role to play, for good or ill.

[NichG]

Inevitables are being used as an example of a measuring stick for the natural order, but the inevitables themselves are only 10000 years old and were added to Mechanus by an unspecified power rather than being something that just arose from the multiverse itself. So the missions of inevitables don't tell you about whether something is good or bad for the balance of the multiverse as a whole, they just tell you about the politics of some particular unknown deity of law.

[Hecuba]

This will depend on how you spin the setting. Perhaps their deity isn't kosher worn the idea (Clerics can fall after all).

Perhaps it has repercussions because the gods have a agreement about balancing actions.


My preferred option is a general understanding that, while life should be protected, death is not inherently wrong (it is, after all, quite possible -if difficult- to physically reach the afterlife in D&D).

[Bad Wolf]

Inevitables are being used as an example of a measuring stick for the natural order, but the inevitables themselves are only 10000 years old and were added to Mechanus by an unspecified power rather than being something that just arose from the multiverse itself. So the missions of inevitables don't tell you about whether something is good or bad for the balance of the multiverse as a whole, they just tell you about the politics of some particular unknown deity of law.

Where's that from?

[LudicSavant]

Only, they won't. Go and look up things like triages, QALYs, and so forth - they're all basically methods of going "Is this person worth saving?" And sometimes, the answer is "No".

Jormengand, I didn't say every doctor did that, I said there are lots of examples of doctors in history who have.

[Milo v3]

Inevitables aren't even about making sure nature isn't out of balance, if they had their way nature would never be balanced, they'd want it to be be lawful as hell and axis.

[Bad Wolf]

Inevitables aren't even about making sure nature isn't out of balance, if they had their way nature would never be balanced, they'd want it to be be lawful as hell and axis.

They care more about the laws of the universe (death, magic, time, space, hotdogs, etc.) then actual laws like Jaywalking. And they aren't on a warpath to destroy Limbo/Arborea/Pandemonium/The Abyss.

[eggynack]

Jormengand, I didn't say every doctor did that, I said there are lots of examples of doctors in history who have.
Yeah, but the question isn't, "Why would a good cleric raise every dead guy they see?" It's, "Why wouldn't a good cleric raise every dead guy they see?" The existence of doctors with boundless life savery, without all doctors having that quality, speaks to the former question but not the latter.

[Lerondiel]

Why a good cleric wont resurrect everyone he can?

The question is based on a false premise, that 'death' is a bad thing that needs to be undone.


That nice peasant that died from fever last winter? He's in the celestial realms having a great time until his likeminded family join him.


The only reason a good cleric wants to return someone from that afterlife is if their return would be a great ally against evil and spread a lot more good.

Even paladins arent able to brought back sometimes for the sheer reason that their deity's said "outstanding job, but i need others to carry the torch now, stay with me"


If anything some good clerics are more haunted by the idea of what the infernal realms do to people that sold out but were perhaps redeemable.

[Extra Anchovies]

That nice peasant that died from fever last winter? He's in the celestial realms having a great time until his likeminded family join him.

So in that case, it's best for the cleric to kill the dead man's family so they're reunited with him sooner? :smalltongue:

[Venger]

So in that case, it's best for the cleric to kill the dead man's family so they're reunited with him sooner? :smalltongue:

Obviously!

man, characters do some bad stuff when there's empirical evidence of an afterlife, don't they?

Good clerics would go around killing Good characters by the truckload to send them to their reward before they could be tainted by the sins of the oerth. they'd probably start up suicide cults and have people drinking kool-aid en masse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/highProselytizer.htm). if anything, they would want to preserve the lives of those who followed different gods since they'd consider them undeserving of similar rewards. it'd lead to a very interesting setting.

[ryu]

So in that case, it's best for the cleric to kill the dead man's family so they're reunited with him sooner? :smalltongue:

Ladies and gentlemen the inherent unfortunate implication with arguing that death is a positive thing for all involved.

[Scheming Wizard]

So in that case, it's best for the cleric to kill the dead man's family so they're reunited with him sooner? :smalltongue:

Well the problem with that is the afterlife isn't guaranteed npcs are judged by their deities by how well they followed the deities commandments (none of the good deities commandments say kill the faithful). The gods also derive their power from their faithful http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodsNeedPrayerBadly

This means it is in the deities best interest for their clerics not to go around killing their worshipers.

Hence good aligned deities encourage their worshipers to live long and virtuous lives and convert more people to their cause.

Evil churches encourage their followers to kill the followers of rival deities to starve the good deities into weakness (so the evil deity can finish them off).

[Venger]

Well the problem with that is the afterlife isn't guaranteed npcs are judged by their deities by how well they followed the deities commandments (none of the good deities commandments say kill the faithful). The gods also derive their power from their faithful http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodsNeedPrayerBadly

This means it is in the deities best interest for their clerics not to go around killing their worshipers.

Hence good aligned deities encourage their worshipers to live long and virtuous lives and convert more people to their cause.

Evil churches encourage their followers to kill the followers of rival deities to starve the good deities into weakness (so the evil deity can finish them off).

gods often kill their faithful. urdlen and jubilex consume their faithful all the time.

the deities don't actually have commandments for the most part, so figuring out what they want is a crapshoot at best. just look at literally any of the vestiges.

that's only assuming you're playing in a game with finite divine power. if you're not, the gods have no reason to behave that way.

[Scheming Wizard]

gods often kill their faithful. urdlen and jubilex consume their faithful all the time.

the deities don't actually have commandments for the most part, so figuring out what they want is a crapshoot at best. just look at literally any of the vestiges.

that's only assuming you're playing in a game with finite divine power. if you're not, the gods have no reason to behave that way.

Urdlen and Juiblex are both insane though. Although Urdlen is said to be more mindless than crazy.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Juiblex
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Urdlen

If deities draw their power from their worshipers then there is finite divine power, because there is a finite number of intelligent beings on the material plane. AO fixed it that way after the time of troubles, so that deities actually need to pay attention to their worshipers rather than just waging war on each other. At least that is how things work in Faerun. Other campaign settings don't have this mechanic. Dragon Lance has the Gods cut off from the material plane for example.

A lot of the deities actually do have a dogma or mission they give to their followers as well. Even Urdlen has a dogma

"Succumb to the bloodlust. Hate, covet, crush, despoil and kill. Revel and exult in orgies of death and destruction. That which is living or created by life must be murdered or destroyed. The strong survive and the weak are the cattle. Propitiate the Crawler Below so it does not come for you."

[Scheming Wizard]

In Faerun prior to AO a deities power was determined by how good their portfolio was (Time or Magc was better than Rot for example) and how many portfolios they had.

Deities consequently spent a lot of time fighting over portfolios rather than caring about their worshipers or churches.

In Dragon Lance Deities want worshipers, because that is the only way they can interact with the material plane at all. Mortals are therefore important tools for them.

[Venger]

Urdlen and Juiblex are both insane though. Although Urdlen is said to be more mindless than crazy.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Juiblex
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Urdlen

I know that. that's why I mentioned them. how exactly does that make what I said (that they kill their own dudes) untrue? the more research you do, you'll find that a lot of gods act like this.


If deities draw their power from their worshipers then there is finite divine power, because there is a finite number of intelligent beings on the material plane. AO fixed it that way after the time of troubles, so that deities actually need to pay attention to their worshipers rather than just waging war on each other. At least that is how things work in Faerun. Other campaign settings don't have this mechanic. Dragon Lance has the Gods cut off from the material plane for example.

No. by "finite divine power," I am referring to the way that divinity and apotheosis works in, say, forgotten realms. divinity is a zero sum game. there is only so much divine energy and so many slots for gods to go around. if you want to attain divine rank and become a god yourself, you need to kill an extant god. most people pick either dorsein or imhotep.

in a setting without finite divine power, like eberron, you can become a god by people just treating you like one, such as the lord of blades. you only need a few hundred followers.

there is not a finite number of intelligent beings in the material plane. there are zillions of ways to create more intelligent beings. if I wanted my character to be a god, I could just polymorph pebbles into people, use mindrape, and have them worship my guy. that's why the finite schema refers to the number of gods there can be, since increasing your amount of worshippers is very trivial.

yeah, other settings will fall elsewhere on the continuum, like eberron, where gods don't actually exist and clerics fuel themselves through the placebo effect. here, you can become a god yourself by getting a big enough following


A lot of the deities actually do have a dogma or mission they give to their followers as well. Even Urdlen has a dogma

"Succumb to the bloodlust. Hate, covet, crush, despoil and kill. Revel and exult in orgies of death and destruction. That which is living or created by life must be murdered or destroyed. The strong survive and the weak are the cattle. Propitiate the Crawler Below so it does not come for you."
Yes, but that's about all you'll get for most deities. Urdlen's more fleshed out than some obscure ones, and even then, a paragraph of verbs isn't exactly enough to tell a potential worshipper how to avoid pissing him off. when do I stop killing people? am I allowed a 1 hour lunch break? etc.

[Scheming Wizard]

I know that. that's why I mentioned them. how exactly does that make what I said (that they kill their own dudes) untrue? the more research you do, you'll find that a lot of gods act like this.



No. by "finite divine power," I am referring to the way that divinity and apotheosis works in, say, forgotten realms. divinity is a zero sum game. there is only so much divine energy and so many slots for gods to go around. if you want to attain divine rank and become a god yourself, you need to kill an extant god. most people pick either dorsein or imhotep.

in a setting without finite divine power, like eberron, you can become a god by people just treating you like one, such as the lord of blades. you only need a few hundred followers.

there is not a finite number of intelligent beings in the material plane. there are zillions of ways to create more intelligent beings. if I wanted my character to be a god, I could just polymorph pebbles into people, use mindrape, and have them worship my guy. that's why the finite schema refers to the number of gods there can be, since increasing your amount of worshippers is very trivial.

yeah, other settings will fall elsewhere on the continuum, like eberron, where gods don't actually exist and clerics fuel themselves through the placebo effect. here, you can become a god yourself by getting a big enough following


Yes, but that's about all you'll get for most deities. Urdlen's more fleshed out than some obscure ones, and even then, a paragraph of verbs isn't exactly enough to tell a potential worshipper how to avoid pissing him off. when do I stop killing people? am I allowed a 1 hour lunch break? etc.

They are insane so they aren't behaving in their own rational self interest like a rational God like Mystra or Bane would. Mystra has her followers pass out wands and scrolls to encourage the spread of magic and boost the use of magic and thus herself. Lolth is trying to breed a super race of Drow so that she can populate the world with them and be the dominant deity.

Urdlen and Juiblex have no long term plans beyond break stuff and eat stuff.

Urdlen's Dogma is psychotic because he is psychotic. Bane on the other hand who isn't crazy has an evil but reasonable code.

"Serve no one but Bane. Fear him always and make others fear him even more than you do. The Black Hand always strikes down those who stand against it in the end. Defy Bane and die - or in death find loyalty to him, for he shall compel it. Submit to the word of Bane as uttered by his ranking clergy, since true power can only be gained through service to him. Spread the dark fear of Bane. It is the doom of those who do not follow him to let power slip through their hands. Those who cross the Black Hand meet their dooms earlier and more harshly than those who worship other deities."

Basically obey bane, listen to his church, and make other people afraid of Bane. Do all that and presumably you get to live in Bane's realm when you die.

[NichG]

Where's that from?

Ecology of the Inevitable, Dragon 341.

[Lerondiel]

So in that case, it's best for the cleric to kill the dead man's family so they're reunited with him sooner? :smalltongue:


haha nope, thats thinking too narrow...

good clerics thinks its best for as many people as possible to become virtuous for not only a better mortal life & afterlife but so that their deities can grow in power to overwhelm Evil.....

they dont think of the current state as nice symmetrical realm balance, they want the abyss and hell starved of souls and vanquished

[Zale]

Other than the physical threat they propose, I can see plenty of characters who'd flatly ignore anything a Marut said. A chaotic good cleric of a god of "Screw The Rules, Do What's Right" will probably take the angry Maruts as a sign of success.

I mean, it's not like you can trust the inevitables to have an accurate picture of what cosmic balance looks like: They're biased towards law.

If I were that character, I'd listen to a Marut when a Slaad crawled it's froggy butt out of limbo to agree with it.

And even then, it's not like cosmic balance is at all desirable- if you cut the lower planes off and tossed them into the Far Realms, the cosmos would objectively be better off. Balance is only bad when an extreme is harmful. While evil, order and chaos can all be bad in extremes, good can't. By definition the more good there is the objectively better things are. Good is literally everything right and good in the world.

Balance isn't good, it's neutral. Otherwise how could it be balanced?

[ace rooster]

Worth pointing out is how much 5000gp translates to in universe. Per DMG most characters are level 1, and will probably mostly be contributing to the economy by craft checks. With a modifier of +5 they will be contributing about 13sp per day to the economy, before the cost of keeping them is considered. Assuming people work for 48 years average and 40% of deaths are able to be raised; approximately 10% of the entire economy will be diverted towards purchasing diamonds.

There are other considerations too. If a country is already short of food, is it more helpful to raise the dead, or trade the diamonds for food? You could buy a keel boat and start moving 40tons of food at a time for that money.

Alternatively you could get an item that helps you to kill the dragon that will kill thousands.

Basically, it is a big picture thing.

[NichG]

Worth pointing out is how much 5000gp translates to in universe. Per DMG most characters are level 1, and will probably mostly be contributing to the economy by craft checks. With a modifier of +5 they will be contributing about 13sp per day to the economy, before the cost of keeping them is considered. Assuming people work for 48 years average and 40% of deaths are able to be raised; approximately 10% of the entire economy will be diverted towards purchasing diamonds.

Considering that the US spends 17% of its GDP on medical care (which, granted, is among or actually is the highest fraction worldwide), this isn't actually an unthinkably huge percentage. Its a large percentage, but not outside the realm of what a nation that wished to dedicate itself to this idea could actually do.

Another way to think of it would be, someone who earns 13sp a day and puts away a third of it as savings (lets call that 4sp a day) can afford to pay for their own Raise Dead after 34 years. If they're going for Reincarnate instead, they can pay for a Reincarnation every 7 years on this plan (or, they can just put away 1sp a day and get a Reincarnate every ~30 years), which also gets them renewed youth as part of the deal. So its not necessarily the case that the clerics or druids would need to personally foot a significant portion of the cost or have their church supply it, though in practice with ups and downs and needing to provide for other family members and so on most people are not going to leave their rez funds untouched so you probably will need to do something fairly sophisticated there to keep it fair.

[ace rooster]

Considering that the US spends 17% of its GDP on medical care (which, granted, is among or actually is the highest fraction worldwide), this isn't actually an unthinkably huge percentage. Its a large percentage, but not outside the realm of what a nation that wished to dedicate itself to this idea could actually do.

True, but that 17% is not lost to the US economy. It is mostly spent on Doctors resident in the US and Drugs companies owned in the US. Those drugs companies will also be selling abroad, and most of their expenses are RnD, so money spent on them can actually grow the economy. For a country without significant diamond production dumping 10% of GDP on imports is a massive deal, requiring 10% of GDP to be exported to pay for it. Much of GDP cannot actually be exported, meaning that significant chunks of the goods produced will have to be exported before you even consider other imports.

This doesn't even account for healthcare besides the diamonds for raise dead. People will still get sick, and it will be considerably cheaper to avoid them dying.


Another way to think of it would be, someone who earns 13sp a day and puts away a third of it as savings (lets call that 4sp a day) can afford to pay for their own Raise Dead after 34 years. If they're going for Reincarnate instead, they can pay for a Reincarnation every 7 years on this plan (or, they can just put away 1sp a day and get a Reincarnate every ~30 years), which also gets them renewed youth as part of the deal. So its not necessarily the case that the clerics or druids would need to personally foot a significant portion of the cost or have their church supply it, though in practice with ups and downs and needing to provide for other family members and so on most people are not going to leave their rez funds untouched so you probably will need to do something fairly sophisticated there to keep it fair.

Clerics don't get access to reincarnate, so it is not relevant to the question. Why won't druids reincarnate everyone is a slightly different question, and runs into druid beliefs.

Also that 13sp per day is not earnings, it is contribution to the economy. Basic wages are more like 3sp, meaning that saving 1sp per day is huge, and 4sp is simply impossible. In real life terms it is probably best to think about it as about half a million dollars.

[NichG]

True, but that 17% is not lost to the US economy. It is mostly spent on Doctors resident in the US and Drugs companies owned in the US. Those drugs companies will also be selling abroad, and most of their expenses are RnD, so money spent on them can actually grow the economy. For a country without significant diamond production dumping 10% of GDP on imports is a massive deal, requiring 10% of GDP to be exported to pay for it. Much of GDP cannot actually be exported, meaning that significant chunks of the goods produced will have to be exported before you even consider other imports.

This doesn't even account for healthcare besides the diamonds for raise dead. People will still get sick, and it will be considerably cheaper to avoid them dying.


Clerics don't get access to reincarnate, so it is not relevant to the question. Why won't druids reincarnate everyone is a slightly different question, and runs into druid beliefs.

Also that 13sp per day is not earnings, it is contribution to the economy. Basic wages are more like 3sp, meaning that saving 1sp per day is huge, and 4sp is simply impossible. In real life terms it is probably best to think about it as about half a million dollars.

I don't really think druid beliefs are going to be any more universally generalizable than the cleric beliefs here, but if its a sticking point there are certainly many ways to get Reincarnate without having to be a druid. Archivist might be most direct.

Anyhow, it seems like your math is a bit weird. You're starting with a +5 skill modifier to ask how much money people make, but if they just made Profession checks using that then that would get them 75sp a week, which is a lot closer to the original 13sp/day than your 3sp/day number. If they do Craft checks instead, taking 10 to make a High Quality item at DC 15, they make about half that (taking into account material costs and selling the item for half price). If they can sell the item at full price, they net 150sp a week, which is more like 20sp a day in profits.

So I don't think the 3sp/day thing follows given the base assumptions you used. Now, untrained laborers explicitly make about 1sp/day, and they're completely out of luck.

I'd say the practical way to set things up would be for the church to require a tithe of 50% of your worldly belongings every time you are brought back from the dead, along with a 10% income tithe per year to be eligible as a member of that church. This would be done with the understanding that if you're caught hiding belongings either through letter-of-the-law shenanigans (I give my belongings to my brother to hold for me) or through actually concealing them, thats the last time you'll be coming back. Then, once that is done, they determine how many raises they can perform for those who can't using the profits, and dole those out by lottery. It isn't 100% fair, but it'd allow them to raise a significant number of people.

Long-term, the church would be looking to get ownership of diamond mines, get members who are druids or can provide resurrection alternatives, etc. Also, in case of very sick people, staying at their bedside and then hitting them with Revivify/Last Breath and the like rather than Raise Dead saves a lot of money for the overall process.

[Bad Wolf]

And even then, it's not like cosmic balance is at all desirable- if you cut the lower planes off and tossed them into the Far Realms, the cosmos would objectively be better off.

While I might agree about the Abyss (don't know where CE people would end up), the Nine Hells are a necessary evil. Pact Primeval and all that stuff.

[Agincourt]

Another way to think of it would be, someone who earns 13sp a day and puts away a third of it as savings (lets call that 4sp a day) can afford to pay for their own Raise Dead after 34 years. If they're going for Reincarnate instead, they can pay for a Reincarnation every 7 years on this plan (or, they can just put away 1sp a day and get a Reincarnate every ~30 years), which also gets them renewed youth as part of the deal. So its not necessarily the case that the clerics or druids would need to personally foot a significant portion of the cost or have their church supply it, though in practice with ups and downs and needing to provide for other family members and so on most people are not going to leave their rez funds untouched so you probably will need to do something fairly sophisticated there to keep it fair.

Assuming your numbers are accurate, it is a bit odd that Raise Dead is the only benefit of their "health care." I would expect for people to spend more money on lower level healing spells such as Cure spells or Remove Disease. If you have to save up 34 years to gain the benefit of your "life insurance," then humans and a few other races might as well forget about it. By that time, you're already into old age category (assuming you start saving around age 20).

[NichG]

Assuming your numbers are accurate, it is a bit odd that Raise Dead is the only benefit of their "health care." I would expect for people to spend more money on lower level healing spells such as Cure spells or Remove Disease. If you have to save up 34 years to gain the benefit of your "life insurance," then humans and a few other races might as well forget about it. By that time, you're already into old age category (assuming you start saving around age 20).

Well, Reincarnate is a much better trick for this because it does reset your age, and it also returns you to perfect health no matter what's wrong with you. A lot of what makes modern healthcare expensive is sustained care - repeat hospitalizations, medicine, etc. D&D treatments are more all or nothing, so a lot of those costs would be much reduced.

In any event, if you think its not worth it at old age, you can always save up for your kids' resurrections - similar to saving up for college.

[Agincourt]

Well, Reincarnate is a much better trick for this because it does reset your age, and it also returns you to perfect health no matter what's wrong with you. A lot of what makes modern healthcare expensive is sustained care - repeat hospitalizations, medicine, etc. D&D treatments are more all or nothing, so a lot of those costs would be much reduced.

In any event, if you think its not worth it at old age, you can always save up for your kids' resurrections - similar to saving up for college.

I don't think your average tradesman is going to accept a pretty serious chance that they would come back as an Orc, Half-Orc, or one of the other monstrous humanoid races. I'd go so far as to say that the average human would not like the idea of coming back as a halfling or gnome. It's possible that a few people would be so desperate to stay among the living that they'd save up for this eventuality, but for most people it just would not be an option.

Neither would they want their children to come back as a completely different race.

[NichG]

I don't think your average tradesman is going to accept a pretty serious chance that they would come back as an Orc, Half-Orc, or one of the other monstrous humanoid races. I'd go so far as to say that the average human would not like the idea of coming back as a halfling or gnome. It's possible that a few people would be so desperate to stay among the living that they'd save up for this eventuality, but for most people it just would not be an option.

Neither would they want their children to come back as a completely different race.

It depends how normalized the practice is. If they're the only ones doing it, yeah, they're going to be freaked out. If the population has plenty of orcs/etc already because everyone has been doing it, then its more likely to be accepted.

[Venger]

In any event, if you think its not worth it at old age, you can always save up for your kids' resurrections - similar to saving up for college.

That is fascinating. I'd love to see someone actually incorporate this into a setting.


I don't think your average tradesman is going to accept a pretty serious chance that they would come back as an Orc, Half-Orc, or one of the other monstrous humanoid races. I'd go so far as to say that the average human would not like the idea of coming back as a halfling or gnome. It's possible that a few people would be so desperate to stay among the living that they'd save up for this eventuality, but for most people it just would not be an option.

Neither would they want their children to come back as a completely different race.

this is D&D, where a body is nothing more than something you wear. if they don't like it, they can easily wear a hat of disguise or similar.

[Agincourt]

It depends how normalized the practice is. If they're the only ones doing it, yeah, they're going to be freaked out. If the population has plenty of orcs/etc already because everyone has been doing it, then its more likely to be accepted.

That's pretty circular logic. If reincarnation becomes acceptable then it will be acceptable. But it's never going to become acceptable. It's a non-starter.

In addition to the stigma of being a monstrous race, you're ignoring the changes to your physical stats. You might be stronger, but you could also be weaker, or more sickly, or less dexterous. You could spend the of your time as small sized in a world of humans. These drawback might no be so terrible if the alternative is non-existence. But as has already been said, the afterlife is a known fact in D&D universe.

[NichG]

That's pretty circular logic. If reincarnation becomes acceptable then it will be acceptable. But it's never going to become acceptable. It's a non-starter.

This gets into 'how do things become an element of culture?'. There are vectors for very weird things to become commonplace in a culture - after all, there are tons of weird things in real cultures on Earth too.


In addition to the stigma of being a monstrous race, you're ignoring the changes to your physical stats. You might be stronger, but you could also be weaker, or more sickly, or less dexterous. You could spend the of your time as small sized in a world of humans. These drawback might no be so terrible if the alternative is non-existence. But as has already been said, the afterlife is a known fact in D&D universe.

There are lots of potential cultural norms that lie down that road of course. For example, it could be standard to commit ritual suicide in response to suffering any permanent injury. Or when you've had the requisite 2 children, for that matter. So those are certainly settings and cultures that can exist and conclusions that can be drawn.

On the other hand, if there is any value to life on the material versus being a petitioner (and within D&D canon and mechanics there actually is quite a lot of value to that given the whole petitioner memory erasure incapable of personal growth thing) then there's no reason not to actually take losing that seriously.

[VoxRationis]

this is D&D, where a body is nothing more than something you wear. if they don't like it, they can easily wear a hat of disguise or similar.

Your 'average tradesman' is not going to have access to a hat of disguise. They're frankly lucky a high-level druid with a benevolent streak wandered by them in the first place.

[Venger]

Your 'average tradesman' is not going to have access to a hat of disguise. They're frankly lucky a high-level druid with a benevolent streak wandered by them in the first place.

all the more reason they shouldn't whine when their child's skin changes color or his ears become slightly pointed.

[ryu]

all the more reason they shouldn't whine when their child's skin changes color or his ears become slightly pointed.

Also looking at it from a pure value perspective any long lived race is pure bonus. Centuries before the next reincarnation instead of decades? Yes please.

[VoxRationis]

all the more reason they shouldn't whine when their child's skin changes color or his ears become slightly pointed.

Hey, don't get me wrong; additional lifespan is additional lifespan. I'm just saying that one should not off-handedly suggest "just use [mid-to-high-level magic]" as a solution to the problems of the everyday man in most campaign settings.

[Venger]

Hey, don't get me wrong; additional lifespan is additional lifespan. I'm just saying that one should not off-handedly suggest "just use [mid-to-high-level magic]" as a solution to the problems of the everyday man in most campaign settings.

well we're not saying it's viable for every random dirt farmer to expect high level PCs to let his dead kids touch the hem of their garments. we're actually saying the opposite. that's kind of the point of the thread :smalltongue:

[Ettina]

There is one good reason that I don't think has been brought up yet. You're assuming that being alive in D&D is better than being dead. In D&D, unlike real life, the afterlife is an objective reality, like alignment - and those two are linked. Good creatures go to one of three "paradise" planes, so bringing them back to a world of pain and suffering may not even be a good act. Those who were evil go to some version of hell, and thus get deserved punishment. Bringing back an evil creature probably isn't a worthwhile use of a good cleric's time.

Reminds me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - in Season 6, Buffy gets resurrected, and it turns out she was in some sort of Heaven and was ripped out to deal with the world again against her will.

[Zale]

While I might agree about the Abyss (don't know where CE people would end up), the Nine Hells are a necessary evil. Pact Primeval and all that stuff.

Eh, the Nine Hells exist mostly as a way of fighting off the endless hordes of the Abyss.

Of course, that does raise a good point. If the forces of cosmic good won and eradicated all evil outsiders, etc, what would the planar cosmology look like after that?

[Flickerdart]

Of course, that does raise a good point. If the forces of cosmic good won and eradicated all evil outsiders, etc, what would the planar cosmology look like after that?
Unemployed adventurers, desperate for experience and loot, set up strongholds in the now-empty Lower Planes and stage raids on Celestia.

[Psyren]

Unemployed adventurers, desperate for experience and loot, set up strongholds in the now-empty Lower Planes and stage raids on Celestia.

Well, we had to drop all the pretense sometime :smalltongue:

#LocalMurderHobos66