Limiting the impact of magic that brings back the dead; Reasons?

[Corran]

Ok, so, I've been toying with some ideas for a campaign world I'm slowly building, and I have hit a dead end with what I am going to do about resurrection (and similar magic that brings people back from the dead).

I was very tempted to just ban it, but I am not completely satisfied with that either.

So, I am currently leaning towards making such magic exist, though its practice is viewed with a lot of prejudice and perhaps it is even prohibited in most civilized lands and punished severely. Ok that's seems like a good place to start.

But that brings up the question, ''why?''.

I have some ideas, but none that pleases me enough, so I though to ask in here for inspiration. I understand this is something that will greatly influence the whole setting, but however simple or elaborate your idea is, please throw it at me, I really need ome inspiration with this one.

If you think this is a very bad idea on my part, please feel free to advise against it.

TL;DR
Any ideas as to why magic that brings people back from the dead would be frawned uppon and perhaps such activities would be sought out and punished?

[mgshamster]

A few ideas:

- A strong cultural belief that the dead go to an afterlife perfectly fitting to their deeds in life, and bring them back either robs them of their reward or takes away deserving punishment.

- A history of people who have been Raised​ turning around and conquering lands and burning fields/buildings/towns. Now, anyone who has been Raised (or who does the Raising) is hunted with extreme prejudice to ensure it never happens again.

- Either a strong belief or it's reality that the only way to Raise someone, another life has to be sacrificed. Soul for a soul. Specifically, the soul of a child must be sacrificed.

[TrinculoLives]

Perhaps this raising of the dead is a new magical phenomenon, impossible before now for some deity-related reason. So the various cultures of your world are trying to accommodate this frighteningly bizarre new thing into their understanding of the world.

Like if suddenly people could do this now, in real life.

[Tanarii]

How common will characters, in terms of the entire world population, that can cast level 5+ spells be?

For example, if 1/100 is leveled and 1/2 make it to the next level, you can expect one level 9 character in any large city, about 1 in 25k of the population. If it's 1/500 and 1/4, you're talking 1 in 32 million, or one per large region. In the latter case, it doesn't really matter much. (Note that the PHB assumes level 11+ characters adventure on approx a continental scale.)

Simplest solution if you don't want higher level spells that restore life to be common, but such characters will be common, is to increase the spell level at which they become available until it fits.

The other thing to consider is is player investment. One reason these spells came to exist is that in the original game, a level 9 character took a LOT of investment. It still takes a fair amount. How much investment are you willing to risk your players permanently losing?

[Grey Watcher]

OK, I know you're asking a fluff question, but adding in this bit of crunch might help achieve what you want:

http://geekandsundry.com/use-critical-roles-resurrection-rules-in-your-own-campaign/

TL;DR: bringing back the dead is not perfectly reliable: a failed attempt means permadeath and a successful attempt makes any future attempts harder and, eventually, impossible.

While Mercer talks about it in terms of adding an element of risk to death (and therefore giving players stronger incentive to avoid it), it also works on a broader setting level: reversing death is rare because it so rarely works (consider that many historical attempts at resurrection would likely have involved one or more people botching the helper checks).

For a more fluff-related reason, perhaps your local God of Death is believed (rightly or wrongly) to be a bit sore about such matters; legends abound of a land that resurrected its much beloved king/queen/prince(ss)/hero(ine)/etc., only to fall shortly thereafter to <insert horrific and/or ironic disaster here>. Bonus points if the legends aren't perfectly consistent, leading some to suggest Death is mercurial and capricious about such things and leading others to suggest that there's some interpretation other than "Death hates Resurrections."

[Snails]

One way is to not so much go into justifications for the spell in general, but simply say only the God of Death can grant the Raise/Resurrection spell to a cleric, and it is only sometimes granted by special request. It simply does not exist on the regular spell list.

Then you can work out why the God of Death would deign to grant a request for such a spell to anyone.

Obviously PCs in need would start by going hat in hand to a cleric of Death. That is a ripe moment for all kinds of quests.

[M Placeholder]

A number of D&D campaign settings do address the issue of bringing back the dead.

In the Dark Sun setting, Clerics are rare and spread out, and serve the elements (Wind, Fire, Water, Earth, Sun, Silt, Rain and Magma). There are few that are high enough to cast the appropriate spell, and even if you do find one, there might not be enough of the body left in order to do so.

In the Birthright setting, there is a taboo against bringing someone back from the dead. When a blooded creature dies, it loses its bloodline (the essence of one of the 8 gods that died in a titanic battle) and if its resurrected, it doesn't get it back. In the past, there have been many instances of former scions being brought back and plunging lands into civil war in order to literally win back their birthright.

In Eberron, there are very few characters that can cast the appropriate spell, and on the continent of Khorvaire, only the head of the Silver Flame can cast True Resurrection, and only if she's within the walls of the main temple. There is also the issue, depending on how far the plane of the dead is from Eberron, of the spell working at all, too well (more souls than the one you want brought back, and no guarantee the right one ends up in the body) or with the body being possessed by a fiend.

[Millstone85]

A strong cultural belief that the dead go to an afterlife perfectly fitting to their deeds in life, and bring them back either robs them of their reward or takes away deserving punishment.As written, Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection can not bring back an unwilling soul. So these spells wouldn't rob anyone of their reward, only invite them to relinquish it for now.

But then, who wouldn't stay in Heaven? Is that really where you were, John? Most who have come back before, they were in the other place.

[Grey Watcher]

One way is to not so much go into justifications for the spell in general, but simply say only the God of Death can grant the Raise/Resurrection spell to a cleric, and it is only sometimes granted by special request. It simply does not exist on the regular spell list.

Then you can work out why the God of Death would deign to grant a request for such a spell to anyone.

Obviously PCs in need would start by going hat in hand to a cleric of Death. That is a ripe moment for all kinds of quests.

My personal inclination would be to avoid removing spells from a player character's list entirely. (Nerfing, as with my suggestion, is already potentially problematic on its own). A character who chooses to play a Cleric has certain expectations, and depending on exactly which abilities they had their hearts set on, it is a potential point of disappointment and/or contention.


As written, Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection can not bring back an unwilling soul. So these spells wouldn't rob anyone of their reward, only invite them to relinquish it for now.

But then, who wouldn't stay in Heaven? Is that really where you were, John? Most who have come back before, they were in the other place.

On the other hand, if we're in a Good Guys get rewarded Bad Guys get punished cosmology, wouldn't the Good Guys be eager to jump at the opportunity to do more good in the mortal world, even (especially?) if it means delaying their own Eternal Reward?

(Plus, even by cynical cost-benefit analysis what's a few more decades of mortal toil weighed against literal eternity? Especially when, in the mortal world, those few decades might make an enormous difference in your legacy?)

[Mith]

In my setting idea (heavily borrowing from Ludicsavant's cosmology), Resurrection spells just do not work on most non adventurers. Adventurers are individuals that are crazy enough to not want to be dead, and the inherent willpower to come back akin to Obad-Hai, God of Life and Summer that is killed in the Fall and reborn in the Spring.

[Malifice]

I agree raising the dead is to trivial in 5E.

For my next campaign I intend to multiply the material cost of all the raise dead spells (Race dead, revivify reincarnate etc) by a factor of 10.

I'm also considering imposing a 2 point hit to constitution for every time one is raised from the dead, with anything less than true resurrection.

[Hrugner]

Bake reincarnation into your cosmology. When someone is resurrected, their soul is wrenched from the body of a newborn child and thrust back into their own. This leaves a trail of soulless infants who die shortly after birth and are then animated by negative energy. These wrathful soulless things hunt for the one who has their soul and seek to regain it. Most priests know of this and will refuse to resurrect someone. Many others know of this problem as well and will try to kill the resurrected in hopes of calming evil spirits.

Those who have lead an unusual life may transcend humanity or fall from it when reincarnated. In this case the person can be raised with slightly different effect. Adventurers tend to live strange lives and can be raised with fewer issues. Adventurers who are enlightened are likely to have transcended mortal reincarnation and merely need to be returned to their vessel.

[Sigreid]

Oooh, all of the raise dead spells say they only work if the soul is willing and free. So, if the soul isn't willing or free then you've just provided a vessel for something else to come. This only has to go badly a few times before even the greatest of clerics is hesitant to do it.

[Quoxis]

The obvious thing to do would be to invent a standard bbeg necromancer who had attacked the nation years ago (i'd say less than a century though), and people still suffer from the consequences. Here you can even build in NPCs who lost loved ones and can't even bury them properly bc their remains are scattered around/had to be burned/were disposed of by the king's men, together with those of hundreds of other people. Makes good drama. Soldiers could have ptsd from fighting zombies with the constant fear to become one themselves if they died in combat, or because they had to fight friends and even family members among the undead.
Anyway, people are scared of anything magical that meddles with the affairs of the dead now, suspecting anyone who raises dead people - regardless of whether they make zombies or resurrect them - of planning the same thing.

Another possibility is a childish king - the only wizard in the country who could resurrect people refused to do it to the pet dog of the king, now the king prohibited resurrection of anything because he's a spoiled brat (inspiration: Geoffrey from Game of Thrones).

Yet another idea: resurrection doesn't happen often, but people remember the tale about "Mad Sedh", who got another chance at life after being a horrible person, having died and being resurrected after he spent about 30 seconds in hell - and those 30 seconds were too much for a mortal mind. He went insane, was seeking for mortal pleasures, stealing goods and money, raping everyone he wanted to, even killing his benefactor in the paranoid fear they could send him back, etc. etc. (inspiration: the "Lucifer" series which i highly recommend btw)

[Corran]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions! I went with what I thought meshes better with what I already have in mind, and with what fits better my personal taste and the style of game I want to run.


A few ideas:

1) A strong cultural belief that the dead go to an afterlife perfectly fitting to their deeds in life, and bring them back either robs them of their reward or takes away deserving punishment.

2) A history of people who have been Raised​ turning around and conquering lands and burning fields/buildings/towns. Now, anyone who has been Raised (or who does the Raising) is hunted with extreme prejudice to ensure it never happens again.

3) Either a strong belief or it's reality that the only way to Raise someone, another life has to be sacrificed. Soul for a soul. Specifically, the soul of a child must be sacrificed.
Took the liberty of numbering them to better adress them.

1) Already added to my basket. I will definitely use this. The campaign is monotheistic (for the most part), so I can have that to be a general cultural belief (at least in the majority of ''civilized'' lands). Perhaps have a minority that doesn't buy into this belief, and another minority that goes even further and thinks people come back from the dead are actual undeads. Heh, that seems fun.

2) I could have a few such tales being told by the very supersticious folks who believe that people who came back from the dead are undead/evil, and it probably adds the ''what if'' dimension to the players' characters' beliefs (at least to the ones playing up to their characters' supersticions, if any). But I wouldnt want this to be actually the case, in general. Hmmm, I need to give this one some more thought, it ties a bit with something else that I have in mind.

3) I think I will use this along with Grey Watcher's suggestion regarding the resurrection rules used at Critical Role. Meaning, that there is a (big?) chance that resurrection will not work, but evil cultist dudes have found the loophole and by sacrificing people they have a 100% chance to pull it off. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the whole thing is prohibited and people brought back to life are hunted down and interogated, to reveal such cults (assuming they were resurrected by one, but that's the whole point of the interogation, isn't it?). Hmmmm, if I use this, I better keep this hush hush from my players for a long time in the campaign. I wouldn't want to predispose the players playing evil characters just because of this advantage, nor tempt them have their characters eventually becoming evil. But I guess it wouldn't be that difficult to justify this fact remaining a well kept secret, hey? Bad cultists dont want to be exposed, good ''goverment'' dont want this news made public to prevent this practice finding more appeal, and instead tries to stop it secretly. I might even get a side quest or two out of that.


Perhaps this raising of the dead is a new magical phenomenon, impossible before now for some deity-related reason. So the various cultures of your world are trying to accommodate this frighteningly bizarre new thing into their understanding of the world.

Like if suddenly people could do this now, in real life.
Heh, I like this approach. And it surprised me. Hmm, suddenly bringing people back from the dead is possible, but the established religion prohibits it because.... sociopolitical reasons. So that practice is hunted down. Hmm, I dont think I can dig enough to justify this, better go with a dnd-ish explanation.
Besides, if it a new thing, balance could swing easily, I prefer it to be a well and long establised reality. Thanks for the suggestion though, I really didn't expect something like that!


How common will characters, in terms of the entire world population, that can cast level 5+ spells be?

For example, if 1/100 is leveled and 1/2 make it to the next level, you can expect one level 9 character in any large city, about 1 in 25k of the population. If it's 1/500 and 1/4, you're talking 1 in 32 million, or one per large region. In the latter case, it doesn't really matter much. (Note that the PHB assumes level 11+ characters adventure on approx a continental scale.)

Simplest solution if you don't want higher level spells that restore life to be common, but such characters will be common, is to increase the spell level at which they become available until it fits.
Dont want to go with the approach that the word has very few 11lvl+ characters, as I dont like it when the PCs reach the mid levels and start feeling masters of the universe. I dont mean that there will be a more powerful guy behnd every corner, nor that the city guards will level up with the PCs (as it is not my aim to police them), but it always bugged me in campaigns I've played when we were the only heros around and only we could save the day.

My bad for not being very clear in the op. I dont want resurrection (and the like) to be easily used mostly due to plot reasons. For example, if the king is killed, then that's all there is to it. The high level cleric NPC will not try to resurrect him because it wouldn't be proper. Removing resurrection didnt feel right (I am not a fan of removing options), as I would like to leave open the possibility for players to not lose their characters, so there must be a reason as to why per the previous example it is not ''possible'' to resurrect the dead king. That said, I dont much enjoy having resurrection as an available option when I am a player, thus I dont mind that much if I make resurrection a bit of a problem/dilemma for the players to rely upon, in fact I welcome this opportunity (and I dont think that will be a problem with the group I am planning to eventually run this campaign for).


The other thing to consider is is player investment. One reason these spells came to exist is that in the original game, a level 9 character took a LOT of investment. It still takes a fair amount. How much investment are you willing to risk your players permanently losing?
If I left that decision only up to myself (whether I am playing or DMing), I wouldn't mind having all that investment being at risk. But well, I would like to leave the option open to go to Miracle-Max to fix em. At the cost of potential repercussions from the world.


OK, I know you're asking a fluff question, but adding in this bit of crunch might help achieve what you want:

http://geekandsundry.com/use-critical-roles-resurrection-rules-in-your-own-campaign/

TL;DR: bringing back the dead is not perfectly reliable: a failed attempt means permadeath and a successful attempt makes any future attempts harder and, eventually, impossible.

While Mercer talks about it in terms of adding an element of risk to death (and therefore giving players stronger incentive to avoid it), it also works on a broader setting level: reversing death is rare because it so rarely works (consider that many historical attempts at resurrection would likely have involved one or more people botching the helper checks).
I like. This alone could deal with the various plot points.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to combine your suggestion with mgshamster's third suggestion (ie Either a strong belief or it's reality that the only way to Raise someone, another life has to be sacrificed. Soul for a soul. Specifically, the soul of a child must be sacrificed.)
My thoughts on this (copy paste from my reply to mgshamster):
I think I will use this along with Grey Watcher's suggestion regarding the resurrection rules used at Critical Role. Meaning, that there is a (big?) chance that resurrection will not work, but evil cultist dudes have found the loophole and by sacrificing people they have a 100% chance to pull it off. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the whole thing is prohibited and people brought back to life are hunted down and interogated, to reveal such cults (assuming they were resurrected by one, but that's the whole point of the interogation, isn't it?). Hmmmm, if I use this, I better keep this hush hush from my players for a long time in the campaign. I wouldn't want to predispose the players playing evil characters just because of this advantage, nor tempt them have their characters eventually becoming evil. But I guess it wouldn't be that difficult to justify this fact remaining a well kept secret, hey? Bad cultists dont want to be exposed, good ''goverment'' dont want this news made public to prevent this practice finding more appeal, and instead tries to stop it secretly. I might even get a side quest or two out of that.

Would it be too dangerous of an idea?
I think if I make this known late enough in the campaign, and after everyone has invested on their characters, no one will just choose to have his character suddenly become evil just to profit from this benefit. I like how it can create for some potentially good side quests or maybe even for a difficult in-game choice, but I still think that it can backfire if I dont manage this carefuly. Thoughts on that?
Oh, and thanks for pointing these resurrection ''rules'' out.


For a more fluff-related reason, perhaps your local God of Death is believed (rightly or wrongly) to be a bit sore about such matters; legends abound of a land that resurrected its much beloved king/queen/prince(ss)/hero(ine)/etc., only to fall shortly thereafter to <insert horrific and/or ironic disaster here>. Bonus points if the legends aren't perfectly consistent, leading some to suggest Death is mercurial and capricious about such things and leading others to suggest that there's some interpretation other than "Death hates Resurrections."
Bonus points, check. Yeah, these legends/stories wont be consistent at all. You might hear one of them today, only to hear the same story again but with significant variation after a couple of days by a different person. They will play their part adding to the cultural belief that resurrection is ''bad'' though.


One way is to not so much go into justifications for the spell in general, but simply say only the God of Death can grant the Raise/Resurrection spell to a cleric, and it is only sometimes granted by special request. It simply does not exist on the regular spell list.

Then you can work out why the God of Death would deign to grant a request for such a spell to anyone.

Obviously PCs in need would start by going hat in hand to a cleric of Death. That is a ripe moment for all kinds of quests.
I would rather avoid having it not be an option for the players. On the other hand, I want to have potential severe repercussions waiting for them if they use it (or have someone else using it for them) if they are found out, so that there wil be enough of a dilemma (both OoC and IC) if they cross that line or not. And I am trying to figure out an in-game reason as to why this is the case, and also one that would perhaps make the PCs enough doubtful (depending on their morality, and how much they bite into the popular belief that resurrection is ''bad'') whether they should or should not cross that line. I am not speaking mechanical consequences here, rather consequences inflicted upon them from the world. Any ideas on that?


A number of D&D campaign settings do address the issue of bringing back the dead.

In the Dark Sun setting, Clerics are rare and spread out, and serve the elements (Wind, Fire, Water, Earth, Sun, Silt, Rain and Magma). There are few that are high enough to cast the appropriate spell, and even if you do find one, there might not be enough of the body left in order to do so.

In the Birthright setting, there is a taboo against bringing someone back from the dead. When a blooded creature dies, it loses its bloodline (the essence of one of the 8 gods that died in a titanic battle) and if its resurrected, it doesn't get it back. In the past, there have been many instances of former scions being brought back and plunging lands into civil war in order to literally win back their birthright.

In Eberron, there are very few characters that can cast the appropriate spell, and on the continent of Khorvaire, only the head of the Silver Flame can cast True Resurrection, and only if she's within the walls of the main temple. There is also the issue, depending on how far the plane of the dead is from Eberron, of the spell working at all, too well (more souls than the one you want brought back, and no guarantee the right one ends up in the body) or with the body being possessed by a fiend.
I'm most intrigued by the Birthright setting idea. And to be honest, it is the first time I hear of this setting. I'll look into it in more detail, hopefully an internet search will give me enough details to better understand this whole bloodline thing, and will probably spark some ideas in me. Thanks for pointing it out!




In my setting idea (heavily borrowing from Ludicsavant's cosmology), Resurrection spells just do not work on most non adventurers. Adventurers are individuals that are crazy enough to not want to be dead, and the inherent willpower to come back akin to Obad-Hai, God of Life and Summer that is killed in the Fall and reborn in the Spring.
Hmmmm, to be honest I dont like that kind of distinction, I want PCs to be as much ''human'' as everyone else. Yeah they might be tougher, smarter, stronger, etc, but I dont want them to be more special in the supernatural kind of way that you suggested. Not a bad idea, just doesn't quite fit with my personal preferences and with the style of games I am used to playing. Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas nontheless! And if you have any more, please share!





I agree raising the dead is to trivial in 5E.

For my next campaign I intend to multiply the material cost of all the raise dead spells (Race dead, revivify reincarnate etc) by a factor of 10.

I'm also considering imposing a 2 point hit to constitution for every time one is raised from the dead, with anything less than true resurrection.
I was not very specific in the op, but despite having reasons not to like the spell, either as a player or as a DM, I want it to ''prohibit'' it for lack of a better word (in simple words, to exist in the world, but its use is not allowed), so that I can have some major NPCs die because their deaths, and them staying dead, are related with how the plot is supposed to move forward. It would just be a major problem for me if bringing them back to life was an option. So multiplying the material cost would not solve this for me.

That said, I dont want to deny the players the option of that spell, though I am eager to have some wild consequences waiting for them round the corner if they do with that option. But I want to find a plausible explanation as to why this is the case. And preferably one that would pose the PCs a legitimate doubt over if it would be proper to go with such an action (and not only have the players decide that OoC in term of how screwed they are or not if they pull off a resurrection, I want this decision -if they ever need to make one such- to engage them in character). I prefer the cost to be 'hitting them with the world', than hitting them on their purse. Given this new information (that were missing from the op), do you have any new suggestions regarding the fluff of it?

The con hit (every time they are raised), mmmmm, I dont like much the idea of mechanical penalties, it can lead to problems, but I do kind of like the suggestion of placing a DC (the one Critical Role uses) that would make resurrection/raise dead/etc have a failure chance. Thinking of how you dont like resurrection that much yourself, would you think that this would be a good alternative idea? If you would run with it, how hard would you say you would have it be for resurrection to work? 70% chance, 60% chance, ..., 30% chance, less? Just give me a rough number with which you feel good about.





Bake reincarnation into your cosmology. When someone is resurrected, their soul is wrenched from the body of a newborn child and thrust back into their own. This leaves a trail of soulless infants who die shortly after birth and are then animated by negative energy. These wrathful soulless things hunt for the one who has their soul and seek to regain it. Most priests know of this and will refuse to resurrect someone. Many others know of this problem as well and will try to kill the resurrected in hopes of calming evil spirits.
Hahaha, I love it! Yet, I am afraid I wont use it, as it will erase the option alltogether if the players are playing the good guys. I will probably settle for a more compromised version of your idea, following some of the suggestions of other posters in that respect. This means, that I will probably have resurrection to not be an automatic success, unless you make some sort of evil sacrifice in return. Still, the idea of this troubles me a bit, but I think with a bit of careful planning I can pull it off without leading the players to play the evil group (by which I mean that I wont tell them about it, and they wont find out of this, until we are waaaaaaay into the campaign). Thoughts on that?





Oooh, all of the raise dead spells say they only work if the soul is willing and free. So, if the soul isn't willing or free then you've just provided a vessel for something else to come. This only has to go badly a few times before even the greatest of clerics is hesitant to do it.
YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That I think, was the missing link I was looking for! Thank you so much!!!!!!!!:smallsmile:



The obvious thing to do would be to invent a standard bbeg necromancer who had attacked the nation years ago (i'd say less than a century though), and people still suffer from the consequences. Here you can even build in NPCs who lost loved ones and can't even bury them properly bc their remains are scattered around/had to be burned/were disposed of by the king's men, together with those of hundreds of other people. Makes good drama. Soldiers could have ptsd from fighting zombies with the constant fear to become one themselves if they died in combat, or because they had to fight friends and even family members among the undead.
Anyway, people are scared of anything magical that meddles with the affairs of the dead now, suspecting anyone who raises dead people - regardless of whether they make zombies or resurrect them - of planning the same thing.

Another possibility is a childish king - the only wizard in the country who could resurrect people refused to do it to the pet dog of the king, now the king prohibited resurrection of anything because he's a spoiled brat (inspiration: Geoffrey from Game of Thrones).

Yet another idea: resurrection doesn't happen often, but people remember the tale about "Mad Sedh", who got another chance at life after being a horrible person, having died and being resurrected after he spent about 30 seconds in hell - and those 30 seconds were too much for a mortal mind. He went insane, was seeking for mortal pleasures, stealing goods and money, raping everyone he wanted to, even killing his benefactor in the paranoid fear they could send him back, etc. etc. (inspiration: the "Lucifer" series which i highly recommend btw)
I am not too sure I like the necromancer idea. It's a good one to be honest, but I am looking to play more of a potitical-intrigue game, trying to fit the classic 'go look accross the world for the McGuffins' somewhere along the way. I am not planning for evil antagonists necessarily, though I will still throw a couple classin villains against the party. Usually the antagonists will just be other people with different motives, or just serving different benefactors than the PCs. Also, I have something entirely different planned for the ''nation's'' history, or the world history of this...emm.... world, and the resurrection thingy just happened along the way, didnt plan to have it be that important as it is now shaping to be, dont want to further emphasize on it.

About the spoiled brat king, hahahahaha, so good...... wait........... what? Hey!!!!! Watch how you are talking about the late great king Joff!!!!!!!!!:smallfurious:

Mad Sedh's story will be added to one of the many tales of supersticion people tend to say at the inn (''Remember old mad Sedh?'')



So here is a brief summary of what I think I will do:

1) Resurrection (and similar magic that brings people back from the dead) is strictly prohibited, and its practice is sought out (by mundane and magical means both, varies from place to place) and punished (the form of punishment may well vary from place to place, and it might include the person resurrected too).

2) Generally, it is considered as bad as (or perhaps even worse than) animating the dead, and there is both the official dogma of the church (monotheistic campaign, mostly... not the place to further expand on this) and the strong cultural belief that such acts of bringing the dead back to life, constitute blasphemy of the highest degree (robing the good of their righteous reward in the afterlife and sparing the bad from their deserved punishment). There is also tremendous supersticion and wild tales/legends told about people coming back from the dead, who returned as completelly different persons and did unspeakable stuff (however much is true is left to each player to determine for their character, though it is a fact that most tales lack tremendously in consistency). The most supersticious of people, believe that there is not much difference between someone who came back from the dead and an actual undead, and generally these people view resurrected characters with the outmost fear and as nothing else than evil incarnate. Such extreme views are in the minority, as well as are views that generally dont make a big deal out of it (it is a big deal to the average commoner).

3) For these reasons alone, the tremendous majority of clerics/druids/paladins/bards/etc (generally characters who gain or can gain access to spells like resurrection and the like) are not even aware that they can use such a power, as they have probably never tried it (and probably never will as well). I will allow the players to pick it up should they choose to, but perhaps I'll not have them know it IC, until if they actually try it out and it works.

4) Resurrection (and the similar spells) is nerfed. There is now a check to see if it succeeds bring someone back to life, or not. Not 100% sold on how easy or hard that check would be for now, but there are no second tries (that means that on a failure you cannot try again). That adds to the reasons as to why a character might not even know that he has the potential to bring someone back from the dead, as they might have dared to try it once and they happened to fail.

5) Now, there is a loophole to the above point. If you sacrifice someone (thinking of having it be as cruel as it can get, dont want to be too specific about it, suffice to say a young person) during that ''ritual'', the chances of resurrection working are 100%. Good news for the bad guys. (Exactly because of this, I will have the players have neither OoC nor IC knowledge of this, as I dont want to predispose them to playing the baddies. That is until we are very deep into the campaign, then they can learn and hopefully do sth about it; I think I know exactly when and by whom they will learn about it, it will probaby be when they will be roughly around 9-10 level).
Anyway, this is one more reason (and probably a good justification) as to why the dogma of the church (that shaped the strong cultural belief) and the established order are both actively against the practice of resurrection.Hunting down people who were resurrected to interogate them in the hope of gaining information about such cults is common procedure. However, there is more to that, that will be detailed a bit later (point 7).

6) The above point (sacrificing to guarantee that resurrection works) is not a widely known fact in the world, and those few who know and are doing sth about it (trying to find the bad guys doing such sacrifices-resurrections) are not sharing this knowledge, out of fear that if it is known it might become much more widely applicable. And these ''cults'' dealing with these things, are not just advertising themselves. So, as far as this loophole is concerned, almost everyone is in the dark, and for good reason (yep, I think it's plausible).

7) What is even worse, and this is even a less known fact, is that if the soul of a dead person refuses to return back to the body it occupied in life, then something else returns and possesses it (a demon, a devil, we'll see... something bad though). That adds a whole lot more to the reasons as to why there is soooo much fass about resurrection being prohibited and all that. And as I said, this is like one of the most guarded secrets of the established religion, very few people know of this. (Hmm, seems like some of those tales were actually true/ point 2)

8) For the above reason, the punishment on the one who came back from the dead, might be even just as harsh as the punishment dealt to the one who brought him back. As I said earlier, this will probably vary a lot from place to place within the game world. The punishment on the one who was brought back to life, might be one or more of the following: nothing, having him being spied upon for some time by agents of the church, branding him so that he will be recognized for what he is, imprisonment (usually accompagnied with interogations and/or torture) until the subject dies or until released, executed, or even something as bizzare as being sent to live in small communities with others of his ilk (thinking of small communities, doesn't have to be a bad life, though it is restricted to the community's boundaries) to be observed, etc etc (if you have any good ideas I am all ears).


Any thoughts/criticisms/suggestions regarding the above?
Any new suggestions (even ones in a completelly different direction)? I am open to hear anything really, please feel free to share any idea or thought you might have. And thanks again for everything you suggested so far, it helped me a lot!

[Beelzebubba]

Sounds like an interesting, flavorful world! Anything that breaks away from this milquetoast Tolkein-light completely predictable Faerun thing we've got now is great.

That has to add all sorts of new things to the worldview. Now for an idea of the implications!

New subclass for Cleric for your world:

Inquisitor
Empowered by the Church to find and root out the sacrilege of resurrection, with domain powers to assist in that quest. Sees through lies, unshakable and persistent, great resources at their beck and call to root out this horrible sin.

...

See what I mean?

[mgshamster]

You mentioned that you've never heard of Birthright. It was a campaign setting in 2e that focused on running a kingdom and maneuvering armies more so than individual adventures (though you could do that, too).

In the setting's history, a bunch of God's went to war and some of them died. When they died, they imparted some of their divinity to mortals (iirc; not the important part, so it's ok if that's not entirely accurate). Anyways, those mortals who had a connection had an enhanced bloodline. They gained special powers, and so did their children.

Over the centuries, it got to the point where if you had Birthright, it meant you had an ancestry that was connected to the gods. And you got extra powers. This Birthright also entitled you to nobility. Only people with Birthright were allowed to rule. And if I remember correctly, you could even steal the essence of this birthright from someone else somehow.

So back to DSG's point - if you died, you lost your Birthright. If you were resurrected or raised, that means you came back without any special powers. Those who have come back have waged massive wars trying to regain their Birthright and become rulers again (legitimately or not).

That was one of my favorite campaign settings back in the 90s, but I haven't touched a book on it since then.

[Clistenes]

Mmmm... what if the gods, of at least some of them, frowned at excessive use of resurrection magic? In Greek myth, Hades asked Zeus to kill Asklepius, who was resurrecting people left and right...

If the gods themselves discourage excessive use of the spells, then churches would have to set their own limits, resurrecting only people important to the Church, or those who could pay very high prices (if the churches want to remain friends with the ruling class, it is in their best interest to keep resurrection accessible to the richest, most influential people).

Of course, that would breed resentment among the poor ("the priests only will resurrect other priests or the very rich! they don't care the poor!"), so on time, churches and important people will become secretive or at least discreet about the whole issue, and most of the people would be told that the gods work in mysterious ways and they very rarely choose to send somebody back...

[Anonymouswizard]

Perhaps this raising of the dead is a new magical phenomenon, impossible before now for some deity-related reason. So the various cultures of your world are trying to accommodate this frighteningly bizarre new thing into their understanding of the world.

Like if suddenly people could do this now, in real life.

On a related note, resurrection would mean making the laws and customs around inheritance even more annoying. If anybody else has read Girl Genius they'll know that this can end up having strange consequences (such as 'it's more socially acceptable to resurrect a commoner than it is to resurrect a noble because you don't have to deal with succession'). What do you do if you've just crowned the new king and some kindly priest turns up and decides to help you by resurrecting the one who was assassinated two months ago?


For a strange idea based roughly on thoughts as to how resurrection might work in real life, how do you know that the person brought back is the same as the one who died in a successful resurrection. Not 'what if somebody else comes back instead', you succeed at the resurrection and the person who revives is not a demon or somebody else's soul, but how do you tell if they're them or just a new soul/person with the old person's memories? This is one of the problems with potential memory backup and clone immortality, even if you're taking the memories from the corpse of the person who died and not just scanning them occasionally.

And if they act in exactly the same way the original would have acted, does it matter if they're the same person or not?

(I would recommend deciding if souls are established fact in your world or not, if they aren't known about or don't exist there is potential for different ideas then if they definitely do)

[Malifice]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions! I went with what I thought meshes better with what I already have in mind, and with what fits better my personal taste and the style of game I want to run.


The simplest solution if you want a bit of an OSR hack, Is it to get your hands on a copy of the AD&D players handbook.

All creatures have a resurrection survival % chance based upon their constitution score. Every raise dead reduces your constitution by one point. Unless you fail the percentile role in which case you're dead.

It would give you what you want and also inject a little bit of old school into your campaign.

Heck now that I'm thinking about it, I might use it as well.

Edit - found it follow this link:

static.wixstatic.com/media/a4c541b77c5f30a6ec7ffb730cb086ed.wix_mp_512

[Zman]

How about a simple Necromancy is evil and a vile heinous act and outlawed by civilized society. As resurrecting the dead is Necromancy it is outlawed by civilized society and only those willing to thwart governments and social norms are willing to practice it. Someone known to practice Necromancy or to have been brought back by it are "unclean" and the lowest of the low in society. The practitioner is a criminal, the resurrrected is essentially a leper.


What if religion views death as thebrelease of the soul to its fated afterlife, resurrection rips the soul out of valhalla(etc) and foregoes any further chance at entering heaven(etc). The taboo is that yes a person can be resurrected, but it taints and dooms their soul. Others treat them as the lowest rung of society and are rarely willing to associate with them lest their souls are tainted.

[jaappleton]

The first I heard about making resurrection more difficult was in Critical Role. And after hearing the reasoning (Just 'cast a spell' cheapens the impact and consequences of death), I agree with it completely.

So Matt Mercer released his explanation, the D.C., etc online if you want to peruse that.

[Laurefindel]

Bringing back the dead is a BIG deal on a societal level.

For one thing, it messes-up big time with our conception of funerals and mourning. I can see some (many) refusing to let go, denying the dead their rites and obsessing over ways to bring the dead back. Many would spend (waste) the rest of their life working toward that resurrection. Others would work out a way to resurrect the dead long after their funerals, messing-up with continuity on many levels.

The dead would certainly be treated with more honor in some cases, should the dead comes back. I can see the dead receiving more honor and luxury than the living on many regards. In other cases it would create an endless cycle of revenge...

Raising the dead also messes-up big time with our conception of inheritance. Not only monetary heirlooms, but also titles and responsibilities. If the king dies, is he still king? For how long? What happens if the king comes back after his cousin inherited the throne, or after the queen remarried? The same issues apply to all nobility, family-run businesses and farms etc.

This is only scratching the surface. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced raising the dead would be illegal in a sword and sorcery setting...

[Contrast]

I don't see any problems with removing res spells from the game. My personal suggestion is to keep Revivify (flavour being it yanks them back before they cross over the threshold - maybe increase its spell level if you like) and dump the rest.

Edit - thinking about it maybe the above isn't the best solution and it effectively makes keep those spells slots open a tax for the cleric or the char death becomes 'their fault'. Maybe just introducing a failure mechanic is the best solution /edit

I would be slightly cautious about making it accessible but societally frowned upon in game. Player A dies and is really attached to their character. They ask Player B, who is playing a cleric, to resurrect them. Player B refuses as they don't think its something they would do in character. Player A is now annoyed at Player B. OR Player A dies, is annoyed so other players try to find someone to resurrect them, all the NPCs say no. Player A is now annoyed at the DM. OR Player A dies, is annoyed so other players try to find someone to resurrect them, someone says yes but the entire party gets punished in game as a consequence. All players now annoyed at DM and Player A. If your players are mature about char deaths or happy to roll with the ups and downs you'll be fine, but something to keep in mind.

[Calinar]

There definitely would be changes to society is resurrections were easy to come by, but it wouldn't be that bad.

I imagine that there would be a mourning period, perhaps a year and a day (or less depending on the most common spell available) before a person is declared legally dead, after that it would be taboo to raise a person (if it is even possible at that point). A small funeral might be held for those closest to him soon after death to help them deal with their grief, and either a resurrection ceremony on the day of the spell being cast, or a memorial service more akin to our current funerals today being held at the end of the year and a day mourning period is no resurrection is possible or available. Until the end of the period, a regent designated by the deceased takes care of everyday running of estates if the person would have such, like a noble or wealthy merchant, or even a regular blacksmith. Spouses are, of course, expected to be faithful during this time as their partners are just considered to be "on a journey" until the end of the mourning period or resurrection is infeasible (destruction or desecration of the body). After this, inheritance and titles are handed out, marriages are annulled, and other such things. The same thing works for kings as well, the heir apparent or councilors would take the role of regent until the king comes back or the mourning period is up.

Penalties for murder would likely still be sever, but desecration or destruction of a body would be a much higher crime. Revenge would probably be less murder and more social or economic ruin as victims can be brought back to ID their killer (or just cast speak with dead to find out) and a revenge murder circle would probably be seen as pointless and less effective than ruining them. Though there my be people who specialize in killing people and making sure they cant come back.

[Anonymouswizard]

The question of 'how will resurrection change society' will also depend on if immortality is on the table (either from the same source as the resurrections, or independently), if it's not the poster above me has great ideas (I love the mourning period idea).

If it is, either inheritance will end up not being a thing, or I could see all titles and attached wealth, but not independent wealth, being passed as normal on a person's first death unless there's no legitimate heir. The deceased can gain new titles and positions in their continued life, but can't return to their previous position without the consent of their heir (some would willingly give it up, others wouldn't).

[Corran]

Sounds like an interesting, flavorful world! Anything that breaks away from this milquetoast Tolkein-light completely predictable Faerun thing we've got now is great.

That has to add all sorts of new things to the worldview. Now for an idea of the implications!

New subclass for Cleric for your world:

Inquisitor
Empowered by the Church to find and root out the sacrilege of resurrection, with domain powers to assist in that quest. Sees through lies, unshakable and persistent, great resources at their beck and call to root out this horrible sin.

...

See what I mean?
Hmmm, inquisitor..... That gives me an idea (or rather points out the obvious that escaped my attettion till you made that mention). I have planned for a guard-force that are supposed to be pretty much what the cardinal's guards in the Three Musketeers are. I guess now they are called the Inquisition. Their role might be a bit more important now, with that added focus on dealing with the ''resurrection issue'', though that doesn't go against anything I have planned or written about the history of this ''order''. In fact it adds up quite well I would say.

As far as for an inquisitor cleric subclass, well, I dunno. I dont like restricting an entire group of people to a specific subclass or class for that matters. I dont think it would be unreasonable to be simple fighters, or rogues, or even paladins, serving in the Inquisition. Dont want to push all these ''people'' into the same mechanical confines. That said.... it does also make a lot of sense that common training should be enough of a thing, so I guess I could have the inquisitor be a subclass apart from an in-game job/title/role (with the reasonable assumption that not every inquisitor in game is an inquisitor in paper, if that makes any sense). Not sure what the appropriate class would be for it, but I like the idea of it being a roguish archtype, and in fact I've seen one such (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hkbptrxz4x) in this forum that I quite like.

Bottom line, so yeah, I think the cardinal's guards are now officially the Inquisition. So a promotion for them in the campaign world (well, not really, they were supposed to fight against enemies of the faith anyway, but with all that added focus on stopping resurrection pracitces, there is a small boost to their presense around the world). I aim for them to have a somewhat antagonistic role to the PCs, so promoting them to an Inquisition-type of thing, does add a lot of spice to it I think.


You mentioned that you've never heard of Birthright. It was a campaign setting in 2e that focused on running a kingdom and maneuvering armies more so than individual adventures (though you could do that, too).

In the setting's history, a bunch of God's went to war and some of them died. When they died, they imparted some of their divinity to mortals (iirc; not the important part, so it's ok if that's not entirely accurate). Anyways, those mortals who had a connection had an enhanced bloodline. They gained special powers, and so did their children.

Over the centuries, it got to the point where if you had Birthright, it meant you had an ancestry that was connected to the gods. And you got extra powers. This Birthright also entitled you to nobility. Only people with Birthright were allowed to rule. And if I remember correctly, you could even steal the essence of this birthright from someone else somehow.

So back to DSG's point - if you died, you lost your Birthright. If you were resurrected or raised, that means you came back without any special powers. Those who have come back have waged massive wars trying to regain their Birthright and become rulers again (legitimately or not).

That was one of my favorite campaign settings back in the 90s, but I haven't touched a book on it since then.
Yeah, I did some searching on my own and read some (few) stuff about it. Thanks for providing the additional information! It seems to me like a mix of a strategy and an rpg game. I have to say, I like very much how it sounds. And it also sounds suspiciously very familiar with the Erfworld comics I've been reading and enjoying so much recently (perhaps it was based on Birthright?).

Not sure how I can use that without altering too much the cosmology and the way the world generally works (although I do like very much this whole 'losing your birthright' idea). Probably it requires a setting to be build around that, it's difficult to fit it to something you already have in mind. I wonder if I could play a bit with this idea within the limits of a common enough dnd setting. Difficult to say...

I do have something planned somewhere far into the campaign. The simple and short of it, is that the PCs can choose if they will use McGuffin A to save (resurrect?) the dying/dead king or hand it to the Church as they should. If they choose it to save the king, maybe I can have that 'losing his birthright to rule' stuff thrown in and justify a civil war. Need to think about this a bit more, obviously.

Anyway, thanks again for providing me with the information about Birthright!


Mmmm... what if the gods, of at least some of them, frowned at excessive use of resurrection magic? In Greek myth, Hades asked Zeus to kill Asklepius, who was resurrecting people left and right...

If the gods themselves discourage excessive use of the spells, then churches would have to set their own limits, resurrecting only people important to the Church, or those who could pay very high prices (if the churches want to remain friends with the ruling class, it is in their best interest to keep resurrection accessible to the richest, most influential people).

Of course, that would breed resentment among the poor ("the priests only will resurrect other priests or the very rich! they don't care the poor!"), so on time, churches and important people will become secretive or at least discreet about the whole issue, and most of the people would be told that the gods work in mysterious ways and they very rarely choose to send somebody back...
Still leaves me to deal with the issue of bringing back to life important NPCs (meaning the ones who would qualify being the exception to the rule), and that is my biggest problem (should have mentioned it in the op I guess).
Using this bit from greek mythology about Hades and Asklepius is a bit tricky too, since I am going for what is close to characterizing like a monotheistic campaign. I do intend to include most of the classic dnd deities but in the form of patron saints or sth like that, so that I can have a generalized dogma that touches upon every (or at least most) aspects of mortal life, so I expect to include a deity associated with death. So that could be doable, yet I prefer to base it on sth more apt than just the will of the gods/god. I mean, yeah, ''God wills it'' is in the plans already, but I want to have a reasonable explanation behind it too (at least something that makes sense to the few faithfull who know the real deal and all the possible bad outcomes of a resurrection spell, an explanation which when presented to the PCs, will explain why the world works this way).

Thanks for the suggestions!


On a related note, resurrection would mean making the laws and customs around inheritance even more annoying. If anybody else has read Girl Genius they'll know that this can end up having strange consequences (such as 'it's more socially acceptable to resurrect a commoner than it is to resurrect a noble because you don't have to deal with succession'). What do you do if you've just crowned the new king and some kindly priest turns up and decides to help you by resurrecting the one who was assassinated two months ago?


For a strange idea based roughly on thoughts as to how resurrection might work in real life, how do you know that the person brought back is the same as the one who died in a successful resurrection. Not 'what if somebody else comes back instead', you succeed at the resurrection and the person who revives is not a demon or somebody else's soul, but how do you tell if they're them or just a new soul/person with the old person's memories? This is one of the problems with potential memory backup and clone immortality, even if you're taking the memories from the corpse of the person who died and not just scanning them occasionally.

And if they act in exactly the same way the original would have acted, does it matter if they're the same person or not?

(I would recommend deciding if souls are established fact in your world or not, if they aren't known about or don't exist there is potential for different ideas then if they definitely do)
Those are some good questions about how bringing back the dead can interact with matters that most campaigns dont take into consideration. I now start to wonder how this was never an issue to ANY of the campaigns I've played before.

Bringing back a different person (or rather a different soul into the resurrected body)? Well, that has some potential. Assuming it is the soul of a perished evil individual that managed to ecape the bad version of the afterlife, that works pretty much the same with the demon/devil idea.

Regarding clone, I do have sth in mind, I will probably have to tie this a bit with how the whole ressurrection topic is starting to shape. I have one important NPC be a cloned version of himself. So I may well tie up all the philosophical discussion about 'being the same person or not and if it really matters' into this character's views and dilemmas. May surface if the PCs find out about it and engage him in discussion about it, better have some clever and sophisticated answers at the ready. Thanks! (But yeah, clone, in the garbage bin along with resurrection and the rest, though with clone I am thinking maybe have it be a much less known spell, sth close to lost knowledge or sth).


The simplest solution if you want a bit of an OSR hack, Is it to get your hands on a copy of the AD&D players handbook.

All creatures have a resurrection survival % chance based upon their constitution score. Every raise dead reduces your constitution by one point. Unless you fail the percentile role in which case you're dead.

It would give you what you want and also inject a little bit of old school into your campaign.

Heck now that I'm thinking about it, I might use it as well.

Edit - found it follow this link:

static.wixstatic.com/media/a4c541b77c5f30a6ec7ffb730cb086ed.wix_mp_512
Thanks for the link!
Those are some very good chances for it to suceed. I might drop them just a bit. Or go with the check against dc idea perhaps, not sure which one, but I supose it makes little difference.
Regarding the con penalty, I used to like all sort of that stuff (con penalty, losing a level) until some years ago. I distinctly remember myself saying something along the lines ''they threw all the harcore stuff away and made it easy and familiar to attract the mmo kids'', when we made the jump from 3e to 4e. But I've grown out of it. I am not a fan of mechanical disadvantages. At least permanent ones. Maybe I will use the con penalty and have it be one that can be removed by one of the restorations spells or by what spell is intended to remove such ability penalties (not sure which one it is). Yeah, that doesn't sound so bad, perhaps I'll do that. It would perhaps look suspicious if you went to a temple asking to fix what usually is wrong after one is brought back to life, maybe some rp opportunities there. I'll have to think of it a bit more. Thanks for the table and the suggestions!


How about a simple Necromancy is evil and a vile heinous act and outlawed by civilized society. As resurrecting the dead is Necromancy it is outlawed by civilized society and only those willing to thwart governments and social norms are willing to practice it. Someone known to practice Necromancy or to have been brought back by it are "unclean" and the lowest of the low in society. The practitioner is a criminal, the resurrrected is essentially a leper.


What if religion views death as thebrelease of the soul to its fated afterlife, resurrection rips the soul out of valhalla(etc) and foregoes any further chance at entering heaven(etc). The taboo is that yes a person can be resurrected, but it taints and dooms their soul. Others treat them as the lowest rung of society and are rarely willing to associate with them lest their souls are tainted.
Criminals and lepers. Yep, pretty much. Also, ha, resurrection is necromancy.... good catch, didnt remember that it was. Makes things a bit easier to justify. Hmmm, raise dead is necromancy, clone is necromancy, revivify is.... conjuration! What?! Why?! Pffff, revivify is necromancy....:smallwink:

'Unlean'. Bought!
Any other terms to suggest? I think I will have different places view differently resurrected people, with a varying degree of prejudice against them (will depend on the influential deities -saints in my world- of every place). So for example in some places they might just kill them on the spot, stoning them or in other ways, in other places people are just usually confined in cursing them and avoiding them, in some few places they might feel sympathy towards them and try to help them, it depends.... So, I would like to have several terms characterizing them, each with a different degree (if possible) of hostility. Unclean can be one of those terms. Any ideas for any other?

I like the idea about that there is also a belief that raising someone from the dead you decline him the chance to the afterlife (or at least to the good kind of afterlife?). It doesn't take only hybris, it takes fear as well to establish such a reality. But shouldn't this fear be also directed to those who would perhaps be tempted to resurrect someone, in order for that fear to keep them from trying so, when faith, tradition and everything else fails? So not only do you tain the soul of the one you resurrect, but also you tain your own soul and thus you are not permited in the afterlife, because you angered God. So yeah, this will be used, added to the strong cultural belief: Bringing someone back from the dead deprives both him and the one who brought him back of a chance in the afterlife and taines their souls. What do you think?



The first I heard about making resurrection more difficult was in Critical Role. And after hearing the reasoning (Just 'cast a spell' cheapens the impact and consequences of death), I agree with it completely.

So Matt Mercer released his explanation, the D.C., etc online if you want to peruse that.
Yep, read it, will probably use it, or go with the 2e resurrection table. In either case, I might fudge the numbers a bit to make it more difficult in succeeding, any thoughts on that?
Thanks for pointing out to me Mercer's resurrection!


Bringing back the dead is a BIG deal on a societal level.

For one thing, it messes-up big time with our conception of funerals and mourning. I can see some (many) refusing to let go, denying the dead their rites and obsessing over ways to bring the dead back. Many would spend (waste) the rest of their life working toward that resurrection. Others would work out a way to resurrect the dead long after their funerals, messing-up with continuity on many levels.

The dead would certainly be treated with more honor in some cases, should the dead comes back. I can see the dead receiving more honor and luxury than the living on many regards. In other cases it would create an endless cycle of revenge...

Raising the dead also messes-up big time with our conception of inheritance. Not only monetary heirlooms, but also titles and responsibilities. If the king dies, is he still king? For how long? What happens if the king comes back after his cousin inherited the throne, or after the queen remarried? The same issues apply to all nobility, family-run businesses and farms etc.

This is only scratching the surface. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced raising the dead would be illegal in a sword and sorcery setting...
Nice. Very nice. Interesting post.

Now, even if resurrection is such a taboo thing (in my setting), yeah, many a parent who has lost a child, or someone in a situation in these lines, would try to find a way to make it work, or have someone do it (even if this hypothetical scenario seemed prepostrous to them before being struck by misfortune). This has the potential to force some interesting dilemmas upon the players in the campaign, if I do it right (if I make their characters care, that is). Hmm, potential...!

You got me thinking, since resurrection is such a taboo thing, yet nevertheless people (even good and devoted people) might turn to it in their desperation, would it make sense to have the dead bodies disposed of by fire, instead of burying them? Would make sense, wouldn't it? What do you think?


I don't see any problems with removing res spells from the game. My personal suggestion is to keep Revivify (flavour being it yanks them back before they cross over the threshold - maybe increase its spell level if you like) and dump the rest.

Edit - thinking about it maybe the above isn't the best solution and it effectively makes keep those spells slots open a tax for the cleric or the char death becomes 'their fault'. Maybe just introducing a failure mechanic is the best solution /edit

I would be slightly cautious about making it accessible but societally frowned upon in game. Player A dies and is really attached to their character. They ask Player B, who is playing a cleric, to resurrect them. Player B refuses as they don't think its something they would do in character. Player A is now annoyed at Player B. OR Player A dies, is annoyed so other players try to find someone to resurrect them, all the NPCs say no. Player A is now annoyed at the DM. OR Player A dies, is annoyed so other players try to find someone to resurrect them, someone says yes but the entire party gets punished in game as a consequence. All players now annoyed at DM and Player A. If your players are mature about char deaths or happy to roll with the ups and downs you'll be fine, but something to keep in mind.
Fair and reasonable warning. I'm pretty sure the group will behave and roll with it. If that doesn't happen, you'll probably see me write a rant about how my players are stupid and unreasonable, and then it will be the perfect time to tell me 'I told you so'.:smalltongue:
But in all seriousness, I think it will be fine. Thanks for the warning though, it's important to be reminded to not get carried away.


There definitely would be changes to society is resurrections were easy to come by, but it wouldn't be that bad.

I imagine that there would be a mourning period, perhaps a year and a day (or less depending on the most common spell available) before a person is declared legally dead, after that it would be taboo to raise a person (if it is even possible at that point). A small funeral might be held for those closest to him soon after death to help them deal with their grief, and either a resurrection ceremony on the day of the spell being cast, or a memorial service more akin to our current funerals today being held at the end of the year and a day mourning period is no resurrection is possible or available. Until the end of the period, a regent designated by the deceased takes care of everyday running of estates if the person would have such, like a noble or wealthy merchant, or even a regular blacksmith. Spouses are, of course, expected to be faithful during this time as their partners are just considered to be "on a journey" until the end of the mourning period or resurrection is infeasible (destruction or desecration of the body). After this, inheritance and titles are handed out, marriages are annulled, and other such things. The same thing works for kings as well, the heir apparent or councilors would take the role of regent until the king comes back or the mourning period is up.

Penalties for murder would likely still be sever, but desecration or destruction of a body would be a much higher crime. Revenge would probably be less murder and more social or economic ruin as victims can be brought back to ID their killer (or just cast speak with dead to find out) and a revenge murder circle would probably be seen as pointless and less effective than ruining them. Though there my be people who specialize in killing people and making sure they cant come back.
Now a world with resurrection in it, slowly starts making more sense. It's funny how most campaigns dont take account of such details, yes, they are not that much important to the campaign perhaps, but once you start thinking how this world is supposed to work, you are in a bit of a surprise. All your ideas presented above make sense to me and I like them.

I think I'll add these bits (for now):

A) Revivify is changed to be a necromancy spell (raise dead, resurrection, clone, are already necromancy spells).

B) The strong cultural belief against necromancy is further enhanced by this: If you bring someone back from the dead, that means that you tain their souls and deprive them of entering the afterlife again. This is hybris, and it results in taining your own soul and thus missing the chance to move on to the afterlife when you die.
This means to use fear as an additional weapon (or something like a last resort thing) against people who might be tempted (probably people who wouldn't do so but are in a desperate situation) to bring someone back from the dead. Does that sound all right?

C) Apparently now there is an Inquisition, with the main purpose of hunting down those who practice necromancy (and perhaps those who are resurrected too?). Any thoughts on expanding this a bit?

D) Despite how much of a taboo bringing back the dead might be, there must often be temptation for those who lose someone dear to them to disobey the laws of men and the divine laws, so I was thinking, maybe buring the bodies of the deceased would be a good idea, instead of burying them. To spare the misfortunate people of temptation and all that (and to minimize the commited necromancy). Sounds good?

E) I want a 'name' for those who are brought back from the dead (dont say zombie). Or rather, a couple of different names. Usually they are not popular, so give me bad 'names', like unclean (careful with the language though, remember the forum rules). And one or two neutral terms reffering to them (these will be used by the very few people who dont treat them as lepers).

F) Should I perhaps add a bit more to when someone is brought back from the dead? Like memory loss or modified memories, or sth like that? (This last bit doesnt have to apply to the PCs, so dont worry if it is something difficult for a player to handle, throw me some ideas if you have).

Any more ideas? Any thoughts and criticisms regarding the above?

[Sabeta]

I did the opposite in my campaign. Maybe not what you're looking for, but I thought it interesting enough to share. Mostly because every DM and his grandmother tries to ban Necromancy because of some taboo or another.

I wrote into the lore about a grand Necromancer champion who saved the world from an evil Lich using an undead army that he had built out of bandits and assassins and other members of the Lich's forces. Now, people still wouldn't want their loved ones to be tainted by such corrupt magic (although actual ressurections spells which restore the body and soul are more than fine), but if you raise some bandits nobody will bat an eye. "They got what's comin' to 'em." or "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change." are what you might hear if someone learns a bandit or other generally evil person has become an undead.

Particularly nice/powerful Necromancers might Resurrect their bones once they've "earned their keep" before sending them on their way, hopefully turning a new leaf after spending upwards of months in the 9 hells.

[Phoenix042]

I'm currently running a game in what I consider the "dawn age," that is, before much history has happened to the world. In this game, no one has yet discovered the spells for raising the dead to live.

The BBEG is literally the first necromancer, and he came upon his path when he tried to find a way to raise his dead wife and bring her back to life. He failed again and again, but grew more and more powerful and created stronger and stronger undead, until finally inventing phylacteries and using lichdom as a way to potentially get the mastery over death that is necessary to raise the dead truly back to life. The process was a twisted curse, obviously.


I intend to include revivify in my game world, but no other raise-the-dead magic besides spells that create undead creatures, because otherwise the whole plot makes no sense.



Maybe for your game world, something similar happened in not-too-distant history, but the lich actually succeeded in creating the spells that resurrect the dead. He was the first to use them and he taught them to others, but he also created armies of the undead and wrought terrible cruelty on the land. Now raising the dead is associated with necromancy and seen as an abomination. Most common people think it's evil magic and are afraid of it, but there's an order of knights who are more fanatical, dedicated to hunting down and destroying those who raise the dead or those who have been risen.

A rival order of powerful clerics has recently been created who believe that the power to raise the dead is actually a gift from the gods, and if used sparingly and only for those who are truly worthy, can actually be a form of worship. These clerics are considered an evil cult by most people, and they practice their magic in secret. If the PC's need someone resurrected, they could maybe visit this cult, but they would have to be very wary of that order of fanatical knights in the meantime.



That's my pitch.

[Mith]

I think I'll add these bits (for now):

A) Revivify is changed to be a necromancy spell (raise dead, resurrection, clone, are already necromancy spells).

B) The strong cultural belief against necromancy is further enhanced by this: If you bring someone back from the dead, that means that you tain their souls and deprive them of entering the afterlife again. This is hybris, and it results in taining your own soul and thus missing the chance to move on to the afterlife when you die.
This means to use fear as an additional weapon (or something like a last resort thing) against people who might be tempted (probably people who wouldn't do so but are in a desperate situation) to bring someone back from the dead. Does that sound all right?

C) Apparently now there is an Inquisition, with the main purpose of hunting down those who practice necromancy (and perhaps those who are resurrected too?). Any thoughts on expanding this a bit?

D) Despite how much of a taboo bringing back the dead might be, there must often be temptation for those who lose someone dear to them to disobey the laws of men and the divine laws, so I was thinking, maybe buring the bodies of the deceased would be a good idea, instead of burying them. To spare the misfortunate people of temptation and all that (and to minimize the commited necromancy). Sounds good?

E) I want a 'name' for those who are brought back from the dead (dont say zombie). Or rather, a couple of different names. Usually they are not popular, so give me bad 'names', like unclean (careful with the language though, remember the forum rules). And one or two neutral terms reffering to them (these will be used by the very few people who dont treat them as lepers).

F) Should I perhaps add a bit more to when someone is brought back from the dead? Like memory loss or modified memories, or sth like that? (This last bit doesnt have to apply to the PCs, so dont worry if it is something difficult for a player to handle, throw me some ideas if you have).

Any more ideas? Any thoughts and criticisms regarding the above?

It sounds like it would work.

For names: How about Shade-born/Shade? Someone brought back to life is literally a shadow of their former self. Perhaps some interesting effects where they cannot be turned into Wights, Vampire or Liches as the spark that is corrupted in the turning process is already gone.

As for your thoughts on my idea, that is fair. Part of my reasoning is that it is an in game reason for why PCs fundamentally operate differently than NPCs in 5e (no PC/NPC transparency). And to be more clear, the idea is that becoming a PC is a "Calling" that one rises to. If one choses not to be a PC (aka: character gets retired) then they turn away from the Calling and no longer have the "can be resurrected" marker. Also, it is not a "PC only" spell. It's more of an explanation as to why it isn't more common.

[ATHATH]

Maybe the upper planes are just so amazing that the only people who would want to come back are those who are (strongly) devoted to something on the material plane (like a quest or a lover, for example). If you adopt the idea (for your campaign, not necessarily irl) that people who commit suicide to get to the upper planes don't go there and/or get punished, coming back means that you have to endure another few dozen years or so before you can return to the most amazing thing ever. Normal life will pale in comparison, and will probably be miserable. Thus, most of the people that Resurrection and its ilk actually manage to bring back will be Neutral or Evil, because they didn't go to the upper planes in the first place, and their afterlives are considerably less amazing.

tldr; make all of the upper planes like Elysium, so that the only people who will come back are people who were Neutral/Evil enough to not get to go to the upper planes in the first place.

[Sigreid]

How about for a name The Unhallowed. Since they are doomed to be denied eternity in exchange for a few more mortal years. It would make sense that it is from these that the ranks of the liches, doom knights and other powerful undead would come since they have far more reason to fear another death than those who face their first.

Conversely, some of the greatest champions could be unhallowed, striving in vein to earn back their lost paradise. Many a tragic story can be spun from that.

[Beelzebubba]

B) The strong cultural belief against necromancy is further enhanced by this: If you bring someone back from the dead, that means that you tain their souls and deprive them of entering the afterlife again. This is hybris, and it results in taining your own soul and thus missing the chance to move on to the afterlife when you die.
This means to use fear as an additional weapon (or something like a last resort thing) against people who might be tempted (probably people who wouldn't do so but are in a desperate situation) to bring someone back from the dead. Does that sound all right?

Great, even better if it isn't all true. It's the kind of thing that happens with prohibition. (Ever see 'Reefer Madness?' :smallbiggrin:)


D) Despite how much of a taboo bringing back the dead might be, there must often be temptation for those who lose someone dear to them to disobey the laws of men and the divine laws, so I was thinking, maybe buring the bodies of the deceased would be a good idea, instead of burying them. To spare the misfortunate people of temptation and all that (and to minimize the commited necromancy). Sounds good?

That makes perfect sense. Keep your loved ones away from those evil boogeymen.


E) I want a 'name' for those who are brought back from the dead (dont say zombie). Or rather, a couple of different names. Usually they are not popular, so give me bad 'names', like unclean (careful with the language though, remember the forum rules). And one or two neutral terms reffering to them (these will be used by the very few people who dont treat them as lepers).

The Hollow?
The Empty?
The Soulless?
The Riven? (as in their souls have been riven from them already?)

[Contrast]

E) I want a 'name' for those who are brought back from the dead (dont say zombie). Or rather, a couple of different names. Usually they are not popular, so give me bad 'names', like unclean (careful with the language though, remember the forum rules). And one or two neutral terms reffering to them (these will be used by the very few people who dont treat them as lepers).

If golems aren't a thing in your setting that might be a reasonable name in that it really hammers home how people don't think of them as real people any more. Homunculus is also somewhat appropriate. Both could be polite while still being insulting.

As for slang names I like the riven suggestion. Twice-born? Halfman. Neverdead. Forsaken.



C) Apparently now there is an Inquisition, with the main purpose of hunting down those who practice necromancy (and perhaps those who are resurrected too?). Any thoughts on expanding this a bit?

You might need some way to establish who has or hasn't been resurrected in game. A visible mark or magic of some kind. Obviously hiding such a mark or avoiding such magic would potentially be quite important and would make for interesting plot hooks so make it as difficult to hide as you want. Or leave it unconfirmable if you prefer your Inquisition to be all Salem witch hunty :smalltongue:

If you do go down this route maybe introduce a slight boon to being resurrected to make up for the 'being hunted down and villified' thing. A commune with the spirit world power or something? Or a secrect underground of resurrected and immortals who works together to keep each other safe and amass power. Obv if the PCs side with the Inq a plot hook could be hunting these people down, with the annoyance that they don't mind resurrection and keep coming back when you kill them :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

For my next campaign I intend to multiply the material cost of all the raise dead spells (Race dead, revivify reincarnate etc) by a factor of 10. Yeah, the PC's need to keep a bit of dough on the side to get a res spell cast. Or make a serious sacrifice ... no need to go for a 2 pt con penalty, one point at a time is sufficient per AD&D 1e's old method.

Inquisitor
Empowered by the Church to find and root out the sacrilege of resurrection, with domain powers to assist in that quest. Sees through lies, unshakable and persistent, great resources at their beck and call to root out this horrible sin. The artifact The Comfy Chair has to be added, of course. :smallbiggrin:

My personal suggestion is to keep Revivify (flavour being it yanks them back before they cross over the threshold - maybe increase its spell level if you like) and dump the rest.

I wrote into the lore about a grand Necromancer champion who saved the world from an evil Lich using an undead army ... Tolkien did something similar, with Aragorn (book version moreso than movie version) harnessing the army of the dead for one battle in and around Pelargir. Jackson's choice to bring them to the battle at Minas Tirith was ... disappointing.

You might need some way to establish who has or hasn't been resurrected in game. A visible mark or magic of some kind. Nice idea. A tattoo magically appears on the back of the character's neck, which is a symbol of the god served by the cleric raising the character. (Resurrection would not, however, leave such a mark).

[DivisibleByZero]

I haven't read through the thread, so some of this may have been stated by others who do the same, but:
I don't allow PCs to learn those spells. They are only available from NPCs, and those NPCs who are powerful enough to do it are exceedingly rare. Rare enough that it would take a party through a Chapter length quest arc to even find one, let alone convincing him or her to actually do it.
If the PCs decide to try it anyway, the dead player plays a new/different character during that Chapter's arc. It has even come to pass that the player in question, having found an individual capable of raising his character, decided not to play the old character any longer, and that previously dead character became an NPC after being Resurrected.

[Dankus Memakus]

I had the same problem, Due to most of this magic being divine If the character being revived doesn't have a religion i roll percentage dice to see if a god will even grant the magic to the person coming back to the dead, I also clearly specified to the characters that there is a chance that the spell goes wrong and they come back as something other than themselves (ie a zombie) Unless it's true resurrection. Also make sure that they are paying the materials and costs. If you only have one or two healers pull them aside and talk to them about this, If you don't want someone coming back keep the body away from them until the spell is worthless and won't do anything. I also had a character beheaded and many of the lower level spells can't reattach heads so if you make that magic taboo in your world they could remove the skulls of their enemies or something so its harder to bring back. However the last two options do not prevent higher level spells. If you can, encourage your clerics or druids to use the high level spell slots on damage spells.

Hope my word spew can give some ideas. Good Luck, but always remember, keep it fun that's what matters most.

[MrFahrenheit]

My house rule for all this is that the character to be brought back must roll a d20 to determine if their character wants to come back. But the D.C. is determined by:
-what level slot the spell is cast from (fail on a 1 if a 9th level slot is utilized, increase the D.C. by 1 for each slot lower than 9th).
-any levels in divine classes or warlock increases the D.C. by 1 (doesn't matter if you have 5 levels of cleric or 15...ANY levels in that increases the D.C. by 1, as do any levels in paladin, monk [those two must pick deities in my campaign for fluff reasons] or warlock), as the character's soul would have an inclination to stay with their deity or patron.
-if a character dies on a plane of existence different from their birth, increase the D.C. by 1.
-if the spell is attempted on a plane separate from where they died, also increase the D.C. by 1.

Say a character was born on the material plane (as most PCs are), has a level in cleric, and dies on Gehenna (as happened in my campaign). Brought back with a 7th level resurrection spell back on his home plane, his D.C. was 6. 7-20 and he's fine; 1-6 and it's perma-death.

There are no modifiers to this roll on the player's part; it's purely a d20 roll.

[Vogie]

B) The strong cultural belief against necromancy is further enhanced by this: If you bring someone back from the dead, that means that you tain their souls and deprive them of entering the afterlife again. This is hybris, and it results in taining your own soul and thus missing the chance to move on to the afterlife when you die.
This means to use fear as an additional weapon (or something like a last resort thing) against people who might be tempted (probably people who wouldn't do so but are in a desperate situation) to bring someone back from the dead. Does that sound all right?

That's certainly true. If that's implemented, you could also show an area or heretical religion that takes a strange view - they use Necromancy as a form of punishment, the term "serving multiple life sentences" becomes literal. Also, a person or persons who, since they've already been revived, are tainted, and wish to keep being resurrected because they can't enter the afterlife anymore.



C) Apparently now there is an Inquisition, with the main purpose of hunting down those who practice necromancy (and perhaps those who are resurrected too?). Any thoughts on expanding this a bit?

The scale and scope of the inquisition is largely up to you. It could be

a small group of radicals going after necromantic bogymen, such as the hunters from Supernatural or the Faith Militant from Game of Thrones
a function of the large standing army to hunt down those interlopers, door to door style, as in "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
an aspect of the public law enforcement or governance, similar to a "Vice" division in a police department, or ICE agents from the government
a part of a normal Audit of people and magic users that comes by from time to time, similar to census agents or tax collectors




D) Despite how much of a taboo bringing back the dead might be, there must often be temptation for those who lose someone dear to them to disobey the laws of men and the divine laws, so I was thinking, maybe buring the bodies of the deceased would be a good idea, instead of burying them. To spare the misfortunate people of temptation and all that (and to minimize the commited necromancy). Sounds good?

Assuming you mean Burning, That's certainly the standard way. You could also go the Viking Burial route (shipping them away into the unknown), a religious Dexter-style disassembly and disposal into the ocean (or across a larger area), or have the dead eaten by a sacred animal (for example, the god of death is a vulture, crows are messengers of the god of death, Hyenas, et cetera)



E) I want a 'name' for those who are brought back from the dead (dont say zombie). Or rather, a couple of different names. Usually they are not popular, so give me bad 'names', like unclean (careful with the language though, remember the forum rules). And one or two neutral terms reffering to them (these will be used by the very few people who dont treat them as lepers).

Returned, Lurkers, Dirty, Tainted, Cold, Blanks, Hollow, Inferi.



F) Should I perhaps add a bit more to when someone is brought back from the dead? Like memory loss or modified memories, or sth like that? (This last bit doesnt have to apply to the PCs, so dont worry if it is something difficult for a player to handle, throw me some ideas if you have).

You could do memory loss, loss of identity, Alignment changes, personality changes.

Stealing an idea from the world of Theros, those who are back from the dead lose their identity and also their face, forcing them to wear a mask to be identifiable from any other person who has returned.

[Corran]

I did the opposite in my campaign. Maybe not what you're looking for, but I thought it interesting enough to share. Mostly because every DM and his grandmother tries to ban Necromancy because of some taboo or another.

I wrote into the lore about a grand Necromancer champion who saved the world from an evil Lich using an undead army that he had built out of bandits and assassins and other members of the Lich's forces. Now, people still wouldn't want their loved ones to be tainted by such corrupt magic (although actual ressurections spells which restore the body and soul are more than fine), but if you raise some bandits nobody will bat an eye. "They got what's comin' to 'em." or "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change." are what you might hear if someone learns a bandit or other generally evil person has become an undead.

Particularly nice/powerful Necromancers might Resurrect their bones once they've "earned their keep" before sending them on their way, hopefully turning a new leaf after spending upwards of months in the 9 hells.
Hahahaha, "They got what's comin' to 'em." & "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change.".... oh that last one especially! Pure gold you've got there!!!

Although this idea is a severe blow to what I hold most dear (unoriginality and nostalgia), it was great to read about it and you have my gratitude for sharing it! All in all, a very clever idea.

ps: "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change." :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:



I'm currently running a game in what I consider the "dawn age," that is, before much history has happened to the world. In this game, no one has yet discovered the spells for raising the dead to live.
I'm going with the opposite of a dawn-age (not sure how to call it). History is tracking back through the centuries, and the further back you read about the past, your sources become less and less in number, and more and more unreliable (sources start contradicting each other, even over simple stuff like dates of significant events, if they manage to pin down a similar-enough depiction of a significant event), and after a certain point (not clear on the timeline) you are left with no historical or otherwise sources. There is more to it, but I'll stop here as I am straying from addressing your suggestions.


Maybe for your game world, something similar happened in not-too-distant history, but the lich actually succeeded in creating the spells that resurrect the dead. He was the first to use them and he taught them to others, but he also created armies of the undead and wrought terrible cruelty on the land.
I could go with the litch story you suggest, there is enough space in the timeline of known history to fit it in just fine somewhere in the (distant) past, along with various other things I have planned for. And it is a good idea, I like such ideas. Here is however why I will not do it.

I dont want for the campaign to focus too much on the implications of resurrection, or on the lore as to why this is the current state of things regarding it. Yes, it will not be a trifle, and I want to address it right, and have it along with all its world-changing implications fit nicely into the setting. And I will perhaps throw a few side quests in its direction, and I will certainly change a few things here and there I had already imagined, so that they will mesh with this extra dimension of the world that I had not taken into account when I was planning most of the stuff I've come up with thus far. But this is not the aspect of the world that I really want to emphasize upon. And I dont want it to monopolize the interest, I have other things in mind. To make my worries more clear with an example, I had planned for the main villain of a story arc to be a litch; that was before deciding what to do with resurrection, and thus before having any idea how this 'resurrection is bad' thingy would make the game world more complex in some sense. So, do you know what I'm thinking of probably doing regarding this litch villain that I had already (vaguely) planned for? Delete and replace with something that does not emphasizes too much on the aspects of life and death in this world, as they already will have a lot of spot time from what it seems. Which as I said, it is not that I dont like it, I like it, but I am cautious not to overdo it. I am much more comfortable to rely on something a bit more subtle instead (stuff like that resurrection can potentially backfire and bring sth vile into the world instead of the dead man's soul, or sth like that resurrection has better chances working if you sacrifice someone -which is very world altering if you think about it- so for this reason the world -ie those few who know this- try to keep it a secret all while trying to eradicate its practice). And all that, without thinking too much why this is the case of how it works (I'll just think far enough in that respect, only to cover for any major logic gaps).


Now raising the dead is associated with necromancy and seen as an abomination. Most common people think it's evil magic and are afraid of it, but there's an order of knights who are more fanatical, dedicated to hunting down and destroying those who raise the dead or those who have been risen.
Got the name for them down so far (Inquisition, yeah I know, how original:smalltongue:), as well as a few more details (only a few though). The term 'knightly order' hits me somehow wrong, but I can't quite put my finger on it. As to how fanatical they'll be about hunting resurrection, well, I think about as much as the average person expects and demands of them to be. Resurrection will be a big taboo generally. probably quite a lot, considering its their job (whatever that may mean, not dead-set on details) and also their duty to God/ the church. At least that goes for the actual inquisitors. I'll probably have said Inquisition to include a lot more fighting force and staff than the few(?) actual inquisitors, so the lower members might not necessarily be extremelly fanatic against necromancy (just as much as the average everyday person in the setting is, which still means like A LOT). I guess the extra layer of fanaticism will be reserved for the few, and these few are most likely the ones who do the heavy lifting (again, whatever that may include) of purging necromancy from the face of the earth.

Any ideas regarding any of the gaps I haven't yet filled, as outlined in the above paragraph? Or perhaps any suggestions regarding a different approach I could take any of this?


A rival order of powerful clerics has recently been created who believe that the power to raise the dead is actually a gift from the gods, and if used sparingly and only for those who are truly worthy, can actually be a form of worship. These clerics are considered an evil cult by most people, and they practice their magic in secret. If the PC's need someone resurrected, they could maybe visit this cult, but they would have to be very wary of that order of fanatical knights in the meantime.
Istead of a rival order of powerful clerics (or rather, a strong and organized heresy) that openly opposes the status quo, I prefer to have cults, playing cat and mouse with the Inquisition and with the authorities. At least this is towards where I am more leaning at this point. Any more than that, and I risk it drawing more attention and story focus than intended. In all fairness, maybe I should ready something a bit more concrete about how these cults work, how and if they are connected, etc etc, should the players decide to move towards this direction at some point (even it is only for a couple of side quests scattered here and there as the campaign moves forward).

I will try to provide the option for the PCs to have someone resurrected should they choose to do so, but if they ever come face to face with such a dilemma and they dont treat it as such, then I will have probably failed. And that is assuming that their characters would be cool and chill with something like this happening, which is not necessarily a given, given the general state of things. But yeah, cults, who may even use 'human' sacrifices as a part of the resurrection ritual too. Any more ideas in expanding this in the way I am suggesting (ie not strong order of 'death/life' clerics, rather secretive cults)?


A rival order of powerful clerics has recently been created who believe that the power to raise the dead is actually a gift from the gods, and if used sparingly and only for those who are truly worthy, can actually be a form of worship.
Emphasis mine.
An additional thought on that. I could perhaps see a minority embracing that belief, but in the form of individuals or groups that have a very pacifist attitude towards others (yeah, I know what to do with these guys, they will probably lead small communities where people who are resurrected are allowed to go and live in isolation; at least the lucky ones that are not tortured, killed, enslaved(?), etc). As I said, I dont want it to turn it into opposing philosophies/ factions/ orders and the like. Also, it would make for an interesting player character concept, assuming the one who goes through with a character that strongly believes such a concept (quite possibly choosing to get access to the relevant spells too), is aware of how dangerous that would be in such a setting. I wouldnt go out of my way to screw with such a character, but it wouldnt be easy.


The BBEG is literally the first necromancer, and he came upon his path when he tried to find a way to raise his dead wife and bring her back to life. He failed again and again, but grew more and more powerful and created stronger and stronger undead, until finally inventing phylacteries and using lichdom as a way to potentially get the mastery over death that is necessary to raise the dead truly back to life. The process was a twisted curse, obviously.

I intend to include revivify in my game world, but no other raise-the-dead magic besides spells that create undead creatures, because otherwise the whole plot makes no sense.
At first glance, it brings to my mind both Dracula and Frankenstein. Which means that I love it!
Now that I think of it a bit more, reminds me a bit of Dr Freeze from Batman too (just what I can remember from the relevant 'awful' Batman movie from when I was very young; the character conept has stayed with me though as I liked it). Point being, classic stuff! Which I translate it to mean beautiful stuff.


That's my pitch.
It really helped me a lot. Aside from some of your ideas that I really liked and think building on them, even when I am rejecting some other ideas, it means eliminating possible options and narrowing things down, which is extremelly helpful. Thanks a lot!!!



It sounds like it would work.

For names: How about Shade-born/Shade? Someone brought back to life is literally a shadow of their former self. Perhaps some interesting effects where they cannot be turned into Wights, Vampire or Liches as the spark that is corrupted in the turning process is already gone.

As for your thoughts on my idea, that is fair. Part of my reasoning is that it is an in game reason for why PCs fundamentally operate differently than NPCs in 5e (no PC/NPC transparency). And to be more clear, the idea is that becoming a PC is a "Calling" that one rises to. If one choses not to be a PC (aka: character gets retired) then they turn away from the Calling and no longer have the "can be resurrected" marker. Also, it is not a "PC only" spell. It's more of an explanation as to why it isn't more common.
Shade! Added to the list.
As for the effects....hmmmm....maaaaybe? I mean, I dont really know, I think they are too circumstancial to make a difference, so that's good, I dont want any mechanical bugs or boosts. Unless I find a way to use it to actively add to the setting, I am just not a fan of having it stick around just for the sake of it. Let me rephraze; the idea is solid, I just wouldnt know how to use it in a way that shows. If you have ay ideas about it, let me know. But what I find more important, upon which I would appreciate even more your opinion is this: F) Should I perhaps add a bit more to when someone is brought back from the dead? Like memory loss or modified memories, or sth like that? (This last bit doesnt have to apply to the PCs, so dont worry if it is something difficult for a player to handle, throw me some ideas if you have). If you have any ideas about that, please feel more than welcome to hit me with them.

Thank you for the input Mith, greatly appreciated!



...most of the people that Resurrection and its ilk actually manage to bring back will be Neutral or Evil...
The moment I saw this, intuitively, I thought I would rather avoid it. Your explanation why this should be the case is rocksolid (I'll get to it later), but something just hit me wrong regarding how this would combine with various other elements of the campaign that I have in my mind, but I couldn't easily put it to words. After doing some thinking on it, I think I can be specific enough.

So here is why I would rather avoid this: There is enough reason already (as established previously) for resurrection practice and those who take part in it (both the one performing the ritual, and the one coming back from the dead) to be hunted down with extreme prejudice. These aforementioned (in previous posts) reasons, are good enough imo to justify this cat and mouse game taking place all over the setting, even at the expense of collateral damage (although the majority of the people wouldnt view it exactly as collateral damage, as the majority of the people believe what the Church says, ie that people coming back from the dead are cursed, evil, unclean, etc). Although there could be other more collateral damage now that I think of it, in the sense that it might now always be possible to say 100% sure if one is resurrected or not, and there might have been casulaties that were not actually resurrected (hmmm, I have to think about this more). Anyway, back to what I was saying. Even still, extreme practices, even those at the service of the greater good (''the greater good''), can perhaps cause a whole lot of dilemmas and interesting situations where the PCs might find themselves in, and this is an opportunity I really welcome (perhaps the single best side effect of this whole resurrection bussiness that I didnt plan for initially). I can perhaps work some good stuff with that.

Lets go with the cheap and lazy approach: A mother holds her dead little girl in her hands and in her desperation, she begs the PCs to help her somehow. Now, one of the party members (Bob), is a cleric, and lets say that IC he is deemly aware that he can do it (or at least try it). Party members: Bob, Alice, John, Linda.
(invisible) Bob: ''Guys, I...... I think I can help her... I think... I have to''.
Alice: ''WHAT?! Aree you MAAAD?! This is beyond insane!''
John: ''Alice is right. You are talking blashemy here Bob. And as a man of the cloth, you should know better. Tell him, Linda.''
Linda: ''Snif..... snif...... Bob is right. They need our help. It just cannot be wrong for us to help them''
Enter dliemmas and difficult decisions the group must agree upon.

Or it can be something along the lines, that party intervenes to save an innocent man (whose only crime was that he was brought back from the dead) from an inquisitor scum who tries to kill him because that's apprently evil. Or save a woman from a mob of villagers that try to burn her, again because, she was brought back from the dead. Etc etc.

Even if the PCs go with playing fanatic characters and they are the ones that every now and then do the 'purging', I find it much better if it goes like: PCs: ''Sorry little girl, we know that your dad looked like a very decent person, and he might well have been, but we had to kill him because he was an abomination in the eyes of God'', rather than, Little girl: ''You saved me!!!''; PCs: ''Yes little girl, dont worry, this vile man that was your father will never come back to hurt you.''

Now, any of the above scenarios or any other along those lines, can work in a setting where just most of the people braught back are neutral or evil, but this 'swings' a balance that I prefer to leave untouched. Bottom line, the way I see this, all this works better if I dont make a rule that mostly the bad guys come back from the dead. I think there is enough reason already for the players to have their character believe that if they want to, but I would prefer not to rule on it (even if it is something that really is going on and they dont know, as sooner or later the characters would probably come to realise it).



Btw, I dont mean any of the above to come off as criticism. I like your idea, but all I am saying is that I dont think it would work for me. Please, do not let my ''tone'' discourage you from giving me any more ideas or discussing any of the above, you are practically helping me anyway (either if I feel I can work with a suggestion or not, it helps me clarify some things and it also helps me think of new things; for example, while I was typing my reply, your post made me wonder how would someone figure out if a person was actually resurrected or not, in any other way than gathering rumors and/or interogation; which both probably are unreliable ways to gain correct information).


Maybe the upper planes are just so amazing that the only people who would want to come back are those who are (strongly) devoted to something on the material plane (like a quest or a lover, for example). If you adopt the idea (for your campaign, not necessarily irl) that people who commit suicide to get to the upper planes don't go there and/or get punished, coming back means that you have to endure another few dozen years or so before you can return to the most amazing thing ever. Normal life will pale in comparison, and will probably be miserable. Thus, most of the people that Resurrection and its ilk actually manage to bring back will be Neutral or Evil, because they didn't go to the upper planes in the first place, and their afterlives are considerably less amazing.

tldr; make all of the upper planes like Elysium, so that the only people who will come back are people who were Neutral/Evil enough to not get to go to the upper planes in the first place.
I dont care much about how all this works. Well, I do care and I would like to have a good answer, but I dont mind having no answers if it concerns things that the PCs will never get to know. As long as I find a good enough justifications to not have any major logical gaps in how the setting works, I think I am ok.

For example, yes, since resurrection requires a willing soul for it to work, why would good guys leave heaven to come back to life, at the same rate that bad guys would be willing to leave hell to come back? Or, why do they even come back since they ''know'' from when they were alive that doing so would deny them going back? And what do they say of what they've seen when they were dead? Etc etc.
To be honest, I am not willing to concern myself with much of these. I will just cover them in the simplest way possible, such as: Church says that resurrection does not require a willing soul, rather, when you perform resurrection on someone you force his soul to return, robbing it from the afterlife, and condemning both your soul and the one you brought back never to get access to heaven/afterlife, or sth like that. Or, what do people that were brought back from the dead have really seen while they were dead? Easy answer, nothing. Why? The church says that it is because now their soul is tainted, they are not only denied access to heaven, but they are denied all their memories about being there. Wether all or any of ths is true or made up fiction by said Church, well, I dont know and I dont really care, since the PCs are hardly ever likely to know as well.

So, personally, I am not very bothered with these kind of implications this whole 'resurrection deal' creates. Rather, I am concerned with much more 'practical' ones, meaning this kind of implication that directly affects the way the world works and is really needed to be answered. Such as:
1) How can people understand if a person has been brought back from the dead, if at all?

I will certainly have some places in the world where the ones that have been resurrected will be killed no questions asked if their secret is revealed, but in all likelihood this wont be the case. The authorities will obviously want to have at least some level of control over what these resurrected people are doing, so,
2) How do the authorities handle these people assuming they dont imprison or kill them? Do they do that through a huge deal of paperwork, or by any other beaurocratical means? Do they perhaps brand them so that everyone recognizes them for what they are?

3) If branding the ones who came back from the dea, is a thing so that everyone can see them for what they are, what implications does that create and how should I handle them? Do I think of sth clever so that not anyone can just brand someone who never dies and brought back,yet now he is kind of screwed for the rest of his life because of the brand he is wearing? Or do I just roll with it? How would the world adjust to that? Is it inevitable that branding would go out of practice because it can create for many problems?

4) And a funny one. Say that all the ''resurrection spells'' require a diamond as material component. Do I have all diamonds to be illegal goods, and if found by the authorities they are confescated? This last one is a bit silly, but it has some potential. This is the kind of stuff I am most interested in, stuff that add some unique flavour to the world (like perhaps this one), or dig a little deeper as to how such a world must spin (such as the previous ones).

And many more. Now, this is what I mostly interested about. Anything else that does not directly affect me 'running the world', I dont mind that much. Though I do not say that to discourage anyone talking about anything other than what I am hinting at. I am just pointing what I feel I need the most help with.

ps: Again, I am not sure how all this sounds, but I didnt mean to antagonize your suggestions, and I also have no intention of coming out as hostile or ungrateful. That was not my intent. Thanks you for taking the time to offer your suggestions, and please keep them coming it if you are in the mood of doing so and you have the energy for it! Again, thanks!:smallsmile:


How about for a name The Unhallowed. Since they are doomed to be denied eternity in exchange for a few more mortal years. It would make sense that it is from these that the ranks of the liches, doom knights and other powerful undead would come since they have far more reason to fear another death than those who face their first.

Conversely, some of the greatest champions could be unhallowed, striving in vein to earn back their lost paradise. Many a tragic story can be spun from that.
Unhallowed. Check. Added to the list. Nice one!

I like where you are going with it. Lets see.... I quite like the idea of unhallowed trying to distinguish themselves in order to be granted a second chance. Perhaps this is an ideal some churches even promote (churches of the setting are allowed quite a big degree of autonomy, and how each church functions is pretty much determined who is its patron(ess) saint, or in simple dnd words, it depends on which deity a church is devoted to). Perhaps some try to earn a second chance by leading a pious and sinless life, studying religious texts and praying. Others might try to distinguish themselves in combat (as you said), either on the field of war or in the arenas. Others might try to lead a life trying to help those in need and do the most good they can with the time that is left to them (unhallowed devotion paly?:smallamused:).

And because all of the above is very optimistic, lets say that in a case of war (the nation where the campaign will start, has some problems holding onto some of its colonies, so there is potential), unhallowed can be shipped in masses to fight in the vanguard of armies (not crazy numbers but not few either, perhaps this is a good reason as to why not every unhallowed is killed on the spot, it all starts to blend bit by bit), always with the Crown's and the Church's blessings. ''Sorry young boy, I know it feels great that you are alive again and be with your family, and I know that you are only 12, but there is a war going on and you will go fight it from the first rank...''. Oh, and that is whether they want it or not. Heh.

Thanks for the suggestions!


Great, even better if it isn't all true. It's the kind of thing that happens with prohibition. (Ever see 'Reefer Madness?' :smallbiggrin:)
My initial idea regarding religion on this setting, was that mortals have pretty much everything backwards. For example, the established religion in the setting, teaches people that there is only one god, simply called... God. Most of the dnd deities would just be this God's various saints (albeit with different names, like St Auvalon, St Charlyle, St Cuthbert, etc, each one corresonding to a classic dnd deity), while the idea was that these ''saints'' were actually gods in their own right and that there was not just one God. For the moment, I am not putting much effort into making this make sense in every level. As long as everything seems logical from the eyes of a PC, then everything is fine and the possible misconceptions on the part of the church dont bother me going through extensive work as to make everything explain everything else (though I do have some lore about deity and why things ''today'' are the way they are, based loosely on the Time of Troubles (yeah, another original idea of mine!). To not go too far with it, the idea was that mortals have a LOT of things backwards regarding their view of divinity, so most likely all of these teachings of the Church regarding a lot of aspects of resurrection, that shape to a very important extent the cultural belief, may not correspong at all to the reality of things. Or they might do, not sure, just so long that everything seems logical from a PC's perspective. I am rambling...

Reefer Madness: Haven't seen it, no, read a quick review about it though. It was a bit negative (called it one of the worst movies of all time or sth, I am not kidding you). But from the quick look I had, it seemed to me that they adapted it several times, so maybe that has something to do with it.


That makes perfect sense. Keep your loved ones away from those evil boogeymen.
Interesting. I never really thought of it that way, and this makes even more sense. I only thought of it as a countermeasure to people who might become desperate enough to attempt it / have someone do it for them. Thanks!



The Hollow?
The Empty?
The Soulless?
The Riven? (as in their souls have been riven from them already?)
Hollow. I like this one a lot! Check.
Riven is pretty good as well. Check.
I think I'll skip ''empty'' as I think hollow covers for it, and ''soulless'', maybe a bit too obvious but why not. I quite like ''Hollow''! Thanks!


If golems aren't a thing in your setting that might be a reasonable name in that it really hammers home how people don't think of them as real people any more. Homunculus is also somewhat appropriate. Both could be polite while still being insulting.

As for slang names I like the riven suggestion. Twice-born? Halfman. Neverdead. Forsaken.
I really like the golem suggestion (yeah, real golems do exist in the world, dont mind though, I like it too much). As for homunculus, I had to search for its meaning. Love it, both added! And yes, golem will probably be one of the more 'neutral' names. Homunculus is not as bad as the likes of unhallowed, Hollow, unclean, and the rest, so it would make for a more neutral term too. Thanks for the suggestions!



You might need some way to establish who has or hasn't been resurrected in game. A visible mark or magic of some kind. Obviously hiding such a mark or avoiding such magic would potentially be quite important and would make for interesting plot hooks so make it as difficult to hide as you want. Or leave it unconfirmable if you prefer your Inquisition to be all Salem witch hunty :smalltongue:
Yeah, thanks for touching on this, this is one of my main unsolved problems. I guess even a huge amount of paperwork and leaving it to beaurocratical means is not enough. So I was looking for other ways. I was thinking what you are suggesting, a visible mark, sth in the lines of branding them to bear the mark of the God's holy symbol. But I fall into some dilemmas. Do I have it made by mundane means (hot bar of iron)? If so, there is a danger that it might cause some problems. For example, someone could be branded on purpose, despite not having died and resurrected, and now he is for all intents and purposes ****ed. And that raises yet another question. Is there a means by which one can detect if someone has died and was brought back from the dead? How do the authorities find out who has died and was brought back, in the first place? Do they rely only on hearsay and rumors? Do they rely on informants? Do they have any more sophisticated means (mundane or magical) to detect the ''golems''? One question gives birth to the next, and though I do have some preferences, I am not sure how well they will serve the setting.

So let me try to sum up these questions/ dilemmas.
1) How do the authorities keep control of knowing who is a golem and who is not? Can it be handled only via beaurocracy? Do they brand them? If yes, do they do it with mundane means, magical means, or both?

2) Is there a way to recognize someone as a golem? If yes, is it done by mundane means, by magical means, or both? Is there a margin of error? If yes, about how big? (if the margin of error is big, it can lead to a lot of innocent people dying for nothing)

3) If there is no way (or no reliable way) to establish if a person is a golem or not, should I allow branding golems by mundane means? Or would it create a lot of problems because many a non-golem individual was branded to suffer consequences they didnt deserve? Do I keep it a thing in the world even with such huge problems for missapplication? Do I view it as an outdated practice that was abandoned due to the aforementioned reason, but perhaps one that still sees some application? Is it forbidden? Or do I go all the way with branding by magical means and handwave this problem with.... magic?

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Some of my thoughts regarding the above:
I do want branding, magical or otherwise I do not mind much, but I like the implications that branding the golems can bring with it (as you said: Obviously hiding such a mark or avoiding such magic would potentially be quite important and would make for interesting plot hooks so make it as difficult to hide as you want, to which I agree).
I kind of tend to think that I dont want an easy way to figure if someone is a golem. As you said yourself, Inquistion going out all witch hunty mode as you say.
I am thinking that I kinda have to go with the magical branding thing, though I dont really like it.
I think I'll go with branding using mundane means! I think it well end up to fun. Maybe the inquisitors can use it as a means to blackmail people. ''Do as we say or we'll brand you and declare you a golem''. That would add to the reasons why they are jerks, I think I like it.

Anything that I may have not taken into account?


If you do go down this route maybe introduce a slight boon to being resurrected to make up for the 'being hunted down and villified' thing. A commune with the spirit world power or something? Or a secrect underground of resurrected and immortals who works together to keep each other safe and amass power. Obv if the PCs side with the Inq a plot hook could be hunting these people down, with the annoyance that they don't mind resurrection and keep coming back when you kill them :smallbiggrin:
I am still toying around with what exactly should be the concequences if a golem is apprehended. I think they will vary from place to place, and from individual to individual. I am very hesitant against the idea of giving a boon of sorts to people who were brought back from death, however slight that boon is. I dont like the idea of handing out mechanical benefits to balance out the possible negative consequences the world might inflict upon them. I will have to think up sth about the evil cults engaging in resurrection and sacrifice though. Why are they doing this, what are their aims, etc. Money could be one of the reasons (ie getting paid by the relatives to bring the dead back to life), but I should probably think a little more into it.


I haven't read through the thread, so some of this may have been stated by others who do the same, but:
I don't allow PCs to learn those spells. They are only available from NPCs, and those NPCs who are powerful enough to do it are exceedingly rare. Rare enough that it would take a party through a Chapter length quest arc to even find one, let alone convincing him or her to actually do it.
If the PCs decide to try it anyway, the dead player plays a new/different character during that Chapter's arc. It has even come to pass that the player in question, having found an individual capable of raising his character, decided not to play the old character any longer, and that previously dead character became an NPC after being Resurrected.
Well, it is a mistake on my part that I did not make it more clear in the op. One of the main reasons why I dont want resurrection (and the like), is because I plan for some important deaths over the course of the campaign and in its past, and if there is something that can undo these deaths then much of what I have planned is not going to work, as it wont make sense. Yet at the same time, I dont want to just ban it and take it out of the picture entirely, so I thought that having it exist but making using it almost impossible (due to how the world views it) is a good compromise. And thus I am starting thinking of reasons why this should be the case. Why does the world consider it bad? Why do the authorities try to eliminate its practice? And so on and so forth.

As for the players, well, I guess they could have the chance to make use of it if they grab it somehow, or if they manage someone who is willing to cast it. I try to create enough reason (by adding important fluff reasons) for the player characters to consider it unthinkable for someone to ever use such magic, yet at the same time I am willing to allow a small window if someone wants their character to think otherwise, whether that's how their character thinks in general, or whether it is a rush though the character made under severe distress. All this, while I am trying to figure out a good set of consequences, that will make it very hard for the players if they decide to go with raising a dead person, but also leaving them some small space to maneuvre if they do. I just aim for it to be a very very difficult in game choice.

Perhaps I must go and edit the op, making clear that I am trying impose limits on resurrection mostly due to plot reasons on my part. Thanks for the input!


I had the same problem, Due to most of this magic being divine If the character being revived doesn't have a religion i roll percentage dice to see if a god will even grant the magic to the person coming back to the dead, I also clearly specified to the characters that there is a chance that the spell goes wrong and they come back as something other than themselves (ie a zombie) Unless it's true resurrection. Also make sure that they are paying the materials and costs. If you only have one or two healers pull them aside and talk to them about this, If you don't want someone coming back keep the body away from them until the spell is worthless and won't do anything. I also had a character beheaded and many of the lower level spells can't reattach heads so if you make that magic taboo in your world they could remove the skulls of their enemies or something so its harder to bring back. However the last two options do not prevent higher level spells. If you can, encourage your clerics or druids to use the high level spell slots on damage spells.

Hope my word spew can give some ideas. Good Luck, but always remember, keep it fun that's what matters most.
Religion check, hey? I guess that makes sense. Will think about it, though I am really tempted to go with a pure % chance.

I am not that much worried about the PCs going left and right and resurrecting NPCs, I am worried that if these spell are allowed to work, then some very major characters could be rought back to life in no time (for example, a king could be resurrected easily, even it it means a true resurrection, by a powerful cleric of the realm, stuff like that). So I need to make these spells illegal or sth. I need death to be considered sth that you are not allowed to mess with, to disturb.

About the material cost, I will probably mess with it a bit. I will probably stick with it being expensive enough, but thinking of maybe lowering it. Not sure though, will give this one more thought. Here is however a funny side effect. Do the material components needed for these kind of spells, become illegal to have in one's possission and are they perhaps confescated by the authorities? What would you make of that?

As far as precautions, instead of removing heads and stuff, I just though of burning people as a means to gettin disposed of the bodies. Think it's the simplest way and most natural way for a setting where preventing and limiting resurrections is a thing.

I want the spell to have a chance to backfire. Maybe not zombie, but more in the sense that instead of the soul of the dead person, you get another soul with perhaps some of the memories of the dead one, implanted in them; probably the soul of a long dead evildoer; or a demon/devil or sth like that, I guess that adds quite well and perhaps is one of the most important reasons as to why the world considers resurrection a taboo thing. But I dont think I will allow this to happen to any PC who would have their character resurrected, unless they actively wanted this, in which case, depending on how I felt it would impact on the game (not so much the story, rather how it would affect teamplay and the group), I might allow it. No chances, just sth that happens or not. But the chance for the spell to fail, yeah, that's a thing.

Thanks for the suggestions. And yes, I will do my best to keep it enjoyable and adjust it to the players' taste and wants.


I will come back later, to answer to the posts that I didnt, and perhaps throw at you a list of questions I might need help with and to which I would appreciate the input.

Thanks for taking the time to offer your input and suggestions!

[Iamcreative]

These are all really cool ideas.
For my 2 cents: In the game Im currently running I basically just turn dead PCs into NPCs and give them their own motivations and desires. Spefically, they just arent willing to come back anymore. (Spefically, because I have a rogue God trying to raise a spirit army and destroy the reminents of the old pantheon and yada yada take over the world yada yada)

[Sabeta]

Hahahaha, "They got what's comin' to 'em." & "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change.".... oh that last one especially! Pure gold you've got there!!!

Although this idea is a severe blow to what I hold most dear (unoriginality and nostalgia), it was great to read about it and you have my gratitude for sharing it! All in all, a very clever idea.

ps: "Maybe 'e'll do some good fer a change." :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Thanks for the compliment. I was confused by your response at first, most people don't hold unoriginality in high regard.

Just to say though: You need only look at real world reactions to the death penalty to understand why even my rendition of Necromancer wouldn't be a universal one in the setting. (and also why I gave the supporter voice a southern accent. hehe) There would still be a big stigma against them. a mom might cry that her baby boy who just happened to hang out with the wrong crowd is now an abomination of undead flesh and start some kind of group against necromancers. That is to say, there's nothing wrong with your tropes, I just think that absolutes are boring. A good necromancer can exist, whether the people see him that way or not.

[Corran]

Nice idea. A tattoo magically appears on the back of the character's neck, which is a symbol of the god served by the cleric raising the character. (Resurrection would not, however, leave such a mark).
This could solve many problems, as far as how knowing who is raised back from the dead is concerned.
I'am leaning towards avoiding this approach however. Have the mark you describe (the symbol of the god) be done upon the resurrected with mundane means (hot iron, shaped on one end to resemble the symbol of God). This can create for some opportunities. For example, someone could do it on someone else as a way to get back at them. Being marked when you are actually innocent?!! Full of opportunities. The Church's instruments (and others) could use it as a means of blackmail. It woud also create for a lot of collateral damage (who knows how many people are actually wrongfully branded? I like where this is going. What do you think?


My house rule for all this is that the character to be brought back must roll a d20 to determine if their character wants to come back. But the D.C. is determined by:
-what level slot the spell is cast from (fail on a 1 if a 9th level slot is utilized, increase the D.C. by 1 for each slot lower than 9th).
-any levels in divine classes or warlock increases the D.C. by 1 (doesn't matter if you have 5 levels of cleric or 15...ANY levels in that increases the D.C. by 1, as do any levels in paladin, monk [those two must pick deities in my campaign for fluff reasons] or warlock), as the character's soul would have an inclination to stay with their deity or patron.
-if a character dies on a plane of existence different from their birth, increase the D.C. by 1.
-if the spell is attempted on a plane separate from where they died, also increase the D.C. by 1.

Say a character was born on the material plane (as most PCs are), has a level in cleric, and dies on Gehenna (as happened in my campaign). Brought back with a 7th level resurrection spell back on his home plane, his D.C. was 6. 7-20 and he's fine; 1-6 and it's perma-death.

There are no modifiers to this roll on the player's part; it's purely a d20 roll.
A nice system you've got there. Myself, I think I want to go with sth simpler, perhaps even a staright % roll. It is interesting how you madee the effort of trying to take account of the various relevant parameters that would have enough reason to affect its chances, but I prefer simplicity for the reason that it wouldnt break immersion and also because I would prefer a simpler mechanic. Thanks for the input though!

ps: Say I go with a straigh % roll. No plus's or minus's, straight % roll. What percent would you think would be best to assign to a success? In your specific example there was a 70% chance for the spell to work, would you say that would be a good chance if I am to apply it generally? (Also, yeah, on a failed attempt, I am going with perma death too.)




That's certainly true. If that's implemented, you could also show an area or heretical religion that takes a strange view - they use Necromancy as a form of punishment, the term "serving multiple life sentences" becomes literal. Also, a person or persons who, since they've already been revived, are tainted, and wish to keep being resurrected because they can't enter the afterlife anymore.
Interesting idea. A bit cautious to build anything based on that (dont want to focus too much on the resurrection issue, at least not more than it is necessary), but in the end I might have to write one or two side quests having to do with this whole issue. I'll keep this in mind as a potential idea in such a case.


The scale and scope of the inquisition is largely up to you. It could be

a small group of radicals going after necromantic bogymen, such as the hunters from Supernatural or the Faith Militant from Game of Thrones
a function of the large standing army to hunt down those interlopers, door to door style, as in "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
an aspect of the public law enforcement or governance, similar to a "Vice" division in a police department, or ICE agents from the government
a part of a normal Audit of people and magic users that comes by from time to time, similar to census agents or tax collectors


I think I know what I want to do. Let me try and put it into words, as simple as I can:

The Church has a fighting force. Not really close to an actual army, but no few either. I am imagining it very similar to the cardinal's guards from the Three Musketeers (and as far away as possible from the sparrows of GoT). So these guys (they are not inquisitors) are mostly guards/fighters, and I am thinking of using them to engage the PCs in a few scuffles (just like how the musketeers and the cardinal's guards did).

Now, the inquisitors are some individuals who are usually from within the Church and they are promoted to that office by the Church. They are trusted with some very guarded secrets of the faith (such as knowing about how resurrection works better if you sacrifice someone, even more importantly, knowing that people who are brought back to life may not be who they seem they are, and instead they may be sth really dangerous -demon/ devil/ the soul of a long dead powerful evildoer), and they are expected to do everything in their power to rout out necromancy from the land. So while they may not be great in numbers, they are usually allowed to utilize the Church's and the Crown's resources in their struggle to bring necromancy to a halt. They can work with one another, but usually they dont, as they are not that many in numbers to cover everything that requires investigating. So they usually work alone (ie not with other inquisitors), relying on the support of the Church/ Crown/ local lords/ etc.

I am not sure with which one of your examples this fits best. But anyway, what do you think of it? Would you do it differently? Anything I should add or ommit?


Assuming you mean Burning, That's certainly the standard way. You could also go the Viking Burial route (shipping them away into the unknown), a religious Dexter-style disassembly and disposal into the ocean (or across a larger area), or have the dead eaten by a sacred animal (for example, the god of death is a vulture, crows are messengers of the god of death, Hyenas, et cetera)
Heh, I would have never thought some of these suggestions!
I think I'll stick with burning though. Seems like the most simple approach.
Oh wait, I might still make good use of one of those ideas, specifically the one where the dead are eaten by the sacred animal. This one will be used by a tribe in a distant land the PCs will eventually travel to. Thanks!!!


Returned, Lurkers, Dirty, Tainted, Cold, Blanks, Hollow, Inferi.
Dirty, tainted, hollow (you are the second person to suggest this, this one is one of my favourites), hmmm maybe returned too.
Inferi will be used only by those few who know of the possibility for a resurrection to backfire and bring back sth nasty.


You could do memory loss, loss of identity, Alignment changes, personality changes.

Stealing an idea from the world of Theros, those who are back from the dead lose their identity and also their face, forcing them to wear a mask to be identifiable from any other person who has returned.
These are some cool ideas, I am still puzzled whether I should use any of it or no. Anyway, even if I end up using any of them, they would probably not apply on a PC (unless perhaps they wanted to). Will give it some additional thought to see if I find sth creative that would perhaps make good use of any of these suggestions.

As for the idea from Theros, mmmm, it's a bit too much I think. Besides, I think I prefer to go a totally different direction with this. Making the ''returned'' difficult to differentiate them from other people (and for all intents and purposes they are like normal people). Yep, I think I want to have the inquisitors have a hard time determining if someone is ''hollow'', and also allow the possibility for error in their judgment (having innocents killed, tortured, branded, etc) because it was believed that he as ''hollow'', while he was not.

Thanks for your suggestions!!!


These are all really cool ideas.
For my 2 cents: In the game Im currently running I basically just turn dead PCs into NPCs and give them their own motivations and desires. Spefically, they just arent willing to come back anymore. (Spefically, because I have a rogue God trying to raise a spirit army and destroy the reminents of the old pantheon and yada yada take over the world yada yada)
However much of an interesting idea this may be, I dont think I can use it, as I have sth else planned for. Thanks for suggesting it though!!!:smallsmile:

Edit:


That is to say, there's nothing wrong with your tropes, I just think that absolutes are boring.
When I am a player, I like playing unconventional characters, but for them to be unconventional the world needs to be ''normal'', or rather, as expected to be. That is why I prefer (as a DM) to run a world which falls under some rather common tropes (out of habit, that is). Ofc, if you just change the campaign world, so that it follows a more original and unique idea (like the one you presented), you can still create unconventional characters with respect to that world. But it feels safer to stay within my confort zone (I'll admit, lazyness is a factor too), so that I know that drows are ''bad'' and now I can create a good drow ranger, or tieflings are bad and thus I can now create a good tiefling paladin, or aasimars are good and thus now I can create an aasimar oathbreaker.

As for the absolutes, I suppose this is why I just dont like to do away with them. The eliminate many unconventional characters I would perhaps like to play or see being played.

ps: Maybe I've been reading your post the wrong way (bit tired). I mean, I do enjoy having exceptions, I enjoy things that break the norm a lot! So I guess I dont like absolutes too.


A good necromancer can exist, whether the people see him that way or not.
Yeah, I agree, would love to play one (well, that's a lie, I would love to play a neutral one that would be based on Qyburn from GoT - love the old creepy dude -). But I agree, a good necromancer could exist (there is sth in the phb saying necromancy is evil, but yeah, I dont mean to debate rules here, neither do I pay much attention on this particular one).


a mom might cry that her baby boy who just happened to hang out with the wrong crowd is now an abomination of undead flesh and start some kind of group against necromancers.
For some reason this made me think of Southpark (moms against Canada). This clearly means I need to get some sleep....


Ok, I think I've sorted out the important things (thanks to your answers mostly, I did some thinking too based on your comments).

One last thing that still troubles me a bit, and with which I could use some help, is this:

Question: Should there be a way to tell if someone was raised back from the dead? (assuming he has not been branded)
If yes, would it be something that almost anyone can do, or would it require some special power?
Edit to clarify this: You want to ascertain if Bob was raised back from the dead, so that you can brand him with a sign that will mark him as someone who has been raised back from the dead. How to do that? (to that refers the above question).

Any suggestions regarding this last thing that poses me some difficulty would help me a lot.
I will read with most interest any suggestions you might want to throw regarding this last question, or anything else that was discussed previously really, though I may not reply to anything/everything.

Once again, thank you all for all your help so far!

[Sabeta]

I'll start by saying I've read almost nothing in this thread, but if you want some taboo against not only the Necromancers, but on people who have been brought back as well then yes. Go for it.

I suggest a black ring around the neck for anime reasons. Hard to hide (you would look super suspicious wearing say, a scarf in the middle of summer), and thematic.

[Mith]

How about when one is born, they are marked or "baptized' (quotes for a conceptual level, not necessarily the exact context or connotation). This ritual is supposed to ward the babe from ills and baby snatchers and the like. Babies that die anyways are seen as being called back by the gods for their own reasons to be reborn in another life. After a certain time period a naming ritual is done that officially welcomes the baby into the community, and a part of this ritual wears the magic of the mark thin. However all living people carry this mark that is invisible regularly, but can be made visible in a simple greeting ritual. Those that have been resurrected however, lose this mark. On top of that, there were times when ressurection spells end up bringing back something other (ghoul, wight, other sentient undead). Liches and vampires are self-desecration transformations of the original blessing. Undead such as Banshees, Ghosts, and Revenants are feared, but are also pitied, as they can be found with their blessings still intact upon their foreheads. Therefore the goals with them are to put them to rest, not to destroy them.

If you ever read The Old Kingdom series, I am drawing inspiration from the Charter Marks.

[Corran]

I'll start by saying I've read almost nothing in this thread, but if you want some taboo against not only the Necromancers, but on people who have been brought back as well then yes. Go for it.
Yep, that's the main idea. I just started calling it necromancy after a point to stop typing stuff like ''magic that brings people back from the dead''. I guess necromancy is still viwed as evil in the setting (though bringing people back to life definitely wins the race from animating dead, as far as which one of them is more of a taboo), as it will help me to associate bring people back from death with the more classic necromancy, and that will help me immerse the players more easily into this starnge reality.
Ie, calling ''bringing dead people back to life'' necromancy, and then saying that necromancy is evil, is easier than just saying that bringing people back to life is evil. And if I have ''bringing people back to life'' to be evil and necromancy to be viewed as sth neutral or good, perhaps it wouldnt make much sense (havent given it much thought though).


I suggest a black ring around the neck for anime reasons. Hard to hide (you would look super suspicious wearing say, a scarf in the middle of summer), and thematic.
All right, now suppose that this ring was removed somehow. How do you tell if the person who was wearing it and now does not, has been brought back from the dead? I mean, should there be a way to figure it out, or not. To that refers my question above, but granted, it was poorly stated, and I edited sth to clarify it.

ps: As far as marking someone who you know was resurrected, so that everyone knows that he was, the black ring idea is cool, but I think I will go with branding God's symbol on them. I dont know, it just strikes me as more appropriate for some reason.


How about when one is born, they are marked or "baptized' (quotes for a conceptual level, not necessarily the exact context or connotation). This ritual is supposed to ward the babe from ills and baby snatchers and the like. Babies that die anyways are seen as being called back by the gods for their own reasons to be reborn in another life. After a certain time period a naming ritual is done that officially welcomes the baby into the community, and a part of this ritual wears the magic of the mark thin. However all living people carry this mark that is invisible regularly, but can be made visible in a simple greeting ritual. Those that have been resurrected however, lose this mark. On top of that, there were times when ressurection spells end up bringing back something other (ghoul, wight, other sentient undead). Liches and vampires are self-desecration transformations of the original blessing. Undead such as Banshees, Ghosts, and Revenants are feared, but are also pitied, as they can be found with their blessings still intact upon their foreheads. Therefore the goals with them are to put them to rest, not to destroy them.

If you ever read The Old Kingdom series, I am drawing inspiration from the Charter Marks.
Mmmm..... will have to give this some serious thinking. I like where this is going regarding the undeads (I was specifically thinking of the Banshee, as I have refluffed it a bit to be sth more of a tragic figure). Still, I think I would prefer sth a bit more.... I dunno, subtle, maybe? Not sure though. I will definitely have to think on this more. I mean, it sounds very good but for some reason I cannot quite put into words I want sth else. Will reread it when I have a more clear mind.
Edited it, to make the question easier to spot, as I wouldn't mind taking an extra opinion on it.

Question: Should there be a way to tell if someone was raised back from the dead? (assuming he has not been branded already)
If yes, would it be something that almost anyone can do, or would it require some special power?
To clarify this: Assuming there is no visible indication to help you determine if an individual has been brought back from the dead, how one would find out that said individual was indeed brought back from the dead?

[Contrast]

Spells like divination or commune could get you an answer. I assume your setting isn't going to be littered with people capable of casting 4th and 5th level spells however so they would likely be a matter of last resort/only used in important cases. Detect Thoughts might work as a lower level solution.

One solution would be to introduce a new low level spell with the specific purpose or a common magic item (say a ball which only burns when touching the skin of a resurrected person or an orb hung over city gates which glows in the presence of a resurrected individual). Alternatively, simply have it picked up off a Detect Evil and Good or Detect Magic and give out wands/scrolls to the hunters. A lot depends on exactly how avoidable you want to make detection in the setting.

Its likely that they would also try to keep a very close eye on anyone they believed capable of casting resurrection spells.

Edit - You could also make the supply of material components required for such spells heavily regulated/monitored. Diamonds are hoarded by the Inquisition and the manufacture of the rare oils for reincarnation are restricted and monitored.