Does getting resurrected cure lycanthrophy?

[dethkruzer]

So in the previous session of the 3.5 game I run, one of the party members got burnt to crisp, and the rest off the party have decided to get them resurrected. Now, one thing they were not aware of, is that this particular character had contracted lycantrophy before. Said character is not aware of their condition, as they have yet to experience a full moon. So my question is, does getting resurrected, either through resurrection or true resurrection, cure lycantrophy?

[khadgar567]

good question I have no clue.

[Ashtagon]

According to the raise dead spell, "Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone." That would suggest that lycanthropy, as a magical disease, is not cured by such magic.

[dethkruzer]

According to the raise dead spell, "Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone." That would suggest that lycanthropy, as a magical disease, is not cured by such magic.

Didn't realize to look at Raise Dead. Though both resurrcetion and true resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health", which is what made me question it, but considering diseases and such are not specifically mentioned, then I assume it's as it is with raise dead.

Thanks

[Gnaeus]

Then since his new body was created with lycanthropy, he should be a natural lycanthrope 😀

[BowStreetRunner]

Then since his new body was created with lycanthropy, he should be a natural lycanthrope 😀
He doesn't get a new body, just the old one back.

[Nifft]

He doesn't get a new body, just the old one back.

Yeah, reincarnation is the that gets you a new body.

That would be a way to get a new body without any diseases or tattoos.

[Hunter Noventa]

I would think that True Resurrection would cure it, but only if you were using it in an instance where the original body was destroyed, since you'd be making an entirely new body. Unless we're implying that magical diseases attach to your very soul.

[Bronk]

I would think that True Resurrection would cure it, but only if you were using it in an instance where the original body was destroyed, since you'd be making an entirely new body. Unless we're implying that magical diseases attach to your very soul.

That is what happens, because True Resurrection keeps the restriction from Raise Dead that magical diseases and curses are not undone.

[Psyren]

I disagree with the above responses. While Raise Dead does specify that diseases and curses are untouched, Resurrection and True Resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health". You can't realistically claim that a creature "restored to full vigor and health" would still be diseased, and I would argue that they wouldn't still be cursed either.

[Bronk]

I disagree with the above responses. While Raise Dead does specify that diseases and curses are untouched, Resurrection and True Resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health". You can't realistically claim that a creature "restored to full vigor and health" would still be diseased, and I would argue that they wouldn't still be cursed either.

I see what you mean, and I think you've convinced me about magical diseases, although not for curses.

Vigor isn't really a game term, and health would cover most things. Neither account for weird magical affects like curses though. Plus, I would think that a character afflicted with lycanthropy would be more healthy and vigorous with it than without it.

[Nifft]

Vigor isn't really a game term, and health would cover most things. Neither account for weird magical affects like curses though. Plus, I would think that a character afflicted with lycanthropy would be more healthy and vigorous with it than without it.

"Full vigor and health" are meant to be seen in contrast with what raise dead imposes:

- Loss of vigor (lose one level or 2 Con); and

- Less than perfect health (raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice; any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1).

[Psyren]

I see what you mean, and I think you've convinced me about magical diseases, although not for curses.

Vigor isn't really a game term, and health would cover most things. Neither account for weird magical affects like curses though. Plus, I would think that a character afflicted with lycanthropy would be more healthy and vigorous with it than without it.

Even if you agree it's a disease but disagree from a curse standpoint, Lycanthropy is both. So I would argue that it qualifies as removable.


"Full vigor and health" are meant to be seen in contrast with what raise dead imposes:

- Loss of vigor (lose one level or 2 Con); and

- Less than perfect health (raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice; any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1).

If it meant that for "health" then it wouldn't have also said "hit points" separately, so I think there is ambiguity. "Vigor" meanwhile isn't defined, so the GM gets to decide what that means.

[BowStreetRunner]

For what it's worth:


Can a warforged be afflicted by lycanthropy? Warforged are immune to disease but it never specifies in the MM that lycanthropy is a disease.

No, they can’t. Though not technically a disease (it is a curse that acts like an affliction in some ways), only humanoids and giants can be afflicted with lycanthropy (see “Creating a Lycanthrope” MM 175). Warforged are neither, as they’re living constructs.(The relevant portion of quote was underlined by me.)

[Nifft]

If it meant that for "health" then it wouldn't have also said "hit points" separately, so I think there is ambiguity. "Vigor" meanwhile isn't defined, so the GM gets to decide what that means.

Most spells contain redundant information. They say the same thing more than once, often in a form like:


Flavor text version.
Mechanical text version.


The fact that the same information appears more than once is not an argument in favor of that information being somehow invalid.

[Psyren]

Most spells contain redundant information. They say the same thing more than once, often in a form like:


Flavor text version.
Mechanical text version.


The fact that the same information appears more than once is not an argument in favor of that information being somehow invalid.

Sure - but can you prove that specific line is redundant/flavor?

[Nifft]

Sure - but can you prove that specific line is redundant/flavor?

My argument is that the line which says you're healthy is not in conflict with the line that spells out how healthy you are (which is all the healthy).

Your argument is that the fact that you get HP back means the earlier instance of "healthy" must have some secret meaning.

Sorry, I don't think you're in a position to demand proof.

Can you support your position with anything more convincing than your current table-pounding?

[Psyren]

Your argument is that the fact that you get HP back means the earlier instance of "healthy" must have some secret meaning.


No, my argument is that, having mentioned HP once directly, believing that they intentionally repeated it a different way requires proof. Are you a designer? I don't see "Nifft" in my PHB anywhere but I might have missed it.

[BowStreetRunner]

My personal interpretation of the rules would be that since the Lycanthrope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm) entry has a specific section that describes the only methods of curing the affliction at the time the entry was written, then no other method would work unless that method included wording specific to curing Lycanthrope (specific trumping general). Further, since Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection were all known when the Lycanthrope entry was written, their exclusion from the list is suggestive that they were not intended to be able to cure it.

[Nifft]

No, my argument is that, having mentioned HP once directly, believing that they intentionally repeated it a different way requires proof. Are you a designer? I don't see "Nifft" in my PHB anywhere but I might have missed it.

I think you're getting confused about who is arguing what.

And yes, I'm a very good designer.

But that's irrelevant.


Your argument is not merely fallacious, it's self-defeating -- I mean, unless you can show that your ~your~ name appears in the PHB? You've basically committed rhetorical suicide by hoisting that petard.

Your argument is petarded.

[Psyren]

Your argument is not merely fallacious, it's self-defeating -- I mean, unless you can show that your ~your~ name appears in the PHB? You've basically committed rhetorical suicide by hoisting that petard.


I don't need to as I'm the one quoting the spell text. Not "flavor text," imaginary text, Nifft text or anything else. PHB 272 and PHB 296, look it up.


Your argument is petarded.

Yeah, this is about the level of rhetoric I've come to expect.

[Nifft]

I don't need to as I'm the one quoting the spell text. Not "flavor text," imaginary text, Nifft text or anything else. PHB 272 and PHB 296, look it up. Again, I think you're confused about who is arguing what.

What did you think my point was?



Yeah, this is about the level of rhetoric I've come to expect. Heh, indeed.

You can't say anything against my argument, so you try to make the argument about ~me~.

When you're called on that, you double down on going personal.

Note that I'm still only addressing your actual arguments -- you are the only person in this discussion who is attacking a poster.

[Blue Jay]

I disagree with the above responses. While Raise Dead does specify that diseases and curses are untouched, Resurrection and True Resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health". You can't realistically claim that a creature "restored to full vigor and health" would still be diseased, and I would argue that they wouldn't still be cursed either.

I agree with BowStreetRunner's post. And, to expand on it from a different angle...

The rules text for true resurrection takes the format "use the rules for raise dead, with some specific exceptions described below." So, this can be resolved with the "specific trumps general" principle, with the text of raise dead treated as the general rule, and the text of true resurrection as the specific rules that trump those general rules.

In order for a specific rule to trump a general rule, it has to actually be specific, right? That is, there has to be something in the text that specifically identifies which general rule is being trumped, and how it's being trumped. Basically, the text has to be more specific than the rule it's supposed to trump. Here's the rules text from raise dead that deals with diseases and curses:


"Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone."

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm)

That's the general rule. Rules text that's more specific than that can trump it --- text like "This spell removes all magical diseases and curses." But, "restored to full vigor and health" is, at best, an ambiguous statement that doesn't include any words with established game meanings, and that may or may not relate to the rules about magical curses. From my perspective, it seems really hard to treat it as a specific exception to a general rule when I'm not even sure what its in-game meaning is supposed to be. So, I would likely rule that nothing has changed between raise dead and true resurrection, in terms of magical diseases and curses.

-----

But, in response to the OP specifically, I think this is a judgment call that you make as a DM based on your personal insights into the people at your table. I say just rule in the direction of a more fun and interesting gaming experience.

[Telonius]

I don't think that Lycanthropy would be something that Resurrection (or True Resurrection) could fix. It's specifically not a disease, it's an acquired or inherited template. The spell doesn't say it does anything to templates, so I'd say that it doesn't do anything to templates. If you Resurrected a Mineral Warrior, it wouldn't lose the template on resurrection. If you True Res'd a Half-Golem (that hasn't failed one of his will saves), the missing limbs don't reappear to push out the metal bits.

[ericgrau]

I disagree with the above responses. While Raise Dead does specify that diseases and curses are untouched, Resurrection and True Resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health". You can't realistically claim that a creature "restored to full vigor and health" would still be diseased, and I would argue that they wouldn't still be cursed either.
I agree (with your response, not what's above it), but it's really hard to tell. It's super ambiguous and they should have clarified the very thing they mentioned in raise dead instead of making you guess what "health" means. What's worse is that we could argue that lycanthropy doesn't hurt your health and go deeper into this messy hole. But I think it means removes all diseases and afflictions regardless of the type.


I don't think that Lycanthropy would be something that Resurrection (or True Resurrection) could fix. It's specifically not a disease, it's an acquired or inherited template. The spell doesn't say it does anything to templates, so I'd say that it doesn't do anything to templates. If you Resurrected a Mineral Warrior, it wouldn't lose the template on resurrection. If you True Res'd a Half-Golem (that hasn't failed one of his will saves), the missing limbs don't reappear to push out the metal bits.

It's a disease, curse and a template: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm
If you true res a destroyed vampire, you don't get a vampire. This goes right back to is the template part of the creature or is it a condition?

[Chronikoce]

Throwing my opinion behind true resurrection curing the affliction. It's an acquired template since the character isn't a natural lycanthrope.

If a necropolitan dies and someone casts true resurrection on them, you get the original creature not the necropolitan back. I'd personally just apply that same logic here.

My real answer though is who cares what the rules say, go with what the player wants. If they want to retain it, then let them retain it. If they want to cure it, then let resurrection cure it. Don't let rules ambiguity get in the way of doing what's fun for your group.

[BowStreetRunner]

My real answer though is who cares what the rules say, go with what the player wants. Of they want to retain it, then let them retain it. If they want to cure it, then it resurrection cure it. Don't let rules ambiguity get in the way of doing what's fun for your group.
This. Absolutely.

But if you do cure him, leave him with an overwhelming urge to chase squirrels! :smallwink:

[Blue Jay]

It's a disease, curse and a template: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm
If you true res a destroyed vampire, you don't get a vampire. This goes right back to is the template part of the creature or is it a condition?


If a necropolitan dies and someone casts true resurrection on them, you get the original creature not the necropolitan back. I'd personally just apply that same logic here.

These examples have limited relevance. The effect of true resurrection on Undead creatures is a trait of the Undead type, not a general rule about how true resurrection treats templates or curses or conditions.

[Psyren]

Again, I think you're confused about who is arguing what.

What did you think my point was?

Your point was that some text in the rulebooks is flavor text. This is fine. But in spell entries, we have a clear way to spot flavor text - it precedes the mechanical rules of what the spell does. For example: "Bless fills your allies with courage" is flavor text. Then it describes what that actually means: "Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and saving throws vs. fear effects."

In Resurrection, we are well into the rules text when it says "upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor and health, with no loss of prepared spells." You are saying that the word "health" in that phrase is redundant with "hit points" whereas I am saying they wouldn't have specified it if they didn't mean something different. You then insisted that my interpretation was impossible, which is what lead me to question whether you were actually the person who designed the spell.


You can't say anything against my argument, so you try to make the argument about ~me~.

When you're called on that, you double down on going personal.

Note that I'm still only addressing your actual arguments -- you are the only person in this discussion who is attacking a poster.

So describing someone as "table-pounding" isn't a personal attack? Tell me, how's the view from that high horse of yours?

[ericgrau]

These examples have limited relevance. The effect of true resurrection on Undead creatures is a trait of the Undead type, not a general rule about how true resurrection treats templates or curses or conditions.
That still doesn't keep resurrection from curing lycanthropy, it just leaves it ambiguous at best. It was more of an example.

[Nifft]

Your point was that some text in the rulebooks is flavor text. Wrong.

I used flavor text as an example of how the same information is often repeated in the rules.

Therefore, seeing similar information in two different places in the same paragraph does not indicate that one of those places must refer to something novel.

But that wasn't actually my point -- that was simply an example in support of my point, which you've demonstrated that you didn't previously understand, and you've now demonstrated that you don't even know what you're arguing against by attacking me.

Literally why?



So describing someone as "table-pounding" isn't a personal attack? Tell me, how's the view from that high horse of yours? Describing your argument is not the same as describing you.

You're resorting to personal attacks in this post, too. This is a condemnation of your action, not your person.

Your posts are lowering the level of discussion in this thread.

[Zanos]

Considering that a lycanthrope is by every objective measure(fort/reflex save, HP, physical ability scores) more healthy than the creature without the template, saying that a spell that restores a creature to "full vigor and health" would remove it seems a bad path of logic to follow.

[Blue Jay]

That still doesn't keep resurrection from curing lycanthropy, it just leaves it ambiguous at best. It was more of an example.

Okay, but if we're being purely judicial about this, D&D rules use an exception-based system: they establish a default rule, and then enumerate all the specific exceptions to the rule. Where there is no specific exception provided, you use the default rule.

There is an established default rule in this case: the default is that resurrection and true resurrection behave like raise dead.

So, if there's ambiguity in the rules text, that doesn't mean both sides are equally valid: it means you can't demonstrate that resurrection behaves differently from raise dead, and so you should fall back on the default position.

Of course, this is all just academic. The only real rules of the game are that you do whatever's most fun and interesting for your game.

[Psyren]

Therefore, seeing similar information in two different places in the same paragraph does not indicate that one of those places must refer to something novel.

But it doesn't prove that it doesn't either. That's my point, you're presenting your position as absolute without any proof. So if you're not the designer, what are you basing that on?


Describing your argument is not the same as describing you.

Because arguments can pound tables, right? Nice try :smallsigh:

[Nifft]

Considering that a lycanthrope is by every objective measure(fort/reflex save, HP, physical ability scores) more healthy than the creature without the template, saying that a spell that restores a creature to "full vigor and health" would remove it seems a bad path of logic to follow. That's a very interesting take.

I guess the counter-argument would be that lycanthropy is defined as a disease, and therefore having it can't be more healthy than not, because diseases are defined as unhealthy.

But yeah, by every other measurable metric, you're more vigorous with the animal HD.



Okay, but if we're being purely judicial about this, D&D rules use an exception-based system: they establish a default rule, and then enumerate all the specific exceptions to the rule. Where there is no specific exception provided, you use the default rule.

There is an established default rule in this case: the default is that resurrection and true resurrection behave like raise dead.

So, if there's ambiguity in the rules text, that doesn't mean both sides are equally valid: it means you can't demonstrate that resurrection behaves differently from raise dead, and so you should fall back on the default position.

Of course, this is all just academic. The only real rules of the game are that you do whatever's most fun and interesting for your game. Yeah, the exception-based nature of the game should be considered.

The fact that raise dead specifically calls out the preservation of magical diseases tips the scale IMHO. Any reversal of that would tend to be as explicit as the original exception. There isn't one, and there is a plausible non-exceptional reading of the "vigor and health" line, so the default would hold.

But if you want the lycanthropy to be cured... you could say that the animal soul which has infected your body needs its own raise dead effect. So the condition is functionally cured, but you're still sharing your body with the spirit of an animal, it's just that the animal is dead. This might have some odd magical interactions, which in turn might be fun.



But it doesn't prove that it doesn't either. That's my point, you're presenting your position as absolute without any proof. So if you're not the designer, what are you basing that on? Nifft: "This is a pattern throughout the rules text. Here is one common example."
Psyren: "You're not the designer so shut up."

Could you maybe try posting a positive argument in favor of whatever you're trying to say, or at least attack my arguments instead of attacking my credibility as a person?


Because arguments can pound tables, right? Nice try :smallsigh: Your arguments have contained a lot of table-pounding, including this last post. This isn't subtle or tricky. I'm sure a moderator would be happy to help you understand the difference.

[ericgrau]

So, if there's ambiguity in the rules text, that doesn't mean both sides are equally valid: it means you can't demonstrate that resurrection behaves differently from raise dead, and so you should fall back on the default position.

That depends what "health" means. Health could override it depending on its meaning. Which is the confusing problem.

[Psyren]

Nifft: "This is a pattern throughout the rules text. Here is one common example."
Psyren: "You're not the designer so shut up."

Psyren: "There are two possible interpretations for this ambiguous section of rules text (specifically the clause 'full vigor and health'), not just one."
Nifft: "Your argument is petarded, you're just pounding the table."

Furthermore, I never once told you to "shut up" :smallconfused:


That depends what "health" means. Health could override it depending on its meaning. Which is the confusing problem.

My point exactly, thank you.

[Blue Jay]

That depends what "health" means. Health could override it depending on its meaning. Which is the confusing problem.

You missed the entire point of my post.

The two sides of this debate are not on equal footing: the burden of proof is entirely on one side.

If you think the text of resurrection overrides the text of raise dead, then you have to prove it.

If you can't prove it, then we default to the text of raise dead, because that's the default position.

This doesn't mean that that argument is "right" and your argument is "wrong": it just means that the text of raise dead is where we turn when we can't decide.

[Telonius]

It's a disease, curse and a template: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm
If you true res a destroyed vampire, you don't get a vampire. This goes right back to is the template part of the creature or is it a condition?

I'd say that it is a bit ambiguous, but the available evidence points away from "disease." From the description:

Lycanthropy can be spread like a disease.

(Underlined by me). If it were a disease, it wouldn't be spread "like" a disease, it would just be a disease. The curse is one thing that can grant the template; being born a natural Lycanthrope will also give the template without it being considered a curse to the creature in question. The part where the rules inject some ambiguity is the line:

A lycanthrope in animal form fights like the animal it resembles, although its bite carries the disease of lycanthropy.

None of the statblocks or special attacks indicate that Lycanthropy is a disease. Other than that one line, lycanthropy is exclusively described as a (Su) Curse or an "affliction." The only or attack that mentions disease is the Were-rat, which can give the (Ex) disease of Filth Fever in hybrid or animal form. I think this seems more like the devs playing fast and loose with language, as opposed to actually meaning to classify it as a disease. It doesn't act mechanically like any other disease in D&D. There's only a single Fortitude save involved, with no "two successful saving throws" to fight off the disease. No other disease has a Will save as part of the recovery mechanic.

I'd say that the "destroyed undead" thing is a specific exception within the text of True Resurrection. Contrast it to Revive Undead, from Spell Compendium. It revives an undead that was killed by hit point loss. Using the spell on an undead creature doesn't cause it to lose its template and come back alive.

I do think that (at minimum) inherited templates are pretty clearly part of the creature. If you True Res a Half-Celestial Elf, it's not going to come back as a regular Elf.

[Psyren]

If you think the text of resurrection overrides the text of raise dead, then you have to prove it.


We are. In what way can you be said to be "restored to full hit points, vigor, and health" if you're still sick?

I will allow that for Lycanthropy specifically, if it is purely a curse, then it may remain (since you can be both healthy and cursed.) But disease and poison should not, even if the weaker spell Raise Dead can't repair them.

[Rijan_Sai]

BowStreetRunner mentioned this earlier, but here's the full text:

Curing Lycanthropy

An afflicted character who eats a sprig of belladonna (also called wolfsbane) within 1 hour of a lycanthrope’s attack can attempt a DC 20 Fortitude save to shake off the affliction. If a healer administers the herb, use the character’s save bonus or the healer’s Heal modifier, whichever is higher. The character gets only one chance, no matter how much belladonna is consumed. The belladonna must be reasonably fresh (picked within the last week).

However, fresh or not, belladonna is toxic. The character must succeed on a DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Strength damage. One minute later, the character must succeed on a second DC 13 save or take an additional 2d6 points of Strength damage.

A remove disease or heal spell cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher also cures the affliction, provided the character receives the spell within three days of the lycanthrope’s attack.
[Sai's note: The proceeding can only happen within up to 3 days after the inflicting bite (the Belladonna method within 1 hour, as it says.)]
[Sai's note2: The following regards any time after the first 3 days have passed.]
The only other way to remove the affliction is to cast remove curse or break enchantment on the character during one of the three days of the full moon. After receiving the spell, the character must succeed on a DC 20 Will save to break the curse (the caster knows if the spell works). If the save fails, the process must be repeated.

Characters undergoing this cure are often kept bound or confined in cages until the cure takes effect.

Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy.
So, if it is decided that True Res. does cure magical curses, then it must be cast within (at most) 3 days after the bite. After that, the quoted text specifically states the only method of curing a lycanthrope.

However, if we look directly at Raise Dead vs. True Resurrection:

You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.

Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means. A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised, in addition to losing spells for losing a level. A spellcasting creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell, in addition to losing spell slots for losing a level.

A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of level (or Constitution points) or prepared spells.
(The rest of the text for both spells is fairly irrelevant for this discussion.)
RD has a short time frame (with some restrictions), requires a (mostly) complete body (and missing parts are still missing...), and causes level (or CON if @ 1HD) loss, as well as potential spell loss, and restoring 1 point to any ability scores that had been damaged (note: NOT drained) to 0 (but won't touch any other ability score damage).
TR has a very long time frame, and causes no level, CON, or spell loss. And, while not mentioned, I would interpret that it would restore all damaged and/or drained ability scores (ie: "full... vigor and health...")

So basically, aside from what I've quoted above, I can't really speak to the "true" RAW of it, but I would probably allow True Resurrection to cure a lycanthropy affliction if cast within 3 days (substituting in it's way for the Cure Disease or Heal spells,) but not after that.

[Blue Jay]

We are. In what way can you be said to be "restored to full hit points, vigor, and health" if you're still sick?

Do you understand how burden of proof works? It means you are obligated to defend your position, and I'm not. When you ask me questions like this, you're trying to force me to defend my position, when I'm under no obligation to do so. In fact, I don't actually even have a position to defend: I'm just explaining what we're supposed to do when we can't tell what the rules text means.

So, my answer is still, "I don't know what 'vigor and health' means, and neither do you."

Now, we're still in the same position as before you posted: it's still up to you to demonstrate that "vigor and health" means what you think it means. It's not up to me to demonstrate that it means something else.

If you can't demonstrate that, then we still fall back to the default position, even though we don't know that the default position is correct.

[Crichton]

Just gonna chime in and point out what Rijan Sai's post above made clear:

After 3 days from the point of infection, the rules state 2 methods for curing it, (remove curse and break enchantment), and use the wording 'only' in reference to using them.

That makes it pretty clear to me.

All other logical arguments aside, the actual RAW is that only those two spells can cure lycanthropy after 3 days have passed from infection. Nothing else is RAW, because the word 'only' excludes all other methods.

So the real question for the OP is: how long has it been since infection?

[Bronk]

Even if you agree it's a disease but disagree from a curse standpoint, Lycanthropy is both. So I would argue that it qualifies as removable.

Looks like Telonius already chimed in with this, but I agree with it... Lycanthropy is just a curse that happens to spread like a disease, so True Res would still be out.

[kulosle]

So I think the raw is pretty clear that it would still be afflicted. As pointed out by others. By raw it has no interactions the soul is cursed. And you bring the soul back curse and all. but flavor wise you can just do what's ever fun. Lycanthrope is vague enough that if you wanted it to be cured it easily could be.

But by that logic some interesting things happen. Like if someone becomes a dragonborn and then their body is destroyed and they are true resurrected. Does that bring them back as a dragonborn or their original race. Did their soul change to being a dragonborn? I mean you could rule it either way. And by raw it obviously brings them back as a dragonborn. But its just as fun and flavorful to say it doesn't. Especially considering you can just become a dragonborn again.

[Psyren]

So, my answer is still, "I don't know what 'vigor and health' means, and neither do you."

Indeed. But do you at least agree that different GMs have the freedom to interpret that bit of rules text differently?

[Blue Jay]

Indeed. But do you at least agree that different GMs have the freedom to interpret that bit of rules text differently?

Absolutely I agree with that. A DM should always be free to tailor the rules to his game in whatever way he thinks is necessary, including interpreting, altering, ignoring and inventing rules; just as long as he's being open and honest with his players about it, and his players are not put off by it.

To me, a rules debate like this is more about establishing a baseline than about dictating how people have to play the game. I'm a stubborn rules lawyer, and I'm obsessed with having an organized rules system in place; but as a DM, I'm a total cupcake: PCs almost never die in my games, and players always have lots of leeway to do creative things with their characters.

[Psyren]

Absolutely I agree with that. A DM should always be free to tailor the rules to his game in whatever way he thinks is necessary, including interpreting, altering, ignoring and inventing rules; just as long as he's being open and honest with his players about it, and his players are not put off by it.

Well, I can't think of many players that would be put off by their characters not coming back with a disease or poison no matter how powerful the rez that's used. If anything this is a much more pro-player interpretation/ruling.

[Blue Jay]

Well, I can't think of many players that would be put off by their characters not coming back with a disease or poison no matter how powerful the rez that's used. If anything this is a much more pro-player interpretation/ruling.

Don't cross the streams, dude.

At your table, use whatever rules make the game the most fun and interesting for your table.

But in an abstract rules debate (like the one we're having now), try to figure out what the "official" rules actually say.

[Nifft]

So basically, aside from what I've quoted above, I can't really speak to the "true" RAW of it, but I would probably allow True Resurrection to cure a lycanthropy affliction if cast within 3 days (substituting in it's way for the Cure Disease or Heal spells,) but not after that. That makes sense -- if you choose to allow it, rather than preferring the explicit "magical diseases" clause on raise dead, then the 3-day limitation seems fair.


But in an abstract rules debate (like the one we're having now), try to figure out what the "official" rules actually say. Well said.

Here's one more thought.

In addition to the explicit removal rules in the lycanthropy description, there's this in reincarnate:

Since the dead creature is returning in a new body, all physical ills and afflictions are repaired.
(Emphasis added.)

Afflicted lycanthropy seems like it ought to be cured by reincarnate.

[Psyren]

But in an abstract rules debate (like the one we're having now), try to figure out what the "official" rules actually say.

If you're looking for one solitary official reading for every rule in this game, I have unfortunate news for you; English is very often ambiguous, and so too are rules written in it. The *interpretation* being discussed here is just one example among many.

[tomandtish]

Obviously not the same version, but in 5E, the description for Resurrection specifically says it "...does NOT cure magical diseases, curses, or the like".

So you have some guidance from future editions on what the intent MIGHT have been.

[FreddyNoNose]

I disagree with the above responses. While Raise Dead does specify that diseases and curses are untouched, Resurrection and True Resurrection state "the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health". You can't realistically claim that a creature "restored to full vigor and health" would still be diseased, and I would argue that they wouldn't still be cursed either.

Raise Dead doesn't raise elves. So they are cursed!

[Nifft]

Raise Dead doesn't raise elves. So they are cursed!

Maybe it's because Elves inherently suffer from -2 vigor.

[Blue Jay]

If you're looking for one solitary official reading for every rule in this game, I have unfortunate news for you; English is very often ambiguous, and so too are rules written in it. The *interpretation* being discussed here is just one example among many.

Okay, this feels like we're just returning to square 1 again. I have already addressed these points about rules-text ambiguities and uncertainties about proper interpretations. My argument is that there's a logical process for making decisions when we can't tell what a particular section of rules text means.

But, you're still stuck on telling me that "language is ambiguous" and "there are multiple possible interpretations."

So, would you like to comment on any of the stuff I've already said about this (posts linked below for your convenience)? Or are you just in it for the thrill of clicking the "Quote" button?

Post #33 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22943386&postcount=33)
Post #38 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22943739&postcount=38)
Post #42 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22945063&postcount=42)

[Psyren]

But, you're still stuck on telling me that "language is ambiguous" and "there are multiple possible interpretations."

Because it is, and because there are. Why is that so onerous/incredible?

Your interpretation of "health" from the spell is indeed plausible, and you're not wrong to use it - but it is not the only possible one, nor is this the only place in the game's rules where interpretation can change the result of a spell.


So, would you like to comment on any of the stuff I've already said about this (posts linked below for your convenience)? Or are you just in it for the thrill of clicking the "Quote" button?

Post #33 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22943386&postcount=33)
Post #38 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22943739&postcount=38)
Post #42 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22945063&postcount=42)

What I'm "in it for" is to voice my agreement with ericgrau, who responded to all three of the posts you quoted. To wit:

1) Resurrect draws from raise dead as a baseline default - we all agree on that.
2) Default rules are only overridden by specific exceptions - we all agree on that too.
3) ericgrau and I are saying that there IS a specific exception in this case - or at the very least that there could be (depending on your interpretation of the ambiguous clause "vigor and health.") I believe that if they intended it to only mean "hit points" they wouldn't have needed to call out "hit points" in the very same sentence. You don't agree and that's completely fine.

[FreddyNoNose]

Maybe it's because Elves inherently suffer from -2 vigor.

I thought it was because they didn't have souls! they are spirits. Spirits who dance around.

[Blue Jay]

Your interpretation of "health" from the spell is indeed plausible, and you're not wrong to use it - but it is not the only possible one, nor is this the only place in the game's rules where interpretation can change the result of a spell.

I'm not offering an interpretation of the word "health," and my frustration is coming entirely from the fact that you still think I am.

I'm arguing that, since we don't know what "health" means, we should operate as if the word doesn't mean anything: effectively, we should ignore the word and just stick with whatever the default rule is.

I am not arguing that the text of raise dead is the "right" answer or the "right" interpretation of "vigor and health": I'm just saying that we need to default to our fall-back position on this one.

And remember, this is only my argument for what we should do when trying to establish what the RAW baseline is. When it comes to actual gameplay at an actual table, you should use whatever interpretation of the words your table prefers.


What I'm "in it for" is to voice my agreement with ericgrau, who responded to all three of the posts you quoted. To wit:

1) Resurrect draws from raise dead as a baseline default - we all agree on that.
2) Default rules are only overridden by specific exceptions - we all agree on that too.
3) ericgrau and I are saying that there IS a specific exception in this case - or at the very least that there could be (depending on your interpretation of the ambiguous clause "vigor and health.")

We all also agree on your point that there could be a specific exception, depending on your interpretation of that ambiguous phrase. Can you please acknowledge that you've heard and understood this now? Because, I feel like I've said it four or five times, and yet you still keep saying that you and I disagree on this point.


I believe that if they intended it to only mean "hit points" they wouldn't have needed to call out "hit points" in the very same sentence. You don't agree and that's completely fine.

I didn't say "vigor and health" means "hit points." I didn't say what I thought "vigor and health" means, and I omitted that on purpose, because, as I've now said four or five times, I don't know what 'vigor and health' is supposed to mean. But here's a list of possible interpretations for illustrative purposes:
Maybe "full health" means "ability scores restored to full"
Maybe "full vigor" means "all status conditions removed"
Maybe it's just trying to say that resurrection even restores "unhealable" hit points like the bite damage taken after failing the save against a vargouille's poison
Maybe it was supposed to read "full vigor and health, as described in the raise dead spell"
Maybe "full vigor and health" means "ability scores restored to full, all status conditions removed, and all poisons and diseases removed, except for magical diseases and curses, or diseases with unusual and/or specific healing requirements"
Maybe it means "ability scores restored to full, all status conditions removed, and all poisons and diseases removed, including magical diseases and curses, but not diseases and curses with unusual and/or specific healing requirements"
Maybe it means "ability scores restored to full, all status conditions removed, and all poisons and diseases removed, including diseases with unusual and/or specific healing requirements, but not magical diseases or curses"
Maybe it means, "ability scores restored to full, all status conditions removed, all poisons and diseases removed, and all armor-check penalties on athletic skills removed for 1 hour per caster level"
Maybe it means "ability scores restored to full, all status conditions removed, all poisons and diseases removed, and physical unattractiveness reduced by 20%"
Maybe it means "all blemishes and flaws removed (but he still keeps the bonus feats he got from his flaws)"

Obviously, some of those interpretations are outlandish and/or facetious. But I hope you understand that the only thing I'm arguing is that you can't determine which one of those interpretations is the "right" one, and that it's therefore inappropriate of you to assert one of them over the others. The only thing we can be really sure of is that resurrection at least does the things raise dead does, so that should be our baseline.

[Psyren]

I'm arguing that, since we don't know what "health" means, we should operate as if the word doesn't mean anything: effectively, we should ignore the word and just stick with whatever the default rule is.

That in itself is an interpretation. Do you not see that?

If not, we can (and should) probably just stop here.

[Blue Jay]

That in itself is an interpretation. Do you not see that?

If not, we can (and should) probably just stop here.

All I've said is that we can't use a rule that we don't understand and can't agree on.