How does raise dead or resurrection affect hereditary succession?

[doc225]

I saw this topic in another forum, and I'd love to see what you all think here.

I could imagine some pretty fuzzy situations popping up when kings and queens can be resurrected.

[Coffee_Dragon]

"The king is dead! Long live the king!"

"I'm not dead yet!"

*stab*

"I'm back again!"

*strangle*

"You can't keep me down!"

*fireball*

[mephnick]

If you die of old age even True Res won't bring you back, so it would likely be similar..if delayed a lot in some situations.

[Armored Walrus]

Probably a moratorium on succession until at least after the amount of time in which you can cast Raise Dead passes. For that matter, funeral rites probably have a waiting period once you're above a certain socio-economic class. The moratorium probably wouldn't last as long as Resurrection unless it was a kingdom that actually had that kind of spellcasting power among its mundane clergy. They wouldn't write succession rules around the possibility of a high-level adventurer happening to show up, i would think.

Of course, bringing someone back after that period, against all expectations, would probably result in a civil war.

It also would mean that assassins would likely account for the most common methods for raising dead and make sure they nullify it, either by taking body parts or destroying the brain or some other method.


I mean, you could always create different cultural approaches to it within the same setting. Maybe one culture views death as natural and necessary - once you die you're supposed to stay dead - if you circumvent that, you start life over with a new identity, or as a nonperson with no rights. Maybe another culture has a whole religious sect who see it as their duty to watch vigil over those who died of violence or disease and repeatedly cast Gentle Repose until the person can be brought back, but death by old age (however they define that) is allowed to happen.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I see a couple possibilities:

1) raise dead and similar effects are so rare that the circumstance essentially never arises. When it does, it triggers an outsized reaction either for good or ill.
2) raise dead is common enough that it's a standard part of estate planning; formal succession does not occur until the monarch refuses or is unable to be raised. During the interim, a regent is appointed, as if the monarch were incapacitated or abroad. A long-delayed raise might trigger a succession crisis. In more turbulent monarchies, it could trigger revolts or uprisings, just like any other period of sustained weakness.
3) raise dead is neither common nor rare. It is adjudicated on a kingdom by kingdom and case by case basis, with unpredictable and varying results. In some cases, a monarch might choose to abdicate in favor of an heir; in others, a succession crisis might trigger. Some places could remove the monarch from the line of succession whether they're alive or dead.

An example of the first case might be the Dragonlance world, where a resurrection would probably be considered a miracle. An example of the second case might be the world of Norrath, where essentially every major city has clerics aligned with that city's ruler capable of casting the highest-level cleric spells. An example of the third case might be Faerun, with monarchies that vary widely in attitude towards and access to magic.

[No brains]

To match this up with another bizarre fantasy government, assassinating the goblin king to become goblin king would run fine because even if he came back, you still killed him. Things would only get fuzzy if the old king tried to prove he didn't die.

[DeadMech]

Suppose that depends. Who wants the seat of power more? Maybe the previous ruler abdicates after being resurrected. Nothing like taking a vacation and enjoying your golden years in retirement after an assassination attempt. especially a successful one. Maybe the heir likes their parent and thinks they still have things to learn before taking over and willingly offers the throne back. Maybe they both want the seat and it comes down to civil war decided by who has the most muscle behind them. Or maybe one wants it but sees the writing on the wall and knows they don't have enough support and peacefully bows out.

[sophontteks]

When multiple people have a claim to the throne it typically ends with one of those people being killed, or mutulated (mutilating a claimant shows they are not divine, removing their eyes was common.)

Someone else was crowned king right? Having a seat on the throne gives him power and authority that is not so easily taken. He could give it up willingly, but if he doesn't, well, thats a problem.

Its not as simple as who its 'supposed' to go to. That makes no difference here. Its all about who has more supporters among nobility, the military, and the people.

Quite often one claimant wouldn't have the support in the capital, but may have support outside it. He would then run to where he has allies and a civil war will erupt.

These were very frequent. Successions were very often questionable. Ressurections don't happen IRL, but the same circumstances happened time and time again.

EDIT: while resurrections didn't happen. There are many times where someone would claim to be someone who was killed. Its not all too different.

[Tanarii]

Dungeonomics has a fun article on it:
http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2015/05/18/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king/

[Luccan]

If you die of old age even True Res won't bring you back, so it would likely be similar..if delayed a lot in some situations.

Unless there's been errata or some such, Raise Dead doesn't actually list the "cannot have died of old age" limitation. Not sure what happens when you get resurrected after dying of old age though. Do you die again almost immediately? Do you get to roll for your max numbers of years left?

[MilkmanDanimal]

To match this up with another bizarre fantasy government, assassinating the goblin king to become goblin king would run fine because even if he came back, you still killed him. Things would only get fuzzy if the old king tried to prove he didn't die.

Basically a Goblin version of Black Panther, except fewer rhinos.

[StoicLeaf]

I think in a world where resurrection is a thing assassins will know to desecrate the body in some way to prevent it.

[Sigreid]

I think in a world where resurrection is a thing assassins will know to desecrate the body in some way to prevent it.

Or steal and hide it.

[Princess]

In a constitutional monarchy in a D&D world, this would probably be covered in the official laws of succession. Outside of having explicit rules, this would either be solved with an agreement for someone to abdicate and step out of the way, or could degenerate into a civil war. When historic earthly kings led troops into battle, there was the occasional potential for them to be presumed dead when they were actually just delayed on their way back, and this is really just a more extreme version of "I thought you were dead!?" as it occurs here on earth from time to time.

[JellyPooga]

A more intriguing question, to my mind, is the consequences of the Reincarnation spell. Putting aside the very high possibility of coming back as another Race entirely, it puts you back into the body of a young adult, allowing even short lived Races to reign for centuries or more, given sufficient access to the spell and appropriate recognition of the person. That Reincarnation is also a lower level spell than Ressurection makes it a much more likely spell to use to prolong ones life/reign.

[Sigreid]

A more intriguing question, to my mind, is the consequences of the Reincarnation spell. Putting aside the very high possibility of coming back as another Race entirely, it puts you back into the body of a young adult, allowing even short lived Races to reign for centuries or more, given sufficient access to the spell and appropriate recognition of the person. That Reincarnation is also a lower level spell than Ressurection makes it a much more likely spell to use to prolong ones life/reign.

Clone as well, but with your own younger body.

[Vogie]

More than likely, there would be a myriad of different opinions about it, and different nations or regions have different styles of succession

Nation 1 has a sole eternal emperor, who reincarnates every X years to continue the reign.
Nation 2 has traditional hereditary succession. Perhaps they avoid Necromancy altogether.
Nation 3 has term limits for their leaders going both ways... if they die prior to fulfilling their term, they're raised to complete the term.
Nation 4 has a congressional body, but has & will True Resurrect their founder and greatest hero in times of need.
Nation 5 has a "royal family" of clones

[TheCount]

I think the royals, nobility and the wealthy class would come to a conses pretty quickly, what with the intrigue and political webspinning? the possibility of someone getting ressurected is... terrifying. if it isnt in special cases - say, in a war against an unreasonable foe (or natural occurence, like a plague) - the ressurected would lose its claim to the throne.... even the actual rulers (long live the king and all that).

so, yeah, its only a problem if they find out.


The king has died! the prince gets crowned! the headbutler/advisor/pet gets a fatal case of sword in the face for the new king knew thier manipulative naute. new hope to the kindom and they lived happily after... until the pupeteer gets reincarnated.
new body, new looks all the old contacts and minions.

its also good forthose who dont WANT to even HAVE a claim to the throne. could imagine someone offing themselves to get reincarnated: new body means no blood relation, cant that shield around the capital thats keyed to the royal bloodline...

(there is also non of the unpleasant bits about inbreeding in higher classes... yuck (was it the hasburg family in europe?))

clone:
....how do you explaine the sudden youth? or they were twins but one of them come with coma?

and if we are here anyway, lets play a bit more! i throw in the mix polymorph for even more FUN!!!!

[Sigreid]

I think the royals, nobility and the wealthy class would come to a conses pretty quickly, what with the intrigue and political webspinning? the possibility of someone getting ressurected is... terrifying. if it isnt in special cases - say, in a war against an unreasonable foe (or natural occurence, like a plague) - the ressurected would lose its claim to the throne.... even the actual rulers (long live the king and all that).

so, yeah, its only a problem if they find out.


The king has died! the prince gets crowned! the headbutler/advisor/pet gets a fatal case of sword in the face for the new king knew thier manipulative naute. new hope to the kindom and they lived happily after... until the pupeteer gets reincarnated.
new body, new looks all the old contacts and minions.

its also good forthose who dont WANT to even HAVE a claim to the throne. could imagine someone offing themselves to get reincarnated: new body means no blood relation, cant that shield around the capital thats keyed to the royal bloodline...

(there is also non of the unpleasant bits about inbreeding in higher classes... yuck (was it the hasburg family in europe?))

clone:
....how do you explaine the sudden youth? or they were twins but one of them come with coma?

and if we are here anyway, lets play a bit more! i throw in the mix polymorph for even more FUN!!!!

Clone is explained as keeping the king young and strong is part of the court wizard's job.

[WereRabbitz]

We had this issue come up and they had a Cultural rule of thumb they followed.

Your claim to the throne passes on to the oldest child who's blood is purest. If your are resurrected then you can stay on in a advisory capacity and even hold the throne while the king is traveling or if the next heir is not yet 20 years of age.

Now if the King dies and he has two sons they have the next claim to the throne. If the oldest son Dies the youngest has claim unless the oldest has a child then that child has claim, but if both sons die and the king fathered another child after returning from the dead that child would then be the next king in succession (assuming the first two sons didn't have any children of their own).


So a King's Claim ends when he dies the first time, but he can still father heirs to the throne.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd say that no matter the laws on Raise Dead and similar Reincarnate will end any rightful claims you could possibly have. As relatively easy as it is to impersonate someone with magic in D&D, if anyone (or anything) could come and claim they are the king who just came back from dead as elf/orc/mind flayer, the only result would be chaos every time a ruler dies.

Clone could be similar, but it could also lead to Karrnath situation unbased and absolutely false rumors that the king is actually his own grandfather turned into a vampire who imprisoned the true heir in utter secrecy in inescapable off-country island prison, just because they look remarkably alike.

[Mercurias]

I would imagine this would be something you could say is dependent on each specific country. Some countries may even ban the practice of resurrecting the dead entirely, viewing it as a challenge to the natural order. Others might include a death as the only means of being severed from the monarchy, requiring spilled heartsblood even for an abdication, but allow a resurrection after.

[rmnimoc]

Typically in my campaigns I run it similar to how modern medicine treats death nowdays: You aren't actually dead until we can't bring you back again.

Reincarnate is typically an exception to this, but druids are typically a bit rarer than clerics in kingdoms when I DM so it rarely comes up.

For Raise Dead and such, the deaths tend to be treated like serious injuries or illnesses. An appointed regent takes temporary command until the ruler is back in their feet. Occasionally you have a civil war if someone pulls off some absurd thing like reviving an ancient king or something, but for the most part that's how the average kingdom in my average campaign treats it.

Theocracies are usually an obvious exception to this, just staying with their god after they die, as is any kingdom that either by choice or inability can't bring their leader back.

[Lord Vukodlak]

An old 3.5 book The Complete Divine kinda touched on this subject, most people who die accept the fact that they're dead and refuse to be raised. This applies even to evil people, a chaotic evil soul goes to a chaotic evil afterlife. The soul is at peace and doesn't want to come back with few exceptions.

So even if the King's court has access to raise dead or resurrection its no guarantee said King is going to want to come back. Even without that old bit of lore, when you know for a fact there is an afterlife and you are already sitting it going back to prolong your life might seem trivial.


Unless there's been errata or some such, Raise Dead doesn't actually list the "cannot have died of old age" limitation. Not sure what happens when you get resurrected after dying of old age though. Do you die again almost immediately? Do you get to roll for your max numbers of years left?
Its listed under resurrection and true resurrection but not raise dead. I'd take its abstinence as an error and not an exception.

[Luccan]

Its listed under resurrection and true resurrection but not raise dead. I'd take its abstinence as an error and not an exception.

Probably, I just find the implication interesting.

[Cespenar]

More than likely, there would be a myriad of different opinions about it, and different nations or regions have different styles of succession

Nation 1 has a sole eternal emperor, who reincarnates every X years to continue the reign.
Nation 2 has traditional hereditary succession. Perhaps they avoid Necromancy altogether.
Nation 3 has term limits for their leaders going both ways... if they die prior to fulfilling their term, they're raised to complete the term.
Nation 4 has a congressional body, but has & will True Resurrect their founder and greatest hero in times of need.
Nation 5 has a "royal family" of clones


These are pretty good ideas. I'll try to add:

Nation 6 has the rights and titles of a dead noble pass on, but if they are raised they are allowed to stay in court as an advisor. So, assassinating someone for their title and then raising them could be considered as being "a good sport" within rival nobles.

Nation 7 has the dead nobles sent to the High Temple for "Judgement", where they are "allowed" to be resurrected or struck out for good. So you really have to keep a good relation with the clergy. Non-Temple raising of the dead is High Blasphemy.

Nation 8 has seen the raises and resurrects destroying their hereditary system, so they just moved to oligarchy instead.

Nation 9 has the temples become as to something like different insurance companies, with their own personalized stipulations for raising. Some might just accept coin, but others might require someone to be of that religion from their birth, or another would enforce "public service"-like requirements (or even bonds) before agreeing to raise someone.

[Doorhandle]

These are pretty good ideas. I'll try to add:

Nation 6 has the rights and titles of a dead noble pass on, but if they are raised they are allowed to stay in court as an advisor. So, assassinating someone for their title and then raising them could be considered as being "a good sport" within rival nobles.

Nation 7 has the dead nobles sent to the High Temple for "Judgement", where they are "allowed" to be resurrected or struck out for good. So you really have to keep a good relation with the clergy. Non-Temple raising of the dead is High Blasphemy.

Nation 8 has seen the raises and resurrects destroying their hereditary system, so they just moved to oligarchy instead.

Nation 9 has the temples become as to something like different insurance companies, with their own personalized stipulations for raising. Some might just accept coin, but others might require someone to be of that religion from their birth, or another would enforce "public service"-like requirements (or even bonds) before agreeing to raise someone.

Kinda wish I started my campaign after this thread: you could make an entire campaign setting based around cultures with different stipulations for resurrection.

[Cespenar]

Kinda wish I started my campaign after this thread: you could make an entire campaign setting based around cultures with different stipulations for resurrection.

True, D&D is actually pretty ripe with ideas for speculative fiction, if one so wishes.

[smcmike]

Hereditary monarchy and positions for life are bad ideas anyways.

[Regitnui]

Depends on how people let it affect hereditary succession... After all, we know people can take an awful lot of insanity if it can be justified through a mutually-agreed-upon "system". I would give a real-world example, but the most relevant may infringe forum rules.

[hymer]

In Cormyr, the royals are forbidden from using resurrection magic. Which is pretty daft if you ask me.

[Tanarii]

In Cormyr, the royals are forbidden from using resurrection magic. Which is pretty daft if you ask me.
Sometimes plot holes are patched over in rather obvious ways.

[Dr. Cliché]

Quite honestly, this sounds like a great plot-hook for a campaign.

The King died some time ago and his son took over the throne. However, a group that preferred the old king took it upon themselves to have him resurrected. The old king, now back amongst the living, isn't fond of how his son has chosen to run things. He decides it would be best for everyone if he returns to the throne and teaches his son how to rule 'properly'.

Unsurprisingly, though, the son is unwilling to just hand the throne back to his father. He's ruled as king for years and believes that he is now a far better king than his father ever was.

Both have their supporters and both are prepared to go to war over the throne.



More than likely, there would be a myriad of different opinions about it, and different nations or regions have different styles of succession

Nation 1 has a sole eternal emperor, who reincarnates every X years to continue the reign.
Nation 2 has traditional hereditary succession. Perhaps they avoid Necromancy altogether.
Nation 3 has term limits for their leaders going both ways... if they die prior to fulfilling their term, they're raised to complete the term.
Nation 4 has a congressional body, but has & will True Resurrect their founder and greatest hero in times of need.
Nation 5 has a "royal family" of clones


Some great ideas here.

[LtPowers]

Let us not forget Gandalug Battlehammer. He handed his kingdom over to his (youngest son) before he died, and then went on an adventure that led not to his death but his soul's imprisonment for many hundreds of years. So he wasn't resurrected, but he had been thought long dead and came back, and his descendant Bruenor abdicated in his favor, making him the First and Ninth King of Mithral Hall. Bruenor took over again when Gandalug died again, making him Eighth and Tenth King.


Powers &8^]

[JoeJ]

Remember that none of the spells that bring people back are guaranteed successful. Specifically, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection all require that that target's spirit be free and willing to return. So think about the cosmology of the setting, and what happens to people when then die. Spirits that are being punished in the afterlife are unlikely to be free. Those who have been rewarded may not be willing to come back unless there is a very pressing need for them.

[Ganymede]

Resurrection interferes with inheritance and succession by creating co-equal claims, claims that can only be resolved through diplomacy, subterfuge, or warfare. Choose whichever one best fits your campaign.

[MrConsideration]

This requires a lot of other question, many of which lead to plot-hooks!

How many high-level Clerics are there in your campaign world? What's their status? Are they a messiah or Pope-like figure to their faith? Is every priest a 'Cleric' or is a Cleric a rare individual chosen by their god, above and beyond the normal priesthood? Can a Cleric resurrect at will, or does it require the direct intercession and involvement of their god?

If Resurrection is a favour from the region's church, how much power and influence do they accrue using that power? Imagine if the IRL Catholic Church had been able to offer physical eternal life in addition to the spiritual sort to a powerful king. This could lead to theocratic government where the Church controls life, death and succession - or extremely stable and long-lived kings. Imagine a world where every Charlemagne or Genghis Khan could live forever...

What are the circumstances of death? Old age or suicide probably aren't repairable. If assassinated or killed in battle, surely there must be a mad scramble to retain or desecrate the body? Reclaiming the king's mortal remains would be an excellent plot hook. If they died of an illness, does Resurrection cure it? Or do they simply die in agony again?

How did the heirs feel about this? Do they itch to take their own time on the throne? Perhaps when the king dies his heir assumes power and doesn't tolerate the idea of Resurrection.

In my campaign world, Resurrection doesn't exist - at all. This removes a lot of bizarre situations and ensures an incentive for people to want to be a Lich or Vampire or Magic-Jar-Body-Jumper or whatever method they get stay in the game a few more years.

[JoeJ]

If Resurrection is a favour from the region's church, how much power and influence do they accrue using that power? Imagine if the IRL Catholic Church had been able to offer physical eternal life in addition to the spiritual sort to a powerful king. This could lead to theocratic government where the Church controls life, death and succession - or extremely stable and long-lived kings. Imagine a world where every Charlemagne or Genghis Khan could live forever...

The official position might also be that it's an abomination to recall those who have gone to their blessed rest in the arms of the gods. Maybe there are only a few clerics willing to cast Resurrection in secret. (And, of course, if it works at all, that may call into question whether or not the gods are in full agreement on the matter.)

[Tanarii]

Population of level 9+ plus clerics to even raise the dead is no small thing.

To pull some numbers out of nowhere: If you assume the adventuring classed population (or equivalent in NPC stat blocks) is as high as 1/100, and 1/2 is level 1 (or equiv.) with half the remainder lvl 2 etc ... you end up with 4 in 100,000 lvl 9+ characters. If we assume 1/4 are Clerics, Druids, Bards, and of those 1/2 are Clerics, we end up with 1 in 500,000 people can cast Raise Dead. That's with a fairly high population of 1/100 being classed equivilent. More likely you're looking at 1/10 that in a civilized country.

So that'd be looking at anything from 2-3 in a country the size of medieval England to 2-3 one the size of medieval France (roughly ten times the populace of England).

Thats just for raise dead, with its whole body and ten days restrictions. For resurrection (level 7) cut it by 1/16, so maybe a low as one Cleric in all of Europe.

[sophontteks]

Population of level 9+ plus clerics to even raise the dead is no small thing.

To pull some numbers out of nowhere: If you assume the adventuring classed population (or equivalent in NPC stat blocks) is as high as 1/100, and 1/2 is level 1 (or equiv.) with half the remainder lvl 2 etc ... you end up with 4 in 100,000 lvl 9+ characters. If we assume 1/4 are Clerics, Druids, Bards, and of those 1/2 are Clerics, we end up with 1 in 500,000 people can cast Raise Dead. That's with a fairly high population of 1/100 being classed equivilent. More likely you're looking at 1/10 that in a civilized country.

So that'd be looking at anything from 2-3 in a country the size of medieval England to 2-3 one the size of medieval France (roughly ten times the populace of England).

Thats just for raise dead, with its whole body and ten days restrictions. For resurrection (level 7) cut it by 1/16, so maybe a low as one Cleric in all of Europe.
2 priests with that power over an entire continent. Every time they disagree its a schism. One decides they don't like yeasty bread, next thing they know all the people are fighting. Down with the eaters of unleavened bread! Leavened bread is the only way!

[doc225]

Population of level 9+ plus clerics to even raise the dead is no small thing.

To pull some numbers out of nowhere: If you assume the adventuring classed population (or equivalent in NPC stat blocks) is as high as 1/100, and 1/2 is level 1 (or equiv.) with half the remainder lvl 2 etc ... you end up with 4 in 100,000 lvl 9+ characters. If we assume 1/4 are Clerics, Druids, Bards, and of those 1/2 are Clerics, we end up with 1 in 500,000 people can cast Raise Dead. That's with a fairly high population of 1/100 being classed equivilent. More likely you're looking at 1/10 that in a civilized country.

So that'd be looking at anything from 2-3 in a country the size of medieval England to 2-3 one the size of medieval France (roughly ten times the populace of England).

Thats just for raise dead, with its whole body and ten days restrictions. For resurrection (level 7) cut it by 1/16, so maybe a low as one Cleric in all of Europe.

I'm interested in the numbers, here. I know a good chunk of the population is commoners, but I'd love to see a breakdown of how many people in a given populace have levels in a pc class. Back when I was running 3.5, I thought about having all NPCs as NPC classes, with only the PCs using classes from the PHb. I'm curious how something like that wold work out in 5e.

Thanks for the input.

[BBQ Pork]

Or steal and hide it.
Which becomes difficult if the target is important enough that someone would hire Divination services.

If they're important to Assassinate, they're important enough for that.

I'd expect that cremating or magically obliterating an assassination target would be a thing.

An Assassin might even charge higher rates if extra work like that was to be done.

[Tanarii]

I'm interested in the numbers, here. I know a good chunk of the population is commoners, but I'd love to see a breakdown of how many people in a given populace have levels in a pc class. Back when I was running 3.5, I thought about having all NPCs as NPC classes, with only the PCs using classes from the PHb. I'm curious how something like that wold work out in 5e.

Thanks for the input.
I'm fairly sure they come from some AD&D (probably 2e) content. Back then, NPCs were PC classes too, not even NPC classes like 3e. I think that's where I got between 1/100 classed (dangerous frontier areas) and 1/1000 classed (particularly peaceful civilized). The 1/2 level 1, and 1/2 remainder each higher level dfinitely came from some AD&D world building book somewhere.

IIRC 3e had a very different way of determining classed population. I'm fairly sure it had PC-classed NPCs in its population distribution though.

5e NPCs generally have "monster" stat blocks with some simple PC-like abilities, although they can be PC classed at the DMs discretion. But you can still think of them as level approx equal to their HD if you're doing a distribution method like above, since HD is usually what their PC-like features key off of. Especially for casters.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm interested in the numbers, here. I know a good chunk of the population is commoners, but I'd love to see a breakdown of how many people in a given populace have levels in a pc class. Back when I was running 3.5, I thought about having all NPCs as NPC classes, with only the PCs using classes from the PHb. I'm curious how something like that wold work out in 5e.

Thanks for the input.

There were demographics tables in 3.5 DMG for highest level NPCs of given class (both PC and NPC) in a community.

[GlenSmash!]

Hereditary monarchy and positions for life are bad ideas anyways.

What? History doesn't reflect this at all!

:smallbiggrin:

[sophontteks]

What? History doesn't reflect this at all!

:smallbiggrin:
A single ruler, especially a benevolent one, with total power is very effective...Until he dies. Then the whole system descends into chaos more often then not. My reply on the OP's question reflected this. Who cares what the law is when the leader is dead. The various groups who could enforce the law have their own interests in who takes the throne.

Modern governments have much less capacity, but they are stable. Short run hereditary rule is amazing, but modern governments will outlast them. I think that's why they are considered bad ideas today, though that isn't strictly true. In fact I think single-rulers are superior in developing worlds where having the ability to create change quickly is especially beneficial.

[GlenSmash!]

A single ruler, especially a benevolent one, with total power is very effective...Until he dies. Then the whole system descends into chaos more often then not. My reply on the OP's question reflected this. Who cares what the law is when the leader is dead. The various groups who could enforce the law have their own interests in who takes the throne.

Modern governments have much less capacity, but they are stable. Short run hereditary rule is amazing, but modern governments will outlast them. I think that's why they are considered bad ideas today, though that isn't strictly true. In fact I think single-rulers are superior in developing worlds where having the ability to create change quickly is especially beneficial.

By virtue of that great power to change quickly makes an evil single-ruler so terrible. They can affect evil far more quickly.

There is also a wise adage about power and corruption. Some one who wields might in the service of right is always only a short step away from might makes right.

[hymer]

A single ruler, especially a benevolent one, with total power is very effective...Until he dies. Then the whole system descends into chaos more often then not. My reply on the OP's question reflected this. Who cares what the law is when the leader is dead. The various groups who could enforce the law have their own interests in who takes the throne.

Modern governments have much less capacity, but they are stable. Short run hereditary rule is amazing, but modern governments will outlast them. I think that's why they are considered bad ideas today, though that isn't strictly true. In fact I think single-rulers are superior in developing worlds where having the ability to create change quickly is especially beneficial.

I think these are great points, but even you, I think, may be overestimating the stability of modern governments. The ones that spring to my mind are barely [edit: around] two centuries old, and not a few have had serious trouble along the way.

Consider the fall of the Roman Republic. Once the government failed to adjust to changing circumstances, unrest in the population and distance to central power made it possible for generals to make themselves autocratic leaders of the state. And the solution they used was to move in an autocratic direction. The number and scale of civil wars went down.

The stability of a government is more a measure of the stability of its society than the inherent stability of that type of government, I should say. Stable countries can go for centuries of bad or mediocre kings and have no civil wars or violent revolutions. I should know, I'm living in a country like that.

[Unoriginal]

I get the idea a lot of cultures would have a "waiting period" during which if a person comes back to life, they can get back their things with no issue.

Maybe one year, since spells that can bring you back after this long are even rarer.

[sophontteks]

I think these are great points, but even you, I think, may be overestimating the stability of modern governments. The ones that spring to my mind are barely [edit: around] two centuries old, and not a few have had serious trouble along the way.

Consider the fall of the Roman Republic. Once the government failed to adjust to changing circumstances, unrest in the population and distance to central power made it possible for generals to make themselves autocratic leaders of the state. And the solution they used was to move in an autocratic direction. The number and scale of civil wars went down.

The stability of a government is more a measure of the stability of its society than the inherent stability of that type of government, I should say. Stable countries can go for centuries of bad or mediocre kings and have no civil wars or violent revolutions. I should know, I'm living in a country like that.

Don't worry man I give credit where credit is due. Western influence hasn't done developing nations any favors. Administrative institutions outlast regimes and I believe governments like the Roman Republic were really good at forming these institutions but its not something exclusive to these governments.

Like, when Rome fell, most of the Roman territories didn't really care. Eventually a new regime just adapted these systems and Rome rose again for another 1000 years.

[holywhippet]

I'd expect the existence of ressurection magic would lead to fairly direct means of preventing the return of the ruler if they are killed by a hostile individual or group.

Consider the following:

a) Raise dead and ressurection won't work on undead. So an assassin could always bring a scroll along to turn their target into an undead blocking those spells from working. True ressurection won't be stopped, but casters who can cast level 9 spells are few and far between.

b) Bags of holding are only uncommon in frequency and you could easily stash a corpse in one. So just sneak in, off the king, toss him in the bag and dispose of the body later on. Even true ressurection requires you to touch the dead body - no dead body, no coming back.

c) Even without magic you could incinerate the corpse and scatter the ashes. Or even just bury them somewhere out of the way.

d) Reincarnate is an interesting suggestion, but would the average peasant really accept that their human king just suddenly became a gnome?

e) Given the nature of most D&D type worlds you wouldn't expect most rulers to die of old age anyway. Odds are someone will either dispose of them via assassination or invade their country.

f) Think about the sword of Damocles story. Many rulers would likely be happy to be free of all their cares once death comes and wouldn't accept raising.

g) If a king really plans to live forever via magic, are they even going to bother having an heir?

[tieren]

I imagine issues would arise among the heirs as well...

"Geez, we could use all his diamonds to bring Uncle Stan back, or we could just divy them up..."