PDA

View Full Version : Arguing in favour of resurrection magic



Peregrine
2008-03-07, 10:49 PM
Why Resurrection Spells Don’t Cause Dramatic Culture Shifts
or, Why Not Every Rich or Important Person Gets Raised Constantly
An Essay

One of the perpetual arguments against the D&D game’s current system of raising the dead is that it’s too easy. Find someone who can cast the spell, pay the material cost, and poof, you’re back, only a little worse for wear. The core arguments against this system are twofold: one, it cheapens death for the players; two, it would have a significant impact on the culture of the game world, moving it away from the stock medieval culture. I’m not here to argue against the first, which comes down to personal impact and roleplaying style. I am going to attempt to rebut the second, by showing that the game has placed limitations on resurrection magic that deny it to all but a select few—the specially chosen—the PCs.

The argument I’m rebutting goes something like this. The game places a specific monetary value on all resurrection magic (the material component, which specifies a minimum—but who ever paid more?), and it also puts a price on obtaining the services of a spellcaster to cast a specific spell for you. Therefore, anybody with sufficient cash can pay to get someone brought back from the dead. Any rich merchant would make such arrangements for themselves, as long as they had someone they could trust. Any monarch not thoroughly unpopular would have loyal subjects able to raise the necessary cash. Barring unforeseen circumstances (and it would break suspension of disbelief if every single king or merchant was kept dead due to such unforeseen circumstances), people of sufficient station could count on being raised, and therefore would almost always live to maximum age. Politics takes a nosedive. Anyone important enough to assassinate will be back in the morning. The game world as we know it becomes dramatically altered.

The first assumption of my counter-argument is that the game is being run by a DM who takes responsibility for the impact of game decisions. What does that mean? It means that the DM doesn’t blindly employ the rules, but considers how they affect the story and the world being created. Of course, not every DM will be responsible in this sense, and not every DM should be, either. Many of us are perfectly happy to play (at least some of) our games in a more casual, anything-goes style. But that is not the sort of game in which the question of the impact of resurrection magic would ever arise! For the question to matter, it must be in the context of a game where the DM goes above and beyond the letter of the rules in order to build a self-consistent world.

A consequence of having a responsible DM is that not every spell will be available for purchase or hire, and the first target of such a decision should be resurrection magic. All resurrection spells are divine spells, and the gods cannot be bought for mortal coin. Obtaining a resurrection spell, then, becomes more than a matter of making a large donation to your local temple—it means finding a divine caster willing to bring you back, because they believe that their god (or their cause) wants you back among the living.

Firstly, then, the raising of the dead character must further the purpose of the god or cause providing the spell to the caster. Maybe a cleric will raise a person after placing special conditions on them about what they will do with their restored life. Or maybe the requirement will be for those requesting the raising to do some quest or deed for the temple in question—making an actual sacrifice, not just handing over some gems that they can well afford. Most likely, though, resurrection magic would be used on those who have already shown themselves to be effective servants of the god or cause: either the companions of a high-level cleric, aiding him or her in quests that aid the cause; or (if it’s the cleric who died), someone who is themselves a mighty servant, whose peers would greatly wish to bring him or her back. Thus, only in an adventuring party are we really likely to find people whom a divine caster is willing to raise from the dead.

More than just being willing, though, the caster must be able to bring back the deceased. The spell lists place concrete limits on who can raise a dead character. To bring someone back to life (in the core rules or SRD), you need someone to cast raise dead (9th-level cleric, deceased no more than one day per caster level, whole bodies only, no death effects, 5,000gp), resurrection (13th-level cleric, deceased no more than 10 years per caster level, any piece of the body, 10,000gp), or true resurrection (17th-level cleric, deceased no more than 10 years per caster level, 25,000gp). Oh, and there’s also reincarnate (7th-level druid, deceased no more than one week, any piece of the body, no death effects, 1,000gp), but prospective reincarnees need to seriously consider whether coming back in a fresh new body is worth the high likelihood of a change in species. 3rd edition was really much more fun in this regard, but even now, how many reincarnated human kings would be accepted by their people if they suddenly became a gnome? Or a bugbear?

My second assumption is that finding a character of a given level is more difficult than rocking up to the nearest city and waiting around in a tavern or a temple. By the terms of the legend lore spell, characters of 11th level or higher are legendary. They are extremely rare—only a few in a generation. Characters of 9th level, just two levels shy of legend status, should still be truly extraordinary. Clerics of this level don’t hang around in temples all day, they go forth and serve their god or cause at the frontiers of the faith. Even druids of 7th level are far from common, and finding any druid when you want one shouldn’t be trivial to begin with.

I’m well aware that many campaign settings (Forgotten Realms, I’m looking at you) violate this assumption, with a glut of high-level characters, but I do believe the rules support it. The only time you should be reliably able to find a divine caster of a sufficiently high level is in an adventuring party of that level. Once again, the rules readily limit resurrection magic to the PCs, and to precious few others.

Finally, the target of the resurrection magic must be willing to come back to the land of the living. The point of the afterlife is that it is fitting for the person who ends up there. Thus, whatever their opinions in life, it is reasonable to assume that by default, people will want to stay dead. Anyone unsatisfied with where they ended up is unlikely to get raised anyway—clearly they don’t have the favour of whichever god or alignment rules the realm wherein they reside, and what are the chances of some other god or cause sponsoring their resurrection? As stated before, the character most likely to get raised is one specially favoured of a god or cause, and it is precisely such a character that is most likely to want to remain in the afterlife! Only a select few, who know that they can truly serve their cause best by living, will have both the desire to return and a divine spellcaster able to make it happen. Those who get raised are great doers of deeds in the mortal realm. They are PCs, or very rare NPCs of like stature.

Ultimately, resurrection magic does not have to cause any significant shift from the stock medieval culture at all. The only characters likely to have reliable access to resurrection on demand are adventurers—and that’s as it’s meant to be. Whether you like your characters being able to come back like that—whether you feel it cheapens character death—is another matter. The rules are written for the benefit of questing, world-striding, prophetically-ordained adventurers (that is, the PCs, and a few DM-chosen NPCs), not every Commoner Jill or King Jack, and the built-in difficulties inherent in obtaining resurrection magic ensure that a responsible DM has everything he or she needs to ensure it remains so.

[hr]
This essay went from conception to completion in about two hours today, though I think I’ve been ruminating on the basics of it for some time. I can’t remember what set me off, but something did, and I just had to write it. Thoughts?

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-07, 11:09 PM
I think you're making a mistake, here, in thinking that rule 0 makes this issue go away. It doesn't, and that's fundamentally what you're making an argument for.

The thing is that you're saying the DM is trying to build a logical, internally consistant world. The problem is that you're then trying to rule 0 away logical, internally consistant conclusions that the "laws" (as they were) of the world seem to lead to. Basically, you're saying that the clerics would only raise those who would further the purposes of their gods, but this isn't really an internally consistant conclusion to make.

First off, if someone is willing to donate tens of thousands of gold pieces to your temple, specifically so if this situation comes up they won't be dead permanently, then your temple is going to benefit a great deal from their business. That is an enormous amount of money, and would really help out the church and let them better accomplish their goals (assuming, of course, the person raised isn't in opposition to them).

And second, not all gods are about that anyway. There are greedy priests, and gods of greed. If all else fails, you could almost certainly get THOSE folks to raise you for sufficient cash unless, again, you were in direct opposition to them.


My second assumption is that finding a character of a given level is more difficult than rocking up to the nearest city and waiting around in a tavern or a temple. By the terms of the legend lore spell, characters of 11th level or higher are legendary. They are extremely rare—only a few in a generation. Characters of 9th level, just two levels shy of legend status, should still be truly extraordinary. Clerics of this level don’t hang around in temples all day, they go forth and serve their god or cause at the frontiers of the faith. Even druids of 7th level are far from common, and finding any druid when you want one shouldn’t be trivial to begin with.

There are thousands of real world people who are "legendary" who are alive today, and your argument that they are rare in game worlds is simply untrue. Any city of 25,001 people has a number of casters of sufficient level, and many smaller towns and cities are likely to as well per the RAW rules.

Sure, you COULD say they were super rare... but then the PCs don't have any plausible opponents, nor is there a real plausible reason why the red dragons aren't requesting maidens daily.


Finally, the target of the resurrection magic must be willing to come back to the land of the living. The point of the afterlife is that it is fitting for the person who ends up there. Thus, whatever their opinions in life, it is reasonable to assume that by default, people will want to stay dead. Anyone unsatisfied with where they ended up is unlikely to get raised anyway—clearly they don’t have the favour of whichever god or alignment rules the realm wherein they reside, and what are the chances of some other god or cause sponsoring their resurrection? As stated before, the character most likely to get raised is one specially favoured of a god or cause, and it is precisely such a character that is most likely to want to remain in the afterlife! Only a select few, who know that they can truly serve their cause best by living, will have both the desire to return and a divine spellcaster able to make it happen. Those who get raised are great doers of deeds in the mortal realm. They are PCs, or very rare NPCs of like stature.


Really though, how nice is the afterlife for evil people, and how likely is a good person to abandon their family and friends on the Prime Material Plane for whatever is in the afterlife? Sure, some people might go for it, but there's a reason people are mortally afraid of dying.

AslanCross
2008-03-07, 11:09 PM
I agree on all points. Besides, isn't there a clause in the Player's Handbook that says "spells that cost over X are usually not available"? If those are generally unavailable to even the PCs (who are truly extraordinary characters), why should they be available to miscellaneous semi-important noble NPCs?

It's not only about resurrection magic. There are a lot of other spells that would probably dramatically alter society if they were easily accessible to the rich. Wish, for example.

theMycon
2008-03-08, 03:02 AM
To see if I can summarize this briefly...

It's not culture-breaking because the gods, while rarely actively smacking down kings they don't like, are responsible for saying "okay, you can have this spell." They're also passively responsible, in that they (could) say "no, you can't cast that right now" if they really hated the guy.

Also, finding people who could cast it ain't easy- because of a unrelated cultural shift. Clerics go adventuring instead of staying at the temple- the ones who can revive might be in major temples, but most of 'em are out killing things because their god likes that.

Peregrine
2008-03-08, 04:35 AM
I think you're making a mistake, here, in thinking that rule 0 makes this issue go away. It doesn't, and that's fundamentally what you're making an argument for.

I disagree. Rule 0 is "the DM trumps all rules". But not everything that the DM says is so is Rule 0. If the DM says that certain spells are banned or changed, then that's not Rule 0, that's a house rule. If the DM says that, in her campaign world, orcs are a great civilisation of builders and craftsmen, then that's not Rule 0, that's a setting decision. Essentially, the point of Rule 0 is that it isn't a rule; it's the idea that some things aren't catered for by the rules.

My argument here is that the rules themselves provide a framework wherein the DM doesn't have to use Rule 0 to achieve certain ends. Say your campaign hinges on the political ramifications of an assassination some years ago. When a player asks questions like, "How come Queen Jasmina didn't just get raised from the dead?", the DM could handwave it away, and shoot down any questions with Rule 0 (maybe with some hastily-constructed, one-time-only veneer of explanation, like: "A cabal of evil priests found a way to keep her from being raised, ever. No, you can't research it.")

My intent is to present what I hope is a solid, coherent explanation of how the rules would prevent most people from being raised willy-nilly, thus preventing the need for Rule 0 and random explanations.


First off, if someone is willing to donate tens of thousands of gold pieces to your temple, specifically so if this situation comes up they won't be dead permanently, then your temple is going to benefit a great deal from their business. That is an enormous amount of money, and would really help out the church and let them better accomplish their goals (assuming, of course, the person raised isn't in opposition to them).

And second, not all gods are about that anyway. There are greedy priests, and gods of greed. If all else fails, you could almost certainly get THOSE folks to raise you for sufficient cash unless, again, you were in direct opposition to them.

But it's fairly easy to come up with reasons why any god would frown upon their clerics being so mercenary with something as potent as bringing back the dead. "The gods cannot be bought for mortal coin" is more than just a nice slogan to trot out in a game if players question you on it, it's quite possible to flesh it out into a proper argument...
1) They're gods. If all their followers needed was some coin to accomplish some important task, they could surely come up with some.
2) Thus, whenever someone comes to a temple offering cash in return for any service, right-thinking clerics would first ask whether that service is in keeping with their god's will.
3) It is logical to say that when something (like death and the scarcity of those who return from it) is considered universal in a world, it is because the gods are generally in agreement that it should be so.
4) Good gods see death as part of life and a chance to bring their followers to their just reward. Evil gods like killing and the fear it causes. Lawful gods uphold death as part of the proper order. Chaotic gods might not care, but they're never a reliable source of anything, certainly not of resurrection magic.
5) Greedy gods are going to ask for more than just the minimum cost for a raise dead spell, probably something suitably greedy like a lifelong debt pact.
6) Greedy clerics, or those otherwise more willing to dole out resurrections than their gods would like, are going to quickly get smacked down by their hierarchy or by their god directly.

Basically, unless your campaign has a God of Anti-Death, there's no reason why any religion would make resurrection magic commonly available. (And if your campaign has such a god, you ought to be prepared for some cultural shifts anyway.) Precious few NPCs would ever get granted the chance to come back, and there'd generally be enough strings attached to make it a nice plot point. It need never become a minor affair.


There are thousands of real world people who are "legendary" who are alive today, and your argument that they are rare in game worlds is simply untrue. Any city of 25,001 people has a number of casters of sufficient level, and many smaller towns and cities are likely to as well per the RAW rules.

Ah, yes, the random settlement generation rules. Yes, they can put a number of sufficiently powerful clerics in a location, "a number" being four, on average, in the case of a metropolis (population 25,001+). At most, a metropolis could have four clerics capable of casting true resurrection and eight capable of casting only raise dead.

I very much dispute your use of the word "legendary". But I suppose since it hinges on the word itself (as used by legend lore), and on the traits we each individually assign to that word, your view is as valid as mine. :smallsmile:


Sure, you COULD say they were super rare... but then the PCs don't have any plausible opponents, nor is there a real plausible reason why the red dragons aren't requesting maidens daily.

They can still be rare without the DM being totally unable to strike a balance between opposing forces at all levels. The PCs are only a few individuals; you could have them face five times their number in class-levelled enemies and still such people would be very rare. And there are monsters for all levels, and reasons other than high class-level characters for stopping them wiping out all life (most monsters don't want to do that, and there are good monsters who oppose them). Yes, there will be a kingdom somewhere that lacks sufficiently powerful adventurers and so must sacrifice often to a red dragon, but that's where the PCs come in.

It's a matter of balance. Calibrate your world such that high-level people are rare, and high-level threats will be equally rare.


Really though, how nice is the afterlife for evil people, and how likely is a good person to abandon their family and friends on the Prime Material Plane for whatever is in the afterlife? Sure, some people might go for it, but there's a reason people are mortally afraid of dying.

Because that's a very real fear from the real world, we can't really delve into this too far without delving into matters of real-world religion and philosophy, which is not allowed on these boards. :smallsmile: Suffice to say, if people like being evil in life, why shouldn't the evil afterlife be such that they can go on liking evil in an even more twisted and despicable way? Like becoming fiends; eternally tormented, but becoming powerful from it and inflicting torment on others. And "abandoned" is a point of view centred on those still living; there's no reason dead people would have the same perspective.


I agree on all points. Besides, isn't there a clause in the Player's Handbook that says "spells that cost over X are usually not available"? If those are generally unavailable to even the PCs (who are truly extraordinary characters), why should they be available to miscellaneous semi-important noble NPCs?

It's not only about resurrection magic. There are a lot of other spells that would probably dramatically alter society if they were easily accessible to the rich. Wish, for example.

Thank you, I'd forgotten about that. PHB, p.129, footnote 2. Spells costing over 3,000gp are not generally available. That's every resurrection-type spell except reincarnate.


To see if I can summarize this briefly...

It's not culture-breaking because the gods, while rarely actively smacking down kings they don't like, are responsible for saying "okay, you can have this spell." They're also passively responsible, in that they (could) say "no, you can't cast that right now" if they really hated the guy.

Also, finding people who could cast it ain't easy- because of a unrelated cultural shift. Clerics go adventuring instead of staying at the temple- the ones who can revive might be in major temples, but most of 'em are out killing things because their god likes that.

Something like that. :smallsmile: I think, on your first point, you're a bit off in contrasting "active smacking down" and granting resurrection magic. "Active smacking down" is comparable to snapping their divine fingers and bringing someone back themselves, not granting a spell to someone to let them do it. A god who grants a cleric divine might is as "actively" involved as one who grants raise dead.

As for your second point, yes, adventuring clerics are a cultural shift, but an unavoidable one given the cleric class. They have d8 HD, heavy armour proficiency and an average BAB! More medieval, temple-bound clergy should be represented by another class. And yes, I did employ that cultural shift to avoid the bigger one of freely-available resurrection magic. :smallsmile:

Vikazc
2008-03-08, 05:49 AM
I'd have to agree specifically with one point, and that would be that most people just wouldn't want to come back. Even the evil ones, because in this game, evil has its own place to go where they chill and plot the domination of the god heavens and whatnot. You're a murderer? Cool, go chill with Bhaal or Cyric. By default the only people who go to torment are those who are False or Faithless., not evil. Without some driving need to return to earth, most people would just sorta be dazzled and float on into the afterlife.

Riffington
2008-03-08, 06:39 AM
If you look at it logically, "not generally available" means that most kings get it and most PCs don't. That's how it works with castles and frigates, anyway.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-08, 07:36 AM
As other posters have pointed out, your argument is, unfortunately, basically a long application of the Rule Zero Fallacy (I think it has a more specific name on the D&D boards, but it's generally just called the "Rule Zero Fallacy in general RPG circles).

For those who haven't encountered it before, the Rule Zero fallacy is the assertion that a particular element of the rules, system, setting, or core assumptions of the game does not do what the rules clearly say it does, because The GM can always disallow it.

The DMG makes it abundantly clear how big a city you have to be in, in order for you to be able to reliably find a ninth-level Cleric, and a ninth level Cleric is absolutely capable of casting Raise Dead on anybody he chooses. The DM can houserule that Raise Dead spells only function on those who the God in question deems worthy, but it is a houserule.

Furthermore, if you do wind up with a situation where all the elements you posit conspire to keep resurrection magic out of the hands of kings and captains of industry, it will make no sense for it to be available to PCs. If it is, you wreck your sense of verisimillitude, if it isn't all you're really doing is houseruling resurrections out of the game entirely.

hewhosaysfish
2008-03-08, 09:00 AM
The DMG makes it abundantly clear how big a city you have to be in, in order for you to be able to reliably find a ninth-level Cleric, and a ninth level Cleric is absolutely capable of casting Raise Dead on anybody he chooses. The DM can houserule that Raise Dead spells only function on those who the God in question deems worthy, but it is a houserule.
I agree with the general point your making but feel compelled to say that calling it a "houserule" is not entirely accurate.
If you try to buy the innkeeper's inn and he says "No. It's my home and my livelyhood" that is not a "houserule".
If you try to seduce the innkeeper's daughter and she says "No. Your teeth are crooked and you smell funny" that is not a houserule.
If you try to get Lord Muckettymuck Resurrected and the priest says "No. My god disapproves of his of policies on foreign affairs and hopes his son will take more heed of the Scriptures in making his decisions" then that is not a houserule.
What it is is ignoring the vast political ramifications this might have and substituting one setting-shaking change for another.

Riffington
2008-03-08, 10:24 AM
Call it the "in my setting" fallacy. It's that something's a logical problem in most reasonable attempts at settings, but I handwave it by demonstrating a setting where it isn't a problem.

It is just as much a fallacy when you require people to use the "out of the box" settings as your homebrew settings to make things work. D&D is supposed to work for all of them, which is why (despite the proliferation of long tracts showing how one messed up rule could be fixed with some weird assumptions*), you still need houserules.

And a common one is "but dagnabbit, I want my assassinated kings to not just get raised the next day".

Ascension
2008-03-08, 10:52 AM
My personal way of dealing with this would be to make it so that individuals raised from the dead would be culturally viewed as "undead" and any common folk who found out that you were once dead would treat you with the same fear and revulsion with which they would treat a zombie or a wight or a vampire.

The intelligentsia (kings, high level clerics, most PCs) would know better, but even they would generally avoid using such magic because they'd be afraid that someone would find out and they'd have a mob with torches and pitchforks at their door. The PCs (or even an NPC monarch or merchant) could certainly get themselves raised, but they'd have to be willing to deal with the fallout. It'd be fun to have a king try to pay an adventuring party to silence the cleric who raised him and the guards who discovered his body so that the news of his death (and undeath) wouldn't get out.

Now, that would be my personal way of dealing with the issue, but it, like your method, is a result of the setting, not of the rules.

horseboy
2008-03-08, 12:33 PM
Problem 1 Oberoni fallacy.
Problem 2 Why would the god of Justice not be willing to bring back victims? Indeed, it's entirely MORE likely that said assassin will be caught and sent into a diamond mine to pay restitutions to raise the victim of their crime, that being justice and all.
Problem 3 As was demonstrated, there are NPC's able to cast these spells.

theMycon
2008-03-08, 01:22 PM
More medieval, temple-bound clergy should be represented by another class.
Adept- NPCs do, apparently, serve a purpose.

valadil
2008-03-08, 02:35 PM
Resurrection magic used to bother me quite a bit. At first I simply removed it. The problem there is that death effect spells get really nasty.

In terms of combat mechanics, removing someone from combat with a level 5 or up spell, and then restoring them afterwards with a level 5 or up spell isn't unreasonable. As DM, I've done a little handwaving to say that death effects (and even HP death itself) is often just a coma, and raise dead is a remove coma spell. In middle ages, death and comas were often indistinguishable. If someone wasn't waking up for an extended period of time, they were presumed dead and then buried. Resurrection magic in my games work on that level of death, that was death 500 years ago, but we know better today.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 06:32 AM
It's simpler in Eberron. There's just no damn NPCs around with enough class levels to raise anyone. Seriously ;)

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-09, 07:37 AM
I agree with the general point your making but feel compelled to say that calling it a "houserule" is not entirely accurate.
If you try to buy the innkeeper's inn and he says "No. It's my home and my livelyhood" that is not a "houserule".
If you try to seduce the innkeeper's daughter and she says "No. Your teeth are crooked and you smell funny" that is not a houserule.
If you try to get Lord Muckettymuck Resurrected and the priest says "No. My god disapproves of his of policies on foreign affairs and hopes his son will take more heed of the Scriptures in making his decisions" then that is not a houserule.
What it is is ignoring the vast political ramifications this might have and substituting one setting-shaking change for another.

The choice of the term "houserule" was deliberately extreme, but I do think it's supportable.

The game has rules about how things work, superseding those rules by DM fiat is a de facto house rule. If the DM chooses to suspend the working of a particular game system in a particular circumstance, that's a houserule. There's ultimately no difference (other than a difference of player perception) between saying "no, you can't seduce the innkeeper's daughter, because I don't think she'd find you attractive" and saying "no, I don't think you can beat that guy in a fight, because I think he's a better swordsman than you are."

The point is that the D&D rules assume that the Gods dole out spells like candy, and don't give a damn what their clerics actually use them for. Suddenly having the Gods decide not to resurrect somebody is a functional rules change. The term "houserule" is strong, but it's definitely a rule zero application, and therefore kind of by definition an application of the Rule Zero Fallacy.

Blanks
2008-03-09, 09:04 AM
The point is that the D&D rules assume that the Gods dole out spells like candy, and don't give a damn what their clerics actually use them for.
So a good cleric using his spells to torture innocents won't be blocked by his god, only punished afterwards?

I think this depends more upon which settng you run than upon RAW, but correct me if im wrong.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-09, 09:07 AM
So a good cleric using his spells to torture innocents won't be blocked by his god, only punished afterwards?

I think this depends more upon which settng you run than upon RAW, but correct me if im wrong.

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that they would, but the point is that we're talking about the gods blocking some types of spells as a matter of course. The Gods always block resurrections except for great heroes actively serving their cause ... and PCs, presumably.

By that logic, divine magic would just generally not do anything. There's no reason for the Gods to block one 5th level spell over another.

For what it's worth, I actually did run a setting that worked exactly like that - because frankly Raise Dead is the least of your worries with Cleric spellcasting.

Blanks
2008-03-09, 01:27 PM
So far as i can see, RAW doesn't limit clerics at all.

But it seems implicit that gods can ban the cleric from casting certain spells. neutral clerics serving good gods are forbidden from casting spells with the evil descriptor, while other neutral clerics, those serving evil gods, can cast them fine.
Its not explicit, but it must be because of the god forbidding them from casting them.

Yahzi
2008-03-09, 02:06 PM
Ultimately, resurrection magic does not have to cause any significant shift from the stock medieval culture at all.
Focusing on the history here, and not the religion, keep in mind that Jesus performed exactly two acts of resurrection (Lazarus and himself), and it rather dramatically impacted the next several thousand years of culture...

The idea that some people can come back from the dead and it won't have an impact on culture is not particularly supported by history.

Saph
2008-03-09, 02:10 PM
I don't think you guys are looking at this in quite the right way.

If a king rules over a kingdom powerful enough to have multiple casters capable of using resurrection magic, then he's almost certainly going to have access to it. This is just the way D&D works. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll want to use it - resurrection magic can't bring back someone against their will - but he'll have access to it.

However, everybody knows this. And since they know about it, they can counter it.

Not everyone has ranks in Spellcraft, but every savvy person in a D&D world knows that high-level spellcasters are capable of bringing back the dead. And if they go to the trouble of researching it, or happen to be a high-level caster themselves, they'll know that there are various ways of getting rid of someone in a way such that they can't be brought back with a Resurrection spell.

Just have a look at the story in Order of the Stick. Resurrection magic is available as per normal, but that doesn't mean that everyone who dies gets brought back five minutes later. Shojo isn't resurrected because he doesn't want to be. Miko isn't resurrected because no-one wants to resurrect her. Roy will probably be resurrected eventually, but his current prospects aren't exactly good. And if you've read Start of Darkness, you know about the methods Xykon's used to make sure his enemies don't come back.

- Saph

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-09, 03:17 PM
@Blanks: You've got it right on, I think.

@Saph: Agreed, though I don't think you necessarily covered why kings and the like aren't resurrected. The problems are these, I think:

1) Yes, I think a king would be regarded as undead if he was known to be dead and then he showed up again the next day. The people would probably not like or trust this.

2) If you're an assassin and resurrection magic exists and you know it, you will probably try to take some kind of action to make it impossible to use (dismember the body, etc etc etc), though it will be crude and probably not very effective. If you're a very good/very lucky/very ambitious assassin, maybe you steal the body so that the king requires a True Resurrection: much harder to come by, indeed.

3) Most kings, by and large, probably die of old age: unable to be resurrected at that stage, anyway.

3a) If your king dies of old age, or in battle, or really whenever, most cultures have certain rites that usually must be performed (say... burying him?? etc???) or else he will be disgraced forever. It's a lot harder to Raise Dead someone who's sealed in a stone sarcophagus, or buried in a sacred cemetery (would you want to be the grave-digging priest to do that? Would that gain the favor of your gods? I doubt it).

Cybren
2008-03-09, 04:21 PM
Some settings (http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/) are built around the concept of resurrections being common

horseboy
2008-03-09, 04:31 PM
So far as i can see, RAW doesn't limit clerics at all.

But it seems implicit that gods can ban the cleric from casting certain spells. neutral clerics serving good gods are forbidden from casting spells with the evil descriptor, while other neutral clerics, those serving evil gods, can cast them fine.
Its not explicit, but it must be because of the god forbidding them from casting them.Not quite. A cleric's alignment must be one step of his deity's. Casting spells with an Evil descriptor is an "evil" act. As such would cause the cleric (who is already one step away from his deity's) to shift to Evil, or two shifts away. Thereby turning said cleric into an Ex-cleric. That's just a hard wired "No" to keep people from accidentally screwing themselves over.

Blanks
2008-03-09, 05:25 PM
That's just a hard wired "No" to keep people from accidentally screwing themselves over.
No i think its more than that. All characters can easily commit evil acts (club=>Head), but these spells are impossible to cast. If gods (and wotc)wanted to keep people out of trouble they could say that a small warning flashed when you where about to do something bad. But it doesn't say so.
I read it as:
Good gods won't give out "evil" spells.

Storm Bringer
2008-03-09, 06:00 PM
Good gods won't give out "evil" spells.

Indeed, but they provide no limits on any other spells. ergo, they don't mind you using them as you see fit, on who you see fit.

mostlyharmful
2008-03-09, 06:29 PM
Indeed, but they provide no limits on any other spells. ergo, they don't mind you using them as you see fit, on who you see fit.

Hence the wonderful fun of force powers in Knights of the Old, force choke = EEEEEVILLL, Force 'Batter your enemies to death with their own henchmen then throw their henchmen into the lava' = Good.

While the RAW isn't explicit the God a Cleric serves should usually be interested in what they choose to do with their hoodoo otherwise the dogma and faith schpiel means diddly squat, and if so what exactly is the difference between a cleric and some random guy? Without diety oversight divine casting makes even less sense than it does currently, granted this is all RAI but still

Tavenknaughtlin
2008-03-09, 06:45 PM
Well if we go by RAW, there is always the possibility of Clerics who gain their powers from ideals, instead of Gods. A Neutral Good Cleric whose beliefs revolve around bringing victims of violence back to life would certainly accept any pleas of aid. There's no God to tell him 'No!'.

Such a Cleric would most certainly be hired by a King to ressurrect him should he fall from an assassination. A few thousand gold and some diamonds is a small price to pay for a second (or third, forth, fifth, etc) chance at life. That Cleric in short time would be a very rich individual. In fact it seems unlikely that there wouldn't be such a person available to the public, since we humans do love to jump on any opportunity for an untapped market :smallbiggrin: . The Bill Gates of ressurrections, if you will.

That brings up another problem with how the rules regulate ressurection spells; all that is needed for a Raise Dead casting is a pile of diamonds. Shouldn't diamond mine owners have control over who lives or dies, then? When you corner the market on mortality, you can become a very powerful person indeed.

Saph
2008-03-09, 07:14 PM
A funny thing I just thought of.

The material component for the Resurrection spell is "10,000 GP worth of diamonds."

Does that mean that as the diamond business suffers inflation and diamonds command a higher and higher price, it becomes harder and harder to get the materials to resurrect somebody? Or does it mean that if you spend 10,000 GP on diamonds, the spell will work, no matter how much of it you've got?

- Saph

shadowdemon_lord
2008-03-09, 08:18 PM
10,000 GP is an abstraction, because everything in D&D is measured in gold pieces. At any rate Asian Cross, I have a rebuttal for your essay even given that all of what you said in it is true. If the only people with general access to resurrection were the powerful people in churches, why wouldn't the churches use that influence to take turn the government into a manifestation of their will? Say offer the king of kingdom x (and any pertinent nobles) a powerful position in the church (one that guaranteed resurrection) if he decided to rule in a way that the church approved of? Who would refuse such a deal? What god would refuse this newfound champion of his/her ideals a resurrection? There would have to be a VERY good reason for why people who could easily gain access to the diamonds required to not also be theocrats in order for your theory to be true. And at that point you've already lost.

Serenity
2008-03-09, 10:37 PM
The long and the short of it for me is that I can't imagine most people would want to be resurrected. Sure, we're all terrified of death while we're still alive, but once it happens, and we find ourself in a paradise without pain and suffering, we'd get another perspective. For many people, they have nothing worthwhile to go back to in the world except the company of their loved ones--and since eternity is a very long time, they'll be united again soon enough. It would take a very stubborn soul, serious unfinished business, etc.--the sort of things found in adventurers--to heed a call back to the world.

Peregrine
2008-03-16, 03:28 AM
I'd just like to make a couple of points... Firstly, I'm not saying that the rules, or any particular setting or campaign, should or must follow my interpretation. I'm putting this out there as a tool for DMs who want resurrection magic to be available to the PCs, without adding special rules or restrictions or side quests, but who also want to be able to give a consistent answer to players who ask why NPC Joe stayed dead.

I am saying that I believe that my interpretation is no less valid than any other. I do not believe I have fallen into a Rule Zero Fallacy. I do not agree that my interpretation requires ignoring or rewriting any rules. I'm well aware that it differs from common or traditional interpretations of those rules, but I don't believe those traditions are more in line with the rules than my interpretation.

(No meaning to pick on you with the following, Dan_Hemmens, but you articulated this more clearly than others. :smallsmile:)

The point is that the D&D rules assume that the Gods dole out spells like candy...

To the PCs. Here's one of the underpinning assumptions of my interpretation: The PCs Are Special. Their fate is set apart, they're picked for major world-shaking deeds. And they're the ones the rules are written for. Inasmuch as the NPCs inhabit the same world, they will operate under basically the same systems, but anything that comes down to a twist of fate, fortunate circumstance, or special treatment by gods and men, is primarily the domain of the PCs.

Yes, you can find a 9th-level cleric if you have to. And yes, therefore so can an NPC. But the rules say that spells of a certain cost are not generally available for hired casting -- to the PCs, it's safe to assume (the rulebooks aren't written for NPCs to read!) -- so they would be even less accessible to NPCs.

If nothing else, surely we can agree that the rules support this: that just because you find a spellcaster who can cast a spell (arcane or divine), doesn't mean they will when offered book price? (If they do cast it, it's by DM permission, and for whatever price and under whatever conditions your DM specifies. It's not Rule Zero because the DM is not overruling RAW; he or she is going into an area which RAW doesn't cover -- deliberately so, it seems to me.)


...and don't give a damn what their clerics actually use them for.

Not true. The rules give very clear examples of cases where a god does care about a cleric's actions (e.g. forbidding certain spells), and they also discuss ex-clerics and the possibility of falling out of favour with your patron deity/cause.

There are two interpretations of how gods view the use of divine spells that can arise from this. One (yours) is that the gods don't care. It's a minimist view: the only restrictions that matter are those spelled out explicitly, like good gods not granting [evil] spells. If they grant you the spell, they don't care what you do with it.

The other (mine) is that they do care, and that a properly devoted cleric will as a rule not look to push the boundaries of what their god approves. Honestly, I think mine makes more sense. It doesn't contradict the clear, explicit rules, and it's more in line with the various fluffy hints here and there. (Take imbue with spell ability: "In the meantime, you remain responsible to your deity or your principles for the use to which the spell is put." Ergo, the gods do care.)

Now, the PCs are special. Chances are, they have a cleric with them, and therefore are by default assumed to have the sanction of at least one god. Even if they don't, it's no stretch whatsoever for them to find an allied temple, who would be willing to raise them. But these assumptions do not apply to NPCs. And that's the heart of my argument.