Pregnancy and raise dead

[Castamir]

I just wonder... when the ninjas are done with the tertiary targets, how much gold will be needed? 10k or 15k?

The SRD lacks details in the spell description...

[Animefunkmaster]

looks like 15k. But who knows, she is pretty bulbous, there could be twins or more.

Then again, it needs to be a creature touched, so we are talking about out of the womb babies. Perhaps we need a reincarnate spell. Animate dead will probably yield some interesting results. Wasn't there some kind of pregnant zombie undead thing in heroes of horror, or am I think more oriental?

[Occasional Sage]

I'd say that at this point, since the baby is physically dependant on its mother to live, that (s)he would be included in the Raise.

By the way, be careful about the "real-world politics" prohibition, it's likely to get poked a few times in this thread.

[Deathwisher]

I just wonder... when the ninjas are done with the tertiary targets, how much gold will be needed? 10k or 15k?

The SRD lacks details in the spell description...

Interesting question. Personally, I'd say 15k.

If I remember the rules correctly: if a person dies of disease and you raise him, the disease is gone. Now, if we consider a bacterial disease, this means that a parasite does not get raised with it's host (or else the disease would return and kill the patient all over again.) A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite (I apologize if that characterization seems offensive, but I don't see another way of linking to existing rules.) So, the featus has to be raised separately, just as you could theoretically raise the bacteria.

[Fawkes]

Scientifically, the symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus would probably be considered parasitism. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the subject. Are there any concrete biological benefits to pregnancy? It seems mostly negative, from what I've seen.

EDIT: I'm strictly talking about pre-birth, of course. The continuation of our species is obviously a pretty good benefit.

[Lissou]

Interesting question. Personally, I'd say 15k.

If I remember the rules correctly: if a person dies of disease and you raise him, the disease is gone. Now, if we consider a bacterial disease, this means that a parasite does not get raised with it's host (or else the disease would return and kill the patient all over again.) A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite (I apologize if that characterization seems offensive, but I don't see another way of linking to existing rules.) So, the featus has to be raised separately, just as you could theoretically raise the bacteria.

If I were the DM... I'd say raising the dead expecting mother would indeed mean that she wouldn't be pregnant anymore. And I would make it impossible to raise the foetus, because it couldn't survive out of the womb. Ok, not impossible to raise it, but it would probably die right away. And it wouldn't get raised inside the womb when raised.
So unless it's advanced enough to survive on its own (albeit with medical attendance) I'd say the baby would need a reincarnate rather than raise dead.
EDIT: I'm suddenly wondering... Would you be able to be re-incarnated if you've never been incarnated before? I mean, the spell doesn't turn you into a foetus, and infant or a baby, right? It turns you into an adult your age, if I'm not mistaken... In which case it wouldn't help at all...

Hopefully neither the mother nor the baby will die (nor the father for that matter).

[Lissou]

Are there any concrete biological benefits to pregnancy?

Women get bigger breasts >.>

Of course, that doesn't benefit them, especially since as I understand it, they hurt and stuff. So, yeah, I'm not sure.

[Deathwisher]

If I were the DM... I'd say raising the dead expecting mother would indeed mean that she wouldn't be pregnant anymore. And I would make it impossible to raise the foetus, because it couldn't survive out of the womb. Ok, not impossible to raise it, but it would probably die right away. And it wouldn't get raised inside the womb when raised.
So unless it's advanced enough to survive on its own (albeit with medical attendance) I'd say the baby would need a reincarnate rather than raise dead.

Hopefully neither the mother nor the baby will die (nor the father for that matter).

It has been a long time since I played. Isn't the person raised on the spot were his corpse lies? That way, as long a the mother doesn't have a miscarriage, the unborn child's body is still in the womb.

Mechafox, there are actually some health advantages to being pregnant. E.g. heart volume increases. though I don't think it offsets the negative effects. That doesn't change the fact that the fetus is taking its nurition from the mother's body.

[Lissou]

It has been a long time since I played. Isn't the person raised on the spot were his corpse lies? That way, as long a the mother doesn't have a miscarriage, the unborn child's body is still in the womb.

Right, but as they need to be touched, I assumed it would happen out of the body. Although it could happen in it, I guess, but...
Also, how long it's ben might be relevant to whether the baby's still in the womb or not. I know dead bodies "evacuate" things after death, although I have no idea if an unborn child would apply.

Man, it's the kind of conversation I never thought I'd ever have...

[Deathwisher]

Right, but as they need to be touched, I assumed it would happen out of the body. Although it could happen in it, I guess, but...
Also, how long it's ben might be relevant to whether the baby's still in the womb or not. I know dead bodies "evacuate" things after death, although I have no idea if an unborn child would apply.

Not as far as I know. Corpses have been found with unborn children still inside. However, after the fetus dies inside a living mother, the mother's body tries to get rid of it, which means that there would only be a short window of time after raising the mother. Still, it doesn't happen instantaneously, so you'd probably have at least a few hours. The need to touch the fetus makes thing more difficult of course.


Man, it's the kind of conversation I never thought I'd ever have...

So you see, D&D does add to our lives....:smalltongue:

[busterswd]

Ugh, this topic teeters dangerously close to talks of when a fetus is actually alive and such.

In technical terms, at least in OOTSverse, you are calling back the soul of the deceased into their body. If you believe fetuses have souls, they are raise deadable. If not, they're gone forever. Whether the built in life support would be restored is an entirely different question.



Are there any concrete biological benefits to pregnancy?

I can answer this one!

Pregnancy is an upgrade from the marsupial mammals, which is an upgrade from laying eggs. Pregnancy is superior because the fetus is guaranteed survival as long as the mother is healthy; eggs are notorious for having a particularly poor success ratio (egg eating scavengers, lack of protection for the newly hatched, etc.), while pregnancy short of health problems within the mother is pretty successful.

[Zolem]

Interesting question. Personally, I'd say 15k.

If I remember the rules correctly: if a person dies of disease and you raise him, the disease is gone. Now, if we consider a bacterial disease, this means that a parasite does not get raised with it's host (or else the disease would return and kill the patient all over again.) A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite (I apologize if that characterization seems offensive, but I don't see another way of linking to existing rules.) So, the featus has to be raised separately, just as you could theoretically raise the bacteria.

ACtually, if you die of poison or disease, you are diseased or poisoned when you are brought back, and need to be cured of it or risk dieing again automaticaly. As such you should cast resoration on the corpse first, as well as remove disease and such. As such, the bactera don't need resurection.

[T-O-E]

Did you get the idea for this thread from my post in the discussion thread?

[Mastikator]

I'd say that the fetus is not its own person, but rather a part of the mother's body.

You could say that it's a symbiotic relationship, but really. Isn't that the same with the liver? The liver can't survive without the rest of the body, yet you don't consider it as a seperate being.

IMO, the fetus is raised with the mother at no extra cost.

(if not, Zolem's argument also defends the free-ressurection position)

[SnowballMan]

Well considering that Raise Dead is a clerical spell I would imagine that the god in question would have something to say about who gets raised and who doesn't.

I could easily see Good aligned gods doing a two for one deal. Neutral and maybe Lawful gods expecting 2 raises simultaneously. Where Evil gods would do something... well, evil ("The mother is fine. And yes there is something alive inside her...").

I'm sort of curious if anything like this type of situation has happened in a campaign before.

[teratorn]

The problem is that you need to ask if the soul is willing to come back to the mortal plane.

But this a can of worms that I'd rather leave alone, it's too easy to derail this into real world stuff.

By the way, vivipary (with placenta-like structures and everything) is not a unique mammal trait. Some sharks, some snakes and lizards, even scorpions and a few velvet worm species show this kind of live birth. None of these imply bigger breasts (sorry Lissou).

[Mewtarthio]

The problem is that you need to ask if the soul is willing to come back to the mortal plane.

But this a can of worms that I'd rather leave alone, it's too easy to derail this into real world stuff.

I don't see why. It's not like you can ask people in the real world if they'd like to be resurrected. Besides, there's already some in-comic evidence suggesting that a fetus wouldn't want to be raised: Roy's brother (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html). Roy mentions "a few failed attempts at resurrection," so we can assume that babies are perfectly happy in heaven. The same would also probably hold true for children and really anyone else who doesn't have any pressing reason to be alive.

[Emanick]

Incidentally, I would guess a fetus has 1 or 2 Constitution, so the point is moot.

[tribble]

I have one thing to say here, and it is that this is the most disgusting topic i have ever heard of.

[Mewtarthio]

I have one thing to say here, and it is that this is the most disgusting topic i have ever heard of.

Wow. Looks like somebody doesn't think the miracle of new life is very beautiful. :smalltongue:

Side note: You're on the internet, and this is the most disgusting thing you've heard of?

[Jayngfet]

Until you cut the umbilical a fetus is like a sentient appendix, a bunch of cells globbed together into tissue into a complex object globbedinto a whole person, it just doesn't help survival and needs oxygen and nutrients to live. Oh and you can take it out and put it in a jar as a souvenier.

[NerfTW]

I'm going with the whole "It's a magic spell, granted by a god, therefore it's the god's decision" side of this. This is one of those ridiculously rare instances that just aren't covered by the rules, and therefore are up to the interpretation of the DM. And they would need a very good reason why the god wouldn't just raise both with one spell.

[T-O-E]

I have one thing to say here, and it is that this is the most disgusting topic i have ever heard of.

I see you've never heard of THE HOUSE OF HORRORS.

[Occasional Sage]

I don't see why. It's not like you can ask people in the real world if they'd like to be resurrected. Besides, there's already some in-comic evidence suggesting that a fetus wouldn't want to be raised: Roy's brother (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html). Roy mentions "a few failed attempts at resurrection," so we can assume that babies are perfectly happy in heaven. The same would also probably hold true for children and really anyone else who doesn't have any pressing reason to be alive.

The difference is that Roy's brother was born. Remember (and I'm not gonna hunt up the link) Roy feels guilty for his brother dying, despite Eugene being the babysitter and therefore the adult nominally in charge.

[David Argall]

If I remember the rules correctly: if a person dies of disease and you raise him, the disease is gone. Now, if we consider a bacterial disease, this means that a parasite does not get raised with it's host (or else the disease would return and kill the patient all over again.)
This is both correct and incorrect. 3.5 rules [but not some other editions] says Raise dead removes diseases and poison. However, we have the point that magic is very concept oriented. It only removes what the system deems a disease, whether or not the subject is actually a disease under some definition. Most magic would say a disease is something the host does not want and the matter of its actual effects on the host would be a side issue at most.


A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite So, the featus has to be raised separately, just as you could theoretically raise the bacteria.
Now as it happens, our bodies are homes to all sorts of parasites, many of which we can't survive without. [Now this gets into the definition of parasite, which is normally assumed to be taking without giving. While this is the base definition, Big Harry's protection racket is still a parasite even when he protects you from Big Sam, Big John, and Big Zeke...] So the spell does not destroy all parasites, merely certain ones for some reason deemed objectionable.
When we look at pregnancy, we do not see an objectionable parasite. Many [often including the mother] see the parasite as the goal, and the mother as little more than a support system for the important part.

So on the standard reading of the rules, the unborn child is a part of the mother, and gets raised for free along with her.

[dps]

I have one thing to say here, and it is that this is the most disgusting topic i have ever heard of.

I find this topic (and the topic of an expecting mother being the target of an assassination attempt) to be very disturbing, but I wouldn't call it disgusting.

[WarriorTribble]

In technical terms, at least in OOTSverse, you are calling back the soul of the deceased into their body. If you believe fetuses have souls, they are raise deadable. If not, they're gone forever. Whether the built in life support would be restored is an entirely different question.This is me playing with semantics, but the descriptions for the raising spells only seem to say "You restore life to a deceased creature." and "the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return." I interpreted this to mean you can raise any living thing from a single cell organism to a sentient, however if there's a soul involved it must agree to the raising. /2 cents

[Flickerdart]

Guys, guys, guys. Reincarnate.

Could you reincarnate something that's never been incarnated before? Would that be a cheaty way to skip puberty?

[Estelindis]

Personally, I'd say that if Raise Dead doesn't allow an unborn child to be brought back from the dead, then maybe that could be circumvented with "Limited Wish." [As a side-point: I would like to think that Raise Dead *would* work for unborn children, but a) I really think it's difficult to be sure from the rules, and b) death's already too easy to get around in D&D.]


You could say that it's a symbiotic relationship, but really. Isn't that the same with the liver? The liver can't survive without the rest of the body, yet you don't consider it as a seperate being.
In my opinion, dissimilarities that make this a poor analogy (sorry):

Given natural development, a liver will never eventually be able to make its own choices. A child will.
Again, given natural development, everyone has a liver. Not everyone makes the choice to have a child.
Like any other part of the body, a liver has our genetic code. A child has its own biological uniqueness.
It's good to have a liver because it serves a certain purpose in terms of our overall health. A child, on the other hand, must never be regarded as a means towards an end (and evaluated in terms of how we benefit from her or him), but as an end (and cared for in his or her own self).

[busterswd]

This is me playing with semantics, but the descriptions for the raising spells only seem to say "You restore life to a deceased creature." and "the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return." I interpreted this to mean you can raise any living thing from a single cell organism to a sentient, however if there's a soul involved it must agree to the raising. /2 cents

Wasn't aware you could use raise dead on say, a treasured family pet, or even a plant. If you can though, that does take the consent of the soul issue out if you consider having a soul an indication of being sentient/self aware.


Well the other issue is what happens when the baby does get a soul but is still in the mother? Do you still get a twofer?

Meh at this point I'm willing to leave it up to, as someone said, divine mandate because mixing science and magic doesn't make sense, since, to quote a webcomic, "Sometimes it's just magic." By its nature magic warps the laws of science, so in the end this entire discussion of parasitism and what not is pointless.

[Pandaren]

I agree with the fetus being part of the woman's body. And I don't think evil gods will reject a ressurection for their followers.

[Remirach]

If I recall Biology, "parasite" wouldn't be the correct term to apply to a creature that either benefited from another while also helping it in return (mutualism) or benefited from it while neither harming nor helping it (commensalism). You might consider the baby a parasite given that it does not help the woman in the immediate picture, but those terms are specifically meant to apply to different species interacting with one another -- not the same species propagating itself.

[keilyn]

I actually had a character this happened to, and in her case, we decided that a) the baby would have been viable at that point (meaning if she'd had a premature labor, the baby could have survived on the outside), b) probably had its own soul by then, and c) only one raise dead was cast (well, technically, it was a "wish"), so her baby didn't get raised.

It all comes down to when a person believes a fetus is its own person. I have two kids, and each had their own 'personality' by about seven months (which is getting right around viability, coincidentally). Ignoring the obvious political arguments, I don't think of a baby a simply an extension of its pregnant mother, no matter what gestational age.

To answer the original question, however, I wouldn't see any problem with casting two 'raise deads' (or any other applicable spell for ressurrection) at once to save baby and mom, as long as they were simultaneous or immediately one after the other.

EDIT: My previous comment was meant as a sentimental mother's joking scorn at Rich's putting of a fictional, unborn baby in peril. Thank you. :smallredface:

[Krade]

And, as a parting shot to Rich, you're terrible to make us even discuss such a thing!!!!

I don't recall seeing/hearing/reading Rich hold a gun to anyone's head and demand for them to discuss this. There are no thought police here (or at least that you know of:smallwink:). No one's forcing you to even read the discussion, let alone contribute to it.

This next part is in spoiler tags because it is plot speculation and I know Rich prefers us to put such things in spoiler tags because he'll end up trying to prove us wrong just so he can say, "HA!! You were wrong!" He's not really that much of an ass though, that whole thing is mostly subconscious (or so he says).
Either way, no matter what happens, I can tell you right now that there is no way she is going to die. Daigo is a major NPC now so I'd say he's got to be at least level 5, which means that he'll probably be able to hold his own until Elan and Therkla get there.

[ericgrau]

Yeah, Rich doesn't make anyone discuss the strips. Nope, not at all. In fact, sometimes he posts "new strip is up" and nobody bothers, seeing how they're not obligated.

Or "make" is a figurative term above, in that when Rich draws a comic it WILL get discussed. i.e., he's "horrible" for inciting such a discussion. The above post is still a joke - it's not his fault where this discussion goes - but he really did bring it up.

Anywayz try to stay on topic and try not to slip in your opinions about the fetus beyond what's necessary. That parasite thing is quite the can of worms and is the farthest thing from unbiased science I have ever seen in my life. Not just for riling people up but also for stretching terminology so far that it almost breaks the limits of reason.

[AceOfFools]

Diego is level six. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0508.html)

DnD has no rules regarding pregnancy because a lot of people have very strong feelings regarding children.

And it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. So the "proper" ruling is the one that is the most "fun" for the group of individuals involved, be that the happy ending or the tragic one.

[disorder]

Not just for riling people up but also for stretching terminology so far that it almost breaks the limits of reason.
The limits of reason were broken a long time ago around here. They were last seen standing right next to the fourth wall.

[chiasaur11]

Diego is level six. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0508.html)

DnD has no rules regarding pregnancy because a lot of people have very strong feelings regarding children.

And it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. So the "proper" ruling is the one that is the most "fun" for the group of individuals involved, be that the happy ending or the tragic one.

Well, he WAS level six a while back. He may have leveled up since then.

[ericgrau]

The limits of reason were broken a long time ago around here. They were last seen standing right next to the fourth wall.

...

Good point, actually.:smallamused:

[David Argall]

And it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. So the "proper" ruling is the one that is the most "fun" for the group of individuals involved, be that the happy ending or the tragic one.
This piece of 4e nonsense propaganda deserves laughing at. Games have rules that are not to be read to give the players of the moment the most "fun". They are there to challenge the player. When you start talking about "fun", you are talking about removing that challenge, and the rapid result is a boring game that is abandoned.
Chess and Go have been around for centuries without anybody succeeding in changing the rules to make them "fun". 4E will last about 4 years, following which we will go back to serious rules.

[SPoD]

Back to the topic, I think the real issue will be whether or not the soul of the fetus, if there is one yet, will want to return. Would it even understand what was being asked of it when the Raise Dead spell was cast? Probably not. It has no understanding of the mortal world; it doesn't know its mother or father, and as the soul cannot possibly have committed an evil act yet, is likely to have a warm, safe, pleasant afterlife in an eternal womb to look forward to in the future, assuming that it even understands the concept of "future".

[Mike_the_Mystic]

Who's to say that they're gonna die?

[Emanick]

Again, wouldn't a fetus have a Constitution score of 1 or 2, and thus be impossible to resurrect with anything less than True Resurrection?

[drengnikrafe]

I read the first two posts in this thing, and realized that it would be at least half political debate that would effectively turn into an abortion debate, since we're discussing whether or not a fetus is a real person, ect.

I kindly ask that a moderator locks this for that reason. It has minimal relevance to the story, and it's very hot, politically.

[VariaVespasa]

Side note: You're on the internet, and this is the most disgusting thing you've heard of?[/size]

Heh, I was gonna say! In a medium containing goats, lemons, tubs and 1 cup THIS is what does it to him? :P We're gonna need a cleanup in aisle 5 if he ever finds that other stuff, 'cause his head is gonna go all 'splodey! :)

Expelling- the body does "expell" stuff, yes, but thats "stuff" thats being held in by active muscular contraction. Unborn babies arent. Theyre essentially held in by elastic, and require active muscular contractions to get out. And a lot of grunting, screaming, and threats against the fathers life if he ever touches the mother again, but thats another story... :P

[Admiral_Kelly]

After the latest strip, I think we showed focus our attention on 'If a pregnant woman kills her enemies, does her unborn child earn XP?' instead :smalltongue:.

[drengnikrafe]

After the latest strip, I think we showed focus our attention on 'If a pregnant woman kills her enemies, does her unborn child earn XP?' instead :smalltongue:.

I am reminded of an old debate on how to deal with a party member with low wisdom, who spent the first few rounds of all combats buffing up, and said that because of his low wisdom, he didn't know any better. This was suggested: "Finish combat before he finishes buffing. That way, since he didn't participate in the fight, he gains to experience"... I can feel this starting to turn into another debate on whether a fetus is part of a mother or it's own being... oh boy... I'll continue anyway.Therefore, this can be in one of two ways. Either the baby is part of the mother, or it is independant (bear with me for a moment). If the baby is a part of the mother, then it cannot gain it's own experience yet (unless your limbs can independantly gain experience... which would be weird). If it is independant, then it leads to two more possibilities (keep bearing with me, I'm getting to a point, I promise). Either the mother considers her baby her inspiration for her fancy moves, which wouldn't give the baby experience (does your mentor gain experience when you fight, simply because you look up to him? I think not!), or the baby is an independant fighter (sort of) who did no damage to the enemy, and made no impact on combat.On a third hand, if this mother was fighting better because she had the baby in her tummy (sorry about the childish word), then the baby would have actually supplied a buff to the mother to increase her AC and decrease her THAQ0 (or increase her attack rolls, if you prefer it said that way. Don't ask what THAQ0 is here, we don't have time for it). If this is the case, then the baby, if still considered independant from the mother, would gain experience for being a benefit to the person who was fighting. On the other hand, if the baby is only a circumstance bonus, rather then an independant fighter, then it no longer gains experience (unless when you fight on a hill, the hill also gains expereince, and now we're back to weird).My points is, whether or not the baby gains experience is... the disgression of the DM. There are too many factors up in the air to be hackneyed into being decided like this.You know, no combat rules for involving pregnant women had been written the last time I checked. There was reason for that. So, as far as RAW go... there are none.

[Nomadic]

I would have to point to the fact that this is DnD and magic we are talking about. If a healing spell can make enough distinction to be able to work equally well on any living creature regardless of biology it could probably be capable of distinguishing an unborn baby from a parasite. :P

That is all.

[Lissou]

I can answer this one!

Pregnancy is an upgrade from the marsupial mammals, which is an upgrade from laying eggs. Pregnancy is superior because the fetus is guaranteed survival as long as the mother is healthy; eggs are notorious for having a particularly poor success ratio (egg eating scavengers, lack of protection for the newly hatched, etc.), while pregnancy short of health problems within the mother is pretty successful.

Actually, the question wasn't whether regnancy works better than laying eggs. The benefits for the baby are obvious. The question was whether a pregnant woman got benefits from being pregnant that she wouldn't have from not being so. If so, the relationship is symbiotic with mutual benefits. Otherwise, only the baby benefits, while the mother has all the obvious bad things to go through, in which case, in a stricly biological sense, it could be argued that the baby acts as a parasite.
(I emphasize that because I don't want people to think I believe babies to be parasites).

Anyways, the other point stating that a parasite needs to be another species and not the same one makes sense too.

As for sharing XP... Well, they share food, so maybe... Then again, can you be born with more than one level? Sounds doubtful to me. I mean, imagine how many levels a baby elf would get that way, with all the time they spend in the womb.

[AceOfFools]

Just to be a wet blanket:

Creatures can't earn XP until their old enough to have a class Effective Character Level.

Using the rules from d20 modern on children (d4 hit points, not skills, feats or class abilities); they cannot earn XP, and incidentally do not grant XP when "defeated."

[Kish]

decrease her THAQ0 (or increase her attack rolls, if you prefer it said that way. Don't ask what THAQ0 is here, we don't have time for it).
"THAQ0" is nothing, and was never anything, that had to do with D&D anyway. (To Hit Armor Qlass 0?)

"THAC0" (note the C) is a 2.0ed thing.

Neither is in 3ed, 3.5ed, or even 4ed.

[ericgrau]

This piece of 4e nonsense propaganda deserves laughing at. Games have rules that are not to be read to give the players of the moment the most "fun". They are there to challenge the player. When you start talking about "fun", you are talking about removing that challenge, and the rapid result is a boring game that is abandoned.
Chess and Go have been around for centuries without anybody succeeding in changing the rules to make them "fun". 4E will last about 4 years, following which we will go back to serious rules. to a different set of fad rules
Fixed for accuracy, unfortunately. I'm just following historical precedent here. I predict new fantasy game after fantasy game, which, while often fun, still won't reflect the depth that once was.

[Mike_the_Mystic]

like I said before, who's to say they're gonna die? :smallamused:

[busterswd]

Actually, the question wasn't whether regnancy works better than laying eggs. The benefits for the baby are obvious. The question was whether a pregnant woman got benefits from being pregnant that she wouldn't have from not being so. If so, the relationship is symbiotic with mutual benefits. Otherwise, only the baby benefits, while the mother has all the obvious bad things to go through, in which case, in a stricly biological sense, it could be argued that the baby acts as a parasite.
(I emphasize that because I don't want people to think I believe babies to be parasites).

Anyways, the other point stating that a parasite needs to be another species and not the same one makes sense too.

As for sharing XP... Well, they share food, so maybe... Then again, can you be born with more than one level? Sounds doubtful to me. I mean, imagine how many levels a baby elf would get that way, with all the time they spend in the womb.

I'm enjoying how people keep throwing around the word "parasitism", but it's time to put an end to the pseudo-biology.

No, you cannot argue a baby is a parasitic relationship; the mother gains a significant benefit too, which is the highly increased chance of the propogation of her genes. Fitness is far more important than survival in a biological sense. A species that excels at survival but never passes on its genes is an extinct one, whereas the opposite situation occurs quite often in nature in a variety of successful species.

If you are going to correct someone, at least make sure you have an idea of what you are talking about. A baby is not a parasite, even in a biological sense.

Edit: In addition, if you study embryology, some of the baby's organic systems are actually FUSED with the mother's as it develops, in particular the circulatory system. It's essentially part of the mother's body through many stages of development.

[Yucca]

Raise Dead restores life to the same physical body that was killed. The unborn child is a living part of that body, therefore it is also restored to life. That's how I'd rule it.

Resurrection or any other spell that creates a new body would be a different story.

On a related note, could you raise an egg that was damaged before it hatched? Almost the same thing. Would the spell simply reform the egg?

[Forealms]

Interesting question. Personally, I'd say 15k.

If I remember the rules correctly: if a person dies of disease and you raise him, the disease is gone. Now, if we consider a bacterial disease, this means that a parasite does not get raised with it's host (or else the disease would return and kill the patient all over again.) A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite (I apologize if that characterization seems offensive, but I don't see another way of linking to existing rules.) So, the featus has to be raised separately, just as you could theoretically raise the bacteria.

Here's my thought on why it would be 10k, though I certainly like your explanation.

Apart from several obvious reasons, a parasite and fetus are different in their connection to the "host", if you will. With a parasite, the parasite has to use it's own mechanisms to attach to the host. With a fetus, the host initiates a natural bond with the fetus. In my opinion, as long is that connection is kept, the fetus could be considered a part of the host's body.

[thereaper]

I'm enjoying how people keep throwing around the word "parasitism", but it's time to put an end to the pseudo-biology.

No, you cannot argue a baby is a parasitic relationship; the mother gains a significant benefit too, which is the highly increased chance of the propogation of her genes. Fitness is far more important than survival in a biological sense. A species that excels at survival but never passes on its genes is an extinct one, whereas the opposite situation occurs quite often in nature in a variety of successful species.

If you are going to correct someone, at least make sure you have an idea of what you are talking about. A baby is not a parasite, even in a biological sense.

Edit: In addition, if you study embryology, some of the baby's organic systems are actually FUSED with the mother's as it develops, in particular the circulatory system. It's essentially part of the mother's body through many stages of development.


Except...It's not actually benefitting the mother. It's benefitting the species. The mother herself doesn't recieve any advantage to her individual survival.

[busterswd]

Except...It's not actually benefitting the mother. It's benefitting the species. The mother herself doesn't recieve any advantage to her individual survival.

Again, have an idea what you are talking about before you try to correct me. Study what "fitness" is and why it is so important.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, you're completely wrong. Your species doesn't give a crap about you scoring, and in most cases, your peers within the same species will try to prevent it.

[Swiftbow]

Well, in Baldur's Gate 2, if you follow the Aerie romantic subplot, she gets pregnant and then (somewhat disturbingly) informs the main character that she'll be fine to fight for a few more months and if she gets killed, raise dead spells will raise both her and the baby.

[Kai Maera]

Again, have an idea what you are talking about before you try to correct me. Study what "fitness" is and why it is so important.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, you're completely wrong. Your species doesn't give a crap about you scoring, and in most cases, your peers within the same species will try to prevent it.

And let the insults begin! Buster, the propogation of genes has no benefit in a world where anyone can become immortal and "perfected" by means of having thousands of followers.

Also your biology is broken. I personally blame Mr. Mendel (sp), but it may be because at some point you quit caring about individuals and started caring about genetics. And this is about ressurrecting an individual, not playing around with the available recombinations of genes.

Now, aside from your extreme arrogance, you have only contributed one thing worth mentioning, which is that the baby is biologically connected to the mother during pregnancy. That makes it a part of the mother and should count it toward being part of the same res.

Also, it would be awesome if the baby gained experience during the fight, but it's just another redshirt until you give it a name ;D

[Deathwisher]

I read the first two posts in this thing, and realized that it would be at least half political debate that would effectively turn into an abortion debate, since we're discussing whether or not a fetus is a real person, ect.

I kindly ask that a moderator locks this for that reason. It has minimal relevance to the story, and it's very hot, politically.

So far everybody has been reasonably polite and careful not to start a political debate. In fact, this thread could serve as a prime example of people behaving correctly on a forum, despite the potentially inflaming topic, so i am not sure what the problem is.



Well, in Baldur's Gate 2, if you follow the Aerie romantic subplot, she gets pregnant and then (somewhat disturbingly) informs the main character that she'll be fine to fight for a few more months and if she gets killed, raise dead spells will raise both her and the baby.

Never tried that one. I should reinstall the game and give it another go. However, the games aren't always true to the rules. (and I think it was still going by AD&D rules), so i am not sure how reliable it is as a source.

[busterswd]

And let the insults begin! Buster, the propogation of genes has no benefit in a world where anyone can become immortal and "perfected" by means of having thousands of followers.

Also your biology is broken. I personally blame Mr. Mendel (sp), but it may be because at some point you quit caring about individuals and started caring about genetics. And this is about ressurrecting an individual, not playing around with the available recombinations of genes.

Now, aside from your extreme arrogance, you have only contributed one thing worth mentioning, which is that the baby is biologically connected to the mother during pregnancy. That makes it a part of the mother and should count it toward being part of the same res.

Also, it would be awesome if the baby gained experience during the fight, but it's just another redshirt until you give it a name ;D

Again, it irks me when people cite "biology" as a cause to call a baby a parasite when it's completely wrong. There's no other way to put it, if you are calling a baby a parasitic relationship on the basis there is no benefit, you are wrong. I'm not speaking in terms of DnD or whatever "immortality" you can get from recognition, if you want to cite biology, then fitness is the primary benefit you can get from being alive. Pregnancy increases your fitness. Organisms don't develop parasites on their own accord.

If I seem arrogant, it's because pseudo science drives me nuts.

And Mendel has NOTHING to do with fitness. His theory deals with the mechanics of passing on genes, not the viability of them.

[Lissou]

I'm enjoying how people keep throwing around the word "parasitism", but it's time to put an end to the pseudo-biology.

No, you cannot argue a baby is a parasitic relationship; the mother gains a significant benefit too, which is the highly increased chance of the propogation of her genes. Fitness is far more important than survival in a biological sense. A species that excels at survival but never passes on its genes is an extinct one, whereas the opposite situation occurs quite often in nature in a variety of successful species.

If you are going to correct someone, at least make sure you have an idea of what you are talking about. A baby is not a parasite, even in a biological sense.

Edit: In addition, if you study embryology, some of the baby's organic systems are actually FUSED with the mother's as it develops, in particular the circulatory system. It's essentially part of the mother's body through many stages of development.

I didn't try to correct anyone's science, it's just that the person didn't answer the question, which was: has there any benefits from being pregnant for the mother (and the question also did say "pre-birth", excluding just "making humans being keep exisiting" as a benefit).

[dps]

I don't recall seeing/hearing/reading Rich hold a gun to anyone's head and demand for them to discuss this. There are no thought police here (or at least that you know of:smallwink:). No one's forcing you to even read the discussion, let alone contribute to it.



If Keilyn had her webcam on, you see that Rich was standing right there, forcing her to take part in this discussion. He's not using a gun, though. He's holding a knife to her throat. :smallbiggrin:

[David Argall]

I didn't try to correct anyone's science, it's just that the person didn't answer the question, which was: has there any benefits from being pregnant for the mother (and the question also did say "pre-birth", excluding just "making humans being keep exisiting" as a benefit).
Well, a large number of women consider that a quite major benefit, at least in the sense of making sure she is the ancestor of some of those future humans.
However, yes, there are a substantial number of health benefits to being pregnant.
Breast cancer used to be called the nun's disease. Just why is still debated, but the most obvious differences between nuns and typical women is the quite low birth rates of nuns. Just how we get from A to B [or maybe to Z] is unclear, but a pregnancy may be the most effective way a woman has to prevent breast cancer.

This article lists 6 health benefits of pregnancy.
http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/pregnancybenefits.html

Given that pregnancy can be lethal to the mother, we might question whether it is on average and net benefital to the mother, but that there are some benefits seems quite definite.

[drengnikrafe]

"THAQ0" is nothing, and was never anything, that had to do with D&D anyway.* (To Hit Armor Qlass 0?)

"THAC0" (note the C) is a 2.0ed thing.

Neither is in 3ed, 3.5ed, or even 4ed.

I can hardly believe this is the biggest problem someone had with my essay...

Are you suggesting that Rich is binding himself to that he can only ever use 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0, and never, ever anything else? What about outside references? What about GURPS? You're being a bit constrictive. I will admit I spelled THAC0 wrong, though. It's been years upon years since I last played 2e.

[hamishspence]

He has made passing references to previous editions, describing something as "deader than Thac0)

[Kish]

Are you suggesting that Rich is binding himself to that he can only ever use 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0, and never, ever anything else?
You weren't even talking about OotS, as far as I can tell. Your final sentence references RAW.

[VariaVespasa]

Well maybe a baby can gain experience, but the only class a baby has is, well, baby (a variant of commoner), and the only way a baby improves is gaining weight and kicking skill. If the average baby weighs about 7 pounds, and 1 lvl = 2 pounds and 2 kicks per hour, exactly how many levels (pounds) would you, as the mother, want the baby to gain, precisely?.... :P

1 level is... painful, 3 levels requires the installation of internal padding by a talented and rather specialised artisan, and a skilled team of engineers when it comes to birthin' time! :P Proof positive, I think, that pregnant women are supposed to take it easy! :)

[drengnikrafe]

I'm going to go ahead and concede that I'm and idiot on this topic, and shut up. I was wrong enough times in succession that let me do that without costing me any more pride.

[paladin_carvin]

First off, I got to say that most of the comments, while maybe disturbing, have been great. This could easily devolve into an ugly brawl (well, if the mods didn't slam it down the second it did) and it hasn't. I am noticing a few people are getting a little... uh, heated. But, it's a bit surprising why. Anyway, not trying to stop anyone; just be careful all. This is good stuff, very cool!

As for parasite or not I have this thought. On a biological level, we have many different organisms within us, many we can't survive without. Heck, our sells include mitochondria which has a separate genetic code than the rest of the cell (to those wondering, yes, I learned about this because of that game). We have many forms of bacteria within us as well; some parasitic and some symbiotic. These would have to be raised with the rest of the person, at least the symbiotic.

A featus is some for of living tissue (no matter if you consider it a life of its own or part of the mother's) that the body on some level accepts. Remember that the human body (unconsciously, internally) is very capable of resisting things, even helpful things. A transplanted organ will be rejected unless great strain is taken to fool the body in to not rejecting it. Fetus as well can easily be rejected if the body finds reason (miscarriage). As such, no matter what you consider the fetus, it is an accepted part of the woman's being (leaving, most certainly, the possibility that it is itself a separate being and with its own soul or otherwise). Being part of the woman's being, it would be resurrected with the woman, just the same as her helpful bacteria, her accepted organs and right down to her mitochondria.

I would agree with... uh, I can't remember his handle... the dude(ete?) with the flumpf avatar. A baby would not be able to survive resurrection, much less a fetus. I would assume that a fetus has between 0 and 1 con. I would also wager that because the mother would make the fort/con saves for poison even though if the effects were hard enough it would also effect the fetus, that the two are connected on a physical/constitution basis. Thus, since resurrection is a potentially con effecting spell/effect, it would be a shared effect. Sharing spell effects happen with other combinations of creatures anyway, so this is not surprising (though odd since those relations are almost universally magical).

But, at the end of the day... well, it's really only Daigo that I'm worried about. : )

(ps- Beat that, V!)

[Krenn]

Ok, in the Hackmaster PHB, which is based on D&D 1st and 2nd edition, It says that any missing body parts must be present when the spell raise dead is cast, or the person comes to life without said parts. Also, it does not cure poison or disease.

I would interpret that to mean, that in hackmaster at least, a fetus would be raised with the mother, as long as the fetus had not been surgically removed ahead of time.

I looked up the raise dead spell for d20 as well, it also says:

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.

although disease and poison IS cured in d20.

So I'd say that the same thing applies to d20. If the fetus is still physically present, it will be raised at the same time. After all, if you try to define the fetus as a 'parasite' or a 'disease,' You would have to apply that definition to a lot of other things as well. Any foreign bacteria in the stomach which help you digest... pimples... cancer... reproductive organs themselves, even if they AREN'T currently carrying children... The Appendix.... Human tailbone.... Basically, the "child is draining calories and not helping survival" argument applies to ANYTHING that's drawing calories and not helping survival. including body parts you were born with but don't actually need to 'survive.'

Here are some questions that may help shed light on the original question, though:

Is the fetus part of the mothers body? Turn the question around:

Is the MOTHER part of the FETUS's body? The fetus NEEDS the mother to be alive, and is physically attached to her, and internal.... If I cast raise dead on the FETUS, does the MOTHER come back to life as well? and can I therefore touch the fetus by touching the mother?

What about (adult) siamese twins? If two humans are bonded together along the hip and ribs, it may not be POSSIBLE to have one alive and one dead for more than a few minutes: they live or die together. What happens if I cast raise dead on one, when both are currently dead?

[NerfTW]

What about (adult) siamese twins? If two humans are bonded together along the hip and ribs, it may not be POSSIBLE to have one alive and one dead for more than a few minutes: they live or die together. What happens if I cast raise dead on one, when both are currently dead?

I know I sound like I'm killing the discussion, but while wizards and sorcerors need to follow hard and fast rules to remain internally consistent, cleric spells are granted by a god. The god would either likely raise both, or if he was an evil trickster god, raise one only to die shortly after.

The BIG issue for siamese twins is, do they have two souls? At what point is it considered a seperate being? There can be siamese twins where one is simply an undeveloped head. Or even a fully concious head and upper body that uses all the same organs as it's twin. Do they have to ask both souls back? (Although I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where one would agree and one wouldn't. I mean, the option is heaven now, or live an extra 20 or so years and go back later. Anything that would cause pain to one would hurt the other anyways.)

I think that depends on the setting, though. Some would say two seperate souls, and some would attribute some sort of bond between them, preventing one from denying the return.

[Flickerdart]

I think the rules for siamese twins would be the same as rules for a multi-headed creature. In that it's one being. I think. Those ARE the rules for multi-headed creatures, right?

[chibibar]

As a GM, This is what I would do.

I would think the fetus and mother has a symbiont relationship. This mean they are consider one entity until the fetus is born. Thus the raise dead would work on both.

As for disease and posion, last I check, Raise Dead doesn't cure you from these effects but I do believe resurrection does.

[GSFB]

The correct answer is: whatever the DM says.

This is not covered in the rules. Anything not covered by the rules is decided by the DM. The DM makes the decision based on what he or she thinks is the right decision for the game at hand.

In my game, one of my PCs is pregnant. She is in constant danger of being killed. As DM, I have already decided that, if she is killed, she can choose to be raised, and she will be raised with her unborn intact. I made this decision because she is a very sensitive player, and any other decision would upset her so much I fear she would hate the game.

Other players may view things differently. Make rules based on your specific game needs.

As for OotS, Rich would simply decide what is best for plot. In this case, my gut tells me what is best for plot is NO ONE GETS KILLED IN THIS SCENE. Well, except for evil ninjas. They can all die.

If, for some reason, Rich decided to kill off a pregnant woman and her unborn child, my guess is he would choose to NOT raise ANY of them. Any decision he makes regarding the unborn will anger some readers, over purely ideological reasons not related to the story. That is not smart writing.

Any other discussion about the meaning of life, the nature of pregnancy, or the rules for raising the unborn are completely outside the scope of this forum.

[AlexanderRM]

I just wonder... when the ninjas are done with the tertiary targets, how much gold will be needed? 10k or 15k?

The SRD lacks details in the spell description...
"when"?

Has anyone else here noticed that whenever a major character is killed, there's always something preventing them from being raised the next day? It happened with both Shojo and Roy. If they do die, it's going to take a lot more than 10K/15K gold to bring them back, if it's possible.
Also, my sister says she's offended by the assumption that Kazumi can't handle half a dozen ninja. Or eight ninja.



A point can be made for considering an unborn featus as a sort of parasite (I apologize if that characterization seems offensive, but I don't see another way of linking to existing rules.)
In my opinion, that's one of the distinctions between technology and magic, that there actually IS a kind of "a wizard did it" (IT WAS A CLERIC) inherent in the system- Magic A IS Magic A. It's much easier to understand in the case of a divine spell, which is granted to the caster by a sentient being, so I think that you'd be able to make a distinction between "wanted and unwanted" parasites.
You also have the "natural vs. unnatural"... I suppose that diseases are usually natural, but a deadly disease isn't usually a natural part of the host.

If I were the DM in such a case... well, from a DM perspective, I wouldn't make it too hard to raise the fetus (most likely either auto-raised along with the mother, or you could use touch-range spells on it by touching her...)... and, yeah, I think if you consider that raise dead is being granted by a deity, then that does make sense.

If not... imagine performing a surgical procedure in order to reach the baby and raise it. I think raise dead has a long casting time, though... isn't there something about casting touch spells where you can cast it and then touch the creature? If not... maybe you could cut her open and raise the baby first, then use resurrection? Or perhaps it would be even simpler: if the mother is considered part of the fetus (since the fetus needs her to survive) maybe you could just resurrect the fetus and the mother would be brought back as well)

[Kami2awa]

You could look to a real-world analogy; people have been brought back from clinical death by technological means such as heart-lung machines. This is the closest thing in real life to Raise Dead.

I don't know if such technology has ever been used on a clinically dead foetus, but, technically, it could be, so Raise Dead might work as well. The main problem I can see is the need for the caster to touch the target, which might require some surgery/dissection (though in a world with perfect magical healing, this is less of a problem).

If both were dead, you'd need to resurrect the foetus and mother together, or the mother first, foetus second, or it would die again.