Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raising the undead...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:24:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

A person gets killed in combat. A part of their body is taken by people
wishing to have SOMETHING to resurrect him with, even if they lose the body.
Someone finds the body and uses it as a vessel for animate dead. The zombie
is still doing it's thing when the part of the body is used for some form of
raising(ressurect, reincarnate, etc).

Does the person actually come back to life, or is their soul trapped in a
zombie, and therefore the raising/reincarnating/ressurection fails? IE:
when a zombie is created, is the soul of that person inside the zombie, or
is it just an empty shell?

If there is no OFFICIAL ruling to contradict me, I will say that the souls
of zombies are trapped in the zombies when they are animated(part of the
magic, and the part that makes such activity evil), mainly because that
makes for an excellent starting point for an adventure(find the zombie and
kill it, then raise the dead). But if there is a ruling, I'd like to know
about it.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

More about : raising undead

Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> A person gets killed in combat. A part of their body is taken by
> people wishing to have SOMETHING to resurrect him with, even if they
> lose the body. Someone finds the body and uses it as a vessel for
> animate dead. The zombie is still doing it's thing when the part of
> the body is used for some form of raising(ressurect, reincarnate,
> etc).
>
> Does the person actually come back to life, or is their soul trapped
> in a zombie, and therefore the raising/reincarnating/ressurection
> fails? IE: when a zombie is created, is the soul of that person
> inside the zombie, or is it just an empty shell?
>
> If there is no OFFICIAL ruling to contradict me, I will say that the
> souls of zombies are trapped in the zombies when they are
> animated(part of the magic, and the part that makes such activity
> evil), mainly because that makes for an excellent starting point for
> an adventure(find the zombie and kill it, then raise the dead). But
> if there is a ruling, I'd like to know about it.

I think, by the rules as written, you're correct. Raise Dead can't raise
someone who has become undead, Resurrection and True Resurrection can revive
someone who has been made undead and then destroyed, but none of them can
revive someone who's currently undead.

As a houserule, I might make an exception for Resurrection and True
Resurrection in the case of someone who'd been animated as mindless undead,
taking the view that mindless undead are just animated corpses, containing
no vestige of the former person - but it would be a houserule, and would
probably open a can of worms.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:03:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Miracle" <.@.> wrote in message news:D 57ip6$b7l$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> PHB says:
> "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a
death
> effect can't be raised by this (Raies Dead) spell."

"killed by a death effect..." Like what, Power Word Kill or something? I
always thought that raise dead could, well, raise you from the dead. If
your soul is available and you body is present, raise dead, voila, problem
solved, that's how we've always played it. I wasn't aware that raise dead
wouldn't work if powerful death causing magic was involved. Interesting.

> "As raise dead, (...) ... The character can revive someone killed by a
death
> effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then
> _destroyed_." (Resurrection)
>
> so it's quite obvious you can't raise (resurrect, true resurrect) someone
> who's still an undead.
> but I suppose a house rule for mindless undead would be ok, as Mark said.

Well, since it will work better that you CAN'T raise/resurrect/etc someone
who is currently undead, I'll use that route.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Related resources
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <wtCdnT-dqvLbIOrfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Miracle" <.@.> wrote in message news:D 57ip6$b7l$2@bagan.srce.hr...
>> PHB says:
>> "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a
>death
>> effect can't be raised by this (Raies Dead) spell."
>
>"killed by a death effect..." Like what, Power Word Kill or something? I
>always thought that raise dead could, well, raise you from the dead. If
>your soul is available and you body is present, raise dead, voila, problem
>solved, that's how we've always played it. I wasn't aware that raise dead
>wouldn't work if powerful death causing magic was involved. Interesting.

This may be a 2e vs 3e thing. ISTR 2e had resurrection for some severe case
of death e.g. major dismemberment, but don't recall anything special about
"Death effects".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:D 58jd6$mv4$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> >solved, that's how we've always played it. I wasn't aware that raise
dead
> >wouldn't work if powerful death causing magic was involved. Interesting.
>
> This may be a 2e vs 3e thing. ISTR 2e had resurrection for some severe
case
> of death e.g. major dismemberment, but don't recall anything special about
> "Death effects".

That's actually quite likely. I haven't played 3E, am not terribly familiar
with the rules, and while I don't spend a lot of time poring over the rules
of 2E either(not a rules lawyer), I think I would have noticed something
like that whole "death effect" thing in the 2E rules, given the importance
of raising the dead to most campaigns.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:37:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Miracle" <.@.> wrote in message news:D 57ip6$b7l$2@bagan.srce.hr...
>> PHB says:
>> "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by
>> a death effect can't be raised by this (Raies Dead) spell."
>
> "killed by a death effect..." Like what, Power Word Kill or
> something? I always thought that raise dead could, well, raise you
> from the dead. If your soul is available and you body is present,
> raise dead, voila, problem solved, that's how we've always played it.
> I wasn't aware that raise dead wouldn't work if powerful death
> causing magic was involved. Interesting.

A Death effect is any spell or spell-like effect with Death in its
descriptor. For instance, Finger of Death has the Death descriptor (its type
is listed as Necromancy [Death]), so a person slain by that spell cannot be
Raised, even though their corpse is intact.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:12:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9ZKdnbuEIsnCYOvfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> Does the person actually come back to life, or is their soul trapped in a
> zombie, and therefore the raising/reincarnating/ressurection fails? IE:
> when a zombie is created, is the soul of that person inside the zombie, or
> is it just an empty shell?

My gods, Goslin, is there even the slightest amount of motivation on
your part to READ THE RULES? These issues are described rather thoroughly in
the spell descriptions.

> If there is no OFFICIAL ruling to contradict me, I will say that the souls
> of zombies are trapped in the zombies when they are animated

No souls are involved in animated undead. There's just a heap o'
desecration involved.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SGSde.5207$HL2.2913@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> My gods, Goslin, is there even the slightest amount of motivation on
> your part to READ THE RULES? These issues are described rather thoroughly
in
> the spell descriptions.

Truth be told, nope, I haven't got the slightest inclination to look it up.
My books are ALLLLLLL they way downstairs(quite the hike for this fatass,
let me tell you), it would involve me like *READING* them and stuff, blergh,
I'll leave that to the rules lawyers. Nope, that effort is just NOT for me.

> > If there is no OFFICIAL ruling to contradict me, I will say that the
souls
> > of zombies are trapped in the zombies when they are animated
>
> No souls are involved in animated undead. There's just a heap o'
> desecration involved.

So what's your perspective the rationale behind not being able to
raise/resurrect someone if you have a part of their body even if the body is
animated as undead?

The rules I actually *DID* read in 3E were the rules for raise dead, which,
from the SRD, seems to indicate that if a soul is available and willing, and
the matching body is available, the raise succeeds, end of story. From the
SRD(raise dead spell description): "In addition, the subject's soul must be
free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return,
the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives
no saving throw.", also "A creature who has been turned into an undead
creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. " The
implication there is that something about being turned into undead traps the
soul somehow, preventing it from willingly returning to the body, which
further implies that when someone is turned into the undead that their soul
is still attached in some manner to the life force of the undead creature(if
only in a limited manner).

If, as you state above, no souls are involved, what is the reason that a
person turned into an undead zombie can't be resurrected/reincarnated as
normal, assuming the spellcaster has a part of that person's body? They
very specifically state that it can't be done, so why not? You seem sure
that it's NOT got to do with souls, but rather with "desecration". By that
rationale, an easy way to prevent someone from ever being resurrected is to
simply bend them over and assram their lifeless corpse after you're done
hacking them to bits, that's quite a heaping helping of desecration if you
ask me. ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>So what's your perspective the rationale behind not being able to
>raise/resurrect someone if you have a part of their body even if the body is
>animated as undead?

Raise Dead (all editions) requires the body to be whole and intact.
Animating a body as undead (in 3E and later) corrupts the flesh,
making the "intact" part impossible.

Resurrection would work fine, however.

Donald
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:03:38 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Miracle" <.@.> wrote in message news:D 57ip6$b7l$2@bagan.srce.hr...
>> PHB says:
>> "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a
>death
>> effect can't be raised by this (Raies Dead) spell."
>
>"killed by a death effect..." Like what, Power Word Kill or something? I
>always thought that raise dead could, well, raise you from the dead. If
>your soul is available and you body is present, raise dead, voila, problem
>solved, that's how we've always played it. I wasn't aware that raise dead
>wouldn't work if powerful death causing magic was involved. Interesting.

Yes. I believe this is new to 3e.

In my own game I've eliminated this, as part of my systematic nerfing
of "save or else" effects. IMC not only can Raise Dead bring back
characters killed by a Death Effect, but characters who died from a
Death Effect do not suffer level loss when brought back.

OTOH I've ruled that Raise Dead can't bring back a "mutilated" body,
and that some of the advanced death spells will mutilate your body
(withering and mumifying it) after killing you.

And on the third hand, I have a house rule that return-from-death
magic requires the holy symbol *that you wore when you died.* If that
holy symbol was lost or destroyed, a wish or miracle will bring it
back - but if you weren't wearing one in the first place, you're SOL.



--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 4:53:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> you up next, work it out now.

>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>news:D 58jd6$mv4$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>> >solved, that's how we've always played it. I wasn't aware that raise
>dead
>> >wouldn't work if powerful death causing magic was involved. Interesting.
>>
>> This may be a 2e vs 3e thing. ISTR 2e had resurrection for some severe
>case
>> of death e.g. major dismemberment, but don't recall anything special about
>> "Death effects".
>
>That's actually quite likely. I haven't played 3E, am not terribly familiar
>with the rules, and while I don't spend a lot of time poring over the rules
>of 2E either(not a rules lawyer), I think I would have noticed something
>like that whole "death effect" thing in the 2E rules, given the importance
>of raising the dead to most campaigns.

IIRC, the spell description for 2e Death Spell says that the life
force is completely snuffed out and the victims cannot be raised. The
same with Finger of Death (again, IIRC... it's been a while).

Bill
--
By working faithfully eight hours a day, you may eventually
get to be boss and work twelve hours a day. - Robert Frost
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:05:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Wildwood" <wildwood72@pipeline.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:mohg71djmae97fnmt876q07h837qu95rh2@4ax.com...
> IIRC, the spell description for 2e Death Spell says that the life
> force is completely snuffed out and the victims cannot be raised. The
> same with Finger of Death (again, IIRC... it's been a while).

Hrm. One would think that such a restriction on raising would be included
in the raise dead spell of 2E, but maybe they just cross-referenced the 3E
rules a bit better than the 2E stuff. Ah well.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:08:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vbjg71h5u3pg0jiptpptqc3d2mdgg2avu1@4ax.com...
> And on the third hand, I have a house rule that return-from-death
> magic requires the holy symbol *that you wore when you died.* If that
> holy symbol was lost or destroyed, a wish or miracle will bring it
> back - but if you weren't wearing one in the first place, you're SOL.

I like that one. After all, what god would want to return your soul to your
body(a very nice gift) if you aren't even a follower of his, eh? I may just
institute that little rule, more for flavor than anything else.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:40:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Wildwood wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, the spell description for 2e Death Spell says that
> > the life force is completely snuffed out and the victims
> > cannot be raised. The same with Finger of Death (again,
> > IIRC... it's been a while).
>
> Hrm. One would think that such a restriction on raising
> would be included in the raise dead spell of 2E, but
> maybe they just cross-referenced the 3E rules a bit
> better than the 2E stuff. Ah well.

ITYM "cross-referenced everything in 3E amazingly better than the 2E
stuff", which is correct. :D 

HTH, HAND.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 11:31:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 4 May 2005 04:08:07 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vbjg71h5u3pg0jiptpptqc3d2mdgg2avu1@4ax.com...
>> And on the third hand, I have a house rule that return-from-death
>> magic requires the holy symbol *that you wore when you died.* If that
>> holy symbol was lost or destroyed, a wish or miracle will bring it
>> back - but if you weren't wearing one in the first place, you're SOL.
>
>I like that one. After all, what god would want to return your soul to your
>body(a very nice gift) if you aren't even a follower of his, eh? I may just
>institute that little rule, more for flavor than anything else.

A god who is a "warrior against death" in his official
mythology/theology?

IMC the "Sons of the Sky Father" are the good-guy deities. They are
all "warriors against death" in their official theology, which is why
their clerics all have turn-undead and spontaneous healing.

This also means that their clerics will cast healing spells (for a
price) even for followers of different religions (e.g. for followers
of the "Druidic Heresy"). This extends to the casting of *raise dead*
and *resurrection* - a cleric of one of the Sons will be willing to
cast *raise dead* not only on someone who wore the holy symbol of the
cleric's own god, but also on someone who wore the holy symbol of one
of the other Sons, on someone who wore the holy symbol of one of the
druidic goddesses, or even (at least sometimes) on someone who wore
the unholy swastika of the True Church (the "bad guy" religion of the
campaign).

I put in the "must have holy symbol to return from the dead"
requirement partly for flavor reasons (a reason for
non-clerics/paladins to have holy symbols), partly to tone down the
higher-power return-from-death spells, and partly to provide a method
to permenantly kill someone without having to invoke
bloody-high-level-death-magic spells or oh-so-special death magic
weapons. To permenantly kill someone, take away his holy symbol and
*then* kill him - no magic required, just a nasty-minded willingness
to give your enemies the game-world equivalent of "short shrift." (Or
rather, no shrift.)

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> abagooba zoink
larblortch news:3dop4bF6sm47qU1@individual.net:

> As a houserule, I might make an exception for Resurrection and True
> Resurrection in the case of someone who'd been animated as mindless
> undead, taking the view that mindless undead are just animated
> corpses, containing no vestige of the former person - but it would be
> a houserule, and would probably open a can of worms.

That's the house rule I use. Mindless undead aren't the original people.
They are summoned spirits that animate the body. Thus, one must first get
rid of the spirit (the easiest way is to "kill" the undead)...

Now, I sometimes use another house rule for sapient undead. In some
cultures, a vampire (for example) is not the original person. Instead, it
is a spirit from a tribal enemy that has stolen a dead relative's body!
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q4udnXpXUccOn-XfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > No souls are involved in animated undead. There's just a heap o'
> > desecration involved.
>
> So what's your perspective the rationale behind not being able to
> raise/resurrect someone if you have a part of their body even if the body
is
> animated as undead?

"Heap o' desecration involved".

> The rules I actually *DID* read in 3E were the rules for raise dead,
which,
> from the SRD, seems to indicate that if a soul is available and willing,
and
> the matching body is available, the raise succeeds, end of story. From
the
> SRD(raise dead spell description): "In addition, the subject's soul must
be
> free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to
return,
> the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return
receives
> no saving throw.", also "A creature who has been turned into an undead
> creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. " The
> implication there is that something about being turned into undead traps
the
> soul somehow, preventing it from willingly returning to the body,

Um, Jeffie? Key phrases, there. *Preventing* from *Returning*. If the
soul has to be returned, it's rather silly to suggest that the structure of
the rules meant to say the soul was already there. End of story. There are
plenty of avenues to exploit that involve the soul being unable to reconnect
to a desecrated body; the connection to the lower planes is a barrier to
crossing back over, the desecration resulting from the process is a barrier
in its own right, crossing over to a necromantically animated body turns the
soul over to the animator (and no soul would willingly do that..)...

Your trapped soul idea is a nonsensical interpretation of the concepts
available. That said, it certainly would be a twisted wrinkle if you wanted
to *change* the rules. But understanding what they actually are is a
rather important step to going about changing them.
..
> very specifically state that it can't be done, so why not? You seem sure
> that it's NOT got to do with souls, but rather with "desecration". By
that
> rationale, an easy way to prevent someone from ever being resurrected is
to
> simply bend them over and assram their lifeless corpse after you're done
> hacking them to bits, that's quite a heaping helping of desecration if you
> ask me. ;) 

Your attempt at humour is noted and dismissed as vulgar and inept. Abuse
of expired flesh may be repellent, but it doesn't accomplish anything
[Necromancy] related. Mystic corruption is the order of the day here. So
unless your member is packing a serious curse ...

-Michael
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:20:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nPGdnbQlZMWuHuXfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> "Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > And on the third hand, I have a house rule that return-from-death
> > magic requires the holy symbol *that you wore when you died.* If that
> > holy symbol was lost or destroyed, a wish or miracle will bring it
> > back - but if you weren't wearing one in the first place, you're SOL.
>
> I like that one. After all, what god would want to return your soul to
your
> body(a very nice gift) if you aren't even a follower of his, eh? I may
just
> institute that little rule, more for flavor than anything else.

It's an absurd idea. Divinities hardly need a holy symbol to know who
their faithful are - and the simple act of taking one from a defeated enemy
now makes it possible to destroy them utterly? Bah, I say. This is a
PC-annihilating rule with zero upside. The need to use Resurrection or Wish
magics to bring back those slain in that fashion is hurdle enough.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This is particularly directed at you, Jeff, but I'm quoting you because
you conveniently provide the SRD quotes I need.

autockr@comcast.net wrote:

> From the
> SRD(raise dead spell description): "In addition, the subject's soul must be
> free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return,
> the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives
> no saving throw.", also "A creature who has been turned into an undead
> creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. "

What happens if someone gets turned into a vampire, then destroyed, then
his (original) friends try to raise him?

Turning into a vampire changes your alignment to Chaotic Evil. When a
vampire gets destroyed, is the soul/personality free of the taint and
switches back to it's original alignment and considers it's original
friends allies, or is it still CE?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:05:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ErolB1@comcast.net wrote:

> I put in the "must have holy symbol to return from the dead"
> requirement partly for flavor reasons (a reason for
> non-clerics/paladins to have holy symbols), partly to tone down the
> higher-power return-from-death spells, and partly to provide a method
> to permenantly kill someone without having to invoke
> bloody-high-level-death-magic spells or oh-so-special death magic
> weapons. To permenantly kill someone, take away his holy symbol and
> *then* kill him - no magic required, just a nasty-minded willingness
> to give your enemies the game-world equivalent of "short shrift." (Or
> rather, no shrift.)

How does this work out for the PCs' enemies? Do the PCs' routinely
destroy the holy symbols of those who they kill? If not, how come, since
it's a pretty sensible thing to do? If yes, doesn't that make them feel
a bit less heroic? It's really not any worse than killing someone in
such a way that only true resurrection can bring them back, but it feels
kind of wrong/cruel/villainous to purposefully break someone's holy
symbol so he can't be raised easily.

Do you have to be a sincere worshipper, or have a holy symbol on you?
The former might work for a specific religion-heavy world, but I don't
really like it as a generic solution; I want to leave room for non-
religious (N)PCs. The latter poses a question: if you just need the holy
symbol and not faith, would it work with any (perhaps specially
prepared) object of the deceased, if the cleric casting the spell was
willing?

An interesting rule, in any case. Doesn't screw with the mechanics too
much, but offers plenty of potential for plot-hooks and interesting
situations.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:05:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:05:08 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
wrote:

>ErolB1@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> I put in the "must have holy symbol to return from the dead"
>> requirement partly for flavor reasons (a reason for
>> non-clerics/paladins to have holy symbols), partly to tone down the
>> higher-power return-from-death spells, and partly to provide a method
>> to permenantly kill someone without having to invoke
>> bloody-high-level-death-magic spells or oh-so-special death magic
>> weapons. To permenantly kill someone, take away his holy symbol and
>> *then* kill him - no magic required, just a nasty-minded willingness
>> to give your enemies the game-world equivalent of "short shrift." (Or
>> rather, no shrift.)
>
>How does this work out for the PCs' enemies? Do the PCs' routinely
>destroy the holy symbols of those who they kill? If not, how come, since
>it's a pretty sensible thing to do? If yes, doesn't that make them feel
>a bit less heroic? It's really not any worse than killing someone in
>such a way that only true resurrection can bring them back, but it feels
>kind of wrong/cruel/villainous to purposefully break someone's holy
>symbol so he can't be raised easily.

It hasn't really come up yet; I haven't yet run at a level where
there's easy access to *raise dead.* But I'm trying to establish the
idea that it's not just evil, but *very* evil to destroy the holy
symbols of dead foes. Something that *is* a notch worse than
mutilating the bodies so that they can't be raised easily.

>
>Do you have to be a sincere worshipper, or have a holy symbol on you?
>The former might work for a specific religion-heavy world, but I don't
>really like it as a generic solution; I want to leave room for non-
>religious (N)PCs. The latter poses a question: if you just need the holy
>symbol and not faith, would it work with any (perhaps specially
>prepared) object of the deceased, if the cleric casting the spell was
>willing?

You just need the holy symbol; you don't need to be more than a
nominal worshiper, and maybe not even that. It does have to be a holy
symbol though - something with connections to the gods, the afterlife
and the numinous.

Really non-religious characters can use the *clone* spell as an
alternative. Coming back via *clone* doesn't require a holy symbol,
and in fact having a holy symbol interferes somewhat. It does require
a specially preserved flesh sample or inert clone, however, with
preparations made while one is still alive.

>
>An interesting rule, in any case. Doesn't screw with the mechanics too
>much, but offers plenty of potential for plot-hooks and interesting
>situations.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:27:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Erol K. Bayburt" wrote
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> >> I put in the "must have holy symbol to return from the dead"
> >> requirement partly for flavor reasons (a reason for
> >> non-clerics/paladins to have holy symbols), partly to tone down the
> >> higher-power return-from-death spells, and partly to provide a method
> >> to permenantly kill someone without having to invoke
> >> bloody-high-level-death-magic spells or oh-so-special death magic
> >> weapons. To permenantly kill someone, take away his holy symbol and
> >> *then* kill him - no magic required, just a nasty-minded willingness
> >> to give your enemies the game-world equivalent of "short shrift." (Or
> >> rather, no shrift.)
> >
> >How does this work out for the PCs' enemies? Do the PCs' routinely
> >destroy the holy symbols of those who they kill? If not, how come, since
> >it's a pretty sensible thing to do? If yes, doesn't that make them feel
> >a bit less heroic? It's really not any worse than killing someone in
> >such a way that only true resurrection can bring them back, but it feels
> >kind of wrong/cruel/villainous to purposefully break someone's holy
> >symbol so he can't be raised easily.
>
> It hasn't really come up yet; I haven't yet run at a level where
> there's easy access to *raise dead.* But I'm trying to establish the
> idea that it's not just evil, but *very* evil to destroy the holy
> symbols of dead foes. Something that *is* a notch worse than
> mutilating the bodies so that they can't be raised easily.

I am curious, but how is it Evil to keep someone from coming back to life?
They already went through the trouble of killing them in the first place
after all. If it wasn't Evil to do that, how is it Evil to make sure they
stay that way?


John
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:IXqee.705239$w62.641805@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I am curious, but how is it Evil to keep someone from coming back to life?
> They already went through the trouble of killing them in the first place
> after all. If it wasn't Evil to do that, how is it Evil to make sure they
> stay that way?

Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what is
essentially cold-blooded ritual murder. Good philosophy should be satisfied
with defeat - surrender, subdual, death if necessary ... obliteration
(particularly through the use of [evil] tainted death magic) is nine buckets
of dirty doings.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 10:05:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
>
> > I am curious, but how is it Evil to keep someone from coming back to
life?
> > They already went through the trouble of killing them in the first place
> > after all. If it wasn't Evil to do that, how is it Evil to make sure
they
> > stay that way?
>
> Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what is
> essentially cold-blooded ritual murder.

Not really, as they are already dead.

> Good philosophy should be satisfied
> with defeat - surrender, subdual, death if necessary ...

Should be, yeah. But in this case it was described as "not just evil, but
*very* evil", not as "Not Good".

> obliteration
> (particularly through the use of [evil] tainted death magic) is nine
buckets
> of dirty doings.

If the guy is already dead how is destroying a holy symbol (needed to return
to life) any different than say, taking a ring of regeneration (being used
to return to life) off someone recently killed?


John
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote
>> "John Phillips" wrote
>>
>>> I am curious, but how is it Evil to keep someone from coming back
>>> to life? They already went through the trouble of killing them in
>>> the first place after all. If it wasn't Evil to do that, how is it
>>> Evil to make sure they stay that way?
>>
>> Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what
>> is essentially cold-blooded ritual murder.
>
> Not really, as they are already dead.
>
>> Good philosophy should be satisfied
>> with defeat - surrender, subdual, death if necessary ...
>
> Should be, yeah. But in this case it was described as "not just evil,
> but *very* evil", not as "Not Good".
>
>> obliteration
>> (particularly through the use of [evil] tainted death magic) is nine
>> buckets of dirty doings.
>
> If the guy is already dead how is destroying a holy symbol (needed to
> return to life) any different than say, taking a ring of regeneration
> (being used to return to life) off someone recently killed?
>
>
> John


A better way of looking at it might be to consider it highly blasphemous.
Deciding whether someone is worthy to return to life is the province of the
gods, and destroying the holy symbol takes that choice away - basically, by
doing so you're claiming to know better than a god about who deserves to
live or die.

It's not a system I'd really consider implementing in my games, but within
the system, that would be a reasonable rationale.

--
Mark.
May 6, 2005 12:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> write:
> A better way of looking at it might be to consider it highly blasphemous.
> Deciding whether someone is worthy to return to life is the province of the
> gods, and destroying the holy symbol takes that choice away - basically, by
> doing so you're claiming to know better than a god about who deserves to
> live or die.

that's why i play clerics. WWXD? *smash*

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The defacto sub-standard.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:04:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow <drow@bin.sh> wrote in
news:427a70f9$0$53063$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:

> Alien mind control rays made Mark Blunden
> <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> write:
>> A better way of looking at it might be to consider it highly
>> blasphemous. Deciding whether someone is worthy to return to life is
>> the province of the gods, and destroying the holy symbol takes that
>> choice away - basically, by doing so you're claiming to know better
>> than a god about who deserves to live or die.
>
> that's why i play clerics. WWXD? *smash*
>

What would Xom do? He'd probably grant you a magical flaming sword, animate
it to attack you, and then huck you into the Abyss.

.... Oh. Wrong newsgroup.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:

> > I am curious, but how is it Evil to keep someone from coming back to life?
> > They already went through the trouble of killing them in the first place
> > after all. If it wasn't Evil to do that, how is it Evil to make sure they
> > stay that way?
>
> Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what is
> essentially cold-blooded ritual murder. Good philosophy should be satisfied
> with defeat - surrender, subdual, death if necessary ... obliteration
> (particularly through the use of [evil] tainted death magic) is nine buckets
> of dirty doings.

Would you say the same about (purposefully) using an effect like
destruction or disintegrate on a foe when a fireball or a sword whach
would do just as well, under the standard rules (not Erol's house rule)?

Because it's pretty much the same thing. It's not like you're really
destroying their essence or something, you're just making it hard for
their allies to bring them back.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> A better way of looking at it might be to consider it highly blasphemous.

Eh, maybe to the cult that the symbol represents, but if you're not part
of that cult, so what?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:43:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Vftee.182757$cg1.119978@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote
> > Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what is
> > essentially cold-blooded ritual murder.
>
> Not really, as they are already dead.

Yes, really, as their *soul* isn't. The idea of 'death' is removed one
step in such circumstances.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:47:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce48e83a2eb4128989a6d@news.iskon.hr...
> > Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what is
> > essentially cold-blooded ritual murder. Good philosophy should be
satisfied
> > with defeat - surrender, subdual, death if necessary ... obliteration
> > (particularly through the use of [evil] tainted death magic) is nine
buckets
> > of dirty doings.
>
> Would you say the same about (purposefully) using an effect like
> destruction or disintegrate on a foe when a fireball or a sword whach
> would do just as well, under the standard rules (not Erol's house rule)?
> Because it's pretty much the same thing. It's not like you're really
> destroying their essence or something, you're just making it hard for
> their allies to bring them back.

My opinion was predicated on the assumption that the soul couldn't go
off to its rest, either - if that's not an issue then making it "hard" to
bring something back is not so much of a problem; the only remaining issue
is one of desecration.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:16:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > "Michael Scott Brown" wrote
> > > Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what
is
> > > essentially cold-blooded ritual murder.
> >
> > Not really, as they are already dead.
>
> Yes, really, as their *soul* isn't. The idea of 'death' is removed one
> step in such circumstances.

Their soul is fine, just stuck in the afterlife. At least that's the
impression I got. Erol?

John
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:16:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:16:30 GMT, "John Phillips"
<jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Michael Scott Brown" wrote
>> "John Phillips" wrote
>> > "Michael Scott Brown" wrote
>> > > Given the circumstances of the scenario, you're describing what
>is
>> > > essentially cold-blooded ritual murder.
>> >
>> > Not really, as they are already dead.
>>
>> Yes, really, as their *soul* isn't. The idea of 'death' is removed one
>> step in such circumstances.
>
>Their soul is fine, just stuck in the afterlife. At least that's the
>impression I got. Erol?

Yes, their soul is just stuck in the afterlife.

OTOH, sending souls to a nice afterlife doesn't make killing helpless
prisoners any less evil, does it?

(Hm. The Inquisition more or less believed it did, but I don't want my
game to go in that direction.)



--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:16:18 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>> No, the setting isn't particularly Celtic or Eastern. And on thinking
>> about it, "very very evil" isn't quite the right description.
>> "Extreme" might be a better way to put it. It's something I don't
>> really want anyone, PC or NPC, good or evil, to do at all casually.
>
>Why not?

Because that's the aesthetic I want for my campaign.

The idea that personal holy symbols would get smashed as an
SOP-routine precaution rubs me wrong the same way as the idea that the
PCs would cut off the heads of every foe the kill & stuff their mouths
with garlic "just in case." The latter is something that should be
reserved for known vampires, not applied to every random orc & kobold.
Likewise smashing personal holy symbols should reserved against foes
that one has specially strong reasons for wanting to be DEAD dead, not
just against every random enemy.

OTOH, maybe the very existence of "return from death" magic does call
for putting in a touch of Celtic or Eastern thinking. (Probably Celtic
more than Eastern for my campaign, given the relative prominence of
druids.)


--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <gb5k71du3tf6ersoqmfs3jj9gm64iskscb@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:05:08 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
>wrote:
>
>>ErolB1@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> I put in the "must have holy symbol to return from the dead"
>>> requirement partly for flavor reasons (a reason for
>>> non-clerics/paladins to have holy symbols), partly to tone down the
>>> higher-power return-from-death spells, and partly to provide a method
>>> to permenantly kill someone without having to invoke
>>> bloody-high-level-death-magic spells or oh-so-special death magic
>>> weapons. To permenantly kill someone, take away his holy symbol and
>>> *then* kill him - no magic required, just a nasty-minded willingness
>>> to give your enemies the game-world equivalent of "short shrift." (Or
>>> rather, no shrift.)
>>
>>How does this work out for the PCs' enemies? Do the PCs' routinely
>>destroy the holy symbols of those who they kill? If not, how come, since
>>it's a pretty sensible thing to do? If yes, doesn't that make them feel
>>a bit less heroic? It's really not any worse than killing someone in
>>such a way that only true resurrection can bring them back, but it feels
>>kind of wrong/cruel/villainous to purposefully break someone's holy
>>symbol so he can't be raised easily.
>
>It hasn't really come up yet; I haven't yet run at a level where
>there's easy access to *raise dead.* But I'm trying to establish the
>idea that it's not just evil, but *very* evil to destroy the holy
>symbols of dead foes. Something that *is* a notch worse than
>mutilating the bodies so that they can't be raised easily.

Somehow I feel this trivialises death even more than the existence of
rase dead magics. To me is sort of implys implys that there is a
gentlemans agreement between the forces of Good and Evil.

'Oh Killings ones foe permanently is just Not Done, don't you know?'
Said Lord Darkus to his monstrous underling 'We may be evil but were not
_That_ Evil. Now put that Ankh back where it belongs so he can be decently
resurrected'.

It also implys that rase dead is so common that there is a cultural
taboo about hindering it and a assumption that to anyone important
death is a temporary inconvenience.

Perhaps if you gave the holy symbol a more general function. If you
leave a body without its holy symbol Really Bad Things can happen:-

Say an unprotected body can get possessed by a creature from the
Dungeon Dimensions, a (rare) event so hideous that _nobody_ wants
it to happen (Good or Evil). The chance of possession is proportional
to the level of character (a high level corpse can hold a stronger spirit
and we don't want every prole who dies coming back to wreak havoc).

This would mean that taking someone's holy symbol is not so much Very Evil
but Insanely Irresponsible. Then its a ethical toss-up 'Which is worse a
return of Lord Darkus or an incursion from the Dungeon Dimensions' to safely
kill someone permanently would involve taking the holy symbol and
then watching the body for one moon for signs of possession...

--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:14:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 09:14:48 +0000 (UTC), mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr.
M.J. Lush) wrote:

>>It hasn't really come up yet; I haven't yet run at a level where
>>there's easy access to *raise dead.* But I'm trying to establish the
>>idea that it's not just evil, but *very* evil to destroy the holy
>>symbols of dead foes. Something that *is* a notch worse than
>>mutilating the bodies so that they can't be raised easily.
>
>Somehow I feel this trivialises death even more than the existence of
>rase dead magics. To me is sort of implys implys that there is a
>gentlemans agreement between the forces of Good and Evil.
>
>'Oh Killings ones foe permanently is just Not Done, don't you know?'
>Said Lord Darkus to his monstrous underling 'We may be evil but were not
>_That_ Evil. Now put that Ankh back where it belongs so he can be decently
>resurrected'.

Well yes. The alternative is for the conflict between Good & Evil to
be War With No Quarter. That's what I tried to run, at first, in this
campaign, and my players pitched a fit. And on reflection I decided
that they were right.

>
>It also implys that rase dead is so common that there is a cultural
>taboo about hindering it and a assumption that to anyone important
>death is a temporary inconvenience.

Yes. This follows from *raise dead* being a 5th level spell in a game
that's not deliberately limited to low levels.

>
>Perhaps if you gave the holy symbol a more general function. If you
>leave a body without its holy symbol Really Bad Things can happen:-
>
>Say an unprotected body can get possessed by a creature from the
>Dungeon Dimensions, a (rare) event so hideous that _nobody_ wants
>it to happen (Good or Evil). The chance of possession is proportional
>to the level of character (a high level corpse can hold a stronger spirit
>and we don't want every prole who dies coming back to wreak havoc).
>
>This would mean that taking someone's holy symbol is not so much Very Evil
>but Insanely Irresponsible. Then its a ethical toss-up 'Which is worse a
>return of Lord Darkus or an incursion from the Dungeon Dimensions' to safely
>kill someone permanently would involve taking the holy symbol and
>then watching the body for one moon for signs of possession...

Something like this might be a good idea as an additional reason not
to smash holy symbols as a casual SOP. I'll have to consider it.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7n5ed.nsh.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > don't want to deal with it anymore. A better way to address it is
either
> > to leave dead foes dead, or to make it more fun to fight raised
> > villains.
>
> Any suggestions along that vein? How does one make it "more fun" to
fight
> raised villains? Are you talking along the humorous "body parts not
quite
> working right" line or something?

Two ways returning villians can be more fun.

1) It lets you get to really LOATH them prior to finishing them off
for good. Which is a nice catharsis. This pretty well requires
that it not be easy to stop raises though.

2) IME many players prefer to fight interesting foes who have an
objective beyond just killing things. Such foes are also precisely
those most likely to be raised.

No one is gonna go out of his way to raise Lord Vile, who kills
everything in sight without any good reason, but plenty of people
might want Lady Tyrana back, who, while clearly evil at least
protects and aids her loyal underlings and understands that
dead men rarely make good tax payers so she ruthlessly protects
her domain from wandering monsters and other hazards.

Further it's a LOT easier to come up with reasons why Tyrana doesn't
simply kill the PC's, which in turn makes it a lot easier to give
her a really high power level so twarting her current plot is worth
more experience, is more challenging, yet actually carries LESS risk
of a TPK or similar fun killing problem. And since she HAS good points
they can occasionally work with her against a mutual foe or try to
convert her to the light side.

All in all a much more interesting game.

DougL
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:05:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Erol K Bayburt wrote:
>>> No, the setting isn't particularly Celtic or Eastern. And on thinking
>>> about it, "very very evil" isn't quite the right description.
>>> "Extreme" might be a better way to put it. It's something I don't
>>> really want anyone, PC or NPC, good or evil, to do at all casually.

Note: In my experience, players don't do this casually. They do it
because they've been bitten by too many comeback foes, and they just
don't want to deal with it anymore. A better way to address it is either
to leave dead foes dead, or to make it more fun to fight raised
villains.

Bradd wrote:
>> Why not?

> Because that's the aesthetic I want for my campaign.
>
> The idea that personal holy symbols would get smashed as an
> SOP-routine precaution rubs me wrong the same way as the idea that the
> PCs would cut off the heads of every foe the kill & stuff their mouths
> with garlic "just in case." The latter is something that should be
> reserved for known vampires, not applied to every random orc & kobold.

I would also expect to see it happen for suspected vampires. Nobody
wants to be wrong on that guess. If players are doing it to everyone
KODT style, it just shows that they're paranoid about vampires. Address
the cause, not the symptoms.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k5tm71hgg7e7jb98o0t34jeanf3prmjels@4ax.com...
> >'Oh Killings ones foe permanently is just Not Done, don't you know?'
> >Said Lord Darkus to his monstrous underling 'We may be evil but were not
> >_That_ Evil. Now put that Ankh back where it belongs so he can be
decently
> >resurrected'.
>
> Well yes. The alternative is for the conflict between Good & Evil to
> be War With No Quarter. That's what I tried to run, at first, in this
> campaign, and my players pitched a fit. And on reflection I decided
> that they were right.

As an alternative, just have the divinity associated with the holy
symbol be very, very angry with those who destroy them. Shift the stakes
from ethical to unwise.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:32:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7n5ed.nsh.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> don't want to deal with it anymore. A better way to address it is either
> to leave dead foes dead, or to make it more fun to fight raised
> villains.

Any suggestions along that vein? How does one make it "more fun" to fight
raised villains? Are you talking along the humorous "body parts not quite
working right" line or something?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:51:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:05:33 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>Bradd wrote:
>>> Why not?
>
>> Because that's the aesthetic I want for my campaign.
>>
>> The idea that personal holy symbols would get smashed as an
>> SOP-routine precaution rubs me wrong the same way as the idea that the
>> PCs would cut off the heads of every foe the kill & stuff their mouths
>> with garlic "just in case." The latter is something that should be
>> reserved for known vampires, not applied to every random orc & kobold.
>
>I would also expect to see it happen for suspected vampires. Nobody
>wants to be wrong on that guess. If players are doing it to everyone
>KODT style, it just shows that they're paranoid about vampires. Address
>the cause, not the symptoms.

I'd expect players to do this to suspected vampires if their fear of a
vampire return in a given case outweighed the perceived cost (in time
and hassle, as well as gp) of the decap & garlic routine. They'll do
it to everyone, KODT style if their fear of returning vampires is
sufficiently paranoid-high, *OR* if the perceived cost is sufficiently
trivial-low (or some combination of the two).

So far, my players haven't been destroying enemy holy symbols. I want
to give them a reason for not starting, and I want to have a reason
for NPCs to not to do so as well. I'm trying to do this by raising the
"psychological" costs of doing so: "Doing this won't cost game
resources, but it will make you a little bastard, rather than a great
hero, and you'll lose both self-respect and the respect of others."

Maybe it's a mistake to rely so heavily on psychological costs, but
that's what I've been using.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:25:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Erol K. Bayburt" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote:
> >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote
>
> >> Yes, really, as their *soul* isn't. The idea of 'death' is removed
one
> >> step in such circumstances.
> >
> >Their soul is fine, just stuck in the afterlife. At least that's the
> >impression I got. Erol?
>
> Yes, their soul is just stuck in the afterlife.
>
> OTOH, sending souls to a nice afterlife doesn't make killing helpless
> prisoners any less evil, does it?

Well no, but if they are already dead then it should make a difference.
Unless Something Else happens if the holy symbol is destroyed, as mentioned
elsewhere. Perhaps they are more likely to rise as angry undead if the holy
symbol is destroyed.

> (Hm. The Inquisition more or less believed it did, but I don't want my
> game to go in that direction.)

Well, the Inquisition was Evil anyhow.


John
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 3:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Erol K Bayburt <ErolB1@comcast.net> wrote:
> So far, my players haven't been destroying enemy holy symbols. I want
> to give them a reason for not starting, and I want to have a reason
> for NPCs to not to do so as well. I'm trying to do this by raising the
> "psychological" costs of doing so: "Doing this won't cost game
> resources, but it will make you a little bastard, rather than a great
> hero, and you'll lose both self-respect and the respect of others."
>
> Maybe it's a mistake to rely so heavily on psychological costs, but
> that's what I've been using.

Psychological and social costs are fine, but a major taboo on messing
with holy symbols seems arbitrary and a bit silly to me. It makes sense
in the right setting, but it still smells a bit of meta-game
foolishness.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>>> A better way to address it is either to leave dead foes dead, or to
>>> make it more fun to fight raised villains.

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> Any suggestions along that vein? How does one make it "more fun" to
>> fight raised villains? Are you talking along the humorous "body
>> parts not quite working right" line or something?

DougL wrote:
> Two ways returning villians can be more fun.
>
> 1) It lets you get to really LOATH them prior to finishing them off
> for good. Which is a nice catharsis. This pretty well requires that it
> not be easy to stop raises though.

Or that the villain can escape from the early fights. That's exactly
what happened IMC with the first "boss" from "Bastion of Broken Souls."
I introduced her to the campaign early, long before the players had a
hope of actually defeating her. Meanwhile, I modified her tactics
slightly so that she would flee at the first sign of real resistance
(i.e., she wasn't willing to risk her hide to accomplish her goals). She
kept popping up, nearly killing a PC, and then fleeing after the first
solid hit.

> 2) IME many players prefer to fight interesting foes who have an
> objective beyond just killing things. Such foes are also precisely
> those most likely to be raised.

I had another recurring villain like this. The PCs "rescued" Jeanine, a
young villager, during their first adventure. Unfortunately, she was a
runaway, not a captive, and she believed that the PCs ruined her life.
She vowed revenge and showed up every few levels to lay diabolical traps
for the PCs. While her goal was to kill or humiliate the PCs, there was
more to it than that.

> Further it's a LOT easier to come up with reasons why Tyrana doesn't
> simply kill the PC's, which in turn makes it a lot easier to give her
> a really high power level so twarting her current plot is worth more
> experience, is more challenging, yet actually carries LESS risk of a
> TPK or similar fun killing problem ....

That's how it worked with the first example. The PCs took the frequent
ambushes personally (no big surprise) and vowed to hunt down the
villain. She was under the protection of a major fiend, and the PCs made
a literal deal with the devil to revoke the sponsorship.

In the second case, Jeanine actually was trying to kill them. The PCs
were a bit more lighthearted about it, perhaps because they were able to
defeat her soundly in each encounter. She also made some powerful allies
eventually, including a lich who married her and taught her the secret
of lichdom (much easier to recover from defeats that way).

The PCs did eventually finish off both foes for good, at about the same
point in their epic careers. One villain lasted about 10 levels, and
Jeanine was around for their entire career.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
!