Then there was the wand of Whackiness...each use whacked the target across the face with a big velvet glove.
Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
- Go0gleplex
- Greater Lore Drake
- Posts: 3723
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
- Location: Keizer, OR
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Yeah...but the silly ones can be a lot of fun. I once ran a game where the characters ran into snorks along a lemonade stream in pursuit of evil gummi werebears...
Then there was the wand of Whackiness...each use whacked the target across the face with a big velvet glove.
Then there was the wand of Whackiness...each use whacked the target across the face with a big velvet glove.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Good points guys.
Silly slapstick gaming has its place and we indulge in it quite frequently to the dismay of some of our more "serious" players. I always find "serious" and "game" to be an odd combination used in one sentence but go figure. I mean it's not like its football or something that really needs to be taken seriously. lol
I'm purposely sounding against it hoping to drum up supporting statements. I admit a sort of bias towards nay...but I am still ambivalent overall. I'm still waiting to hear a real story of how it added to the depth, roleplay, plot or whatever. Real stories carry more weight imho than hypothetical situations.
It has always been my experience that once those spells become available that character death becomes a joke, characters perform reckless stuff they would not have done normally, and when the cleric makes a wand, just how "special" are we supposed to pretend the spell is? (This from actual game play)
Now before you ask who what where and why I will say two words...Rappan Athuk. Thats where we got the money to afford such a wand.
I NEVER saw concern on anyones face when they died EXCEPT when the cleric died. All of a sudden players actually started to pay attention to the scenario. (Something I had not seen for many levels)
Traveller makes a good point about the old school spell and the D20 one.
I just keep thinking about those Rugby players and the comments from across the pond.
Then when I reflect those comments onto my own experience I'm leaning towards agreement.
I must assume that anyone that buys the game will already have oodles of existing published material. If it remains GM/CK caveat to say NO then I think I shall preserve their right to say YES and pick up one of the many existing publications and use those spells as they wish rather than writing old material.
But I must ask Segfault what would a god "need" from a mortal?
Silly slapstick gaming has its place and we indulge in it quite frequently to the dismay of some of our more "serious" players. I always find "serious" and "game" to be an odd combination used in one sentence but go figure. I mean it's not like its football or something that really needs to be taken seriously. lol
I'm purposely sounding against it hoping to drum up supporting statements. I admit a sort of bias towards nay...but I am still ambivalent overall. I'm still waiting to hear a real story of how it added to the depth, roleplay, plot or whatever. Real stories carry more weight imho than hypothetical situations.
It has always been my experience that once those spells become available that character death becomes a joke, characters perform reckless stuff they would not have done normally, and when the cleric makes a wand, just how "special" are we supposed to pretend the spell is? (This from actual game play)
Now before you ask who what where and why I will say two words...Rappan Athuk. Thats where we got the money to afford such a wand.
I NEVER saw concern on anyones face when they died EXCEPT when the cleric died. All of a sudden players actually started to pay attention to the scenario. (Something I had not seen for many levels)
Traveller makes a good point about the old school spell and the D20 one.
I just keep thinking about those Rugby players and the comments from across the pond.
Then when I reflect those comments onto my own experience I'm leaning towards agreement.
I must assume that anyone that buys the game will already have oodles of existing published material. If it remains GM/CK caveat to say NO then I think I shall preserve their right to say YES and pick up one of the many existing publications and use those spells as they wish rather than writing old material.
But I must ask Segfault what would a god "need" from a mortal?
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Worshipers. A god without worshipers is powerless. At least according to Wrath of the Immortals, and likely a few mythologies to boot.
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
If they were particularly worthy in life the deity/god/demon prince/etc would transform them, placing their soul into a more resilient vessel (Avatar/Archon/Daemon/etc) to further the machinations of that deity across the multiverse; i.e good help is hard to find. The good characters who become 'Angels' are removed from the game, are usually treated as saints, and some times reappear to assist player character followers of that particular deity in times of need.Joe wrote: But I must ask Segfault what would a god "need" from a mortal?
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Maybe it's just me...or the players I've had, but Raise Dead or Resurrection has never really been a problem.
I mean, yeah, a cleric of high-enough level to do them isn't someone hanging out in that little outback village near the dungeon/wilderness where a character dies -- and the players know this and realize the consequences of frivolous play.
Or, maybe it's just my players really, really get into the role-play and feel the danger involved and don't want to die. Unless, of course, it's heroic and dramatic -- then, the best players throw themselves into the fray, not rashly, not stupidly, not without a care, but heroically, knowing that, IF they die in the attempt, it'll be legendary.
And, yeah, the god(s) that grant a Raise Dead/Resurrection (I think) could do so with a simple snap of their fingers, etc, but, wanting worship and awe and gratitude wouldn't do so without some quid-pro-quo: the god(s) would want to teach mere mortals that there ain't no free lunch, actions (rash ones that get them killed) have consequences. Hence the high-costs for those spells -- either in money, finding a high-enough cleric and convincing them to do them, or in setting the players a quest/task as payment.
I mean, it really is like that Gary Gygax quote about not killing characters but creating situations where foolish characters will kill themselves.
I mean, yeah, a cleric of high-enough level to do them isn't someone hanging out in that little outback village near the dungeon/wilderness where a character dies -- and the players know this and realize the consequences of frivolous play.
Or, maybe it's just my players really, really get into the role-play and feel the danger involved and don't want to die. Unless, of course, it's heroic and dramatic -- then, the best players throw themselves into the fray, not rashly, not stupidly, not without a care, but heroically, knowing that, IF they die in the attempt, it'll be legendary.
And, yeah, the god(s) that grant a Raise Dead/Resurrection (I think) could do so with a simple snap of their fingers, etc, but, wanting worship and awe and gratitude wouldn't do so without some quid-pro-quo: the god(s) would want to teach mere mortals that there ain't no free lunch, actions (rash ones that get them killed) have consequences. Hence the high-costs for those spells -- either in money, finding a high-enough cleric and convincing them to do them, or in setting the players a quest/task as payment.
I mean, it really is like that Gary Gygax quote about not killing characters but creating situations where foolish characters will kill themselves.
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
The gods need worshippors eh?
So much for that all powerful stuff?
The "gods" we speak of in games sound little more than petty overlords.
So much for that all powerful stuff?
The "gods" we speak of in games sound little more than petty overlords.
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Gods are very petty, vindictive, and very human. They have humanity's shortcomings, coupled with powers beyond those of mortals. Petty overlords is an appropriate label in this case.
-
alcyone
- Greater Lore Drake
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
I think omnipotence is a feature almost exclusively found in monotheism, which is a rare thing in most fantasy settings. There are lots of reasons they might need mortals, and explanations come up in a lot of games and supplements.
That doesn't mean they are petty, though as a magnified human trait, the ones that are could be very petty indeed. Except for gods like Marduk who assumed the roles of many previous gods, mostly they have a one-track mind and a very directed personality and alignment; because of this they could have a lot of blind spots and weaknesses, and grant favors to their warrior-priests because as human beings they are well-rounded enough to guard against these.
That doesn't mean they are petty, though as a magnified human trait, the ones that are could be very petty indeed. Except for gods like Marduk who assumed the roles of many previous gods, mostly they have a one-track mind and a very directed personality and alignment; because of this they could have a lot of blind spots and weaknesses, and grant favors to their warrior-priests because as human beings they are well-rounded enough to guard against these.
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com
-
alcyone
- Greater Lore Drake
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Re: Should We Scrap Raise Dead/Resurrection?
Also, the gods that clerics worship tend to be gods with some involvement in the World, and as there are many gods, they all must compete to control and apportion that resource, so again, they give military aid and relief to their ground troops so they may influence each other on this plane. I think it's important to note that this in many settings is really a cleric thing; part of the fighting arm of the religion, and not necessarily something offered to all and sundry. It's part of the comfort and aid of the warrior-priests. Their ability to resurrect and raise is balanced against and justified by the ability of the enemy to do the same.
That's role-playing justification. I think that being said, a well-played cleric should carefully consider and justify the value of the raised or resurrected, whether in terms of fighting the good fight or just as a shining example of the grace and mercy of their deity. And consider the alternative; rolling new characters, which can stress the storyline in far worse ways.
That's role-playing justification. I think that being said, a well-played cleric should carefully consider and justify the value of the raised or resurrected, whether in terms of fighting the good fight or just as a shining example of the grace and mercy of their deity. And consider the alternative; rolling new characters, which can stress the storyline in far worse ways.
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com