Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 Running the Realms
 Resurrection in FR

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
KanzenAU Posted - 11 Oct 2016 : 09:45:44
First off, my question: how do people in the Realms feel about resurrection?

I'm about halfway through reading City of Splendors, and there's a prominent, wealthy young nobleman with plenty of friends with coin that dies, but resurrection is never brought up as an option. It would seem to me that surely his friends or family would be willing to find a willing priest who has sufficient enough favour with his or her deity to be able to cast Raise Dead, and fork out the dragons for said priest to trouble themselves (or even perform a significant quest if a donation to the temple didn't cut it).

This is far from the first time this has come up in an FR novel that I've read, and they never seem to give a good reason for it that satisfies me.

Reasons could include (and by no means are limited to):
  • Refusal: the afterlife is actually awesome, no one wants to come back

  • Superstition: people are afraid to trouble the gods

  • Demanding gods: the gods demanding either too great a quest to be worth people bringing back a friend, or alternatively placing demands on those they resurrect

  • Diamond shortage: 5e rules require diamonds for resurrection - maybe they're a lot rarer in FR (unlikely by Volo's Guide to All Things Magical)

I have mostly explained it to myself and players thus far as a combination of the first two: people preferring to see death as a natural event, the afterlife as a favourable existence, and not wanting to trouble the gods on their behalf for fear of angering them. However, in some cases this doesn't feel like enough, and I was wondering if there's ever been any attempt in the canon to further explain this.

Have there ever been any canon reasons that people don't resurrect each other more frequently, most especially the wealthy and prosperous?
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Wrigley Posted - 22 Oct 2016 : 19:35:52
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I note that AD&D1E had a 1st-level priest spell called ceremony, one of the most universal and easiest ceremonies to perform was called eternal rest, and casting it would guarantee the deceased's soul safe and quick passage to whichever afterlife destination it was going (an agent of the deity would personally guide and protect the soul until arrival, mostly intended to prevent the dead recipient from ever becoming an undead). It seems odd to me that such an important yet simple little ceremony as this has never been described in any Realmslore, Faerunian religion, or FR novel.



Jergal's priests are described to use sealing ritual that protects the body from being raised as undead.
KanzenAU Posted - 22 Oct 2016 : 04:49:40
As far as the current resurrection rules go in 5e, resurrection (castable at 13th level) is limited to 100 years. True resurrection (castable at 17th level) is limited to 200 years. I think under any ruleset it can be assumed that the case of Fflar involves divine aid beyond the spell.

Neither spell allows for resurrection if the individual died of "old age". I take this to mean that resurrection does NOT restore age, and therefore doesn't resurrect someone to their "fittest form". I don't see how that would be judged in any case: the 60 year old human with a vast range of experience is more "fit for life" in terms of knowledge than the well muscled 25 year old, but it's something that could be argued. I have never interpreted any raising of the dead as restoring them beyond the age they died at, and I don't think it works that way. In D&D that is, anything goes for individual settings and campaigns.
The Masked Mage Posted - 22 Oct 2016 : 02:56:13
If memory serves, resurrection is limited to 10 years per level of the priest... so pretty much anyone you want. The only example i know of from a longer ago time is Fflar... and that I assume involved divine intervention.

As far as PCs, I think it is usually a bad idea to resurrect at anything under 9th level for numerous reasons - mostly because of the expense to other characters. Why blow your entire amassed fortune on resurrecting someone when the local adventurer's guild is likely to have a suitable replacement? The only exception to this are those adventures that are deliberately so dangerous it is assumed that 1 or more PCs will die and so have a plot piece explaining a return to life (there are about 20 of these in the printed adventures alone).

I think by far the better option is the use of Succor magics, that allow a beaten party to instantly retreat and then either set out again to try their luck or decide that their foe is beyond their abilities. As a player this was always my first request when asked if their was anything a powerful sponsor could provide to assist. Also, knowing you have this ace in the hole makes players less apt to waste their other magic/wealth in desperation - which in turn makes it simpler to limit how much magi is available. If you need to empty a wand every adventure just to survive then wands are far less valuable, for example.
Ayrik Posted - 22 Oct 2016 : 00:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin

I can think of a few instances in the novels where a character suggests "let's get a priest and raise them" and then another character says "no, it was her last wish that she remain dead" and they just let it go. I think the default for a person who dies an unnatural death (murder especially!) would be to get them raised if there is means to do so available; but a naturally caused death or suicide should remain dead baring a rule like the royal lineage.

In the novels of course, I think one must take contrivance and artistic license and treat deaths sometimes just like they are on earth, irreversible tragedies.

Several FR authors have commented that they're careful to avoid reviving the dead. It cheapens the "ultimate" sacrifices made by their heroes, it cheapens the dangers and risks the heroes face, it makes their heroic accomplishments less meaningful. Aw crap, got zorched by dragonbreath - second time this month, grrr - but thanx for the resurrection guys, let's go try it again!

(Though of course it's fair play for the worthiest of bad guys to routinely cheat death or resurrect themselves, lol, because apparently such "cheap" tactics are expected from such immoral, unethical, villainous folk.)

I recall at least one instance in the novels where an assassin applied extraordinary physical and magical measures to ensure a victim remained irrevocably dead, even summoning a kind of spirit creature to inhabit the corpse long enough that speak with dead spells would falsely accuse someone else of the murder.

I think the greatest limitation on raise dead and resurrection magics is the maximum length of time the body can be deceased. Measured in just days, perhaps at most a few weeks. And of course the original cause(s) of death must be remedied and the vital components of the corpse must be fully intact if one actually expects the revived body to stay alive - this can be impossible if the body has been disintegrated, burnt to ash upon a pyre, deliberately dismembered or defiled, or been digested by a monster (good luck recovering your friend's head from a dragon's stomach or enough of him worth bothering to save after the trolls have feasted).

Game-breaking magics like wish could recover any dead character from any fate. Unless opposed by even greater magics.

I note that AD&D1E had a 1st-level priest spell called ceremony, one of the most universal and easiest ceremonies to perform was called eternal rest, and casting it would guarantee the deceased's soul safe and quick passage to whichever afterlife destination it was going (an agent of the deity would personally guide and protect the soul until arrival, mostly intended to prevent the dead recipient from ever becoming an undead). It seems odd to me that such an important yet simple little ceremony as this has never been described in any Realmslore, Faerunian religion, or FR novel.

The souls/spirits of dead humans in the Realms typically go to the Fugue, where they usually remain for a time (days or weeks) before being claimed by their deity (and taken to their eternal afterlives in other planar realms) or to be judged Faithless (and stuffed into the Wall). The few adventure modules and novels set in the Fugue that I'm familiar with have all made mention of a few special dead spirits being recalled back to the world of the living.

Not all adventuring parties are inclined towards recovering their dead. I've seen (and been in) groups where the PCs opportunistically plunder their fallen-comrade's loot - after all, another replacement will inevitably arrive, bringing to the party even more loot! A resurrection magic imposes permanent penalties on the subject, lesser magics are even worse, and many players simply refuse to accept such penalties. Some adventurers are evil. Some adventurers have religions which strongly disincline them from being brought back to life (especially when they die in service to the religion). Other adventurers have issues with religions which strongly disincline the clerics from attending them (especially when they die at the hands of those in service of the religion). Most PCs simply cannot afford a resurrection at lower levels and aren't willing to reverse-mortgage their castles or undertake fanatical religious quests just to pay for a replaceable fool's mistakes at higher levels. But I've seen many parties equipped with limitless gold, items like a rod of resurrection, or the chuckling local 99th-level NPC cleric willing to instantly remedy their deadly ills at no real cost.
The Masked Mage Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 18:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

Lets say there is an old man a survivor from burned city when he was young. He is badly scarred all over hs body and partialy crippled - a small miracle that he survived that. Due to his condition nobody wanted to employ him until he run into a traveling theatre troup of bards who took him in and he was part of many succesful shows in his life. Then he unfortunately drinks a cup of poisoned wine instead of local noble who feel obligated to raise him. He goes to close big city and pledge the high priest for this spell. As a good priest he agrees and perform it on the corpse. Now there stands a new young handsome man who do not know what he should do with his life. Noble that helped him is happy to provide a place for him but after some time suggest that he should go his own way. His old troup do not know what to do with him as they need a cripple for their show and also he is too young for them and there is also some envy (especialy from ladies)...

Is this a blessing or not? Why should god meddle this much into life of someone when all they wanted was to be live again...
In my version he would raise as the same old man he was and lived the rest of his life as he was used to be praying to god that allowed for such miracle.

I do agree it is good to keep true to canon lore but once it get out of senses I try to keep the spirit not the words as there is so much to keep in mind to make a fantasy realm and nobody is perfect or they haven't even thought about it at that time.



If all you want to do is raise the dead, then resurrection is not required. There are half a dozen other options that can be cast by clerics and wizards of lower levels. Resurrection is only achieved through the resurrection spell or a wish spell - though that has some possible side effects.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 17:26:20
I think there has to be an element of willingness, too. If the spirit doesn't want to return to life, the spell isn't going to work.
Wrigley Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 15:16:44
Lets say there is an old man a survivor from burned city when he was young. He is badly scarred all over hs body and partialy crippled - a small miracle that he survived that. Due to his condition nobody wanted to employ him until he run into a traveling theatre troup of bards who took him in and he was part of many succesful shows in his life. Then he unfortunately drinks a cup of poisoned wine instead of local noble who feel obligated to raise him. He goes to close big city and pledge the high priest for this spell. As a good priest he agrees and perform it on the corpse. Now there stands a new young handsome man who do not know what he should do with his life. Noble that helped him is happy to provide a place for him but after some time suggest that he should go his own way. His old troup do not know what to do with him as they need a cripple for their show and also he is too young for them and there is also some envy (especialy from ladies)...

Is this a blessing or not? Why should god meddle this much into life of someone when all they wanted was to be live again...
In my version he would raise as the same old man he was and lived the rest of his life as he was used to be praying to god that allowed for such miracle.

I do agree it is good to keep true to canon lore but once it get out of senses I try to keep the spirit not the words as there is so much to keep in mind to make a fantasy realm and nobody is perfect or they haven't even thought about it at that time.
The Masked Mage Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 00:15:01
Resurrection can be used when a body is destroyed. This means that it is a magic that provides physical life and form for an existing spirit. Why would one provide a feeble old body if the intent is to restore the subject to life - just so they can die of old age again in a month or two?

As for stories of resurrection in novels, there are not very many. In fact, most times it has been treated as beyond the ability of even the high priests (as the deaths in the Knights of Myth Drannor series). Aside from Flarr - which was a miracle by rule and by the text of the story - because he had been dead for too many years, most of the resurrections in the realms novels have been of Elminster. Over and over he is res'd by Mystra.

That said, I like to think that the unwritten epilogue of every useless death in a FR novel is comprised of some high priest or someone with a rod of resurrection coming along to restore all our favorite deceased to the realms, silently and unknown to their enemies.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 00:14:55
Good point. If it is a bad enough injury (like bad burns), those wounds would most likely be repaired in resurrection. I was thinking minor injuries (scars) may or may not be left. But major injuries would be healed, otherwise, again, what is the point?
sleyvas Posted - 21 Oct 2016 : 00:03:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Agree with Wooly. Kind of like how the soul takes on the appearance of the person at their prime (unless they died young), the spell would...reflect that, so to speak. No point in returning an old man to life if he is still going to be an old man. That doesn't solve the problem, because he would just die again.



So for you it not only restores person to age he was but even renew him into his prime physical state in life? That is some mighty magic compared to some other 9th level spells...

I agree with Wooly that it should serve as sort of Save Game spell but only in the same time period and not reversing age. Trouble comes only if you strech it's purpose and revive somebody dead for decade... I say his body will be older and he will not have absolutely clear memory of his life previous to his dead and none about missed time (rules wise it is described as lost levels).

BTW how about scars? do they disappear too when ressurected as they are still a injury? or broken and badly healed bone years back before death?



Good point on the scars and resetting of bones, etc.... for a badly damaged burn victim, resurrection could be very nice. That being said, there's nothing that says a heal spell also wouldn't clear up scars (and has been debated in the past).
CorellonsDevout Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 22:58:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Agree with Wooly. Kind of like how the soul takes on the appearance of the person at their prime (unless they died young), the spell would...reflect that, so to speak. No point in returning an old man to life if he is still going to be an old man. That doesn't solve the problem, because he would just die again.



So for you it not only restores person to age he was but even renew him into his prime physical state in life? That is some mighty magic compared to some other 9th level spells...

I agree with Wooly that it should serve as sort of Save Game spell but only in the same time period and not reversing age. Trouble comes only if you strech it's purpose and revive somebody dead for decade... I say his body will be older and he will not have absolutely clear memory of his life previous to his dead and none about missed time (rules wise it is described as lost levels).

BTW how about scars? do they disappear too when ressurected as they are still a injury? or broken and badly healed bone years back before death?



I wouldn't say "for me", but that's the evidence I have seen. It's what happens when resurrection is used, both in FR and other fantasy (I was not factoring in mechanics or spell level).

I am not certain about scars, to be honest. I haven't seen that many resurrection cases, I am just going by what I HAVE seen. Like I said, the spell would likely restore them to their prime, so if they had suffered a prior injury, and have a scar, then it is possible that scar would be there. Then again, it is equally possible the scar is gone. It could go either way, and those details can be left up to the writer or players, unless those details are explicitly stated in the spell description.

If memory serves, again based on the resurrection cases I have read about (both in FR and in other works), sometimes there are scars, and sometimes there aren't. Again, I fully admit I have not read that many resurrection cases, and I am specifically going by what I have seen in novels, not game rules or mechanics. I'd have to look to see if any of the source books I do own saw anything about resurrection spells.
Wrigley Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 22:39:24
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Agree with Wooly. Kind of like how the soul takes on the appearance of the person at their prime (unless they died young), the spell would...reflect that, so to speak. No point in returning an old man to life if he is still going to be an old man. That doesn't solve the problem, because he would just die again.



So for you it not only restores person to age he was but even renew him into his prime physical state in life? That is some mighty magic compared to some other 9th level spells...

I agree with Wooly that it should serve as sort of Save Game spell but only in the same time period and not reversing age. Trouble comes only if you strech it's purpose and revive somebody dead for decade... I say his body will be older and he will not have absolutely clear memory of his life previous to his dead and none about missed time (rules wise it is described as lost levels).

BTW how about scars? do they disappear too when ressurected as they are still a injury? or broken and badly healed bone years back before death?
CorellonsDevout Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 17:42:15
Agree with Wooly. Kind of like how the soul takes on the appearance of the person at their prime (unless they died young), the spell would...reflect that, so to speak. No point in returning an old man to life if he is still going to be an old man. That doesn't solve the problem, because he would just die again.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 16:09:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

so you are fine with that when you die in 50 and get ressurected 50 years later you are still physicaly at 50 years...
I have used version that those spells return body to its PROPER state including age. One of my NPC wizard got his soul trapped and he had to resort to lichdom after his cloned body (spell) turned into dust in the end of the proccess. I would use the same principle to ressurection and also for me soul should not be available after few hundred years anyway. It severaly limits options for those spells but also guards the timeline for me :-)



What use is the spell if it doesn't return you to a state of health?

And why would a body that was obliterated -- as Fflar's was -- continue to age?

The intent of the spell is to bring someone back to life in a viable state. Doing anything other than that subverts the intent of the spell and renders a high-level spell nearly useless.

It's like respawning at a save point in a video game, the way I see it.
Wrigley Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 12:59:10
so you are fine with that when you die in 50 and get ressurected 50 years later you are still physicaly at 50 years...
I have used version that those spells return body to its PROPER state including age. One of my NPC wizard got his soul trapped and he had to resort to lichdom after his cloned body (spell) turned into dust in the end of the proccess. I would use the same principle to ressurection and also for me soul should not be available after few hundred years anyway. It severaly limits options for those spells but also guards the timeline for me :-)
Wooly Rupert Posted - 19 Oct 2016 : 19:10:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

btw how does ressurection solve the problem of age? I have always presumed that it marely make body whole and healthy and bring back the soul but Fflar should be already dead by old age right? Isn't that supposed to be a place for miracle?



He died fighting Aulmpiter in one of the final battles of the Fall of Myth Drannor. So old age did not get him.
Wrigley Posted - 19 Oct 2016 : 17:38:35
btw how does ressurection solve the problem of age? I have always presumed that it marely make body whole and healthy and bring back the soul but Fflar should be already dead by old age right? Isn't that supposed to be a place for miracle?
cpthero2 Posted - 17 Oct 2016 : 06:58:47
Good evening Learned Scribe KanzenAU,

I hope this response finds you well! I may have accidentally overlooked some discussion points from other Lore Seekers of the Library, so pardon my redundancy if indeed I have done so here with my reply. Even though I am myself an economist and marketer, I wish to take a soft science approach that I feel may be interesting (at least I hope it is).

I begin by stating an assumption in reading your question that those with means (nobles, and others with means) would be more capable in attaining a resurrection. With that assumption made, I feel the most valuable and overarching question most fruitful to answer is: what would the gods net in return by allowing for such occurrences on a regular basis?

Since the Forgotten Realms utilizes a Pantheonic system, it stands to reason that there are many competing reasons why certain gods would and would not want desire such practices. Afterall, the gods are the gatekeepers of such magic to be used through conduits of their faith, and as we know by referencing actions of individuals such as Cadderly Bonaduce, the rules are set by those gatekeepers. Knowing that any god will have their own reasons for allowing such magic to be used, ethical viewpoints, teleological/deontological/utilitarianism, as well as the economics of worship, assigns the allowance of access to such magic predicated on the ROI (Return on Investment) of the practice itself.

In terms of the ethical practices, you may have worshipers of Waukeen taking an approach that kills two birds with one stone, in terms of dogma and ethos.

Teleologically speaking, the clergy of Waukeen may find themselves furthering the ethos of Waukeen by increasing cash flow in a local economy by allowing resurrections to occur without consideration to the effects of what that might mean to established order, laws, etc., i.e. the Obarskyr family of Cormyr. In that case, the ends justify the means.

As far as the economical reality may play out, again regarding the religion of Waukeen, one might see a local temple of the Merchant's Friend effectively pulling a Wal-Mart against other gods. They could undercut prices in a "red hot sale" to drive competition out of the market place with the intention of vastly increasing market share and monopolizing on the weakened emotional state of the common man, and effectively gaining a monopoly.

This one example of the religion of Waukeen I feel demonstrates that the approach to resurrection in the Realms shouldn't be looked at through just the mechanical, or demographic (as I know both have been pointed out, and correctly so) lens. Other disciplines such as politics, culture, belief systems, and economics as fields of study and policy are likely more powerful influences both as a matter of practice, as well as the name of the game...roleplaying.

I'm really glad you posted about this topic. It is such a fascinating question that I think often has a black and white approach to solving.

Best regards!



Robert McDonell
High Atlar
Spirit Soaring

[quote]Originally posted by KanzenAU

First off, my question: how do people in the Realms feel about resurrection?

I'm about halfway through reading City of Splendors, and there's a prominent, wealthy young nobleman with plenty of friends with coin that dies, but resurrection is never brought up as an option. It would seem to me that surely his friends or family would be willing to find a willing priest who has sufficient enough favour with his or her deity to be able to cast Raise Dead, and fork out the dragons for said priest to trouble themselves (or even perform a significant quest if a donation to the temple didn't cut it).

This is far from the first time this has come up in an FR novel that I've read, and they never seem to give a good reason for it that satisfies me.

Reasons could include (and by no means are limited to):
  • Refusal: the afterlife is actually awesome, no one wants to come back

  • Superstition: people are afraid to trouble the gods

  • Demanding gods: the gods demanding either too great a quest to be worth people bringing back a friend, or alternatively placing demands on those they resurrect

  • Diamond shortage: 5e rules require diamonds for resurrection - maybe they're a lot rarer in FR (unlikely by Volo's Guide to All Things Magical)

I have mostly explained it to myself and players thus far as a combination of the first two: people preferring to see death as a natural event, the afterlife as a favourable existence, and not wanting to trouble the gods on their behalf for fear of angering them. However, in some cases this doesn't feel like enough, and I was wondering if there's ever been any attempt in the canon to further explain this.

Have there ever been any canon reasons that people don't resurrect each other more frequently, most especially the wealthy and prosperous?

CorellonsDevout Posted - 17 Oct 2016 : 02:03:59
I think if done right (and by that inserted into the story in a way that makes sense), resurrection can work. Fflar Starbow, for example. It depends on if the soul wants to be resurrected, of course. Fflar was in Arvandor, so it wasn't like he was in a bad place, but he obviously had some life regrets, and was willing to come back. There was a certain resurrection in EO that could have gone really well, but then that person got the short end of the stick...

On a personal level, I'm always happy to see favorite characters brought back lol, but that's just me.
sleyvas Posted - 15 Oct 2016 : 17:25:47
ah, yes, true if non-adventurers are assumed to use just 3d6 then things are calculated according to that 2e version.

On adventurers being "mini walking dungeons" and people camping the entrances.... not so sure of the camping entrances, unless its something brand new and therefore drawing groups constantly. I see them more camping out in towns where adventurers will go to spend their gains and/or seek new adventures.
Markustay Posted - 15 Oct 2016 : 15:21:53
I'm confused - I never said there weren't NPC adventurers, only that ONLY player characters get the 4D6, NOT NPCs.

I just re-read that - that quote is right out of the book (I'm assuming). You're never supposed to use the better dice rolling method for NPCs. I guess my confusion from reading that quote from that 2e source was that by 'adventurer' they meant PC, because when that was written, the word 'adventurer' almost always meant 'PC' (in an RPG), and thats how I read it. And anything but 3d6 - even for PCs - was non-standard. In 5e, it specifically says to use 4d6 for everyone?*

I mean, its your world, so you can do whatever you want, but I've never heard of anyone doing that. And if its a 'special' NPC, then you should probably just be assigning stats, not rolling them.

All that being said, I've been using a 2d6+6 method for PCs for quite some time now (since at least the mid 90's). PCs are supposed to be 'larger than life' - thats why they go out adventuring. Its like they've been 'blessed by the gods', or some-such. In fact, now that I've thought about it (in terms of FR), and from listening to some of the things Ed has said about his home games, I would imagine Ed felt pretty much the same way. There are 'normal people', and then there are those 'the gods find interesting'.


*EDIT: I forget sometimes that a lot of today's players came around after 1e/2e, which may also be causing confusion. Back in those early days, NPCs got 'stat blocks', they weren't treated like PCs at all. They could even have abilities PCs could not (like crafting magic items). For better or worse, 3e change all that and made all NPCs into DMPCs (which put a LOT of work on the DM, because NPCs needed full write-ups, rather than stat-blocks). Didn't they go back to that? In 4e, I mean? (and I guess 5e.) I loved 3rd edition, but between that and all the splat books (and PrCs), they made Dming way too hard.
TBeholder Posted - 15 Oct 2016 : 06:51:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay



quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

About one person in 10 meets these requirements if ability scores are rolled using the standard method of rolling 3d6 once for each ability score. (If your campaign uses an alternate method for rolling or generating ability scores, what you're really doing is ensuring your PCs will fall into this top 10%, non-adventurers are still assumed to use the standard method.)
<snip>

The 'answer' to what you stated lie within your very post, in someone elses quote. NPCs should ALWAYS use the 'standard' 3D6 method (unless they are a 'special').

Why you are assuming there are no NPC adventurers?
KanzenAU Posted - 15 Oct 2016 : 03:19:07
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
These numbers become much more skewed in 5e in my mind. You're rolling 4d6 instead of 3d6, plus you're getting ability score increases periodically. Story awards also just seem a bit higher (which I am absolutely fine with), so I wouldn't be surprised to find more 2nd and 3rd level characters in FR.



In 5e the "4d6 drop lowest" system is made for PCs, not NPCs (although the DM can use them to create NPCs if they wish). The commoner statblock, which would represent the vast majority of the population, has stats of 10 in each ability, which is the average on a 3d6 roll.

5e is just following that system of PCs being in the top 10%, but that's been around a while. I remember it being the exact same system back when I used to play 3e.
Markustay Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 19:39:55
Adventurers as 'mini walking dungeons' is a great concept - you would think MANY dungeon entrances would be guarded by various groups, just waiting for battle-damaged and tired parties to emerge with all the goodies.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

These numbers become much more skewed in 5e in my mind. You're rolling 4d6 instead of 3d6, plus you're getting ability score increases periodically. Story awards also just seem a bit higher (which I am absolutely fine with), so I wouldn't be surprised to find more 2nd and 3rd level characters in FR.



quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

AD&D "2.5E" Dungeon Master's Option: High-Level Campaigns offers an interesting study of this question.[quote] Just how rare are high-level characters?
<snip>

About one person in 10 meets these requirements if ability scores are rolled using the standard method of rolling 3d6 once for each ability score. (If your campaign uses an alternate method for rolling or generating ability scores, what you're really doing is ensuring your PCs will fall into this top 10%, non-adventurers are still assumed to use the standard method.)
<snip>

The 'answer' to what you stated lie within your very post, in someone elses quote. NPCs should ALWAYS use the 'standard' 3D6 method (unless they are a 'special').
Korginard Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 15:49:57
I do recall from reading one of the Brimstone Angel novels that Cormyr in particular has very strict laws regarding Resurrection among the Royal line. A King or member of the Royal family in line for the throne looses all claims to the throne upon death. If the royal is restored to life, this law prohibits them from any claim to the throne. The book made it pretty clear that the law frowns upon raising a Royal. In the novel a Prince in line for the throne dies and someone raises them, not knowing that this is forbidden.
sleyvas Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 14:16:12
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

I've always wondered how common adventurers are in canon. They would have a high mortality rate, and I doubt all fellow adventurers would be as giving as the typical PC, and might not pay for their fellow's resurrection, instead opting for a new hire. Thus although there is chance of gaining extreme wealth through adventuring, there is also extreme risk.

I've estimated the adventurer population as about 1/1000, are there any canon figures? I know Gary Gygax allegedly had "classed" individuals as 1/100 people, and I arbitrarily took 1/10 of these as being professional adventurers. I've found 1/1000 fits well with the sort of level/power distribution I like for my settlements, but I'd be very interested to hear what others think.

AD&D "2.5E" Dungeon Master's Option: High-Level Campaigns offers an interesting study of this question.
quote:
Just how rare are high-level characters?

Let's assume, for purposes of this example, that the minimum requirements for an adventurer are an ability score of at least 15 in the prime requisite of one of the four basic character classes (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, or Wisdom), a Constitution score of at least 9, and no other score lower than 8.

About one person in 10 meets these requirements if ability scores are rolled using the standard method of rolling 3d6 once for each ability score. (If your campaign uses an alternate method for rolling or generating ability scores, what you're really doing is ensuring your PCs will fall into this top 10%, non-adventurers are still assumed to use the standard method.)

Now, let's assume that out of every group of adventurers only half will actually make it to the next level (the remainder having died, retired, or simply not yet accumulated enough experience to advance). These assumptions are oversimplifications, of course, but a little arithmetic produces some instructive results:
  • There is only one 10th level character in a population of about 5,000.
  • An 18th level character of any class is truly a one-in-a-million individual.
  • Only about 0.2% (1 in 500) of the population qualifies to be a paladin. Other subclasses with strict ability score requirements (such as bards, rangers, and druids) are equally rare.
Demographics per 1,000,000 population
(0-level = 733,777)
1st level = 133,120
2nd level = 66,560
3rd level = 33,280
4th level = 16,640
5th level = 8,320
6th level = 4,160
7th level = 2,080
8th level = 1,040
9th level = 512
10th level = 256
11th level = 128
12th level = 64
13th level = 32
14th level = 16
15th level = 8
16th level = 4
17th level = 2
18th level = 1


Keep these numbers in mind when creating NPCs for your campaign. Your world not only becomes more believable if it isn't overrun with super characters, but your players have a greater sense of accomplishment when they realize just what they have achieved. Be sure to keep important NPCs alive when possible - it can take a generation to replace a high-level character.

Although to my mind the Realms setting is already overrun with super characters, it seems you can hardly swing your axe anymore without inadvertently elbowing some local high-level NPC, hero, tyrant, archmage, lich, chosen, or god. This seems especially true in the city descriptions, the overall population numbers and rosters of high-level NPCs (along with large contingents of nameless soldiers and guardsmen and militia who have a range of character levels) are wildly variable and don't collectively fall into any neat categories. I'm willing to allow that adventurers are naturally drawn to cities (thus away from whatever non-city areas they came from) so the published "demographics" for cities in the Realms aren't truly representative of the entire Realms.

You may notice the numerical errors in the Demographics table. And how does 133,120/1,000,000 equal 10%? These aren't my math errors, they're WotC's "little arithmetic" errors. But the bad math (and, I think, some flawed assumptions) don't substantially change or diminish the "instructive results" this table provides.

You may also notice that based on these numbers roughly 1 in 4 people in the general population is (or was) an adventurer - which actually seems more or less consistent with what I've seen in the Realms but still rather excessive overall. Adventurers are supposedly extraordinary individuals, heroic adventurers supposedly even more so. I would argue that simply possessing good ability scores is not enough to become an adventurer, there will always be many "0-level" people with extraordinary strength or intelligence (or whatever) yet who lack whatever intangible qualities impel others to achieve (high-level) greatness.

I find your numbers (Gygax's numbers?) more agreeable. Although I'd think that more than 1 in 10 people would be "classed", especially when you consider how many people in the pseudo-Medieval (or pseudo-Renaissance) Realms setting will likely become associated with fighters or priests. How many farmers are veterans of some (recent or long-ago) campaign against a belligerent city-state or orcish horde? How many coin merchants learned numeracy and literacy while serving as young acolytes for the temple? How many craftsmen received rudimentary training in some small magic when hired to manufacture a special item for the local wizard? How many street vendors, household servants, or courtesans opportunistically develop a variety of "thief" skills early in their careers? I would argue that perhaps 3 or 4 in every 10 people might have a class, and many more if the campaign allows a variety of optional "NPC-only" classes and subclasses (like scribes, alchemists, sages, heralds, etc). And I agree that only a small percentage of these, perhaps about 1 in 20 or even just 1 in 100, would then become "professional" adventurers (which works out to between roughly 3 and 20 adventurers per 1,000 people). Plus, as we all know (and can even affirm on the flawed Demographics table above), only a small fraction of these "professional" adventurers will survive and succeed long enough to attain higher levels - in fact, many of them will die (in an astonishing variety of incompetent, comical, tragic, or horrible ways) on their very first foray into real adventure.




These numbers become much more skewed in 5e in my mind. You're rolling 4d6 instead of 3d6, plus you're getting ability score increases periodically. Story awards also just seem a bit higher (which I am absolutely fine with), so I wouldn't be surprised to find more 2nd and 3rd level characters in FR.
sleyvas Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 13:59:55
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

So nobles tend to avoid raising or resurrecting the dead, primarily to maintain social order for the living. And non-nobles could never afford to pay for such services.

As an aside, I think that any noble house with access to raising or resurrection would also have access to lesser magics, so they would need to be utterly incompetent (or the forgery of a pretender would need to be utterly perfect) for them to remain confused about the true identity of their own (allegedly) recently-dead kin. Why not simply speak with dead on the corpse, commune with their deity, use ESP or telepathy or detect lie, or cast any number of other divinations to confirm a person's identity, origins, intentions, and veracity? Especially in a world already populated by so many things like dopplegangers, illusions, vampires, and similar threats.

And yet adventurers routinely arrange to have themselves raised or resurrected from the dead, with little regard for local law or custom.

And adventurers apparently walk around carrying unbelievable fortunes (while wearing gear worth unbelievable fortunes) that would beggar all but the most affluent of nobility. Especially after looting an ancient dungeon or after seizing the hoard of a slain dragon.

I would think that raising or resurrecting the dead shouldn't be an offense to the deities. They are after all the ones who grant their most devoted (highest-level) clerics the power needed to perform such miracles. Why not also be punitive to mortals who dare to contact or visit places like Outer Planar realms which are normally reserved only for souls who've passed into their eternal afterlife?




And thus you see why in many of the campaigns I used to run, a "random" encounter of red wizards who are fully prepped with defensive spells who have never even met the adventurers just show up and try to kill the characters (and quickly teleport off with a dead character if they take one out, strip the body of all magic, chop off its head, pull its heart and lungs out, remove its sexual organs if its that b!tch"the Daeronness"). They are a roaming treasure hoard with a lot fewer defenses than a dungeon. Even if you don't take them all out and walk off with the items of one or two of them, its a great haul. Throw in that these red wizards often didn't appear in red robes.... and players often want to blame the Zhents or the Cult of the Dragon or some other group.
KanzenAU Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 06:33:05
Just taking it back to the question of availability via the "how many clerics in Waterdeep can cast raise dead" case study, I went back and had a look at the old sources, and counted up the listed clerics I could find. I collected this from the temple/churches sections of the Waterdeep 2e and 3e sourcebooks. I never played 2e, so if I get stuff wrong, let me know. The lists don't include clerics based in Skullport or Undermountain.

2e Waterdeep:
0 clerics capable of casting true resurrection
+4 clerics capable of casting resurrection (Selune, Sune, Tymora, Hoar)
+5 clerics capable of casting raise dead (Oghma, Cyric, Tyr, Lathander, Milil)
= minimum of 9 Waterdeep clerics capable of raising the dead

3e Waterdeep:
1 cleric capable of casting true resurrection (Naneatha Suaril of Selune)
+10 clerics capable of casting resurrection (Cyric, Gond, Hoar, Lathander x2, Oghma, Shar, Tymora, Tyr, Umberlee)
+4 clerics capable of casting raise dead (Loviatar x2, Talona, Talos)
= minimum of 15 Waterdeep clerics capable of raising the dead

This information isn't exhaustive: it would be a minimum amount of clerics/priests around, not the maximum. This is made especially obvious in 3e, where the major temples usually are said to have factions of clerics, but only the higher level ones are listed. For instance, I would guess that 3e would have a lot more than 4 clerics of Lv9-12. There's also stuff missing (a book can only hold so much), like information on the clergy of Sune, that was established in 2e.

In my post above, I set out my own idea for class demographics and the cleric population in 1491:
1 cleric capable of the true resurrection spell (Selune)
+5 clerics capable of the resurrection spell (clerics of Lathander, Tymora, Sune, Gond, Umberlee)*
+16 clerics capable of the raise dead spell
= total of 22 Waterdeep clerics capable of raising the dead
*The clerics of which specific gods have been edited

Lesser priests of Waterdeep:
+65 clerics capable of Lv3 cleric spells
+263 clerics capable of Lv1 cleric spells
=350** TOTAL clerics in Waterdeep on average throughout the year
**Interpreted strictly by population, this number would be halved in winter, and multiplied by about 2.5x in the peak of summer.

At a 250,000 average population, that's 0.14% being clerics, or 1 in every 715 people. This is slightly more than the amount recommended in Medieval Demographics Made Easy (1/1000-1/1200), but I think that fits for the deity-heavy Forgotten Realms. Those of these clerics that work in the temples would be assisted by many acolytes, without deity-blessed powers (aka the acolyte background in 5e, or clergymen in Medieval Demographics Made Easy).

How do others manage the availability of clerics in their own campaigns?
Any analysis on my own methodology (a few posts above) is very welcome.

Edit: Added my interpretation of lower level and total cleric numbers.
Markustay Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 03:57:01
Very good point.

I've always wondered at how hard it must be to write novels based on a world that is also based on a set of game rules. There are just too many times when you need to ignore those rules for the sake of the story (and a setting is a story).

Because if characters can always be brought back, death becomes meaningless, as does 'risk', which is how we become engaged. How are we supposed to care about the characters and what they do, when there is almost zero risk involved?

The game is different animal - no-one is really trying to save a princess, or a kingdom, or stop some evil god. In the game, those are just 'collateral damage' (or side-effects). In the game, all you are really doing is trying to acquire 'phat lewtz' and level-up. Who you rob and kill makes little difference. But that wouldn't make for an interesting story (except maybe a Swords & Sorcery one, a'la Conan, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser... and even then, the authors always throw in a little bit more plot to make it work).
George Krashos Posted - 14 Oct 2016 : 01:52:22
Let's be clear, some of the discussion here appears to be conflating the "in game" ability to raise the dead with the "in campaign" ability to raise the dead. The former is a construct created to make sure people don't spit the dummy if their favourite PC gets roasted by a dragon - it gives them an out as a player. The latter is governed not by the rules of the game (which are irrelevant in a campaign context as long as the DM and the players are on the same page re how their game is to be run) but by the demands and expectations of the playing experience. So saying things like "I find it strange that the gods provide for this option ..." isn't quite right. The rules provide for this option but it is the campaign that determines whether that option is available. I'll get back in my box now.

-- George Krashos

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000