New spell suggestion: True Resurrection

[Khazrak]

Willing to return is purely on the player, as the PC is theirs to RP.

On the other side, we've had people infiltrate the 656th (or some other 600+th layer) of abyss to rescue a whole village-ful of souls. I wouldn't put it past them.

As for divine intervention - it goes both ways. Get a bigger bully to bully the bully.

That's fair and good. Note that rule doesn't apply to NPCs (you can't choose if an NPC comes back). However:

But also remember that the characters on BGTSCC, while level 30 mechanically, are not epic-level heroes in lore. They're supposed to be equivalent to level 15, as I recall correctly. Still powerful? Yes. But actually, now that I've done my research, True Resurrection is a 9th level Cleric Spell.

If the purpose of True Resurrection in-game is purely a roleplay one, then True Resurrection actually SHOULDN'T be in game, now that I look at it - because the 30 levels our characters can have are purely mechanical. At level 15, the actual RP-level of our characters (assuming max level), only 8th level spells are available.

In other words, due to level limitations in the lore of the server when you consider the "actual" power level of the characters, True Resurrection is outside the scope of player abilities on BGTSCC.

This still stands.

[Incarnate]

In order for a resurrection to happen, the soul must be able AND willing to return. Certain circumstances can make the 'able' part not true - the soul being trapped in the Hells if they made a bad pact, or being sent to the Wall of the Faithless, or what-have-you. Yes, it's possible to go back and embark on a magnificent quest to free someone's soul from the Abyss or the Hells or what-have-you... but it's not always possible to save someone's soul from these situations. Sometimes, you arrive too late, and the soul is already gone forever. No take-backsies.

Yes, but able and willing part doesn't make the character permanently dead, as it could change. Of course the able part would make it a lot more circumstancial, the willing part is completely besides the point, because that is a decision for the actual player of the character to decide. The able part is way more important, but still not being able doesn't mean that the character is permanently dead. Also, the reason why someone couldn't be brought back should be 100% accurate, so it really has to that a specific reason that makes the character unable.

And sometimes the soul doesn't WANT to come back. Sometimes, despite however much you want to bring back the dead hero from the afterlife, she's still dead... because she has found the happiness of the afterlife and doesn't want to give it up. And this actually happens a lot; it's why high level clerics don't just wander through a battlefield after the fact and resurrect everyone in sight (even if they had a magical rod of resurrection): a fair number of the souls simply will stay where they are, because they're happy there.

If soul doesn't want to come back, then its a player choice, and thus makes it completely irrelevant as that would be the equivalent of accepting the characters death.

And then, of course, there's divine intervention that CAN, in fact, block a resurrection. And yes, it's not unheard of.

For a deity to intervene that character really would have some beef with this deity, like seriously. Some of the reasoning behind permastrikes is that the death of the character becomes too known, and thats the part that don't fit with a high fantasy high magic setting where one could get brought back to life via magic. So for instance if a deity were to intervene because some king had been attempted to be assasinated, then I'm sorry to say that simply wouldn't make any sense, also the deity could really only intervene if the soul is in its domain.

But also remember that the characters on BGTSCC, while level 30 mechanically, are not epic-level heroes in lore. They're supposed to be equivalent to level 15, as I recall correctly. Still powerful? Yes. But actually, now that I've done my research, True Resurrection is a 9th level Cleric Spell.

If the purpose of True Resurrection in-game is purely a roleplay one, then True Resurrection actually SHOULDN'T be in game, now that I look at it - because the 30 levels our characters can have are purely mechanical. At level 15, the actual RP-level of our characters (assuming max level), only 8th level spells are available.

In other words, due to level limitations in the lore of the server when you consider the "actual" power level of the characters, True Resurrection is outside the scope of player abilities on BGTSCC.

I've only seen discussion about that, no specific ruling on it. Besides, even if so it would still be possible to get someone else to help who would be able to cast it, obviously this means DM assistance, but LORE-WISE that is very much so still a possibility with True Resurrection.

[NegInfinity]

I've given it a thought, and realized following thing.

The idea of "True Resurrection" requires one simple condition:

You cannot return to the world unless you're raised by someone. No matter what the cause of death is. Pvp, monster, lag crash, whatever.

Then it starts making sense.

Somebody has to find your body, and raise you. If there's no body, then somebody has to figure out you're dead via IC means. Then they would need to know what your name is. Nobody found your body? Well, you'll sit in the fugue forever.

This would've been fair.

All this talk about high fantasy, fairness, etc, conveniently forgets about this being a game with "get back to life" button. This ""get back to life" button" does not exist in the lore and pnp and dead characters stay dead unless raised. A lot of people are not raised. The body might disappear. (Died in the forest? Well, guess wolves are not going to be hungry tonight).

[Khazrak]

If soul doesn't want to come back, then its a player choice, and thus makes it completely irrelevant as that would be the equivalent of accepting the characters death.

You seem to assume I'm solely considering player deaths. I imagine there's a fair few NPCs someone with True Resurrection handy would want to raise.

I've only seen discussion about that, no specific ruling on it. Besides, even if so it would still be possible to get someone else to help who would be able to cast it, obviously this means DM assistance, but LORE-WISE that is very much so still a possibility with True Resurrection.

You seem to assume you can't already ask a DM for True Resurrection to be cast. Most P&P spells are available with DM supervision, so I understand. Ergo... why should it be given to players who shouldn't be able to cast it in the first place due to the level the players should be lore-wise? Shouldn't it be limited to an appropriately powerful NPC whose abilities would naturally have to be beyond the player scope if s/he can cast True Resurrection?

--------------

A couple more notes:

1) I am not trying to be rude. I am not endorsing the "lol git gud" sort of language NegInfinity is using, and I really think we need to keep this conversation civil.

2) I don't think high fantasy means "everyone can raised, always." High fantasy implies that magic is present and powerful, but no matter how powerful magic is, story takes precedence, and some measure of realism - yes, realism in a fantasy setting; call bullocks on me as you please - should be enforced.

3) This doesn't mean I'm saying miraculous things should happen. It does, however, mean that truly amazing things, such as True Resurrection, should be long-term goals and important events rather than something that becomes passé.

4) Remember, too, that even in this high fantasy setting, magic hasn't solved all the world's problems. Indeed, most peasants yet don't know very much about magic at all; and in the setting we're in, with the high magic available to the characters, people don't yet fully understand things relating to the gods and their actual power. They don't even understand, by and large, that the Wall of the Faithless exists at this point in time! Remember, the setting occurs in the 1st Edition D&D timeline, NOT 3.5's timeline.

5) Finally, if you're insistent on the idea that the PCs are totally the levels they are in-game, then you're claiming that a ton of Epic Level characters are tromping about the Sword Coast and not, y'know, challenging gods or establishing their own kingdoms or what-have-you. Because that's the sort of thing epic level characters do, not go see about blowing up some orcs again because they need 10,000 more gold to buy that epic item from EpicMart. Epic level characters go on epic level adventures. They plane hop constantly, they conquer nations, they wrest power from demigods...

This is a simulation, and that must be understood and accepted. If indeed the "actual" level cap is 15, then lore-wise True Resurrection makes no sense.

EDIT: I think I said timeline where I meant timeframe. Whoops.

[Khazrak]

One more note:

I'm not saying this due to any favor toward permastrikes/permadeath. In fact, I largely disagree with liberal use of permadeath in NWN2 persistent worlds. I feel most in-game deaths can be better RP'd as "the party has retreated from a disastrous situation," or "I was knocked unconscious," because this game IS just a simulation of tabletop and has some stark differences (such as those imposed by the game being real-time). I AM saying that, in retrospect, I find True Resurrection to be the wrong answer... because of the level limitation lore-wise.

With that said, it could be a good element to have available via requests to DMs, same as a Miracle or Wish spell usage being requested to restore someone to life. I think those should all be very plausible and allowed in DM events (if they already aren't), assuming an appropriate caster can be found.

And remember: keep things civil. It does everyone a disservice to throw around "git gud" type language.

[Incarnate]

If soul doesn't want to come back, then its a player choice, and thus makes it completely irrelevant as that would be the equivalent of accepting the characters death.

You seem to assume I'm solely considering player deaths. I imagine there's a fair few NPCs someone with True Resurrection handy would want to raise.

I've only seen discussion about that, no specific ruling on it. Besides, even if so it would still be possible to get someone else to help who would be able to cast it, obviously this means DM assistance, but LORE-WISE that is very much so still a possibility with True Resurrection.

I'm not sole considering player deaths, however with permadeath and permastrikes being an OOC term for a permanent death of a PC, then its rather irrelevant to discuss npc deaths.

You seem to assume you can't already ask a DM for True Resurrection to be cast. Most P&P spells are available with DM supervision, so I understand. Ergo... why should it be given to players who shouldn't be able to cast it in the first place due to the level the players should be lore-wise? Shouldn't it be limited to an appropriately powerful NPC whose abilities would naturally have to be beyond the player scope if s/he can cast True Resurrection?

Not the case, because I know you can ask a DM for that, which basically is what I was saying with you can always gets someone else who can, but it obviously means DM-assistance. But lore-wise its most certainly possible, its the lore aspect thats the important part.

---

A couple more notes:

1) I am not trying to be rude. I am not endorsing the "lol git gud" sort of language NegInfinity is using, and I really think we need to keep this conversation civil.

I agree.

2) I don't think high fantasy means "everyone can raised, always." High fantasy implies that magic is present and powerful, but no matter how powerful magic is, story takes precedence, and some measure of realism - yes, realism in a fantasy setting; call bullocks on me as you please - should be enforced.

Alright, lets say most then because there are some cases that are out of reach, but would only be so due things that actually have taken place IC or the very least fits the context. Because using some lame excuse to legitimize a permadeath, wouldn't be alright. Yes, realism, but then I'm going to point out that its perfectly realistic to get resurrected after a failed assassination - When you refer to realism, please do consider what is realistic in a HIGH FANTASTY HIGH MAGIC Setting. Story takes presedence, thats OOC, because a lack of a better way to handle it.

4) Remember, too, that even in this high fantasy setting, magic hasn't solved all the world's problems. Indeed, most peasants yet don't know very much about magic at all; and in the setting we're in, with the high magic available to the characters, people don't yet fully understand things relating to the gods and their actual power. They don't even understand, by and large, that the Wall of the Faithless exists at this point in time! Remember, the setting occurs in the 1st Edition D&D timeline, NOT 3.5's timeline.

High magic to peasants is more folklore, myth, tales and legends, but given the fact that most are playing characters that will get know these things on a personal level, which means they will be more likely to seek out those that can do these things.

5) Finally, if you're insistent on the idea that the PCs are totally the levels they are in-game, then you're claiming that a ton of Epic Level characters are tromping about the Sword Coast and not, y'know, challenging gods or establishing their own kingdoms or what-have-you. Because that's the sort of thing epic level characters do, not go see about blowing up some orcs again because they need 10,000 more gold to buy that epic item from EpicMart. Epic level characters go on epic level adventures. They plane hop constantly, they conquer nations, they wrest power from demigods...

EDIT: I think I said timeline where I meant timeframe. Whoops.

This is a simulation, and that must be understood and accepted. If indeed the "actual" level cap is 15, then lore-wise True Resurrection makes no sense.

No, I'm not insistent on that, I'm just pointing that out, thats not an actual ruling but something that has been very hotly debated, well that is at least as far as I know.

Personally, I think the level cap on the server should cap at level 17-20, where exceeding that cap could be possible but wouldn't be something you could just grind past, it would take some serious roleplaying, dedication and effort - and could only happen through DM assistance.

[Hoihe]

There litterally is no such thing as permadeath IC'ly in a HIGH FANTASY HIGH MAGIC SETTING such as Forgotten Realms. Its always possible to bring someone back - its fantasy and it this particular case, its high magic fantasy.

Yes there is and you should be aware of them. I can take your character, give it to fiends, have them extract soul essence, and use it in promotion ceremony. And your character will be gone forever.

Many outsider creatures die for real and cannot be brought back. The reason why mortals can be brought back to life at all is because their souls and bodies are separate. If the soul is gone, there's nothing to resurrect. Likewise if the soul is surrendered to some powerful entity (see: god), it won't be returning back either.

Nevermind that your character can be killed by aging them to death. Or that someone could simply kill anybody who ever knew the name of the creature.

-------

Either way, it is depressing to see people who refuse to accept even slightest possibility of negative consequences on a RP server. Is this what bgtscc has devolved into? What the hell.

"Negative consequence"

- Material consequence, Reputation consequence, Social Consequence, Campaign consequence

None of those rely on dying.

[Khazrak]

Personally, I think the level cap on the server should cap at level 17-20, where exceeding that cap could be possible but wouldn't be something you could just grind past, it would take some serious roleplaying, dedication and effort - and could only happen through DM assistance.

Honestly, my ideal server would be one whose level cap was like... hardcapped between 8-12. For this server, though, I'd say 15-17 would be better than the level 30 cap we have, since the 30 cap means meteor swarms being tossed around idly and it seems to fly in the face with the power levels we're supposed to have.

No, I'm not insistent on that, I'm just pointing that out, thats not an actual ruling but something that has been very hotly debated, well that is at least as far as I know.

I remember this being a topic of discussion back when I first played a long, long while back. The impression I'd gotten back then, and have gotten now, is monsters are essentially twice their "actual/normal" CR and that players as essentially twice their "actual" level. Consider that a den of kobolds - kobolds, the weakest critters on the planet if your DM isn't named Tucker, at a whopping CR 1/4 in P&P - is CR 2. Gibberlings? Also lower than CR 1, but they're CR 3 here. IIRC, Xvarts are supposed to be less than CR 1 as well. Not ours at CR 14. CR 6 goblins, CR 10 orcs... even Minotaur are way above the CR they should be (CR 10 vs. CR 4). Heck, Flinds are supposed to be CR 2! Regular gnolls CR 1!

Obviously, each of these situations is me talking about a single creature by itself in CR. However, the server seems balanced so that each encounter in each area should roughly feel like the given CR of the zone in difficulty.

Ergo, there's plenty that points to the player characters not being as powerful as they may at first seem.

Alright, lets say most then because there are some cases that are out of reach, but would only be so due things that actually have taken place IC or the very least fits the context. Because using some lame excuse to legitimize a permadeath, wouldn't be alright. Yes, realism, but then I'm going to point out that its perfectly realistic to get resurrected after a failed assassination - When you refer to realism, please do consider what is realistic in a HIGH FANTASTY HIGH MAGIC Setting. Story takes presedence, thats OOC, because a lack of a better way to handle it.

Perhaps I am missing some context. Is this topic debated because permadeaths have been imposed by DMs?

Whatever the case, I think True Resurrection would work better in the hands of a DM, not in the hands of a player.

"Negative consequence"

- Material consequence, Reputation consequence, Social Consequence, Campaign consequence

None of those rely on dying.

On this I agree, for sure. I wish it was easier to impose some of these penalties in-game. It's much easier in tabletop.

[NegInfinity]

"Negative consequence"

- Material consequence, Reputation consequence, Social Consequence, Campaign consequence

None of those rely on dying.

For the love of Cthulhu, this isn't a rocket science.

You know why permadeath is even a thing?

IT exists for situation when somebody goes inside of baldur's gate, summons a balor/undead army and pretends to start a rampage, desptie being unable to attack npcs. Or does the same thing in Sshamath with a summoned astral deva instead.

In this situation they WILL get caught by the authorities, and authorities WILL make sure they aren't coming back. Ever. The methods are numerous, and of course sshamath will have a lot more elaborate methods to make sure the retirement is permanent. If you're interested, book of vile darkness has explanation of soul manipulation magic.

All your rhetoric is based around one idea of some imaginary "DM Satan" taking away your ability to play. Even though permadeath is not permaban, your character is not you, and even if your character managed to get slain for real, you can simply start wearing a new skin, continue experiencing the world, and avoid making such huge mistakes as the last time. Meaning permadeath does not affect being able to play the world.

And as a result, out of fear of being abused of "DM Satan", you want all negative consequences to go away for everybody.

The problem is... starting Astral Deva shenanigans in Sshamath IS a valid RP behavior.

In practice, removal of permastrikes will allow for existence of immortal troll-players. A chaotic good or evil character in the opposite setting cares not about any of consequences you listed. Because they're doing the right thing and act within their character. Anything you listed is literally non-factor.

You already can't make people dead, can't even send them home (send home functionality in PVP wqas quite useful), and can't remove disruptive or hostile elements from an area when you for all practical purposes should be able to.

And THAT"s what permadeath is for. When you push things too far, your immortality is taken away from you. As a consequence of your actions.

And, quite obviously, admiring rocks will not get you killed this way.

[Hoihe]

"Negative consequence"

- Material consequence, Reputation consequence, Social Consequence, Campaign consequence

None of those rely on dying.

For the love of Cthulhu, this isn't a rocket science.

You know why permadeath is even a thing?

IT exists for situation when somebody goes inside of baldur's gate, summons a balor/undead army and pretends to start a rampage, desptie being unable to attack npcs. Or does the same thing in Sshamath with a summoned astral deva instead.

In this situation they WILL get caught by the authorities, and authorities WILL make sure they aren't coming back. Ever. The methods are numerous, and of course sshamath will have a lot more elaborate methods to make sure the retirement is permanent. If you're interested, book of vile darkness has explanation of soul manipulation magic.

All your rhetoric is based around one idea of some imaginary "DM Satan" taking away your ability to play. Even though permadeath is not permaban, your character is not you, and even if your character managed to get slain for real, you can simply start wearing a new skin, continue experiencing the world, and avoid making such huge mistakes as the last time. Meaning permadeath does not affect being able to play the world.

And as a result, out of fear of being abused of "DM Satan", you want all negative consequences to go away for everybody.

The problem is... starting Astral Deva shenanigans in Sshamath IS a valid RP behavior.

In practice, removal of permastrikes will allow for existence of immortal troll-players. A chaotic good or evil character in the opposite setting cares not about any of consequences you listed. Because they're doing the right thing and act within their character. Anything you listed is literally non-factor.

You already can't make people dead, can't even send them home (send home functionality in PVP wqas quite useful), and can't remove disruptive or hostile elements from an area when you for all practical purposes should be able to.

And THAT"s what permadeath is for. When you push things too far, your immortality is taken away from you. As a consequence of your actions.

And, quite obviously, admiring rocks will not get you killed this way.

So you want to punish players?


I swear every single "I want permadeath" boils down to "I want to punish these people acting weird!"

[NegInfinity]

So you want to punish players?

Have you actually read the post before responding to it? Becuase I'm not getting such impression.

I wrote an explanation, and you turned it into another strawman.

Either way.

I hope you get better and snap out of whatever caused this recent odd streak of yours. Becuase, frankly, it is very odd, and it would probably be best not to lose another player to a strange mood (like it happened already to several people).

Although I'm not getting hopes high. (Perhaps in a few years? Whatever.)

Have fun.

[samb123]

So you want to punish players?


I swear every single "I want permadeath" boils down to "I want to punish these people acting weird!"

If acting weird consists of "Summon demon army and assault the city", then, yes, let's "punish that player". Except, here's the thing: in order to summon the demon army, the DMs have to allow it.

In other words, there's only one scenario where you're summoning a demon army, as a form of character retirement. And even then, still not happening.


As players, we are only given free agency up to the point where it is sensible for the campaign and for the setting. That's why no one is running around with a character that is "a demon" (at least they're not doing so and being taken seriously). If we are incapable of accepting that our characters may some day see their role in the setting end, then I think that's a problem. You, as a player, are a participant in the story. You are not the author. That said, from what I can tell, the DMs (our authors) are quite lenient and therefore the lack of True Resurrection in a mechanical sense is not an issue.
Sidenote: Us players being participants in the story is also why you can't just decide to assassinate other characters without the consent of the other player.

[Hoihe]

So you want to punish players?


I swear every single "I want permadeath" boils down to "I want to punish these people acting weird!"

If acting weird consists of "Summon demon army and assault the city", then, yes, let's "punish that player". Except, here's the thing: in order to summon the demon army, the DMs have to allow it.

In other words, there's only one scenario where you're summoning a demon army, as a form of character retirement. And even then, still not happening.


As players, we are only given free agency up to the point where it is sensible for the campaign and for the setting. That's why no one is running around with a character that is "a demon" (at least they're not doing so and being taken seriously). If we are incapable of accepting that our characters may some day see their role in the setting end, then I think that's a problem. You, as a player, are a participant in the story. You are not the author. That said, from what I can tell, the DMs (our authors) are quite lenient and therefore the lack of True Resurrection in a mechanical sense is not an issue.
Sidenote: Us players being participants in the story is also why you can't just decide to assassinate other characters without the consent of the other player.

DMs are not authors. They are the world's pro/re|active aspects. The lore is the world's fundamental aspects. The players experience the world as it is stimulated by actions, whether proactive or reactionary.

Stories are simply records of the experience gained so that they can be shared, and are not the primary goal.

The only people remotely close to an "author"'s powers are the people with the keys to the server machine, for they can decide on a proverbial flood to cleanse the land or to send in the headless horsemen.

[Khazrak]

I still think the case of True Resurrection being beyond the player characters' scope of powers is the biggest issue, in my eyes. Otherwise, I'm actually quite fine with it - so long as people understand that, as far as NPCs are concerned, even True Resurrection doesn't always work.

But with True Resurrection being a 9th level spell and PCs seeming to be lower power than level 30, or even 20, I think DM supervision is a good thing to use when shooting for True Resurrection.

[samb123]

DMs are not authors.

When DMs are writing the plots, they actually are the authors. They may use lore as the basis for those plots, but they're still writing the plot in a form that is suitable for the PW. Evidence:
https://www.bgtscc.net/viewforum.php?f=399

They are the world's pro/re|active aspects. The lore is the world's fundamental aspects.

The lore is the basis, the world building aspect. It's like every FR campaign written post-Ed Greenwood's creation of FR; there are authors who write the stories in the world of FR. Even Greenwood's own work (in FR) is merely using what he already created.

The players experience the world as it is stimulated by actions, whether proactive or reactionary.

Yeah, kind of like reading a "Do your own adventure" books, where you have some choice in the direction you which go. And just like "Do your own adventure" books, you can only go so; how far is determined by the DM's.

Stories are [...] are not the primary goal.

Then why are we here, if roleplaying within the story is NOT the primary goal?



But, see, all of this is besides the point that, if you truly wished to roleplay casting "True Resurrection" (in other words, do that as an action in the story), then you can ask a DM to help you do so.