"Raise Dead," religion, and the afterlife.

[gridlore]

In my post on Dwarf Slayers I make the point that casting Raise Dead on a deceased Slayer would be a Bad Thing™. seawasp argued that it should be perfectly normal; you've cleansed your honor, attoned for your sin, now you get to enjoy life. I'd like to address that.

The general rule in Western religious teaching is that worshipers of a particular faith will be rewarded with an eternal existence in the afterlife. Whether its Heaven or Valhalla, the teachings are clear: Obey the rules set down in the Holy Texts and follow the teachings of the priests, and when you die, you get to live forever basking in the glory of God (or whatever that religion promises.) Some afterlives aren't eternal. The warriors boozing it up in Valhalla know that when Rangarok comes that are fated to fight and lose to the giants. But until then, they'll battle by day and party all night.

This seems to be the model used by most FRPG cosmologies, especially D&D with its inner and outer planes. You die, and your soul travels to the appropriate Outer Plane for an eternity of pleasure/punishment/F-Troop reruns. Which brings up back to our dead Dwarf Slayer. .

Morvin was a Leader of an Axe-Hundred in the unending battles against the goblins of the Redgold Mines. Many of the troops in his Hundred were kin, including his own younger brother. At one battle, Morvin was cut off, and in a moment of panic, fled. Leaderless, his hundred was slaughtered to the last dwarf. For his cowardice and failure, his clan cast him out. Morvin, insane with grief and shame, takes the path of the Slayer.. Years pass. Morvin failed to find the release of death he sought. He traveled with a group of adventurers in search of worthy foes. They understood that if Morvin claimed a foe, it had to be single combat for him. His legend, and the deadliness of his magical axe Blutlied grew. Until the party learned that the dragon Καρδιά δαιμόνων was actually possessed by a demon. They traveled to the Demonic dragon's mountain, and while the rest of the party dealth with the infernal drake's servitors and guards, Morvin screamed and lept at the dragon. The battle was epic, and for Morvin, his last. The combined power of an adult dragon back by the foul magics of a creature from the pits of the Abyss were too much, and Morvin died, swinging his axe to the last, dying with a curse for his enemy on his lips.

While his companions finished off the weakened dragon, Morvin's soul traveled across the Astral Plane to the Great Mountain. There, the Gates of Iron are open, and waiting to greet him is his brother. Morvin is welcomed into his clan's hall by generations of his ancestors, and told that he has removed the stain on his and the clan's honor. He may stay in the hall for as long as he wishes, fighting and feasting, or take one of several other paths available in the afterlife. Then, suddenly, Morvin is pulled back to the Prime Material Plane. He's been raised from the dead. He will be pissed. Mainly because he spent most of his life trying to die! Also it may well be that the rules for Slayers specifically state that if you get raised you are even more shamed than before. Morvin had achieved his ultimate goal. Now he's right back where he started.

Then there are the Death Cults. Not all death religions are going to be evil, I'm thinking specifically of the Humakt cult from RuneQuest. How are they going to feel about raising the dead? Undead? I can easily see a case where a church worshiping death might have temple assassins that exist solely to kill those who mock death by being raised! Finally, you have the feelings of the dead person. I don't know about the rest of you, but if were to drop dead this minute and find myself in some version of paradise (for me? a library containing every written work every created, and the ability to read them all...) I wouldn't want to come back! Since Raise Dead is generally an expensive ritual to perform (and costs even more to get a temple to do for you) you better make sure that the person being raised wants to come back! Generally, unless there was some great work left undone, some terrible wrong that needed to be righted, most people are going to opt to stay in the afterlife. Of course, those who were judged and found wanting will probably jump at the chance to get a new start in life...

Just some thoughts on the subject. I'd love to hear what other people's take on this is.

Comments

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

One of the main plot points of Season ? of Buffy was the title character trying to deal with having gone to Big-H Heaven, the reward she'd earned ... and then her friends, with the best of intentions, pulled her back to this imperfect realm where she has to go on fighting and suffering every day. And her keeping that secret from them, not wanting to burden them with it.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

Season 5

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

Buffy died in the Season 5 finale, changed networks and spent the summer dead, then in Season 6 she was raised and did the "I was in Heaven before you brought me back" angst thing.

However, she also was drowned and revived in the Season 1 finale, with no particular lingering effect. This gives some existential wiggle room: immediate revivification by repairing the body before the spirit has gone on is relatively consequence free, but undoing transmigration and so forth is dangerous juju.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Raise Dead seems to exist as a conceit in games not only to satisfy the legendary occurrences of it but also to let favored characters come back from a lethally bad decision or run of ill luck. The level at which is appears in D&D seems to have been a game-balance decision more than a "scale" decision.

I've played in games where returning from the dead was so trivially easy that the afterlife actually included a revolving door, and campaigns at the other end of the extreme where dead is dead and if you see someone who looks like a dead PC, it's either a rare twin or a trick. I've benefited in the way of not losing a cherished character, and I've lost ones I liked only to move on to a new one I liked even better. Each way has its pros and cons, depending on the tone of the campaign, of course.

[dalen-talas.livejournal.com]

I think that one of the reasons Raise Dead was included in D&D was to prevent the frustration of your character being killed off (as the above poster mentioned, perhaps by simply being hated by the Dice God), after you've devoted a whole bunch of time to leveling him up. Lets you go back to playing that character without the plot hole of introducing Sir Generic Paladin the Second to replace the late Sir Generic Paladin the First.

[gil-liant.livejournal.com]

As has been pointed out, the theme of a person being 'rescued' from Paradise by well-meaning friends is a known trope -- generally presented a la Frankenstein to warn of the dangers of mortal hubris. In your case-study, you start well, but then you cop out by saying it "may be" that the rules for Slayers ...

Well, it either is or it isn't -- and the magnitude of the raiser's crime depends on which. Since it's our fantasy world, we get to choose which answer we want. I do think, and generally play that, circumstances permitting, the wise cleric will be very sure the person wants to come back before expending so much of their patron's power to breach the wall between life and death.

However, there may be other factors at work, as well. Most stereotypical dwarf cultures have strongly-developed notions of 'property' and duty. In your example, if Morvin gets yanked back to the land of the living by a bunch of his former out-clan friends because they want him to continue generating XP and loot for them, that's one thing. If he were brought back at the request of his clan leader to respond to business of the clan ... well, that's potentially another thing entirely.

Arguably, a dwarf's life (and death) belong to his clan -- so for outsiders to 'tamper' with them would be an offense. But the clan-head has the right (and responsibility) to direct the resources of the clan for the good of the clan as a whole, and if Morvin doesn't like it, ... well, it sucks to be Morvin. ^_^

[gil-liant.livejournal.com]

Another, and completely different thought: don't you give Raise Dead a saving throw in your world? ^_^

Generally, in our campaigns, Raise Dead will auto-fail on an unwilling target. (Absent other factors). Circumstances permitting, (i.e., the spell being cast) one of those 'other paths leading onward' to which you refer leads from Nirvana back to the Prime Material. The soul can choose, but not be forced, to take it. (Which is one reason why some raises fail.)

How it works in your campaign world would certainly affect the inherent alignment implications of casting that spell under even the most benign circumstances. ^_^

[gil-liant.livejournal.com]

I am become the Slayer of Threads, the End of Discussion! Look on my Text, ye mighty, and Despair! (Sorry. Didn't mean to kill the thread. ^_^)

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Interesting thoughts, which seem mostly to be addressing the character's viewpoint. However, I remember chatting with the angry and confused GM of a game where the players did not want their dead characters revived, because they didn't want to be forced to play their character after it was shoved into a random animal body. To the GM, however, being brought back as, say, a wolf was better than being dead -- and he'd set up the game's premise such that all the PCs were required for the quest.

As a GM, I'd check first to see how my players felt: is death The End[TM] to them, or do they want to continue playing their favorite but deceased character? As a player, I'd want to know how prevalent something like raise dead was in the game -- because that would absolutely affect how daringly foolhardy my character would be when faced with possible death.

There's also the perspective of the story being told. For example, there's some real pathos in the tale of Morvin which you relate... at least up to the point where he is unceremoniously yanked back from his Eternal Reward. If I as a player were quite satisfied with how well my character had died, I would likely be somewhat peeved should my fellow players decide my desires were unimportant and I should continue playing this particular character with them.

Finally, from a more religious perspective, I would think a GM who wants raise dead to be available in their game could easily come up with a reason for it to be so -- but that should indisputably affect the religions in the game as well. For example, a religion which teaches of the cyclical nature of life and death and life again would likely believe in the reincarnation of souls. A raise dead spell in such a game might simply cause a particular soul to retain self-awareness as it is re-united with its healed and restored former body -- rather than moving on through the cycle of reincarnation to start the cycle over again.

Alternatively, if the game contains much time passage, you might try having the deceased character's soul embodied in a newborn member of their family. Many tribal cultures believe souls reincarnated through family lines, after all, and each newborn would be examined for behaviors or characteristics which would identify which deceased family member was once more returned to their clan.

[gil-liant.livejournal.com]

Interesting thoughts, which seem mostly to be addressing the character's viewpoint. True, but most experienced players are (IMHO) familiar with the dichotomy between player perspective and character perspective. If the player's unwilling, they can always exercise the ultimate veto by 'voting with their feet' -- even if the player, if asked, would say the character was willing. The moral dilemma was presented from the character perspective, so it was in that context I framed my reply.

I can definitely understand a player becoming 'peeved' (at the least) if someone were to take a recreational activity and try to make it somehow 'non-consensual'. I do not condone or endorse that in any way. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, for example, "I understand you were really happy with how your character went out, and I understand your character will be pissed off if brought back -- but you can use that. And it will make a really great story. ..."

In other words, up to a point, it's fair for them to seek to persuade you to willingly join in their plan. And, of course, where that point is depends on your specific relationship with the GM and the other players. YMMV.