Realistically I imagine that having access to resurrection would have fairly dramatic consequences on how a society applies punishment. It’d probably be a crime of some sort to revive the executed, sorta equivalent to breaking someone out of jail, states might be more harsh with handing out death penalties when it is possible to undo them if new evidence is found, and the remains of the executed probably would be carefully stored and locked up to prevent unwanted revival and to have in case the state decides to bring someone back, assuming the body is needed for it.
Might also get things like a monarchy which kills off heirs to the throne after a certain age and stores them careful to revive when the current monarch dies or abdicates, to prevent scheming between them to increase their place on the line of succession or take over from the current ruler early, and to ensure they are young and healthy when they take the throne.
I started reading Jhereg by Steven Brust, and it takes resurrection magic into account with the world building. Part of assassination involves hiding the body until the resurrection window passes. IIRC, the legal penalties for murder are also much less severe if you just kill someone, rather than make sure they’re permanently dead.
There are also “Morganti” weapons. They’re pretty much the Black Blade from Elric, so they eat souls. So not only do they make resurrection impossible, but the victim is extra dead, not even existing in an afterlife. As a result, using one is a high crime, punishable by death… by Morganti blade.
using one is a high crime, punishable by death… by Morganti blade.
Man, if I were a soul killing assassin, with knowledge that souls and the afterlife is real… Getting my soul dissolved vs going to my eternal reward … sounds like a pretty good deal.
Fair, I guess it depends on what the afterlife looks like in the fictional world. :P I actually didn’t get that far in the series, what with real life getting in the way, but I enjoyed it and mean to return to it.
If a trial is ongoing during the date you’d become unrevivable or it’s considered important to extend the date for some other reason, maybe they just revive you and kill you again to reset the timer
In the Forgotten Realms, the Kingdom of Cormyr has strict penalties against resurrecting monarchs. The penalty is death for the resurrector, and castration + exile for the former king. And the famed War Wizards of Cormyr absolutely have the capability to enforce that law.
I’m not certain (and don’t have either my notes or the novel those notes were taken from to hand), but IIRC a resurrection of someone formerly in the line of succession puts them at the end of the line, even if they were as high up as the king’s eldest son prior to death.
This naturally creates an issue if the prince dies and is resurrected while a long way from the capital, and returns to the kingdom to find the king has also died while he was gone. Who died first is going to matter greatly, but might be rather difficult to determine.
Whose idea was that law? If I were the king and someone discovered resurrection, I’d say that if I die, I get resurrected and keep my kinghood. Likewise if I conquer an area and become a king after it already exists.
Does it at least not apply to cloning? That’s the only way to avoid old age as far as I know, and I can’t imagine kings would be in favor of a law that requires they grow old and die.
My d&d 3.5 druid has a contingent reincarnate last breath (to activate upon death). That (and reincarnate) are the only reviving spells that put you in a young body, beating aging
The cost is a random roll on what race your new body will be (and 500gp worth of ungents and oils)
A game I want someone to run for me is that druid and their party after decades of adventuring all set up with reincarnate, but all with a distaste for cheering the solution, going on one last adventure trying to die making the world a better place
Here are five passages from Fire in the Blood, the 4th book of the Brimstone Angels series by Erin M Evans, which I mentioned in my earlier reply to @MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network. The quotes contain minor spoilers for the end of the eponymous book 1 of the series, and major spoilers for the content earlier in book 4. I would highly recommend both the series in general and this book in particular. This book and the two that follow if your interest is in political manoeuvring (this book on the politics of Cormyr, books 5 and 6 on the somewhat more exotic politics of the dragonborn kingdom of Tymanther). The series as a whole if you have any interest in the politics of the Nine Hells, or the interaction between a warlock and her devil patron, or what it’s like to be a tiefling in the Forgotten Realms—a race that, by the Player’s Handbook’s own admission (at least prior to WotC’s culling of so much excellent content a year or two ago) isn’t innately evil in any way, but frequently gets treated as though it is.
The quotes don’t go into cloning at all, but I don’t think that a clone would be considered the same “person” as the existing monarch, and so a clone would probably take its own separate place in the line of succession. Probably not very high, given the existing laws’ precedent of attempting to make the succession as straightforward and clear as possible, and minimising the ability of anyone to use magic to mess with that.
“Cormyr’s full of rules that don’t make sense,” Dahl said. “Commoners can’t wear more than one kind of feather in their hats, adventurers need special permission to hunt monsters, and if a king gets resurrected, they castrate him like a yearling and throw him out of the country, and his benefactor gets executed—gods only know what that’s about.”
“Did you not hear me?” Brin demanded. “You can’t bring him back.”
“I did, though!”
“No, I mean the law doesn’t allow it. A resurrected Obarskyr goes to the end of the line of succession—now I will be king before Irvel. He’s as good as dead to us.”
“Karshoj,” Havilar said. “Are you listening to yourself? Maybe he won’t be king, but he does get to see his family again.” Brin had the decency to color at that.
“You’re right,” he said. He rubbed his hands over his face. “Forgive me, that was … I’m reeling a little, is all.” He watched Irvel cross the clearing. “We can’t tell him.”
“I think he ought to know.”
“He might want to,” Brin said. “Or it might upset him—you don’t resurrect nobles in Cormyr. And he’d ask where you got such magic, and I can’t imagine he’d like the answer any more than I do.”
The laws about resurrection spells were, as many laws in Cormyr, tortuous and specific, crafted in reaction to ten thousand crises no one wanted to repeat. A resurrected noble lost all of their blood rights. Except a resurrected Obarskyr lost their place in the line of succession. Except a resurrected monarch was immediately deposed, magically neutered, and exiled from Cormyr, their would-be benefactor executed as a traitor.
Nausea suddenly overtook Brin. He dropped down on the covered steps of a boarded-up house and put his head between his knees. Foril was dead. So Irvel was king. And if resurrecting the crown prince was bad, resurrecting the uncrowned king was so much worse that Brin’s guts threatened to invert at the possibility. Suddenly, Havilar’s assistance wasn’t just threatening to make Brin’s life harder—it could actually get her killed.
Irvel blinked. “I blacked out a moment. And then Havilar was there. She’d healed me. She’s a good one,” he said to Raedra. “Whatever else is happening.”
“Your memory of the moment before you blacked out,” Ganrahast repeated, “is Aubrin Crownsilver trying to heal you, and the spirit of his father reaching out? And it’s very clear in your mind?”
“Yes,” Irvel said. Then, “I must have slept a little between then and waking up. I think I dreamed of Hal and my father and a great towering castle …”
Irvel stopped. A chill ran over him. Hal was dead and Foril was dead. And beyond the darkness of death lay the kingdom of Kelemvor.
“What day did they find you?” Ganrahast asked.
“I don’t remember,” Irvel said. But it hardly mattered—he’d seen Foril there. His father was already dead. By law, the crown prince was the king in all but the most technical matters.
The closest thing I found to an explanation in there is this:
The laws about resurrection spells were, as many laws in Cormyr, tortuous and specific, crafted in reaction to ten thousand crises no one wanted to repeat.
But it doesn’t say what those crises are, or why a king would be so desperate to avoid them that they’d outlaw someone reviving them or ensure that their power is taken away if it does happen.
I’d hesitate to call it an absolute monarchy because they do seem somewhat constrained by law or tradition, but I’m not aware of any formal process by which either the nobles or the commoners (I don’t believe there is any Parliament) can officially exert any authority.
I believe it’s based on a mediaeval English or French monarchy.
The closest non-D&D fantasy kingdom I can think of would by Andor in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, except that there is a very clear very strict line of succession instead of Andor’s nobles essentially voting on a successor.
Book 4 of Erin M. Evans’ excellent Brimstone Angels series is set in Cormyr and deals extensively with its politics, and I would highly recommend that book to anyone interested in that sort of political intrigue.
How is the afterlife involved? It’s not much of a punishment if you send someone to heaven. And sending someone to hell early for sending someone to heaven early seems disproportionate.
On the other hand given that death is known not to end one’s existence, it suddenly feels more akin to exile, so it seems like it would be much more prevalent. Ideally you want legal punishment to either rehabilitate the offender or isolate them from the society if rehabilitation is deemed impossible. Death sentence now serves as a cheaper alternative to a life in prison.
Realistically I imagine that having access to resurrection would have fairly dramatic consequences on how a society applies punishment. It’d probably be a crime of some sort to revive the executed, sorta equivalent to breaking someone out of jail, states might be more harsh with handing out death penalties when it is possible to undo them if new evidence is found, and the remains of the executed probably would be carefully stored and locked up to prevent unwanted revival and to have in case the state decides to bring someone back, assuming the body is needed for it.
Might also get things like a monarchy which kills off heirs to the throne after a certain age and stores them careful to revive when the current monarch dies or abdicates, to prevent scheming between them to increase their place on the line of succession or take over from the current ruler early, and to ensure they are young and healthy when they take the throne.
I started reading Jhereg by Steven Brust, and it takes resurrection magic into account with the world building. Part of assassination involves hiding the body until the resurrection window passes. IIRC, the legal penalties for murder are also much less severe if you just kill someone, rather than make sure they’re permanently dead.
There are also “Morganti” weapons. They’re pretty much the Black Blade from Elric, so they eat souls. So not only do they make resurrection impossible, but the victim is extra dead, not even existing in an afterlife. As a result, using one is a high crime, punishable by death… by Morganti blade.
Man, if I were a soul killing assassin, with knowledge that souls and the afterlife is real… Getting my soul dissolved vs going to my eternal reward … sounds like a pretty good deal.
Fair, I guess it depends on what the afterlife looks like in the fictional world. :P I actually didn’t get that far in the series, what with real life getting in the way, but I enjoyed it and mean to return to it.
Lol. It’s Morganti blades all the way down.
Death row is just instant execution, and the date you would be killed is now the last day you could be revived with common means.
If a trial is ongoing during the date you’d become unrevivable or it’s considered important to extend the date for some other reason, maybe they just revive you and kill you again to reset the timer
The Gentle Repose industry will object…
Gotta wonder how that goes for innocent people that decide that the afterlife is cool.
Must suck for victims of cults and devil bargains that get dragged into the hells regardless of their deeds.
These are great world building ideas. Thanks!
In the Forgotten Realms, the Kingdom of Cormyr has strict penalties against resurrecting monarchs. The penalty is death for the resurrector, and castration + exile for the former king. And the famed War Wizards of Cormyr absolutely have the capability to enforce that law.
I’m not certain (and don’t have either my notes or the novel those notes were taken from to hand), but IIRC a resurrection of someone formerly in the line of succession puts them at the end of the line, even if they were as high up as the king’s eldest son prior to death.
This naturally creates an issue if the prince dies and is resurrected while a long way from the capital, and returns to the kingdom to find the king has also died while he was gone. Who died first is going to matter greatly, but might be rather difficult to determine.
Whose idea was that law? If I were the king and someone discovered resurrection, I’d say that if I die, I get resurrected and keep my kinghood. Likewise if I conquer an area and become a king after it already exists.
Does it at least not apply to cloning? That’s the only way to avoid old age as far as I know, and I can’t imagine kings would be in favor of a law that requires they grow old and die.
My d&d 3.5 druid has a contingent
reincarnatelast breath (to activate upon death). That (and reincarnate) are the only reviving spells that put you in a young body, beating agingThe cost is a random roll on what race your new body will be (and 500gp worth of ungents and oils)
A game I want someone to run for me is that druid and their party after decades of adventuring all set up with reincarnate, but all with a distaste for cheering the solution, going on one last adventure trying to die making the world a better place
Here are five passages from Fire in the Blood, the 4th book of the Brimstone Angels series by Erin M Evans, which I mentioned in my earlier reply to @MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network. The quotes contain minor spoilers for the end of the eponymous book 1 of the series, and major spoilers for the content earlier in book 4. I would highly recommend both the series in general and this book in particular. This book and the two that follow if your interest is in political manoeuvring (this book on the politics of Cormyr, books 5 and 6 on the somewhat more exotic politics of the dragonborn kingdom of Tymanther). The series as a whole if you have any interest in the politics of the Nine Hells, or the interaction between a warlock and her devil patron, or what it’s like to be a tiefling in the Forgotten Realms—a race that, by the Player’s Handbook’s own admission (at least prior to WotC’s culling of so much excellent content a year or two ago) isn’t innately evil in any way, but frequently gets treated as though it is.
The quotes don’t go into cloning at all, but I don’t think that a clone would be considered the same “person” as the existing monarch, and so a clone would probably take its own separate place in the line of succession. Probably not very high, given the existing laws’ precedent of attempting to make the succession as straightforward and clear as possible, and minimising the ability of anyone to use magic to mess with that.
The closest thing I found to an explanation in there is this:
But it doesn’t say what those crises are, or why a king would be so desperate to avoid them that they’d outlaw someone reviving them or ensure that their power is taken away if it does happen.
Ed Greenwood is pretty active on social media. I wonder if this might be something he’d answer if someone asked.
How powerful are the monarchs? Are they absolute monarchs or far more limited?
I’d hesitate to call it an absolute monarchy because they do seem somewhat constrained by law or tradition, but I’m not aware of any formal process by which either the nobles or the commoners (I don’t believe there is any Parliament) can officially exert any authority.
I believe it’s based on a mediaeval English or French monarchy.
The closest non-D&D fantasy kingdom I can think of would by Andor in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, except that there is a very clear very strict line of succession instead of Andor’s nobles essentially voting on a successor.
Book 4 of Erin M. Evans’ excellent Brimstone Angels series is set in Cormyr and deals extensively with its politics, and I would highly recommend that book to anyone interested in that sort of political intrigue.
I can’t imagine that rule lasting long since any monarch is going to go to great lengths to get rid of it.
Naturally.
Is this a “Who’s on First” joke?
Naturally.
How is the afterlife involved? It’s not much of a punishment if you send someone to heaven. And sending someone to hell early for sending someone to heaven early seems disproportionate.
On the other hand given that death is known not to end one’s existence, it suddenly feels more akin to exile, so it seems like it would be much more prevalent. Ideally you want legal punishment to either rehabilitate the offender or isolate them from the society if rehabilitation is deemed impossible. Death sentence now serves as a cheaper alternative to a life in prison.
I suppose that might also depend on how afterlife is like. Like is it basically just cryo freezing without having to keep the body cold.