Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Yes, that's probably a good answer to that question.

 

Like I said, it's the other that interests me right now. For example:

 

You come to the game with a character you created yourself, and whoever is running the game says, okay, you can play it. Not much doubt there that it's your character.

 

Then it dies.

 

My view is that it's still your character. You just can't do much with it so you may want to replace it. But I'm not sure everyone agrees that it's still your character if it's dead.

 

But say it gets better. The character has Regeneration with Resurrection and comes back. Is this the same character that died? Is it still yours? Would anyone dispute that?

 

What if you want a "radiation accident" and the character comes back, but completely re-written. Is it still the "same" fictional person? Is it still yours?

 

What if someone resurrects it, but with a Summoning based resurrection. Normally, Summoned creatures are regarded as being under the control of the person running the game, not Player Characters. Is the character still your Player Character in this case? Why or why not? Suppose a Healing based resurrection was used. Is that different? Why would it be? In "in game" terms it's the same thing - the character was dead, but isn't now.

 

Now suppose the character was killed by a vampire and rises on the third night as a bloodsucking undead monster (assuming of course that it was none of those things to begin with....) - is it still your player character? Why or why not? If the answer in the above cases was "yes" why would this one be different?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

But this is definitely my palindromedary

 

I see the character as the character that I am playing in a story, and I see the story as more important than the character. I've played in games where a character I've played in a previous campaign has appeared as a NPC. I'm not playing it though. It is not 'my' PC even though it is the same character in the same universe and has never died.

 

If the character dies and I've paid points to be able to bouce back from death, I'd usually expect to keep playing the character: it remains 'mine'. If it dies and is brought back by someone else then whether it remains 'my' character or not is a GM call, depending on the needs of the story.

 

I suppose I see characters as being real in their setting, their reality, and I simply guide their actions (and I'm sometimes surprised by them). In a very real sense the character is NEVER mine.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

I was going to post this in the SHRED Characteristics thread, but it's a tangent that's massively off topic there.

 

I'm not sure it's going to go anywhere, or should go anywhere, but I decided to move it to its own thread rather than clutter up that one.

Thank you. I wish people woud do this more often.

 

Hero doesn't need an "actual, by the book rule" for everything.

Sure it does. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to build "anything you can think of" in HERO.

 

There is no specific "actual, by the book rule" that allows me to turn you into a turnip but I can buy a Transform to do that anyway. There is no specific "actual, by the book rule" that defines the properties of the manoscularium alloy, but If I've built my powered armor out of that alloy with 10 Resistant Defense than that's what I get. There is no specific "actual, by the book rule" that allows me to throw a lightning bolt, but I can buy an attack power and define it as a lightning bolt...

How those anything other than "by the book rules"? Transform, Armor, Energy Blast are all "by the book rules". HERO needs those rules, because you can't build manoscularium alloy armor using the Energy Blast power.

 

We also have "actual, by the book rules" that define when a character is alive or dead. These rules have to do with the character's BODY. We also have a Power that specifically restores lost BODY to a character.

 

"There's more than one way to skin a cat" is a saying that could have been invented for Hero,

Yes, but not all ways are equally good. They don't necessarily produce the same results. It depends on what you want to accomplish. Do you want a cat skin? Or do you want a cat carcass with the skin removed? Or do you want both? The answer to that may determine the best way to skin the cat.

 

I'm just questioning why you would call using Summon a "kludge."

Because the by-the-book rule for Summon doesn't quite do what most people think of as "resurrection". It creates a living thing with specific abilities that will stick around long enough to do some specific number of tasks for you. To extend the analogy, it gives me a beautiful intact cat skin, but I was looking for an intact skinned cat carcass.

 

Do you honestly believe that you can avoid the cosmological question by changing the mechanic used?

Do you honestly believe you can produce the same effect by changing the mechanic used?

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

OK, let's move on with the premise that the desired EFfect is the same as for any Summon. That means that I make an EGO roll when the Summoned raised being arrives. If it succeeds, I can foce him to perform EGO/5 tasks for me. So he returns as my slave. If I add an Amicable advantage, now he's my automatic slave for a greater number of actions. And I can Dismiss him back to Dead at my whim.

 

If the Summon gets dispelled, **POOF** no more Resurrected character.

 

Well, that's not exactly fair, since all you have to do is add a -0 Limitation: No Control of Target (since presumably the target will be friendly if you're resurrecting him). Just because a Power does more or less at base than what you want is never proof that it's the wrong Power to use.

 

If I was still forced to use Summon, I'd probably allow Inherent on it for this purpose, but considering the effect (that is, I don't have a problem with it being expensive) enough levels of Difficult to Dispel and the Absolute Effect Rule are probably sufficient to overcome the Dispeling problem.

 

Not that I want to go back to that, but since 5th's restrictions on Healing make it impossible to resurrect you if you've taken too much Body (save when using Regeneration), it's nice to have alternatives.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Not that I want to go back to that, but since 5th's restrictions on Healing make it impossible to resurrect you if you've taken too much Body (save when using Regeneration), it's nice to have alternatives.

Can you tell me where to find that in the book?

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Can you tell me where to find that in the book?

 

Sorry, I'm probably being nitpicky with that, even more than usual. I'm talking about the restriction on how much Body you can Heal: if you have 4d6 Healing with the Resurrection Adder, the most you can ever heal with it is 12 Body. So, if a 10 Body target is reduced to -23 Body, and you can't get them back to -10, technically you can't Resurrect them.

 

Maybe. Other interpretations of that rule are certainly possible, and quite a few people seem to ignore or ease the restriction on how much can be healed.

 

If that doesn't sound familiar, the restriction on points you can heal is in the write-up of the Healing Power, sorry I can't give a page reference. If you recognize it and completely disagree with the conclusion, however, well, I don't blame you

[ghost-angel]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

The Max Body you can heal Per Day (without buying down the Reuse Time) is 12 Body.

Next day - 12 More Body are Healed.

 

Resurrection is not an All Or Nothing Use Once Power. There are no restrictions on how long a person has to be dead by the book. Enough applications of Resurrection can bring anyone back from any amount of Negative Body.

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Quite correct. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering 5E when it didn't have the "per day" portion, when it was just an absolute restriction (well, a restriction that was open to interpretation).

 

Or I may be blowing smoke, since my 5E is packed away in the basement somewhere.

 

In which case Summoning is still fine to me if I want to run a game where it can be done relatively quickly (even buying down the time, it can still take quite a while to Heal the target to life) or if I want to bring back someone whose body is completely destroyed or lost by some means. So, basically the same reason I'd use it rather than Healing in any event. I haven't seen a problem with the basic idea that can't be overcome, just ones that are a bit difficult.

[Lucius]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

The Max Body you can heal Per Day (without buying down the Reuse Time) is 12 Body.

Next day - 12 More Body are Healed.

 

Resurrection is not an All Or Nothing Use Once Power. There are no restrictions on how long a person has to be dead by the book. Enough applications of Resurrection can bring anyone back from any amount of Negative Body.

 

Under Revised FRED.

 

FRED original didn't even say you could come back next day. You got healed once, and that was apparently it. Talk about nerfed healing.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks the difference between old players, and those who came in with FRED, is a Regeneration Gap

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Oh, good, I'm not imagining it

[ghost-angel]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Yeah, 5E left things a little... restricted, unless you were willing to use a more liberal interpretation of the rules.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Under Revised FRED.

 

FRED original didn't even say you could come back next day. You got healed once, and that was apparently it. Talk about nerfed healing.

 

 

I have FRED right here and I read it as you can try as many times as you want but it will only matter if the subsequent rolls exceed the first and the maximum possible healing is your best possible die roll.still pretty nerfed

[ghost-angel]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Personally, I think it would fly in the face of Common Sense to interpret Healing as a one-use Power even under 5Es wording. Given the absence of a Fade Rate, I would just assume place an appropriate time limit on reusing it. It could very well vary by Game in that case.

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Personally' date=' I think it would fly in the face of Common Sense to interpret Healing as a one-use Power even under 5Es wording. Given the absence of a Fade Rate, I would just assume place an appropriate time limit on reusing it. It could very well vary by Game in that case.[/quote']

 

Well, yes, hence a restriction open to interpretation. Only usable against a given character once ever is a bit much.

 

Well, it was never quite that bad, but still, only usable against a character until you've rolled maximum was never in the cards.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Am I the only one who thinks Transform was the best solution for bringing back the dead? I mean, now that there is a Healing Adder I use it, and I suppose I will probably continue to, but Transform (e.g. "Corpse to living being," or simply modify description for "reincarnation" type raising) just seemed like the right tool for the job. Transform them back to a living being so that Healing/Regeneration can start to do its job. And now that there is Trigger, it'd work even better for "self resurrection" if desired.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

In straight 5E I interpreted it as non-cumulative, and reusable once the target healed at least once naturally (e.g. gained at least 1 Body due to Recovery). To tell you the truth, I like the idea of a stop-sign application of the Cumulative Advantage to Healing rather than the delayed re-use period brought in by 5ER. The GM could always require a Limitation to prevent abuse in a particular game/setting.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Am I the only one who thinks Transform was the best solution for bringing back the dead? I mean' date=' now that there is a Healing Adder I use it, and I suppose I will probably continue to, but Transform (e.g. "Corpse to living being," or simply modify description for "reincarnation" type raising) just seemed like the right tool for the job. Transform them back to a living being so that Healing/Regeneration can start to do its job. And now that there is [i']Trigger[/i], it'd work even better for "self resurrection" if desired.

 

Mechanically, I agree. I'm not so sure that I want someone able to buy 1 DC Transform, deceased to living, extra time - 1 turn, 2 handed gestures, incantations and 0 DCV Concentration throughout, etc., such that it becomes simplicity to raise the dead for 1 point.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

As I see it, there are two types of Resurrection: Resurrect Self, and Resurrect Other.

 

Resurrect Self could simply be making an new character more-or-less identical to the deceased one and declare it a ressurrection of said character.

 

Or buy Duplication with the limitation that only one copy is present in the real world at any time. Then, when a duplicate dies, another duplicate pops into existence.

 

Resurrect Other seems more like Summon, perhaps with Uncontrolled (lasts until summoned character is killed) and a limitation that you need a dead body (a Focus that is used up?).

 

Or you could buy Transform: Dead Body into Living, linked to a Summon Spirit of Deceased (Uncontrolled, lasts until body is killed).

 

- Klaus

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Am I the only one who thinks Transform was the best solution for bringing back the dead?

 

Well, a perfectly good solution, anyway. It has the previously mentioned drawback of being able to get the 1 point Resurrection Power, even if you have to buy Cumulative as you did in 4th Edition. But that'll take a while, especially if you assume the corpse to be, at best, a 0 point character and you're trying to resurrect a Galactic Champions character, so it might balance out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Well' date=' a perfectly good solution, anyway. It has the previously mentioned drawback of being able to get the 1 point Resurrection Power, even if you have to buy Cumulative as you did in 4th Edition. But that'll take a while, especially if you assume the corpse to be, at best, a 0 point character and you're trying to resurrect a Galactic Champions character, so it might balance out.[/quote']

 

Regardless of how long it takes, removal of the threat of permanent death seems like a pretty big deal. That's not to say it would be inappropriate in all games, but I think most genres consider resurrection to be a pretty powerful ability.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Well yeah. Depending on the game I'd require it to be all-or-nothing and such. And a Major Transform, no Cosmetic or Minor. There're balances that can be put in place, but it all depends on the flavor of the game.

[GamePhil]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

Regardless of how long it takes' date=' removal of the threat of permanent death seems like a pretty big deal. That's not to say it would be inappropriate in all games, but I think most genres consider resurrection to be a pretty powerful ability.[/quote']

 

Sure, just saying that in a game where you allowed resurrection at all the restrictions on the Power you describe might be enough that it shouldn't be very expensive.

 

I think you would need to be able to vary the end result, though. But that may get into metaphysical territory: is the dead body the person that was there to be turned from dead to alive, or is the person gone?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates?

 

I think you would need to be able to vary the end result' date=' though. But that may get into metaphysical territory: is the dead body the person that was there to be turned from dead to alive, or is the person gone?[/quote']

 

Yeah. Good point. It reminds me, if you are going to use Transform there's always the option of whether to allow it to be a Physical Transform only, or "Spiritual" only, or require Physical, Mental, and Spiritual Transforms. I think that mechanical approach gives a ton of options on how difficult or easy to make it and some good built-in options for balance.