Death just being temporary.

[Hazard]

I always thought that ICly acknowledging that death is temporary was against the rules, apart from that one old NPC we had in Cordor. Now I just stumbled across a new NPC in one of the newly added areas who refers to death just being a 'temporary setback' for both adventurers and some NPC faction in the area.

Uuh. I found this pretty jarring to just be out in the open and IC like that, and I can't exactly report an NPC for not taking death seriously!

What gives?

And I went and put this in feedback instead of questions. It's late. Sorry.

Guess I'll make it a feedback thread then. My feedback is, I don't like seeing those kinds of sentiments expressed in-character, especially by an NCP because it really solidifies it as common knowledge. I've had a warning of a Mark Of Despair for WAY less than that. Could easily be fixed by just changing a bit of dialogue.

[Zavandar]

I don't like it either

[The GrumpyCat]

Yeah that's a fair point. I'll see what we can do about fixing this. Can you remind me exactly which NPC it is? Cheers.

[Hazard]

Yeah that's a fair point. I'll see what we can do about fixing this. Can you remind me exactly which NPC it is? Cheers.

It's the "Wizard" in front of his tower that gives info about the Reavers and the Elf Queen. I was just being vague in case spoilers.
You run into him first thing when coming from Lake Minmir into the Gap of Aeons.

Cool, thanks!

[Irongron]

It is not disallowed to ICly reference that death is sometimes temporary, it most certainly is not a rule.

The NPC in question is not the only one who references the fact that player characters, and even monsters are even raised from the dead by wealthy allies. Obviously it would be impossible to RP around raising a character if players were somehow forbidden from mentioning it.

[Twohand]

The NPC gardener in the Spore Farms also has a similar opinion of death:

Irongron has a point, but this NPC's attitude in the screenshot feels a little too "w/e, kill me, i'll just respawn again LOL" to me. If I held these views in character, I wouldn't be surprised if a DM gave me a MoD for it. Acknowledging death mechanics IC, while I'm not a fan of it and prefer to see it as a hazy kind of subject that just works and no one really talks about it, can be done, but it needs to be a little more tasteful, in my opinion.

[Irongron]

Absolutely, the gardener conversation is an outlier, and obviously characters should take death seriously, not only because return is far from guaranteed, but aslo that is just a horrible experience.

We have conversations in the Shadow Plane that refer to shades being reformed, in Minmir the undead raise again each night, a dragon conversation references that just as with powerful demons, immortal dragons rarely stay dead for long, and in the case this thread was based on, the Reaver Queen (Who herself does not generally die in combat), who as a jaded adventurer frequently raises her own allies just as adventurers raise theirs.

Throughout the module there are many examples of the fugue being referenced, or people being raised, none of this should be taken as a greenlight for not taking death seriously.

[Hazard]

I feel like there is a big difference between some examples given there.

Death just being temporary implies the default outcome of a mortal dying = the mortal coming back, pretty much all the time every time.

Death being able to be undone = Totally fine within Forgotten Realms lore. It is possible to undo death.

And the examples of demons/outsiders/undead, to me, fall outside that of a regular mortal person. Different beings having different rules depending on what plane they are destroyed and so on.

At least those are the things I was tiredly trying to express, in a language that is not native to me at now 2am.

The reason the Wizard's conversation was jarring to me is because it seemed like the first example of death just being temporary for everyone all the time. He mentions adventurers and the Reavers and the Reaver Queen and gives them all equivalency as the explanation for why things are as they are. To me that could be interpreted as a greenlight for not taking death seriously by a player reading the conversation.

The conversation just felt a little too 'killing them is pointless, just like killing adventurers is pointless.'

[Void]

What an npc says is said npc's opinion. That opinion is not an absolute truth, and the npc may be wrong (or insane).

When it come to death, certain "Waiter" is a lot of fun to talk to.

[AstralUniverse]

As I understand from Hazard's words, and agree, NPCs in general should take death more seriously in their conversation because NPCs are the 'living' part of the setting who should serve an example on those very things. If Resurrection is less than guaranteed, then it should be expressed in the conversations less subtly and less mislead players into cheapening death. Sure, some NPCs are not mortal, some are crazy and some just want to lie to you, but for every one of those, there should be several others who reference it with more gravity.

[Shrouded Wanderer]

I have a prevailing theory that everyone on Arelith is actually an unwilling lich due to passing through some hidden 11th circle spell upon arriving in the area

[triaddraykin]

The way I handle it, given as an example to inspire and not necessarily 'how it should be done', is that a raise and resurrection is never a guarantee, even if you have someone standing over you with a raise scroll.

There's a general saying and lore of 'everyone knows someone that didn't come back when they were supposed to', as a cautionary tale. Even if there's a 1% chance of not coming back, that should instill a respect for death that when it decides to finally and permanently come for you, there's not a thing you can do about it, and it's not something you can always control.

The above may not necessarily be true. An adventurer may be so new to arelith that they -don't- know someone who didn't come back. It's still a good common tale, folk lore, rumor, or even more a 'heard from someone who knew someone who knew someone that didn't come back', as a backbone for that respect of death to be braced by.

Even if you're a cleric who's raised a hundred people in your time, or a wizard who's never gone anywhere without a friend with raise scrolls at the ready if you don't report back, or you've seen people come back without raises every single in-game occasion, there's still that uncertainty that, until they're back and standing before you, you're never sure they'll be back from the dead.

[Orian_666]

I've always treated it the same way Triad explained.
Knowledge of coming back from the dead is pretty common knowledge, but it's not 100% guaranteed because there are both NPCs and PC characters that have finally completely died on the server, a lot of them.

This means that sure you have a good chance of coming back, but also a chance of not, so death and dying should not be treated flippantly or without regard, but feared as if any of us in RL would fear it because our characters may very well not come back at any time.

[Kaeldre]

I have always treated death as if there was no guarantee of comming back with my characters, save raise dead. I like to use the amnesia mechanic to prevent my characters from knowing this if they do die. This thread has made me doubt my position on this subject. Should my characters know that they are almost always guaranteed to come back? Is this really common knowledge? If so then it will have major ramifications in how I should roleplay these matters.

[Irongron]

There are 3 main things to consider here, when deciding as to the setting appropriate outlook towards death and return.

First is what is known about death itself. The gods are very much real, and depending on one's faith have a role in deciding one's afterlife (again, a REAL, thing that people generally know about).


Going before the Wall of the Faithless in the Fugue Plane, to be judged for one's worth, and potentially have one's soul trapped within it for eternity should absolutely be a terrifying prospect associated with death. 'It is an old wall...it waits' - seeing it, whether one is raised or not, in the knowledge that sooner or later your mortal life will end there should scare the hell out of people.

Not remembering seeing it would be a mercy, and there could be some decent roleplay around the nightmares that follow.

The second thing to consider is that our characters exist in a world where certain high ranking priests actually have the ability to raise people from the dead, presumably if they judge the individual in question to be a fitting recipient of their gods attention (something nobody really bothers to rp, understandably).

When judged from our own world, 'raise dead' as a common ability, may first appear almost unrelatable - how can I possibly RP an outlook towards something so entirely fantastical?

Well, it doesnt have to be. Raise Dead tends to only be viable within a very short window after one died, and is actually not so different from having a paramedic in the party - heal kits are a far wilder concept. Personally I have no issue with someone remembering being killed, or the experience of death after being raised, but it is certainly nothing to be taken lightly.

Third, is 'respawning'. Unlike the first two this is purely a video game function and had no basis, or justifiable reason to exist in our characters' world. I've seen plenty of attempts to roleplay a reason of course, and as an area dev try to give something of one in the fugue.

This though, is an area where it is probably better to take a Fight Club approach, and just try not to mention it, if at all possible. I would one day like to do something in the setting that adequately explains why, but in the meantime the whole 'you don't remember the experience' is still a very good way to go.

In summary then, 1 and 2 are definitely NOT trivial things to be taken lightly, while 3 is just something we need to accept when playing a computer game - focusing on it too heavily would undermine the setting.

I hope that helps.

[Kaeldre]

Thanks for the answer, Irongron. You never cease to be a voice of reason.