Resurrection/Raise Dead/Altars

[Morgy]

Hi all!

I've witnessed several times after a PvP encounter, players being resurrected by their friends/bystanders whilst the killer is still close by in the vicinity. Now the individuals doing the raising are ofc just trying to be helpful, but it's often breaking the 24hr rule without the input of the individuals actually involved in the combat.

Is it possible to make accepting resurrections optional, rather like accepting a summons? This might avoid these awkward situations where the slain is immediately up and talking again, in front the the killer who is possibly still RP'ing with others there.

[Hazard]

I'd love to have a yes/no prompt for being raised, not just for this scenario but many others.
It would be so great.

[Ebonstar]

Having been in this situation before on both sides and having had DMs sit me down so to speak the ruling is this:

The loser of PvP is the side including any allies involved in the PvP are under the 24 hr rule of no combat, no conflict, no being in the same area as the attack for that period of time, unless it is waived by the winner of the attack.

This 24hr period applies even if the winner leaves the said area and then returns and hasnt waived the 24hrs of no interactions.

The only time that the altars or rez magic has been used and no penalty from the DMs about the 24hr rule, is in the example of misplaced characters (newbies under lvl 10 that got ported by accident from the UD to the surface with no way back home or Surface to the UD for example) where PvP went IC but the victor took the body/ies and raised them near a source portal to get them home. Again these are the situations I have faced personally and could vary for others.

So this would also apply in this situation as well as Im reading this, but it might have a case by case issue as well, so a DM would need to chime in on that.

[magistrasa]

I'm in huge favor of this idea for lots of reasons. Not the least of which being, I think OOC meta-communication has become way too prevalent on the server, and in some cases (like post-PvP roleplay) it ends up being mandatory. I don't feel like that's really a good thing. Especially if you play with -notells, because then the rules make it so that you're simply barred from engaging in this roleplay at all since you can't give or receive consent.

[LovelyLightningWitch]

This would also help characters being raised by their enemies in non-ideal circumnstances.

Lorewise, the person being raised knows the following: (171, phb 3.5)

• Deity of the person using the spell
• The identity of the person using the spell
• Alignment of the person raising them

So it doesn't make much sense that a banite can raise a tormtar in a prison cell.

In favour.

[AstralUniverse]

Regardless of the 24h rule, I think having a small dialogue with Yes/no would be great. Saves a lot of ooc after pvp. The winner can just click Raise if they choose and the loser can decide not to be raised and no ooc required for consent. Bonus points because it then also fits the spell description in pnp.

[The GrumpyCat]

I also like the idea of a yes/no too. It's not just good for pvp, but also PvE. I've once had an MoD character who lost multiple lives because someone kept raising them mid big pve combat. It was a pain.

I don't know if it should give the name of the person raising you or not - I can see arguments both sides there... and I definatly don't think it should give deity/alignment of the person raising you.

Given the cost of raise items I'd also add that if you click 'no' then the item is not consumed. The spell could be though (?).

The only hump in this I see is if someone is AFK when being raised, but that's not a huge deal really either.

All in all I like this idea. I hope it happens.

[MissEvelyn]

The only hump in this I see is if someone is AFK when being raised, but that's not a huge deal really either.

This could be worked around with a timer, just like with -yoink, I think.