Blood Theft and Resurrection

[Lord Eldred]

1. Should you be able to be resurrected after being a victim of bloodtheft? Why or why not?


2. If you are resurrected after being a victim of bloodtheft, do you come back as a commoner?


3. If you answered yes to question 2, does this provide yet another reason why commoners should be able to commit bloodtheft? ie. so that former blooded characters can become blooded again.



4. If you answered yes to question 3, a former blooded character that commits bloodtheft on the person whom stold their bloodline, should they be able to get their whole bloodline restored through bloodtheft? Why or why not?

[Temujin]

1. Personally, I prefer not to allow raise dead and resurrection spells in my birthright campaign at all. I did it in my first game, and it started to look too much like Forgotten Realms(Then again, I did make my first game as a high-level, high-magic BR setting, but lol, that was back when I didn't see what fun there could be found in low-magic settings). But, baring my personal preference not to allow resurrections at all, I don't see why someone victim of a bloodtheft should not be allowed to be resurrected. Its not like it destroys the person's soul or anything.

2. Yes, of course you do. Actually, while I don't have the book with me, I do remember something in the Book of Priestcraft that stated that when you died, you always came back without bloodline, bloodtheft or not.

3. As I've stated elsewhere, I like the idea of commoners being able to gain a bloodline through bloodtheft. =)

4. Not really. First of all, if he was bloodthefted, the bloodthief wouldn't gain the whole bloodline. So if the thief doesn't have the whole bloodline, there's no way to get it back. In the case that the thief first divested you, then slew you, there's nothing wrong with divesting him back of course =)

[Lord Eldred]

Anyone have a different opinion?

[morgramen]

Nope, I'm with Tem on this one.

Once you're dead, you're dead baby!! :)

In the case that you do play that resurrecition is possible, then I should say that you are just a nonblooded nobody. Nice knowin' ya King Bob, now get me some more cabbage! :P

I think also that commoners should be able to become blooded via bloodtheft, though it is very difficult to do. Perhaps the tighmaevril compent is neccessary, or perhaps the initial "set up" of becoming blooded is very difficult, and thus it takes a few bloodthefts before you start seeing a notciable (and game mechanical) difference in the nature of the character.

[warlord_nabron]

Resurrections are discussed in the Book of Priestcraft (Regent Death and Resurrection, pg 83).

1. Certainly. The Book of Priestcraft not only says that you can be brought back, but that you come back with your bloodline.

2. No; you would return as a scion, but your bloodline score would be reduced by the amount your killer gained by the bloodtheft (1 pt if your score was lower than your killer's, 2 pts if yours was higher, 1/5 your score if you were the last of your line, and 1/2 if you were slain by a tighmaevril weapon). You wouldn't come back as a regent, though -- the act of dying immediately causes your domain's regency to transfer to whomever you'd designated your heir (or go uncontrolled if you hadn't designated one). You could also never be regent over your former domain -- any such investiture automatically fails.

3. My answer to 2 was "no," and commoners can't commit bloodtheft in the first place.

4. If your killer got 2 points (because his bloodline score was lower than yours) and his bloodline is still lower, you will only get 1 pt of bloodline score through bloodtheft. However, if his score was higher, and yours is still the lower of the two, he would have only gotten 1 in the first place, and your retaliatory bloodtheft would get you 2. If you were the last of your line, though, you will have to kill all of his relatives before getting him, and you'd better hope his score wasn't much lower than yours, because you'll only get 1/5 of his score added to your own. If he had run you through with a tighmaevril weapon, though, you're going to have to find one of your own to be able to get back the half of your bloodline score he would have ripped from your still-beating heart with his original bloodtheft.

The only thing would make a regent (or any scion, for that matter) return to life as a commoner is dying with an heir designated (via Investiture) to receive your bloodline. Since your bloodline flies off to that heir in the last moments of your life, you'd come back as a commoner if later raised or resurrected.

[Lord Eldred]

I was following you until you got to the last paragraph. You indicate that "The only thing would make a regent (or any scion, for that matter) return to life as a commoner is dying with an heir designated (via Investiture) to receive your bloodline." Where do you get that from? On page 31 of the rulebook it indicates "If a blooded character dies a natural death or perishes at the hand of a commoner, his bloodline is unaffected, and all his bloodline characteristics die with him. If a regent character dies in a similar manner, his heir assumes the regent's domain and his Regency Point score. The heir does not gain any blood strength or abilities (but may still gain material possessions)." Thus it seems that the heir does not recieve the bloodline just the goods.

As far as your answer to number 3 is concerned. OK maybe you would be interested in reading some of the posts and polls that discuss this in the Royal Library forum and also in this forum under Non-Regents

[warlord_nabron]

If you have designated an heir to receive your bloodline upon your death (via Investiture/Designation from pg 78 of the BoP), then your bloodline goes to that heir when you die. Pg 31 of the Rulebook refers to bloodtheft. Since the ceremony of Investiture that designated an heir for your bloodline is what's effecting the transfer of your bloodline rather than act of bloodtheft, this isn't conflicting with pg 31. On your death, the power of that previously cast realm spell immediately transfers all of your bloodline characteristics to that heir, exactly as if the Investiture had been successful at the time it had been cast rather than having been left to take effect at your death.

Forget about bloodtheft for a moment -- regent or scion death from any cause will trigger the bloodline transfer dictated by the Ceremony of Investiture that designated someone an heir to a bloodline. That a regent or scion dies by bloodtheft is immaterial -- the Ceremony of Investiture transfers the bloodline regardless of how a scion dies.

I don't really care about #3. Commoners can't commit bloodtheft under the rules. If someone wants to change that for their campaign, who am I to say anything about it ;)?

[Lord Eldred]

:) Thank you Warlord Nebron. Maybe if I learned how to read a bit better I would have understood what you were talking about...


With that said do we have anyone out there with slightly different opinions than those who have already posted? Come on don't be shy!

[Lawgiver]

1. Genrally, once yor dead your dead. Resurrrections do occur, but non have been known to happen in the last 500 years. They are basically left to God and those who exercie supreme amounts of faith in His power.

2. Its a mute point based on 1. But if you were resurected I would vote with the idea that your bloodline is 0. I kind of liked te idea of only losing what was sucked out... but bloodtheft "severs all ties of a regent to the land". Therefore your out of luck.

3. Commoners can suck it up just as much a blooded.

4. I would probably grant the original amount the opponent sucked out of them, plus the normall amount gained by performing bloodtheft on the theiving regent. (if you follow...), but not the full amount the PC had before they died.

Mr. Miagi (sp?) says, "Number one rule of Karate. Karate is for defense only. Rule number two. First learn rule number one."

Next time the PC will be a little more cautious in combat... they should be counting their blessings that their PC isn't completely dead!

[PCyric]

I will anly answer to the first question, since I do not own the Book of Priestcraft (shame on me!). Resurrection is not a DAILY habbit anywhere in the universe. In BR, (I do not know if it is an official belief, but it should be) resurrection should require a huge amount of faith, and maybe a direct godly intervention. Of course there are not many 13th level priests in BR, but the fact that exist, should make them highly sought from regents, not exactly for their healing magic, but for their ability to raise regents whenever the regent died. Also the PC's should not believe that whenever they reacted foolishly and died, they would loose nothing more but one level and a few money. Gods would never allow it.
Regarding other worlds, I do not agree with Temujin that the FR setting allows unlimited resurrection options to the PC's (he didn't say that, but when he said that he didn't want his BR setting to look like Forgotten Realms certainly points to that direction). In novels resurrection is not used when the heroes die, as it would be very unheroic. Even in the highly magic world of FR, the spell requires the God's allowance (I know it is not written, but the novels descride a world and the novels say that when you are dead, 99% you are dead forever).
Finally, resurrection is a direct "messing around" case with the domain of the Dead. When I say domain of the Dead I mean Kelemvor in FR, and whoever is responsible for the spirits of the Dead in BR. The gods don't generally like "escapes" from various souls, during their judgement. Imagine Kelemvor having to release a follower of Cyric, just because a 14th level priest sais so. And what if the soul has been judged? Can it return in the world, even though the Lord of Death has shaped its destiny? I do not think so...
In any case resurrection is too powerful a spell to allow it without consideration. It should cost the priest greatly (in money and XP), and it should require a positive stance from the related gods.

[Temujin]

I stand with you PCyric, unfortunately, having been a FR campaign dm for years(and still being on occasion) and owning tons of FR material, I can tell you that resurrections are quite common for the wealthy and high-level bunch. Especially high-level mages tend to have this easy. For example, Elminster and his special contingency spell that combines spells such as heal, regeneration, resurrection, restoration, transform stone to flesh, etc... Other wizards have their hidden clone labs, others simply get raised whenever they get killed. And trust me, it isn't tough to find a high-level cleric who has the power to resurrect, especially in large cities like say, Waterdeep. I've seen the bio of a wizard who held the official record for the highest number of resurrection in career, twas a good dozen iirc. So, while even FR doesn't allow unlimited resurrection, its not tough to get as many resurrection as your constitution will allow provided someone can retrieve your body and you have enough spare cash. FR's a great world, but...... sometimes the high magic level gives me headaches.

[Lawgiver]

The non-sensically high level magic in FR makes me sick to my stomach. I never played with the plethora of 20th+ level mages they suggested.

I hate elminister more than them all... simply out of spite. Hes to arrogant and 'undefeatable' which makes me want to destroy him all the more... er.. sorry, got a little Dr. Jekyl there for a second..

[PCyric]

I couldn't agree more with you guys. I have experienced the painful feeling when a PC sais "Oh man, I died. What the "Abyss", I just need a resurrection", and I decided I would have to do something with it. So I decided (after a painful 5 years experince with high level magic campaigns, that either I would never play with high level players again. So, in the last 5 years I am DMing in FR, I never allowed someone to create a character with more than 5 levels of experience, as my belief was that he had to "built" on his character. Thus the players never had resurrection, and they had to find someone who would do the job for them. Even though in FR there are many who could do it, not even one would resurrect them without having something in mind. Most of the times, it was a nasty thing (imagine a cleric of Cyric (/ follower of Kriesha in BR) doing this favour for the PC's).
Lately I have made a home rule, that resurrection is a stand alone spell, and it would have to be given by the gods to their clergy, as a gift, or more often a spell that would suit their purpose (a kind of miracle - 2nd edition). From that day on it never got in the list of "general" divine spells in my campaign. I didn't really bother that in the 3rd edition PHB the spell is given to the 13th level cleric as a general spell. When it comes to equality and common sense, none can tell the DM what to do. So I guess that in many cases, we have to disregard the rules that have been given to us, either by TSR or by WotC, and follow our own thoughts on a specific matter. Playtesting will show if it works or not, and in the 10 years that I have been role-playing, I found out that the DM rarely makes mistakes.
So, don't follow the rules by letter. When you think that someting is too powerful or unbalancing, simply change it or just don't accept it. If resurrection just pisses you off, and you can't stand it any more, just don't accept it, or find ways/rules to limit it.
With respect to the fellow DM's in pain...

[Magian]

This stuff definitely is getting into DM specific controlled areas. Resurection and abyss? When you die in my campaign, sorry no resurection or after life.


Just eternal servitude to the Magian in an undead state, MUHAHAHAHA MUHAHAHAHA MUHAHAHAHA!!!

[Lawgiver]

I thought you were powerful Magian.... I mean all you can do is make a body walk, but you can't give it life.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

If Resurrection were common, wouldn't there probably still be an Imperial Roele line? I forget if Raesene took Michael's body but with today's cloning techniques, a new one could arise. :P

[Lord Eldred]

Resurrection is quite rare in my campaign. However, keeping people from actually being dead in the first place is not. Thank Haelyn for the Clerics and their healing powers.

[Raesene Andu]

Personally, I dislike making raise dead/ressurrection spells available at all. But once the book of priestcraft came out, I altered my position somewhat. Now I allow ressurection of dead scions, but once they return, they do not return with their bloodline, it is lost for good.

The reasoning behind this, is that when the regent dies, his bloodline is passed on, either going to his heir, or being absorbed by the land itself. Then when the ressurection spell is cast, the regent is restored the life, but his bloodline is no longer within his body and is lost to him. He can, of course, gain another bloodline through bloodtheft or investiture, but his original bloodline is forever lost.

Also, I have recently been ruling that when a character is ressurrected, there is a chance that instead of the his true soul returning, an undead creature called a Blood Shade takes its place and the regent is restored to life an appear to be normal, but is in fact an undead monster.

[Lawgiver]

I have actually yet to have a PC resurrected in a campaign. They tend to die and stay dead. Most of the time the problem isn't the PC its the player's desire to switch PCs or the death of the campaign. But I would agree with Raesene statements on the dead scions (except the funky Blood Shade thing...)

[faehew]

you know i guess i dont powergame enough. i have never resurected anyone. though i was contemplating raising dead an enemy of theirs. most people die before they get high enough to do it.

[Lord Eldred]

See now Lawgiver, I like the blood shade thing. It gives an element of risk to attempt to have your character brought back to life. My question to Raesene is if the character is brought back as a blood shade do you let the Player role play it or do you make it an NPC?

[Lawgiver]

Yeah, but who is taking the risk... your player or your party members who drag your lifeless body to the temple?

[Lord Eldred]

:P Both!!

[Raesene Andu]

Lord Eldred: It hasn't happened to a PC yet, but given the blood shade's limited lifespan, I probably wouldn't allow it, although it would be interesting. It has happened to a couple of favoured NPCs. One player decided to ressurect his favourite blooded lieutenant after a particularly bloody adventure and the NPC came back to life, but as an evil undead creature with a thirst for blood, or rather for bloodlines.

A blood shade is a shadow world creature that feeds on bloodline. It is rumoured to have been created by the cold rider, or some other powerful SW ruler and sent into the daylight world to strip away the bloodlines of the noble and proud, delivering their strength to its master. Why? Only its creator knows. For every day it exists on Aebrynis it must consume one point of bloodline strength from a blooded regent (by drinking blood, much like a vampire). If it fails to drain the necessary blood it is forced to return to the shadow world.

A blood shade is summoned when a blooded scion is ressurrected or raised from the dead. For every time a dead scion is returned to life there is a 25%* chance that a blood shade appears instead.

* This was much lower, as it was originally a cumilative chance, but if a blooded scion looses his bloodline on death, then there is little use of a culmilative total.

Does anyone like the idea? The blood shade will be appearing in my upcoming Monsters of Aduria book, one of fifty or so new SW creatures (including converted versions of the creatures from bloodspawn).

[blitzmacher]

I would up the chance to 30%, and I would have the character being ressurrected have a duel in the spirit world, void, afterlife or whatever you want to call it, to fight for the possession of the body. Either way I like the Blood Shade concept.

[Lawgiver]

After a little more explaination I think you may have one me over Raesene. Perhaps it may find its place in 3e.

[Lord Eldred]

Wouldn't that be cool. Instead of having a percent chance have a duel between the character and the shade. The one that wins is the thing that happens. Shade wins...shade comes back. Character wins...character is resurrected!

[Raesene Andu]

The dual is a good idea. Probably the shade would need to be of equal level/class/hit points etc as the PC and the winner would take over the body. That should make it a roughly 50/50 chance of survival.

[blitzmacher]

Sounds good to me;)

[Lord Eldred]

Raesene, that is what I was thinking. For the dual, the Shade would be a carbon copy of the character that actually lives in the Shadow World. So, the character would also have a chance to face the Shade if he/she were to travel to the Shadow World.