Strictly speaking, I didn't need to do this and I expect that many diehard old school referees would likely balk at the idea of restoring a player character to life so soon after his demise. More than that, Aíthfo's resurrection required no effort on the part of his comrades, who had decided in the immediate aftermath of his death to seek out some means of reversing it at the next large settlement they encountered. Why rush things? Why not simply wait and see wait happened? Indeed, why not actively thwart the efforts of the other PCs to find a method of raising Aíthfo from the dead? Was I not being "soft" in blunting the cruel whims of fate?
These are all fair questions. I actually have a great deal of sympathy for those who feel that resurrection and similar spells undermine important aspects of gameplay (for RPGs are games and, at least in part, games of chance). In principle, I remain committed to not only the idea but the ideal of random, meaningless player character death, even for PCs of longstanding like Aíthfo. I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you don't want player characters to die in this fashion, why roll dice at all? For success to have any meaning, there must be the real chance of failure, up to and including the death of a player character.
In this particular case, though, there were two factors that pushed me toward bringing back Aíthfo as I did. The first and most pressing was that Aíthfo had died once before and been brought back to life. His original resurrection was a blessing in disguise for the campaign, as it gave me the chance to explore the religion and worldview of the Naqsái people whom the PCs had only just begun to understand. The other players were just as determined as to resurrect Aíthfo from his second death and that didn't sit well with me. Either I'd have to block their attempts at every turn, which felt heavy-handed, or they'd ultimately succeed, which I think would have suggested character death was, at best, a mere obstacle to be overcome rather than a significant event in the campaign.
The second factor is that there were still aspects of Tékumel I wanted to get the chance to explore, specifically the nature of the gods and their involvement in mortal affairs. I began to touch on this during the time of Aíthfo's original resurrection and had been looking for an opportunity to continue to do so. His second death seemed the perfect opportunity and I decided to seize it. Coupled with my unease at allowing Aíthfo to be raised from the dead simply because the rules of Empire of the Petal Throne allow it, I feel like this was a reasonable approach to the problem at hand.
Of course, not everything has gone as expected. Yes, Aíthfo is alive again, but there's something clearly off about him. In last week's session, our 255th, he expressed an aversion to fish. This aversion was born out of the sense that fish can't be trusted: they're everywhere in the sea and they were following him. He, therefore, refused to get on the sea vessel the characters were using to travel to the Isle of Sweet Gentility (aka the Isle of Ghosts), because it would bring him closer to the fish he now feared. Only swift thinking by Znayáshu, who offered Aíthfo a "magical" bone of fish warding – an ordinary cat bone that he had in his divination bag – convinced him to board the ship and continue their journey westward along the coast of the Achgé Peninsula.
Aíthfo's ichthyophobia is a consequence of his resurrection – and a clue as to its nature. No one has yet figured out what it means or what it might presage, but there will be consequences in the weeks to come. Since hitting upon the idea behind all this, I feel much less uncomfortable with bringing Aíthfo back from the dead than I might otherwise have. There's a real benefit to the overall campaign, not just to the player characters. Plus, it makes better sense within the world of the campaign; it has meaning. For me, that's far more important than any other consideration.
James, thanks for sharing all of this. This helps me with developing ideas of how to deal with tough situations that aren't comfortable for either the players, the GM, or both. This is exactly the type of game play log exposition that I enjoy.
ReplyDeleteI was gratified to read that you disliked the idea of the players resurrecting Aithfo a second time. Easy return from the dead in D&D has always really bugged me: it converts what should be a near-miracle into a mere luxury service. I prefer not to offer it, only it's now such a routine expectation of players that it creates friction when I don't. I really like the idea that what came back is not entirely Aithfo, and (I would guess) not entirely under the player's control. I don't think you were soft at all; you've taken a death decreed by a freak of the dice and made it meaningful, which is what a DM should do under such circumstances.
ReplyDelete"I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you don't want player characters to die in this fashion, why roll dice at all? For success to have any meaning, there must be the real chance of failure, up to and including the death of a player character."
ReplyDelete"Coupled with my unease at allowing Aíthfo to be raised from the dead simply because the rules of Empire of the Petal Throne allow it..."
I don't understand how you can reconcile those two apparently opposed points of view. You roll dice and accept the outcome because those are the rules of the game. One of those outcomes is death. But those same rules explicitly allow characters to be returned from death through a variety of means. Death is not final in EPT, or in most fantasy games, although the ease of returning is widely variable.
If you balk at the latter application of the rules of the game, why should your players accept your adjudication of the rest of the game mechanics - especially since you've previously permitted a resurrection without major opposition to the idea?
Ah well, at this point it's irrelevant anyway, unless the fish get him and he dies again. Be interesting to see how the character changes with future developments, and how you and your player handle the PC's changing nature.
You raise a very good point. I shall have to think more about it.
Delete@Dick McGee: Reconciling a belief that one rule is good with a belief that another is bad does not seem problematic. Had James said that he believed all rules should be followed without question, and then said he did not wish to allow return from death, then he would have made two irreconcilable statements. But he did not say this. He said that he believes that all results of the dice should be honored, up to and including "random, meaningless player character death," and he said that he didn't like the idea of Aithfo returning from the dead a second time. The possibility of Aithfo's second return from the dead is not a result of the dice, but the consequence of a rule stating that return from the dead is possible. Questioning whether such a rule is desirable does not require questioning whether one should always obey the results of the dice.
DeleteYou ask "If you balk at the latter application of the rules of the game, why should your players accept your adjudication of the rest of the game mechanics?" I do not see how desiring to change one rule makes a DM's adjudication of all other rules suspect. Did swapping the combat tables that thieves and clerics use cause your players to distrust your adjudication of rules? The real issue here, as you rightly point out, is that James had already allowed resurrection with no modifications to the rules concerning it. Changing the rules in mid-game is bad game management, true, but that does not make unease with EPT's resurrection rules inconsistent with a belief in obeying dice roll results. I think that James handled this well. Aithfo returned from the dead, so the players were not deprived of the opportunity that the rules present; he has paid an interesting price, though, thus converting his death from "a mere obstacle to be overcome" into "a significant event in the campaign."
How do you communicate to Aíthfo’s player what has changed? Did you just tell the player that he’s now afraid of fish and nothing else? Or does he know more?
ReplyDeleteI simply told all the characters, "Aíthfo won't get on the boat. He's afraid of the fish," and they took it from there. Aíthfo's player has embellished my initial cue through roleplaying, but he doesn't know any more about what's really going on than anyone else. I'll reveal future details in a similar fashion.
DeleteJust wanted say how glad I am that you restarted the blog and post things like this.
ReplyDeleteA nice way to mix your home campaign with universal topics. Much better I think than just a blow-by-blow description of play.
ReplyDeleteThanks. That was my intention.
DeleteDespite being the brunt of myriad ichthyoid jokes, I’m enjoying the opportunity to role-play this inexplicable quirk in Aíthfo’s personality.
ReplyDelete" it converts what should be a near-miracle into a mere luxury service"
ReplyDeleteThat summarizes neatly why I've always had an issue with the spells that brings back characters from the dead. I am also firmly in the camp that if you don't accept the risk of death, you should work to not get your character into a fight to begin with.
Very interesting to hear how you handled this, James. You knew there would be attempts at reviving him, and you felt there where a story to be told by this, and thus took the opportunity. I'd say it's a great example of how you can have story and GM visions while gaming in a traditional context. Intriguing.