One of the most enduring staples of
Dungeons and Dragons, as well as other fantasy games and settings, is the
possibility, and frequency, of resurrection within the game. In context of a game, it makes sense that such
provisions exist—who wants to spend months, or even years, developing and
creating a character, only for one bad night to result in the permanent and
irretrievable loss of said character? I
know there are a number of people who enjoy such challenges, but many people
don’t want to play when they can arbitrarily lose substantial emotional
investment in a character. As such,
allowing for spells such as Raise Dead
and similar
makes plenty of internal sense. However,
this does lead to a number of considerations to the worlds that develop as a
result of this.
The one with the greatest
repercussions, in terms of how society would view such things, is how it
affects inheritance, especially among the landed classes. If the heir dies, and is later returned to
life, is he eligible to inherit? Greater
still, what if the lord of a castle dies, and then is returned to life? Was he “dead”, for legal purposes? Would his heirs inherit? Would he retain his position instead? This isn’t just idle speculation, especially
since a number of these spells that return others to life can work on bodies
years, decades, or even centuries old.
If the king is slain in battle, and his body not retrieved for years and
then returned to life, this could foment a nasty war of succession. Also, what good would the notion of an
assassin be if a bit of coin could undo the entire effort?
As such, it seems that a set of laws
would assuredly be in place in any developed society where the resurrection of
dead men is a realistic possibility for those of wealth and means. After all, it would be a matter of time
before a king is slain in battle, and what happens to the realm then? There must be some succession, and it must be
codified into law. Either it happened,
and this results in a civil war, or (far less likely), great foresight was
demonstrated and laws set into place to preempt such a passing. There are a few possibilities. First, death is legally final—you die, and
that’s it. A subsequent return to life
does not undo the death, and a succession occurs. Two, there is a period of grace in this
situation, akin to a mourning period—after so many days, if you are not
returned to the living, you are forever legally dead, regardless of any
subsequent resurrection. Finally, a
resurrection returns your property and station to you. So let’s discuss these option.
The third, that resurrection legally
undoes death seems to be the least likely solution. This could cause great havoc in the
inheritance, as well as legal, religious, and physical battles to settle the
matter. Imagine if, after an estate is
settled, the dead man returns to life, and then seeks return of his
assets? A nightmare, certainly,
especially if legal rule is part of the assets lost. Also, who would ever pay to have anyone
returned to life in such a situation?
Only the most devoted, or dastardly, of servants would consider causing
such a scheme. Thus it seems unlikely
that this would be the legal situation.
The first, at immediate glance,
seems reasonable—that the dead, once dead, are instantly and permanently
legally so, and thus lose property and station.
However, considering this proposition carefully, it also seems unlikely
for this to be the case. In the real
world, major wars have been started, resumed, or averted because of an
accidental and unexpected death—the Hundred Years War is certainly an example,
where the accidental death of an English king set the succession of the French
throne once again into doubt. The death
of Frederik Barbarossa also is a case in point, where another accidental horse
death ended the Holy Roman Empire’s involvement in the crusade. The kings involved, I would wager, would not
like the random chance of a horse throw ending their reign very much, when
remedy is at hand to return them to life.
Nor would they like the notion that their heirs could so similarly be
removed from succession, especially given the many travails the real world has
had with such incidents.
This leads to the final option, that
death is undone legally only if the resurrection occurs within a specified
timeframe, or in response to specific means of death. An honorable death in battle, perhaps, would
be considered to be final death, even if resurrection occurs. However, accidental death or assassination
would indeed be remedied by a resurrection.
Certainly, the wealthy would have such an interest in preventing random
and unfortunate death to hindering their rule.
Naturally, some sort of period would have to be in place, such that one
could not remain in death for years at a time, to be recalled to life to rule again.
Of course, this also has interesting
results in regards to crime and punishment.
A man of station could be executed, then returned to life stripped of
property and rights, reduced in station.
He could be kept “in death” for a period of time, then returned to a
world now changed, without assets or rights.
This would functionally be more severe than exile or dispossessing a man—an
exile could have supporters seeking to return him to position that was merely
stripped, but a man who is formally dead?
Few would undo such a major social rule, because that would keep them
from effectively asserting their dominion if they overthrew a government. After all, if the dead can return to their
rights, then what’s stopping their deposed and slain enemy from troubling them
a second time? So, death would be death
for these people, return to life or not.
Thus, it seems a set of rules for
the dead would be in place. One killed
outside of honorable conditions (such as a formal battle or execution) could be
recalled to life within a short period of time (a few days) without loss of
property or station. Those killed in an
honorable manner, such as a formal execution, battle, or duel would remain
legally dead regardless of resurrection.
However, I can see some interesting exceptions being made to this kind
of rule—that a mighty warrior be kept “on death” so that they can be ever-ready
in the event of great need, returning to life to fight a great battle, then
being returned to death to wait his recall.
This is similar to King Arthur, who awaits to return to defend England from
grave peril. Of course, there could be
many troubles with this as well. But,
for plot purposes, it could be rather great.
The legendary warrior’s tomb is lost and forgotten to the ages, and the
party must find and return this warrior to life. One could look to the Fifth Element for this
kind of case, beyond just the case of Arthur.
