It seems like any sufficiently rich person, like a monarch, could essentially have someone on staff - maybe multiple people - whose entire job is to periodically cast True Resurrection, naming the rich individual. If they aren't dead, the spell fails; if they are, they come back to life, and can name their assassin.
I guess this comes down to DM fiat as for what constitutes "touching" the creature. For example, what if the person casting the spell had a hair sample, or a severed finger or some other item from the monarch's body, which they were also taking any of those steps to prevent decay of?
The 3rd Edition version of the spell is even more ambiguous. RAW, it doesn't prevent you from "unambiguously identifying" the creature through a means other than touching the body even if the body still exists.
For example, what if the person casting the spell had a hair sample, or a severed finger or some other item from the monarch's body,
RAW and RAI that wouldn't work, otherwise you could cast Inflict Wounds on someone by merely having a strand of hair from them. The RAW answer would be to have someone cast Contingency + Gentle Repose, though at that point you may as well add in a teleport or something instead
Once those items are removed from the body they become a separate object. Maybe useful in divination, but not touching the body. If this were true the party could just cut off some hair hand it to the cleric and all their touch spells would be infinite range.
Okay, so, thought experiment. Someone gets cut into a lot of pieces. What do you have to touch to resurrect them? The largest piece? Any piece? No piece, the body is destroyed? What constitutes 'destroyed'? If getting cut into pieces counts, then how much of the body has to be missing?
RAW doesn't really adequately address this situation.
My comment was about the plan for gentle repose, but if you're talking about the resurrection spell it does have text that overcomes this problem, because it regenerates any lost limbs.
It can. My problem was using gentle repose on a severed finger. Looking back it seems like that might not be what you were suggesting. If so my mistake.
Hero might be the wrong word except in the traditional sense of demigod. There's an implicit positive moral judgement in the term that being a monarch has very little to do with.
I'd also argue that it's more that monarchy by its own self justification is based on the idea that the king protects, and therefore effectively owns, his subjects. A king might do that by effective governance however. If they can't do it personally they'd need the loyalty of a champion, for example.
I thought this was going to be spam. I recommend saying what you're posting a link to. Or at least something that makes it clear you're replying to a specific comment instead of posting that at random.
I responded to his comment about the Birthright setting with a video on the Birthright setting. I suppose I could have been more clear, but I definitely did respond to someone and did not post at random.
Funny thing, there was a 2e setting called Birthright, which pretty much made the game about developing land as a lord, rather than dungeon delving
42 Comments
MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network · 133 pts · 301d
The king is a puppet of a dictatorial deity. The solution is to overthrow god.
arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone · 44 pts · 301d
JRPG style
Aielman15@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 301d
I tried that. The paladin Divine Smite'd me :(
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 8 pts · 300d
Secular Smite them back, easy.
astutemural@midwest.social · 9 pts · 300d
Reach heaven through violence
Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 300d
The king is a puppet of a dictatorial clergy, the solution is to burn the church down with the clergy and monarchy inside.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 59 pts · 301d
It seems like any sufficiently rich person, like a monarch, could essentially have someone on staff - maybe multiple people - whose entire job is to periodically cast True Resurrection, naming the rich individual. If they aren't dead, the spell fails; if they are, they come back to life, and can name their assassin.
bob_lemon@feddit.org · 9 pts · 300d
Assuming D&D 5e rules, this is easily countered by casting Gentle Repose on the corpse every 10 days, or any other method of preventing natural decay.
True Resurrection can only create a new body if the original no longer exists.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 2 pts · 300d
Or stuff it in a bag of holding!
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 0 pts · 300d
I guess this comes down to DM fiat as for what constitutes "touching" the creature. For example, what if the person casting the spell had a hair sample, or a severed finger or some other item from the monarch's body, which they were also taking any of those steps to prevent decay of?
The 3rd Edition version of the spell is even more ambiguous. RAW, it doesn't prevent you from "unambiguously identifying" the creature through a means other than touching the body even if the body still exists.
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 300d
RAW and RAI that wouldn't work, otherwise you could cast Inflict Wounds on someone by merely having a strand of hair from them. The RAW answer would be to have someone cast Contingency + Gentle Repose, though at that point you may as well add in a teleport or something instead
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 2 pts · 300d
There definitely should be some spells that work like that tbh, it's a classical trope of curse magic.
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
That wouldn't be a feature of the spell but of the caster
its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 300d
Once those items are removed from the body they become a separate object. Maybe useful in divination, but not touching the body. If this were true the party could just cut off some hair hand it to the cleric and all their touch spells would be infinite range.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 2 pts · 300d
Okay, so, thought experiment. Someone gets cut into a lot of pieces. What do you have to touch to resurrect them? The largest piece? Any piece? No piece, the body is destroyed? What constitutes 'destroyed'? If getting cut into pieces counts, then how much of the body has to be missing?
RAW doesn't really adequately address this situation.
its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 300d
My comment was about the plan for gentle repose, but if you're talking about the resurrection spell it does have text that overcomes this problem, because it regenerates any lost limbs.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 1 pts · 300d
Sure, but... which piece gets regenerated? The one you touch?
In that case, why couldn't the spell be cast on the severed finger to regenerate an entire body attached to it?
its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 300d
It can. My problem was using gentle repose on a severed finger. Looking back it seems like that might not be what you were suggesting. If so my mistake.
Archpawn@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 300d
Or they could just have some Clones.
sundray@lemmus.org · 22 pts · 301d
"
NanomachinesInvulnerability, son."hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 301d
Weird timing.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 301d
Is it? Why? :o
Aielman15@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 301d
I think they are referring to the No Kings protest going on in the US right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/us/politics/no-kings-protests-trump.html
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 301d
Ahh I see, I thought there'd been some kind of new attempt on somebody's life 😂 Living under a rock these days, sorry!
Aielman15@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 301d
To be fair, I'm not american, and the first thing I thought was "has there been another attempt at Trump's life?" lol
ICastFist@programming.dev · 17 pts · 300d
NANOBLESSINGS, SON!
astutemural@midwest.social · 16 pts · 300d
This really gets into the foundational expectations of the setting.
In a reality structured to allow for Heroes, a leader must be one, or else be replaced by the next one to stroll through.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 7 pts · 299d
Hero might be the wrong word except in the traditional sense of demigod. There's an implicit positive moral judgement in the term that being a monarch has very little to do with.
I'd also argue that it's more that monarchy by its own self justification is based on the idea that the king protects, and therefore effectively owns, his subjects. A king might do that by effective governance however. If they can't do it personally they'd need the loyalty of a champion, for example.
Archpawn@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 300d
Nobody would rule by birthright in a D&D world. Any leader of a country would have access to Clone, and would have no need for inheritance.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 7 pts · 300d
Funny thing, there was a 2e setting called Birthright, which pretty much made the game about developing land as a lord, rather than dungeon delving
VerseAndVermin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
Oh. I just learned about this. I have no involvement in this channel but this video was neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGk9M-4dq4
Archpawn@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
I thought this was going to be spam. I recommend saying what you're posting a link to. Or at least something that makes it clear you're replying to a specific comment instead of posting that at random.
VerseAndVermin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 299d
I responded to his comment about the Birthright setting with a video on the Birthright setting. I suppose I could have been more clear, but I definitely did respond to someone and did not post at random.
Archpawn@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 299d
I know. It's just that I only know because I clicked the link.
VerseAndVermin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 299d
Fair enough. I will keep it in mind. :)
Noctis@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 299d
Lord British be like
shalafi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 300d
Bravo on that headline OP! ;)
Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 300d
Why what did I do? I phoned it the fuck in
shalafi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
http://i.imgur.com/HswWq7m.gifv
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
I think it's lovely