Isn’t this just the Jesus strat?
That’d be if he sentenced himself to death to appease himself for everyone else breaking the rules he wrote, then re-vivified himself.
The ol’ single deity circlejerk.
The Holy Trinity is just 3 demi-gods in a trenchcoat.
The punishment is a sentence of death. Not “being killed”. You are to be placed in the state of death for the crime. That’s why you don’t get to walk away if a lethal method fails. You can keep reviving them, but they’ll be incarcerated and killed again until it sticks. And I’ll put the rest of the party in contempt of court for attempting to subjorn lawful punishment.
No, It’s one sentence of death. Not infinite sentencing. You get sentenced, you die, you get revived? That means you served your sentence.
I’m not really looking to get into fantasy legal dispute, but I will say that you are debating the count without even touching the core of what I said: the terms of the sentencing. Being sentenced to death is like being sent to prison. If you step in and then juke out, you can’t say “prison sentence over”.
We don’t specify term limits here because it’s typically not a place you come back from.
Right, but if it was a life sentence and you died in prison, would you have to serve again if you were revived?
I guess you don’t want to debate but that was just my reasoning
Realistically I imagine that having access to resurrection would have fairly dramatic consequences on how a society applies punishment. It’d probably be a crime of some sort to revive the executed, sorta equivalent to breaking someone out of jail, states might be more harsh with handing out death penalties when it is possible to undo them if new evidence is found, and the remains of the executed probably would be carefully stored and locked up to prevent unwanted revival and to have in case the state decides to bring someone back, assuming the body is needed for it.
Might also get things like a monarchy which kills off heirs to the throne after a certain age and stores them careful to revive when the current monarch dies or abdicates, to prevent scheming between them to increase their place on the line of succession or take over from the current ruler early, and to ensure they are young and healthy when they take the throne.
You forgot revival being included in the sentence, possibly multiple times over.
Imagine getting burned on the stake multiple times.
This has been stored away in my gm vault for demonstrating what an evil government might mete out as punishment.
PCs walk into town and there’s a public execution happening, it’s all horrifying screams burning flesh etc, until it finally stops and a hush falls over the gathered crowd. The silence is broken when chanting, faint at first, gradually grows louder and louder until it feels like you can hear it in your mind, just when it feels intolerable a flash emanates from the stake, and the screaming begins anew.
In the Forgotten Realms, the Kingdom of Cormyr has strict penalties against resurrecting monarchs. The penalty is death for the resurrector, and castration + exile for the former king. And the famed War Wizards of Cormyr absolutely have the capability to enforce that law.
I’m not certain (and don’t have either my notes or the novel those notes were taken from to hand), but IIRC a resurrection of someone formerly in the line of succession puts them at the end of the line, even if they were as high up as the king’s eldest son prior to death.
This naturally creates an issue if the prince dies and is resurrected while a long way from the capital, and returns to the kingdom to find the king has also died while he was gone. Who died first is going to matter greatly, but might be rather difficult to determine.
Whose idea was that law? If I were the king and someone discovered resurrection, I’d say that if I die, I get resurrected and keep my kinghood. Likewise if I conquer an area and become a king after it already exists.
Does it at least not apply to cloning? That’s the only way to avoid old age as far as I know, and I can’t imagine kings would be in favor of a law that requires they grow old and die.
Death row is just instant execution, and the date you would be killed is now the last day you could be revived with common means.
If a trial is ongoing during the date you’d become unrevivable or it’s considered important to extend the date for some other reason, maybe they just revive you and kill you again to reset the timer
That’s why in my setting criminals get tossed into a kiln if they’re sentenced to death without parole
choose how you die
Old age.
Sure thing. You will do so in that cage over there. To the guards: He already had his last meal.
Wouldn’t he starve to death before dying of old age?
Nobody dies of “old age”. As you become older, it is becomes harder to survive various diseases or afflictions. But where do you draw the line? If someone was to weak and fragile to leave their bed, and died due to no longer getting any energie from food, is that dying of old age? And what if they are to fragile to leave their cage?
If one is allowed to set timespan for “execution” to “however long it takes me to die of old age”, then I argue it is also perfectly fine to take some liberty with the definition of “die of old age”.
Back in 3.5, there were specific rules for dying of old age. 5e is less clear about it.
And that’s how you get your whole party executed.
