FrankManic
Apprentice
Say the fighting 179th Dwarven Rhino Riders are encircled on all sides by slavering, bloodthirsty Unseemly Troll Haberdashers. The Rhino Riders are doomed, there is no hope that any of them will survive the battle! They fight bravely, to the last Dwarf and Rhino, then an hour later, having rezzed, re-armed, and taken a quick cat nap, they're ready to go charging back into the flank of the vicious Haberdashers.
How does that change the way things work in the world? I imagine that in wartime controlling access to magic circles would be as important, if not more so, than controlling water and high ground. A castle under siege could receive reinforcements from dead spirits ressurecting within the castle. Capturing scouts alive and taking prisoners would be the only way to maintain any kind of stealth, since if the scouts were killed they could rez miles away and report back what they had seen. How would you execute deserters? Would executing prisoners be viewed as more humane than holding them? Would starving prisoners to death prevent them from rezzing and immediately returning to battle? How do you suppress a peasant revolt if the peasants can throw themselves under the hooves of your charger in waves, knowing that while they can take a few deaths, the expense of replacing plate armor, magic weapons, and expensive war horses is beyond all but the wealthiest individuals? Could you siege a castle by having a group of volunteers commit suicide, then be rezzed by a traitor within the castle walls? Are castles built to take that sort of thing into account?
A further thought: I've heard that in Pre-columbian South and Central America one of the primary goals of fighting in wars was to capture slaves, either for sacrifice or for other purposes. This supposedly influenced the design of weapons and the way they were used. Supposedly, weapons were designed to wound or incapacitate rather than expressly killing. The thought, then, is that if an enemy could be expected to rez fairly soon after being killed, would weapon design and combat philosophy revolve around crippling or wounding the enemy without killing him, in order to keep him from coming back to the field rapidly, fresh and ready to fight?
How does that change the way things work in the world? I imagine that in wartime controlling access to magic circles would be as important, if not more so, than controlling water and high ground. A castle under siege could receive reinforcements from dead spirits ressurecting within the castle. Capturing scouts alive and taking prisoners would be the only way to maintain any kind of stealth, since if the scouts were killed they could rez miles away and report back what they had seen. How would you execute deserters? Would executing prisoners be viewed as more humane than holding them? Would starving prisoners to death prevent them from rezzing and immediately returning to battle? How do you suppress a peasant revolt if the peasants can throw themselves under the hooves of your charger in waves, knowing that while they can take a few deaths, the expense of replacing plate armor, magic weapons, and expensive war horses is beyond all but the wealthiest individuals? Could you siege a castle by having a group of volunteers commit suicide, then be rezzed by a traitor within the castle walls? Are castles built to take that sort of thing into account?
A further thought: I've heard that in Pre-columbian South and Central America one of the primary goals of fighting in wars was to capture slaves, either for sacrifice or for other purposes. This supposedly influenced the design of weapons and the way they were used. Supposedly, weapons were designed to wound or incapacitate rather than expressly killing. The thought, then, is that if an enemy could be expected to rez fairly soon after being killed, would weapon design and combat philosophy revolve around crippling or wounding the enemy without killing him, in order to keep him from coming back to the field rapidly, fresh and ready to fight?