I've always felt a little weird about ressurection/raise dead type spells, abilities, or effects in any game. Yes, it sucks to lose a character and can fuck up a storyline, but on the other hand it always seemed like a bit of a cop out to me and can serve to diminish the threat of PC death.

Anyone flat out ban it? Refuse it as a PC? Love it? Hate it?

I don't like it unless there is a good story reason for why it is so rare.  I have a strong distaste for mechanic reasons to why it is rare or undesirable, i.e. ex penalty.

I ban it in my game because it offends the gods.

Beyond early levels, it seems like nothing except for a TPK is permanent. It kinda bugs me since there is less risk.
 
I some times run low to moderate magic which cuts down on it, especially for resurrection. Raise Dead has reasonable limits on its own which fantasy assassins would take into account (I had one group always take the heart of their victims).
 
Other than that though, I haven't done much to stop it. The spells in Arcana Evolved make the cost/time big enough that it would still suck, that might something I'll add in the future.

I really don't like how D&D does it.  It feels way too arbitrary and mechanical.  I've had games where the PCs were getting raised all the time, and it really ruined the feel for me.  I like how Buffy does it, where you can come back in some way that makes sense story wise - a ghost, miracle in the ER, brain downloaded into a robot, the Powers That Be decide to toss you back out of hell - whatever.  You pay for it depending on how long it is until you come back.  

For other games, there really isn't a come back from the dead mechanic.  If you don't want to have to bring PCs back from the dead, don't kill them.

I don't really dig it. One of my favorite moments was when there was a group arguement over raising a PC and we finally decided to do a "speak with dead." His response was that he "liked it here and we could fuck off."

If you're constantly dying, something is wrong. I like the idea that "those who live to run away, live to run another day." If the players aren't prepared to either cut their losses and run, or lose the character, the game seems to lose some of the seriousness.

I like it 'cause it's COOL! PCs aren't just everyday people, they're powerful heroes. At that level, the fighter can take on a hundred goblins, the mage can kill with a single phrase, the rogue can sneak into a guarded palace in broad daylight, the druid can alter the weather and pull down lightning from the sky. Skeletons can be animated, characters can fly or teleport, they can ask questions to the very gods and get responses.

It's a cool power. I'm all in favor of letting PCs keep and use their cool powers. All the justifications for taking them away (teleport, divination, and raise dead seem the most common forbidden abilities) just seem to be flimsy excuses for DMs who don't want to allow the PCs the ability to forge their own stories. These abilities EMPOWER the PCs, and too many DMs think that means they're losing power and control in the process... but PCs don't need to be carefully controlled, they should be UNLEASHED in their full, absurd, powerful GLORY!

A world writen with the assumption that all weathly and powerful beings have constant access to Raise Dead, divinations, teleports, etc., takes on a whole different flavor - and I think it tastes GOOD.

I've had characters I've played react to it oddly before but as a player and as a DM it doesn't bother me a bit.

I think raise dead is quite different from teleport and divination.  It doesn't just give the players more options, it's like performing with a safety net.  
 
Someone who does something daring who is Really risking their life is braver than someone who knows that they can always hit restart.

Quote from: Name LipsA world writen with the assumption that all weathly and powerful beings have constant access to Raise Dead, divinations, teleports, etc., takes on a whole different flavor - and I think it tastes GOOD.

My biggest problem with it in D&D is that the default setting (or rather the kinds of settings I like) are NOT written with those assumptions in mind.  They are written to be like a fantasy version of medieval earth, then these super powers are tossed in and it's assumed everything will work pretty much the same.

And if you write the setting to the abilities then you get something that's well, unlike anything.  And I'm big on genre emulation.  I want my games to be like something, other than just themselves.  Otherwise it's all too self-referential and the players don't have a good way to measure things in the world.  I'd much rather have rules made to the setting than setting made to the rules.  Rules aren't (to me) very important.

Quote from: Name LipsSilly rant

Really ... my distaste for rez is speaking as a player.  As a GM I don't care.

As a DM , I always run low-magic , low- wealth campaigns.
I never had a ressurection happen ; either because of the lack of power or the lack of money.
I'm not really against it , though ; The players need to go the whole nine yards and more to pull it off , if possible , so usually they skip it and grab the 3d6.

Not to mention , my games don't tend to reach the required levels.

When I read this topic title, I thought it meant "How do your characters feel when they are brought back to life?"  

Never came up in the low magic worlds I like to run, but I'm in the "good characters like the afterlife, and bad characters find that their new bosses won't let them go back" school.

As a DM I have had players choose to not be ressurrected (though after having been raised once already), and as a player I have done the same (under the same conditions).

As for availability: In Aquerra it is not readily available, but can be gained under certain circumstances. Usually, I use resurrection as a way to move the story forward.

For example: The Urn of Osiris*, which one of my players dubbed "the plot hook machine".



* Yes, I stole the name from Buffy.  I already was using the Egyptian gods, so it works.