In my outline for the story of the book series I'm planning, I have the third book end with a confrontation between the villain and one of the MC's. The MC has this moment with the villain where it makes the audience believe he's about to talk his way out of this situation, going into a heart felt speech (The villain is the MC's father) about love and crap that actually seems to be getting to the Villain. So... The villain then impales the MC on his super-maguffin sword (Haven't given it a name yet...) accompanied by the words "I have no son." This is supposed to end the book on a shocking note, as well as set up the next book where the story focuses on three perspectives. One is of the main group interfering with the villains plans and searching for a new way to beat him, the second is of one of the characters going through all sorts of hell to revive the MC and the third is where the MC ended up. Which is where the question comes in. Does the fact that the MC DOES get revived at the end of the last book due to the special manner in which he was killed (One which was off offhandedly mentioned to be possible a long time before this part of the story) ruin future tension? I like to make it pretty clear how mortal my characters are in my stories, and I kill plenty off by the end (Hell, this MC dies twice, the second time being permanent), but I'm worried this would be like giving my MC plot armour. Do you think I should just change it to, the MC receives a fatal injury that keeps him off his feet for some of the next book? Because this would require heavy re-writing of the ending so the villain doesn't look woefully incompetent as well as it being vital to the plot that character B is going through all sorts of shit to get him back on his feet.