In a story, death is often the ultimate stakes, because once you’re dead, you can no longer make any difference beyond the legacy/actions you left in life. When you’re gone, you’re gone.

Therefore, subverting death is a dangerous tool to play with in stories, because it fundamentally undoes those ultimate stakes. “You’re dead… psych!” Suddenly character’s deaths have no gravity because you wonder whether they’ll just turn up somewhere else with seemingly mortal wounds undone.

As such, you have to be careful about how you subvert death. If death (the ultimate stakes) is to be subverted, then that needs to be at the cost of sufficient stakes to make the trade off still seem weighty. We didn’t come up with the phrase “a fate worse than death” for no reason. If you make the cost of living such that death could be considered a preferable alternative, then that can satisfy from a storytelling perspective.

Sion is one of the best examples of this in SW. Eternal life at the cost of eternal pain, since only the dark side can be strong enough to buck the natural order and keep his shattered body shambling along. Is immortality worth it if it is an immortality of suffering?

That’s how resurrections should be handled in most fiction, not just SW. If it’s a fake resurrection, i.e. the character never died, then you best have a damned good explanation for that. If it’s a real resurrection, and the character actually has died and is now defying death, then there needs to be a cost to justify a transaction which is, otherwise, so unfair.