When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[ForceUser]

This DM inpartialness is BS, a DM is a moderator meaning he, more than the other players, must do everything in his power to keep the campaign going. Hannibal King

I don't agree and that's not how I run my game. I will only step in if a player is causing a serious disruption that is ruining someone's fun (which could indeed be what's happening at your table, I don't know). But I will not decide for a player group who is going to res whom, unless I'm playing the NPC that's doing the reviving. It's not my job as DM, and it breaks the "fourth wall" for the DM to step in and heavy-handedly impose an artifical resolution that may not make sense in the context of the story. Among my friends, we have a good time by appreciating the story we tell together, and sometimes that means an NPC who is important to the group gets preferential treatment over a newer PC. We like it that way; it promotes verisimilitude, which is why we play--to simulate a fantasy world. If I were to intervene in the argument the way you have, my players would tell me to butt out and let them resolve it on their own, in character. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

But that's us.

 

[Hannibal King]

Woe..hold the fort guys! I just read Reincarnate in the PHB. It seems creatures turned into undead cannot be reincarnated! Guess what?! Both the PC and NPC were turned into undead and are currently still in that state.

Where the party is located there are no high level clerics available to cast Resurrection, as Raise Dead won't work either on undead PCs. A single scroll of Resurrection is available at the local church.

Now the question is who should get the Resurrection since both PC and NPC have been spoken to with Speak with Dead, and both wish to return to the land of the living.

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

So you true roleplayers out there, do they resurrect the PC or NPC?
One choice may affect a players feelings, the other effects the DM who doesn't give a rats backside about the NPC.
Is realism in gaming worth friendships?

Geez I love these boards!
Hannibal King

 

[ForceUser]

Again, stay out of it. Let the player group decide for themselves.

 

[Conaill]

both PC and NPC have been spoken to with Speak with Dead, and both wish to return to the land of the living.
[...]
the DM who doesn't give a rats backside about the NPC.

Uhm... if you don't give a rats backside about the NPC, then why the heck did you decide he wanted to come back? Do you just enjoy goading this troublesome player of yours?

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

Waitaminite... how could that possibly be meta-gaming? I'd say that just shows flexibility on the DM's part, and a willingness to deviate from his preconceived ideas if it benefits the game. That's not meta-gaming, that's just being a good DM!

Now, I can understand that you may not want to rewind history if your players already know about the Speak with Dead and the single scroll of Ressurrection. But even then there are still options available to bring the dead PC back, regardless of what the remaining PCs decide to do...

 

[the Jester]

To restate the basic point here, if a dm told me what my character does in a situation like this, I'd prolly be no more than 50% likely to come to the game again. Mind controlling your pcs is bad form.

 

[Numion]

Like it or not, but telling a player his PC has to behave in a certain way just because the DM wants him to (whether justified or not) is generally among the worst mistakes a DM can make.

I don't think it's a mistake at all. DMs have to sometimes tell players to behave their PCs. I wouldn't allow players to wreck campaigns (by killing fellow PCs .. ok maybe I'd allow that ), commit too vile acts (like rape), utilizing out-of-game information or generally being asses.

All those things can detract from the enjoyment of the game. How is it a mistake to prevent that?

As to the dilemma at hand - depending on the players attachment to the dead PC, DM could be right to force him to be resurrected. No need for lengthy debates, just tell that the group'll resurrect him for the sake of keeping the campaign going and letting the player enjoy his character.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Woe..hold the fort guys! I just read Reincarnate in the PHB. It seems creatures turned into undead cannot be reincarnated! Guess what?! Both the PC and NPC were turned into undead and are currently still in that state.

Where the party is located there are no high level clerics available to cast Resurrection, as Raise Dead won't work either on undead PCs. A single scroll of Resurrection is available at the local church.

Now the question is who should get the Resurrection since both PC and NPC have been spoken to with Speak with Dead, and both wish to return to the land of the living.

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

So you true roleplayers out there, do they resurrect the PC or NPC?
One choice may affect a players feelings, the other effects the DM who doesn't give a rats backside about the NPC.
Is realism in gaming worth friendships?

Geez I love these boards!
Hannibal King

Well, if you really want to present that decision to your players, and want to let them discuss it out, you could do it with a twist.

Ever saw Rashomon? The movie about a ronin who's charged with waylaying a samurai couple, raping the woman and killing her husband? Where they conjure up the soul of the dead samurai from the Land of the Dead to hear him in court? Do that...give the dead a voice and let them partake in the discussion why they think they deserve to be resurrected. Ca make for a fun evening of in-character discussion. And in the end, it could lead to a nice quest to retrieve the second scroll of resurrection the temple once had, but was stolen by a traitor...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This is an interesting thread. Now, while I owned the good old red Basic D&D boxed set way back when, I've only seriously played D&D for maybe 3-4 years total, so perhaps I haven't been exposed to enough different types of gaming...

But when I use the word "roleplaying" in regards to D&D, it has always been a matter of the player assuming the role. Now some players will define that role in more detail than others, doing their best to create a persona through which they interact in the game world. Others will just be themselves in the role of a fighter, or cleric, etc. But in the end, there is always a strong connection between players and their characters.

As that has been my experience, I can't imagine choosing an NPC over a PC. It'd be tantamount to choosing "High Drama" over my friend. (And poor "High Drama" at that, since I've never witnessed a D&D game with a story or roleplaying worthy of that title. Fun? Sure. But not good enough for pretentiousness.)

Obviously, others have different views.

 

[Numion]

As that has been my experience, I can't imagine choosing an NPC over a PC. It'd be tantamount to choosing "High Drama" over my friend. (And poor "High Drama" at that, since I've never witnessed a D&D game with a story or roleplaying worthy of that title. Fun? Sure. But not good enough for pretentiousness.)

I agree. The basis of D&D is four characters, however incompatible, adventuring together. When one dies, a character with similar competence is shortly introduced and accepted to the group. That already sets the premise that PCs are more special than NPCs, because:

Adventurer groups recognize PCs - they always accept a PC before an NPC (no NPC can reserve the 4th (or how many players are in the gaming group) spot in a group by happening to the right tavern just before the 'real' PC)

Thats just how the game works. NPCs and PCs were not created equal. To pretend otherwise, and to shaft a character a real flesh'n'blood player has spent time to create, on that basis is just lame, IMO.

 

[MonsterMash]

I'd say let the group decide, but allow the undead PC and NPC to speak via Speak with Dead, but then probably use it as an adventure hook to get another scroll of resurrection.