Miracle Spells and Stubborn Players

[NOhara24]

Alright, in our party as of late, we experienced our first PC death. (Mainly due to bad decision making. Hundreds of flying undead swirling around above us, not attacking. The fighter decides to take a couple shots in their general direction with his bow. They made short work of him.) Through some story elements that I won't get into, he's back with us more or less.

The following day, our PCs came into a good amount of wealth, especially for level 5 & 6 characters. 840 Platinum Pieces (8400 gold, not that you all wouldn't already know that.) My character was the one that found it, and he made the suggestion that we put it in a savings account that he had already started saving in the case of an emergency. The party was largely on the same page. The fighter I mentioned earlier wanted 100 gold to finish paying off some new armor he'd gotten. But there was one character, who wanted his share to go in his pocket instead of the account. Normally, it wouldn't bother me, but when it's for something like assuring that a PC would be able to come back to life after a corpse-obliterating death, I was pissed in and out of character. Mainly because the individual (out of character) was just doing it to go against the flow, throwing out any logic just to spite the group. He plays a druid, just to note.

Because of this, I made the point. If there was someone who chose not to contribute to the "miracle fund", in the event of their death, they would not be revived. Now, in-character, I'm not too concerned about the fairness of the matter at all. This is because my character is a bit of an ass anyway, and he's got final say on the account because it's in his name. (One of the reasons the PCs trust him is because he's a Paladin, can't lie and such. Among others.) But out of character I could see this becoming a problem. His druid is the typical glass cannon type. If his character goes down, do I hold myself to what my character said earlier and let him remain dead? Or do I revive him and potentially let his counterculture for the sake of counterculture antics potentially continue unchecked?

tl;dr Should someone who didn't contribute to a monetary fund for a miracle spell still be revived?

What say you, playground?

[vampire2948]

Well, if he doesn't contribute - And you've made it clear that it is the 'Emergency Rez' fund in character and out of character, then it seems perfectly fair to not spend it on his character should it die.

Leaving him dead isn't fun for anyone, though. So, if he dies, take the cost out of selling the magic items decorating his corpse.


Vampire2948,


EDIT : Alternatively. Suggest to him that he scribe some Reincarnate Scrolls to be used on him incase he dies. Cheaper option for him.

[Psyren]

Leaving him dead isn't fun for anyone, though. So, if he dies, take the cost out of selling the magic items decorating his corpse.

EDIT : Alternatively. Suggest to him that he scribe some Reincarnate Scrolls to be used on him incase he dies. Cheaper option for him.

Totally on board with both of these suggestions.

[NOhara24]

Those are both good options. But knowing him, I'll suggest the bit about the scrolls, and he'll brush it off for some stupid reason. He's got a pretty nice staff though...I wonder how much that would sell for. Hopefully I'll get to find out. :smallbiggrin:

[Retech]

+1 to looting his corpse

But he's a druid? Why does he need much equipment? WILDSHAPE SOLVES ALL ISSUES

[Urpriest]

+1 to looting his corpse

But he's a druid? Why does he need much equipment? WILDSHAPE SOLVES ALL ISSUES

Those Wilding Clasps add up.

[faceroll]

+1 to looting his corpse

But he's a druid? Why does he need much equipment? WILDSHAPE SOLVES ALL ISSUES

Druids benefit from metamagic rods, scrolls, staffs, and wands as much as any other caster.

[Jack_Simth]

+1 to looting his corpse

But he's a druid? Why does he need much equipment? WILDSHAPE SOLVES ALL ISSUES
"Need" vs. "Want" vs. "Finds Useful"

Wild armor makes the Druid more effective (better AC in wildshape, and the things also bring "rider" effects for the non-standard enhancements, if you get them).
Wilding clasps make the Druid more effective (bring that Cloak of Resistance, Periapt of Wisdom, et cetera with you into animal form, for better saves, better save DC's, et cetera).
Wands, metamagic rods, and scrolls make the Druid more effective (mostly better endurance).

So while yes, a Druid can get by with much less equipment than a lot of other characters... they also Want and Find Useful a lot of equipment, too.

[Darth_Versity]

If your a Paladin you must obey the rules and makes sure that others obey them as well. The rule of the Res fund is clear, you dont help then you dont get saved. As a Paladin it is your duty to uphold the rules that have been set on the fund.

[NOhara24]

If your a Paladin you must obey the rules and makes sure that others obey them as well. The rule of the Res fund is clear, you dont help then you dont get saved. As a Paladin it is your duty to uphold the rules that have been set on the fund.

Well I made a point not to be the "policeman" for the party, if my character sees a crime in progress, will he stop it? Yes. Does it make much sense to mark up the rules of the "rez fund" being upheld as one of my duties as a paladin? No, because it's not a part of the law or anything official. Will my character uphold the rules that have been set for it? To the "T", mainly because it's his share of the treasure in there as well, and he won't see it go to anyone that doesn't deserve it.'

[Socratov]

maybe not exactly law, but as a rule in a comunity (which IMO an adventuring party is) it could be considered a law of the party. also, 'not lying' used as an excuse: I denied you the right to make use of the partyfund simply because you wouldn't contribute to it. since I cannot go back on my word, no you won't be rezzed when you die with funds out of the fund. It would in a way be stealing from the other characters (they contribute, you don't but still you expect to be resurrected from party resources when you take your share for your own pockets, this gives you an unequal share of the loot, thus effectively stealing from the rest of the party). I'd say let him die, appraise his items for enough value to res him, else he's dead and the player will have to roll up a new character :smallamused: to each his own...

[NNescio]

Well I made a point not to be the "policeman" for the party, if my character sees a crime in progress, will he stop it? Yes. Does it make much sense to mark up the rules of the "rez fund" being upheld as one of my duties as a paladin? No, because it's not a part of the law or anything official. Will my character uphold the rules that have been set for it? To the "T", mainly because it's his share of the treasure in there as well, and he won't see it go to anyone that doesn't deserve it.'

And to add to the above, Lawful Good ≠ Lawful Stupid.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I would say that if the situation arises that he would need a rez, either A) sell some of his equipment to find the cash, B) use the rez fund but then make him pay it back or finally C) just don't. Despite a (usually) psuedo-mediveal setting, most adventuring parties function under a semi-democratic internal system. If it was agreed upon that this savings account would be an emergency rez fund, only those who contribute would be allowed to use it for such an occasion.

[darksolitaire]

I'm totally with the druid player here, better to spend the money on gear to prevent death rather then not spend in order to resurrect people after death has happened.

Better yet, make rez fund for the druid, and have him prepare few Last Breaths, buy scrolls of [what was that spell compedium spell that allowed raise dead without level loss?] and components for reincarnations.

BUT if you make the deal about rez fund as you've intended, don't use it to benefit players who do not contribute to it.

[NikitaDarkstar]

I'm with more or less everyone else here. If he doesn't contribute he doesn't get the res, if he dies sell some of his items to get him back, if hi own funds don't cover it, he stays dead, simple as that.

You can't both have the cookie and eat it after all.

[NOhara24]

I'm totally with the druid player here, better to spend the money on gear to prevent death rather then not spend in order to resurrect people after death has happened.


In the case of a type of death where a miracle spell is needed, it's safe to say that any sort of gear would have been useless as far as preventing it. Like getting absorbed by a flesh ooze for example. I don't care what sort of magical items you're using, you fail that fort save and you're dead.

And then conversely, all the gear and items that I've already spent money on prior to my death won't do me a lot of good if I'm not alive to use them.

[Diarmuid]

I certainly get the spirit of the "rez fund" agreement, but look at this from your paladin's point of view.

What if the druid ends up dying in a truly altruistic manner, possibly even saving your paladin's life or the life of a group of innocents?

Would you then not try and do everything you could to bring him back, even if he didnt contribute? If you didnt, while staying to "the letter of the law" you're still not really doing "the right thing".

[NOhara24]

I certainly get the spirit of the "rez fund" agreement, but look at this from your paladin's point of view.

What if the druid ends up dying in a truly altruistic manner, possibly even saving your paladin's life or the life of a group of innocents?

Would you then not try and do everything you could to bring him back, even if he didnt contribute? If you didnt, while staying to "the letter of the law" you're still not really doing "the right thing".

I do remember saying that his(my character's) share of the treasure wouldn't go to someone who was undeserving. In the scenarios that you mentioned, of course exceptions would be made. The scenarios in which he wouldn't be revived would be either a typical battle death, or a stupid decision on his part. (The latter being more likely due to his inclination to go against the party for no reason other than to defy the majority.) Both in and out of character, I'm well aware that there is a difference between "Lawful Good" and "Lawful Stupid". Choosing not to revive him after an altruistic death being the "Lawful Stupid" part.

However, I can't say that out of character that I wouldn't feel a little cheated; like that he had won because he ultimately would not have contributed anything and gotten revived anyway. Which is why I'd still sell all of his magical items to cover the cost, if he hadn't taken my previous recommendation and ensured himself another means of resurrection.

As an aside, I haven't heard any examples of "Lawful Stupid" that couldn't just be marked up as "Lawful Neutral", as both of them seem to just be centered around follow the law to the letter. So if someone could provide an example to me, that would be great. Not to derail the thread.

[noparlpf]

The druid is CN, right? (Just a guess.)

I think that if he dies for a good cause, you should sell enough of his equipment to rez him. If he dies doing something stupid, stop and say a little prayer over his corpse, give him a burial or cremation or whatever your church does, and move on. In no event does he deserve to be resurrected using money from the group's miracle fund.

If he wants an easier way to stay alive, get some scrolls of Revenance (cleric 4) and revivify or last breath (cleric 5, druid 4). Is there a cleric in the party?

[NOhara24]

The druid is CN, right? (Just a guess.)

I think that if he dies for a good cause, you should sell enough of his equipment to rez him. If he dies doing something stupid, stop and say a little prayer over his corpse, give him a burial or cremation or whatever your church does, and move on. In no event does he deserve to be resurrected using money from the group's miracle fund.

If he wants an easier way to stay alive, get some scrolls of Revenance (cleric 4) and revivify or last breath (cleric 5, druid 4). Is there a cleric in the party?

You are correct. He's CN. He started as NG, but then tried to rob a half-orc along with the fighter and the rogue, so we changed his alignment. "But I didn't actually rob him!" ...yeah, he actually said that.

Yes, we've got a cleric, and I'll bring that up with him.

[noparlpf]

You are correct. He's CN. He started as NG, but then tried to rob a half-orc along with the fighter and the rogue, so we changed his alignment. "But I didn't actually rob him!" ...yeah, he actually said that.

Yes, we've got a cleric, and I'll bring that up with him.

Oh, gods. He's that type of player. Yeah, I'd say that if the druid dies in any way that isn't incredibly heroic you should leave him dead and have the cleric give him a burial or whatever. And I don't see him dying heroically anytime soon.

Anyhow, Revenance is a really nice way of saving money. It gives the cleric maybe an extra minute (more or less, depending on your level) to get to the dead character, and then when they die again a little later the cleric can Revivify them without having to pay for True Resurrection. Both of those spells are in the Spell Compendium.

[NOhara24]

Oh, gods. He's that type of player. Yeah, I'd say that if the druid dies in any way that isn't incredibly heroic you should leave him dead and have the cleric give him a burial or whatever. And I don't see him dying heroically anytime soon.

Anyhow, Revenance is a really nice way of saving money. It gives the cleric maybe an extra minute (more or less, depending on your level) to get to the dead character, and then when they die again a little later the cleric can Revivify them without having to pay for True Resurrection. Both of those spells are in the Spell Compendium.

Yes...he's very much THAT kind of player. He's also THAT kind of person. And to think I was the one that brought him into the campaign...sigh. And yes, revenance, last breath, revivify and the like are all wonderful spells, but I don't believe that they would work in the case of the body being destroyed, which is why we're saving for a miracle. In case the body is destroyed by some horrific means.

[noparlpf]

Yes...he's very much THAT kind of player. He's also THAT kind of person. And to think I was the one that brought him into the campaign...sigh. And yes, revenance, last breath, revivify and the like are all wonderful spells, but I don't believe that they would work in the case of the body being destroyed, which is why we're saving for a miracle. In case the body is destroyed by some horrific means.

Ah, I see. I wish my parties did that...

[Darthteej]

Yes...he's very much THAT kind of player. He's also THAT kind of person. And to think I was the one that brought him into the campaign...sigh.

Just going to point out that permanent death only means he's going to roll up a new character. You're taking out a branch symptom, not the root cause to the disease tree.

[Coidzor]

Yes...he's very much THAT kind of player. He's also THAT kind of person. And to think I was the one that brought him into the campaign...sigh. And yes, revenance, last breath, revivify and the like are all wonderful spells, but I don't believe that they would work in the case of the body being destroyed, which is why we're saving for a miracle. In case the body is destroyed by some horrific means.

Sounds like you haven't finished housetraining your DM then. Such a bore to have to set aside a "Will the DM bend us over the table, but only , like, one of us." fund. :smallsigh:

[Niceman]

All good suggestions. Especially if by lack of involvement he brings it upon himself. An alternative though (IF the party can afford it), is instead of selling his items outright, put them in hock with the party. If he's rez'd and the items are of particular use, but have been sold, that hurts not only him, but the party. If his gear is 'owned' by the party until he pays it back, he could get his gear even in the middle of a dungeon once he gives up enough of his share to cover his return to the living. In the meantime, someone else could be wielding his staff and whatever else and keeping the party's power level up to snuff. Besides, since he's that kind... watching someone else use his gear would be a bit of a kick in the backside to his ego and potentially help him pay it off quicker.

[NOhara24]

Just going to point out that permanent death only means he's going to roll up a new character. You're taking out a branch symptom, not the root cause to the disease tree.

Correct. His character suffering a permanent death will not make him into a more agreeable person by any means. Unfortunately, he's also the type to quit a campaign if he thinks that his character died unfairly. "The DM just wanted my character dead..." etc. are things that I could hear coming out of his mouth right now.

To the idea that our DM isn't housetrained, he very much is. This was our initiative and ours alone to set up the savings account, all the DM did was reward us (quite handsomely) for completing a quest.

And I like the idea of putting his items "on loan" within the party, but at the same time he's not an agreeable enough person to do that. Maybe I'm wishing for his character's death a little more than I think I am.

[caden_varn]

Unfortunately, he's also the type to quit a campaign if he thinks that his character died unfairly. "The DM just wanted my character dead..." etc. are things that I could hear coming out of his mouth right now.

Are you sure that would be a bad thing?

[BobVosh]

Correct. His character suffering a permanent death will not make him into a more agreeable person by any means. Unfortunately, he's also the type to quit a campaign if he thinks that his character died unfairly. "The DM just wanted my character dead..." etc. are things that I could hear coming out of his mouth right now.

Unfortunately? Not seeing that, having dealt with a fair number of those players.

My recommendation is do sell his items off if he dies, if that runs out let him die. When his next character shows up, adventuring contracts are very popular in 2nd edition, and could make a revival in your game. To join the group there is an adventuring contract, and each person gets a share of the loot while the group itself gets 2 shares. However you want to set that up. Our group does the party gets 20% off the top, then split the rest. We use that 20% for wands of healing or what have you for the cleric and items that are for all of us.

[magic9mushroom]

The root cause here is that the guy is trying to screw with the campaign and the other players, OOC. This is something that players should not generally do. Even if the campaign's bad, you should take it up OOC with the DM, not act up IC.

So tell him that, and tell him to stop ruining other players' fun for the sake of being "edgy". If he quits then, fine, it's in everyone's best interest.

[darksolitaire]

The root cause here is that the guy is trying to screw with the campaign and the other players, OOC. This is something that players should not generally do. Even if the campaign's bad, you should take it up OOC with the DM, not act up IC.

So tell him that, and tell him to stop ruining other players' fun for the sake of being "edgy". If he quits then, fine, it's in everyone's best interest.

I don't really see this, myself. Perhaps his just new.


In the case of a type of death where a miracle spell is needed, it's safe to say that any sort of gear would have been useless as far as preventing it. Like getting absorbed by a flesh ooze for example. I don't care what sort of magical items you're using, you fail that fort save and you're dead.

And then conversely, all the gear and items that I've already spent money on prior to my death won't do me a lot of good if I'm not alive to use them.

If you are at level 5-6, you don't usually have access to Miracle (as per D&D as it is, don't know about you're campaign, really). If you're facing something that can totally obliterate your body, not leaving even the remains for Reincarnate, that's something to do with your DM.

IMO if you are seriously saving for having 9th level spell with potential XP and expensive material components cast for you while you are at level 5-6, your gimping your equiptment.

[Kesnit]

Just a question for the OP... When you say "miracle spell," do you mean the 9th LVL Cleric spell, or "a spell that brings the dead back to life," but which could be any spell of that type?

[Acanous]

if you're actually saving for Miracle, there are better uses than rezzing. Just a thought ;)

no, don't rez him.

[Airanath]

If you are at level 5-6, you don't usually have access to Miracle (as per D&D as it is, don't know about you're campaign, really). If you're facing something that can totally obliterate your body, not leaving even the remains for Reincarnate, that's something to do with your DM.

From what I understood, his DM is not out to get them, they are just thinking ahead (miracle being the cream of the "bring them back of the dead" spells), while they name it Miracle fund for that reason, it sounds like the oh-crap fund my groups got used to having, which, can be applied on any restorative items for the group(scroll of restoration anyone?), and even more important when there is no cleric in group. Said fund should be a rule on most groups, as to allow the cleric player to have some fun too, most people aren't rolling clerics just because they want to be "Healo Botto, healer extreme" (Someone tried to pull off a char with that name last time he was pushed into healing duty in my group without the group helping him get supplies that benefit them more than him).
tl;dr: Miracle Fund is just how they chose to name it, it can easily buy any spell they actually need, even that teleport to intercept the BBEG before he steals the airtifact of plot device, or that cure wounds wand, that the cleric really needs to keep the group up, as his spell slots are limited.

On the player topic:
Just sounds like he doesn't think he needs that, well, in that case, just prove him wrong. If **** happens, you can always Speak with the Dead(I know the spell doesn't work like this usually, but your DM will probably give you some leeway as a Device of Player Problem Fixing) and ask the player if he wants to come back to life. If he says "Yes", ask if you can sell his gear to pay for the Rez, if he says "No" sell his gear, and add it to the miracle funds, he doesn't want to come back or is too greedy to work in group. (And sell can also mean, get a reward to returning it to his druidic circle, if your world has those)

[Andorax]

Ya know, I'm seeing this from a completely different point of view here. The problem lies in that you're still treating the contributions to the 'miracle fund' as optional. As a lawful member of a party that has an agreement in place for disbursement of the funds, insist that it be followed.

Admit that it was a moment of weakness on your part to allow him to withdraw funds undeserved the last time, and insist that his entire share will be put in the 'miracle fund' until such time as the amount unpaid is recompensated, and that all future contributions will be equal by all members, regardless.

IC, physically refuse to hand over his "share" of the gold to him. It's not a video game, it doesn't get disbursed automatically and contributed back manually. DO NOT ALLOW HIM to take money that is not, by rights, his. It belongs to the group in this fund, and will be held as-such.

Lawful doesn't stop at laws...it means following through with agreements, bargains, contracts and deals. It means believing that an orderly, organized way of handling things is the best way to live life. It means that the majority has every right to lord it over the minority, and those rights MUST be enforced.

His alternative, IC, is to take his share and his attitude and part ways with the adventuring party, who no longer deems him to be a productive, contributing member of the whole. His alternative then, OOC, is to bring a more reasonable character to the table or take his bag of dice and leave.

The question of whether or not he should be raised should never be allowed to come up...so long as he is part of the group, his contributions will be confiscated, and his resurrection will be assured. It is the only lawful thing to do in this situation.

[NOhara24]

Well it seems like that everyone's responded with more or less the same thing: "If he doesn't contribute, he doesn't get access to it." I was just making sure that I was correct to stick to my laurels.

Referring to the last post, I wish I hadn't given his share to him, but oh well. At this point he knows that he's responsible for his own life should something terrible arise. And I realize that the money COULD go toward more/better gear, but at the same time, the party agrees that shiny new gear doesn't do you any good if you're already dead. Thanks for the replies/insight everyone.

[Andorax]

Referring to the last post, I wish I hadn't given his share to him, but oh well. At this point he knows that he's responsible for his own life should something terrible arise. And I realize that the money COULD go toward more/better gear, but at the same time, the party agrees that shiny new gear doesn't do you any good if you're already dead. Thanks for the replies/insight everyone.

Just inform him that it is a debt that must be repaid, either from cash on hand or future earnings...you'll garnish more of his share than everyone else's until the difference has been made up.

As long as he repays you properly before he dies, it will all work out.