Major plot NPC refused raise dead, so I'm going to afterlife to drag him out.

[With a box]

My plan is
1.find him with lacate creature
2.go there by plane shift+teleport
3. diplomacy him to change his mind on revive him. (or some dominate or suggestion or anything don't work due to mind affect immunity)
4. raise him.

Should I wear a helmet at next session?

[A_S]

You're going to run into issues with the range of Locate Creature. Nothing about it suggests that it can cross planar boundaries. You'd have better luck with Scrying, though that allows a saving throw.

Otherwise, it's going to depend on the kind of setting your DM is trying to run. Some settings view the afterlife as just another plane, where high-level spellcasters with planar travel abilities are expected to be able to visit it and chat up the deceased (OotS depicts this kind of setting). Other DM's want to run a game where what waits beyond the veil is more mysterious, and it takes more than a Plane Shift to get there. Your DM's book-throwing behavior will depend on this distinction, so make your helmet-related choices accordingly.

[Psyren]

It strikes me that if someone willingly refuses resurrection, finding some way to cross over and haul them back against their will is deeply disrespectful at best, and downright evil at worst. About the only exception I can think of is where someone is wrongly consigned to a lower plane but mistakenly thinks they belong there.

Also, even in settings where you can plane shift to the afterlife, generally such spells only bring you to the "landing zone" - such as Avernus in Baator, or Lunia in Celestia.

[A_S]

I mean, the OP does say they're going to try to convince them to come back. That might not be in the best of taste, but I can definitely see circumstances calling for it. Plenty of examples in fiction of the plucky heroes needing to convince the goodhearted-but-reluctant authority figure that, no, it really IS that important that he fight for the cause.

*edit* I noticed the diplomacy, but not the Dominate possibility. That would be...a bit more questionable.

[Inevitability]

Well... It is interesting, but very ethically questionable. Keep in mind that there are likely at least a few devils/demons/angels around there who may not be too interested in people dragging back others from the afterlife (devils/demons because they want someone to torture, angels because of the quasi-evilness).

What afterlife are we talking about?

[Chronos]

In practical terms, if the NPC has refused resurrection, then the DM has decided that he doesn't want that NPC coming back. And if the DM has decided that, he's also likely to come up with some reason why your new plan won't work, either.

[Crake]

In practical terms, if the NPC has refused resurrection, then the DM has decided that he doesn't want that NPC coming back. And if the DM has decided that, he's also likely to come up with some reason why your new plan won't work, either.

While metagame-y, and sometimes true, this isn't always going to be the case.

Personally, I could see someone who has a difficult task ahead of them that they do not really want to do, but feel obligated to do it, who died in the process of trying to fulfill it not wanting to come back to have to continue this painful and arduous task, and would rather remain in the afterlife and enjoy their reward for their hard work until that point. If your immediate future is nothing but more pain and suffering, would you really want to come back from the dead to continue that?

[Username.]

There are no intrinsic ethical problems here. D&D cosmology is an unethical horrorshow where truly evil stains are rewarded with an eternity of being jerks to other people, while good people might end up incarnated as a blade of grass forever, and "good" and "evil" have virtually no inherent ethical components. IRL, when asking nicely is not permitted by authority figures, we usually conclude that the subject-to-be-questioned has been subjected to brainwashing and said authority figures are cultishly trying to prevent deprogramming. The same is likely here.

The real problem is the DM's interpretation of this nightmare cosmology. Sit down with him or her and talk it out maturely, unless you have a wacky relationship where GM vs. player adversity is a-ok and anything goes.

[Psyren]

While metagame-y, and sometimes true, this isn't always going to be the case.

How is it "metagaming" to decide how an NPC is going to behave? That is literally the GM's job as spelled out in the DMG/CRB. If you don't want your NPC to be convinced of doing something they wouldn't do, they shouldn't be.

The fact that the OP treats diplomacy like a foregone conclusion regardless of circumstance is a far larger problem in my eyes, and far worse as far as "metagaming" goes.


There are no intrinsic ethical problems here. D&D cosmology is an unethical horrorshow where truly evil stains are rewarded with an eternity of being jerks to other people, while good people might end up incarnated as a blade of grass forever, and "good" and "evil" have virtually no inherent ethical components. IRL, when asking nicely is not permitted by authority figures, we usually conclude that the subject-to-be-questioned has been subjected to brainwashing and said authority figures are cultishly trying to prevent deprogramming. The same is likely here.

The point of a soul, at least in fantastical terms, is that it is who you truly are. That's why evil souls are judged and sent to evil places regardless of their personal opinions of their behavior. So "brainwashing" should not be a factor.

[Tvtyrant]

I say go for it. Afterlife adventures are cool, you might get to tear the wings off angels and use them as shoe materials, and worst case scenario you tpk and then smuggle him out from the inside!

[Crake]

How is it "metagaming" to decide how an NPC is going to behave? That is literally the GM's job as spelled out in the DMG/CRB. If you don't want your NPC to be convinced of doing something they wouldn't do, they shouldn't be.

I meant it would be metagaming from the player's perspective to assume that because the DM made the character refuse a resurrection that the DM must not want the character in the story anymore, and to just drop that line of thought. You're making an in character decision for an out of character reason, the very definition of metagaming.

[Psyren]

I meant it would be metagaming from the player's perspective to assume that because the DM made the character refuse a resurrection that the DM must not want the character in the story anymore, and to just drop that line of thought. You're making an in character decision for an out of character reason, the very definition of metagaming.

That would be the logical conclusion in-character as well though. It is the dead character's choice whether to "re-enter the story" (i.e. life.)

Now it's certainly possible to play a character who is willing to disregard that and go to extreme lengths anyway (however futile), just as it's possible to play a character who thinks storming the Abyss solo is a good idea. But I'd like to think that most spellcasters capable of returning the dead to life would know that a refusal can't be made under duress, and come to the logical conclusion.

[Crake]

That would be the logical conclusion in-character as well though. It is the dead character's choice whether to "re-enter the story" (i.e. life.)

Now it's certainly possible to play a character who is willing to disregard that and go to extreme lengths anyway (however futile), just as it's possible to play a character who thinks storming the Abyss solo is a good idea. But I'd like to think that most spellcasters capable of returning the dead to life would know that a refusal can't be made under duress, and come to the logical conclusion.

Well clearly the OP is intending to go to the afterlife and try and convince him otherwise, point being that assuming it's not going to work simply because the DM doesn't want it to is not only metagaming, it's not necessarily true.

[Studoku]

It strikes me that if someone willingly refuses resurrection, finding some way to cross over and haul them back against their will is deeply disrespectful at best, and downright evil at worst. About the only exception I can think of is where someone is wrongly consigned to a lower plane but mistakenly thinks they belong there.

Also, even in settings where you can plane shift to the afterlife, generally such spells only bring you to the "landing zone" - such as Avernus in Baator, or Lunia in Celestia.
Not to mention that the denizens of those planes might object to people barging in and stealing their souls.

[Sith_Happens]

You're going to run into issues with the range of Locate Creature. Nothing about it suggests that it can cross planar boundaries. You'd have better luck with Scrying, though that allows a saving throw.

Locate Creature is also long range, so you pretty much have to have already found the guy before it will do anything.

There's also the issue of to what extent someone's departed soul is considered the same creature as their living self for the purposes of magic.

[Eloel]

Can you planeshift a dead cleric out of afterlife? What happens if the cleric then goes on to cast resurrect on his own body?

[Username.]

The fact that the OP treats diplomacy like a foregone conclusion regardless of circumstance is a far larger problem in my eyes, and far worse as far as "metagaming" goes.

That is nearly a non-issue. There are literally infinite reasons why convincing a NPC something could be considered an in-hand issue.


The point of a soul, at least in fantastical terms, is that it is who you truly are.

That is utterly false. Souls are a component of a person, but they do not consistently, in fantasy, universally represent a mere summation of a person. Souls can and will end up in the "wrong" place if it makes for a good story. And the place where a soul ends up can be morally wrong in and of itself. A saintly person can end up cursed with a dire afterlife because a "good" god finds such good for his purposes and, as already mentioned, as a matter of canon, obnoxious people can and will be rewarded with infinity chances to be obnoxious. And that's just D&D; while other pseudomedieval fantasies may support this point, D&D does it in spades.

[SowZ]

In practical terms, if the NPC has refused resurrection, then the DM has decided that he doesn't want that NPC coming back. And if the DM has decided that, he's also likely to come up with some reason why your new plan won't work, either.

As a DM, I often decide that a task should be difficult/have a couple road blocks. I don't care at all what those difficulties are, however. The players deciding how to combat the challenge is fine with me as long as it is tough either way. So if there is some difficult political situation that can be resolved by A. Warfare. B. The players resolve the politics through other manipulative means. or C. If only NPC X were alive everything would be fine so let's bring him back alive... Why should I care which they pick? All seem like equally dramatic options.

[Sith_Happens]

Can you planeshift a dead cleric out of afterlife?

Nope: This space intentionally left blank.


Petitioners cannot leave the plane they inhabit. They are teleported one hundred miles in a random direction if an attempt is made to force them to leave.

[goto124]

In practical terms, if the NPC has refused resurrection, then the DM has decided that he doesn't want that NPC coming back. And if the DM has decided that, he's also likely to come up with some reason why your new plan won't work, either.

This.

Also... Your DM probably doesn't want to play out the entire journey through the afterlife either.

Give him/her a break.

[Heikold]

You could just find someone from the same culture, alignment and world view, give them a pleading message for the guy and then set them on fire or something.

It's the cheap/wildly unethical option.

[Bronk]

My plan is
1.find him with lacate creature
2.go there by plane shift+teleport
3. diplomacy him to change his mind on revive him. (or some dominate or suggestion or anything don't work due to mind affect immunity)
4. raise him.

Should I wear a helmet at next session?

Depending on the setting, but generally by default, the dead person might not even have their memories if you do manage to catch up to them.

Do you need the NPC alive, or do you just need information? The third level cleric spell 'speak with dead' doesn't need permission to use. The corpse does get a will save as if it were alive if you aren't the same alignment, but then you get to ask it questions about things it knew in life. That might help.

[Sacrieur]

This is why all of my major NPCs are considered PCs -- so you can't use diplomacy on them. Just seems in such poor taste that you can convince anyone to do things they would realistically never do with a high enough diplo score (except your fellow party members).

[danzibr]

I say go for it. Afterlife adventures are cool, you might get to tear the wings off angels and use them as shoe materials, and worst case scenario you tpk and then smuggle him out from the inside!
Seconded! (ten)

[Psyren]

That is nearly a non-issue. There are literally infinite reasons why convincing a NPC something could be considered an in-hand issue.

Literally infinite, huh? :smallwink:

It doesn't matter what reasons you come up with, if the GM simply doesn't want that NPC to be convinced otherwise. And this is only fair - would you want the GM telling you how your character feels about something?


That is utterly false. Souls are a component of a person, but they do not consistently, in fantasy, universally represent a mere summation of a person. Souls can and will end up in the "wrong" place if it makes for a good story. And the place where a soul ends up can be morally wrong in and of itself. A saintly person can end up cursed with a dire afterlife because a "good" god finds such good for his purposes and, as already mentioned, as a matter of canon, obnoxious people can and will be rewarded with infinity chances to be obnoxious. And that's just D&D; while other pseudomedieval fantasies may support this point, D&D does it in spades.

When a soul does end up in the "wrong place" for the sake of story, it is pretty much always temporary. There is a narrative vacuum compelling the heroes or even the forces of the cosmos themselves to set that injustice right. So this does not actually counter my point - the soul still has a fundamental place it belongs, and at best you can say it isn't there yet.

Also, while it can be a good plot point for a good soul to end up in hell and need rescue, you pretty much never see the good afterlife duped into letting in a baby-eater.

[Flickerdart]

Also, while it can be a good plot point for a good soul to end up in hell and need rescue, you pretty much never see the good afterlife duped into letting in a baby-eater.
That would be a pretty great plot though - an Evil character lawyers his way into Celestia, and because he got in there by the letter of the rules, the Lawful angels can do nothing about it directly and must ask the PCs to intercede. Hell, they might even be required to put up a token resistance to the very adventurers they invited. Cue a delightful romp across the Outer Planes full of bureaucratic red tape and colourful shenanigans.

In fact, this is a pretty great way to follow up on the PCs finally defeating a tricky villain. Finding out that he escaped his just desserts even in death will really rile them up.

[Psyren]

The problem is that the moral axis very much looks at the intent/spirit of the law, not just the letter. I find it pretty much impossible to envision a scenario where a soul destined for Baator could trick their way into Celestia instead without actually repenting or atoning.

[Flickerdart]

The problem is that the moral axis very much looks at the intent/spirit of the law, not just the letter. I find it pretty much impossible to envision a scenario where a soul destined for Baator could trick their way into Celestia instead without actually repenting or atoning.
A clever ruse, of course. Maybe he did some "good" acts that the angels didn't know had evil consequences until it was too late. Maybe he created a distraction with some sort of super-powerful magic that obscured his past and replaced it with a benign one. If the villain wasn't just that good he wouldn't be appropriate for the BBEG anyway.

[Jay R]

In practical terms, if the NPC has refused resurrection, then the DM has decided that he doesn't want that NPC coming back. And if the DM has decided that, he's also likely to come up with some reason why your new plan won't work, either.

Correct. Equally basic is this fact: if the DM decided that the NPC chose not to come back, then you are mistaken about him being a major plot NPC now.

You aren't trying to save the plot; you're trying to prevent the plot from proceeding as plotted.

[Inevitability]

The problem is that the moral axis very much looks at the intent/spirit of the law, not just the letter. I find it pretty much impossible to envision a scenario where a soul destined for Baator could trick their way into Celestia instead without actually repenting or atoning.

Contingent Mindrape to change his alignment to LG the moment he dies? Add a contingent Break Enhancement set to go off a couple of seconds after he has reached the afterlife and you are good to go.

Again, a seemingly unsolvable problem has been trivialized by Mindrape.

[Eloel]

Correct. Equally basic is this fact: if the DM decided that the NPC chose not to come back, then you are mistaken about him being a major plot NPC now.

You aren't trying to save the plot; you're trying to prevent the plot from proceeding as plotted.

Equally valid is the idea that if a NPC is acting one way, it's the NPC acting that way and not the DM trying to steer the plot that way. You know, with good DMs.

[Psyren]

A clever ruse, of course. Maybe he did some "good" acts that the angels didn't know had evil consequences until it was too late. Maybe he created a distraction with some sort of super-powerful magic that obscured his past and replaced it with a benign one. If the villain wasn't just that good he wouldn't be appropriate for the BBEG anyway.

If he was "just that good" - he wouldn't be in a position to be judged in the first place. "Anything to avoid the Great Fire Below."


Contingent Mindrape to change his alignment to LG the moment he dies? Add a contingent Break Enhancement set to go off a couple of seconds after he has reached the afterlife and you are good to go.

Again, a seemingly unsolvable problem has been trivialized by Mindrape.

Nice try, but simply swapping his alignment won't change any of the things he's done. Otherwise anyone could simply make sure a minion plops a Helm of Opposite Alignment on their deathbed.


Equally valid is the idea that if a NPC is acting one way, it's the NPC acting that way and not the DM trying to steer the plot that way. You know, with good DMs.

So an NPC having convictions = bad DM? :smallconfused:

[Flickerdart]

If he was "just that good" - he wouldn't be in a position to be judged in the first place. "Anything to avoid the Great Fire Below."
He would have, if not for those pesky PCs - which is why they're called upon to take care of him once again. Or maybe dying was part of his evil master plan all along.

It's not difficult to come up with reasons why something might not happen, but in a fantasy game it's much more interesting to come up with reasons why it might.

[Jay R]

Equally valid is the idea that if a NPC is acting one way, it's the NPC acting that way and not the DM trying to steer the plot that way. You know, with good DMs.

True, but it still means that his return is not crucial to the plot.

[Flickerdart]

True, but it still means that his return is not crucial to the plot.
It's clearly crucial to the PCs' plot, and what other plot can there be but the one they make through their actions?

[JeenLeen]

My main advice is to ask the DM if they would mind you trying this. Ask out-of-character before the game or at it's start.

If their stubbornness about revival is a NPC trait, and they are truly important to the plot, I can see the DM allowing it. If the NPC should stay dead for reasons of plot, your DM may ask you not to try, whether or not it is metaphysically possible given the system your DM is running.

If you want to try because your character would, I could see it doing it in 'downtime' so it doesn't eat up productive gaming time, or through e-mails or IM or such between games. That way your char still develops as they should and acts accordingly to their personality, and you at least tried, but the game continues uninterrupted.

[SimonMoon6]

This is why all of my major NPCs are considered PCs -- so you can't use diplomacy on them. Just seems in such poor taste that you can convince anyone to do things they would realistically never do with a high enough diplo score (except your fellow party members).

For that exact reason, I'd rather treat PCs as NPCs so it works on everybody, instead of having Diplomacy be a skill that you can use to determine whether or not someone is a PC (which kind of breaks immersion).

[Eloel]

So an NPC having convictions = bad DM? :smallconfused:

No. And that's what I'm arguing for.

[Psyren]

For that exact reason, I'd rather treat PCs as NPCs so it works on everybody, instead of having Diplomacy be a skill that you can use to determine whether or not someone is a PC (which kind of breaks immersion).

"You are all convinced by the royal vizier's arguments and now see him as a trusted friend, roleplay accordingly or else" seems much more likely to break immersion from my perspective.



It's not difficult to come up with reasons why something might not happen, but in a fantasy game it's much more interesting to come up with reasons why it might.

Eh, I don't consider a heaven that stupid/impotent to be particularly interesting myself.

[Jay R]

It's clearly crucial to the PCs' plot, ...

I'm not sure we have any evidence for that, and we certainly have no conclusive evidence.

We've only heard from one player, who hasn't even implied that any other players are interested in the NPC. She also didn't say she had a particular need for the NPC. The only reference to the plot is the phrase "Major plot NPC" in the thread title.

It reads to me like she believes that the NPC is central to the plot, and I'm trying to point out that she doesn't necessarily know that. If she just wants to deal with that NPC, I suspect she'd have used a different phrasing.


... and what other plot can there be but the one they make through their actions?

Almost any plot big enough to have challenging encounters and significant rewards, of course.

The Sauron's Ring plot wasn't made through Frodo's actions; it had been going on for thousands of years. The plot created only by Frodo's actions was moving to Crickhollow.

The affair of the Queen's diamonds wasn't made through D'Artagnan's actions; it was brought to him by Constance Bonacieux. The plot that he made through his actions was challenging three musketeers - and it was interrupted by the DM's plot of the rivalry with the Cardinal's guard..

The alien invasion plot wasn't made through the Avengers' actions; Loki arranged it. The plot they made through their actions was squabbling with and fighting each other

I certainly agree that the players should decide their own actions within the game, but the idea that "what other plot can there be but the one they make through their actions?" cannot work. They cannot act at all except in response to the DM's NPCs, encounters, lands, politics, cultures, and yes, plots.

[Flickerdart]

They cannot act at all except in response to the DM's NPCs, encounters, lands, politics, cultures, and yes, plots.
Frodo could have buggered off to the other side of the continent from this stupid war thing and opened a lemonade stand.

[Username.]

The problem is that the moral axis very much looks at the intent/spirit of the law, not just the letter.

No, the problem is is that the D&D moral axis is inherently immoral. "Good" isn't uniformly good and "Evil" isn't uniformly evil and Law and Chaos are meaningless bits of color coding that nevertheless can arbitrarily trap you in a hellscape forever due what effectively amount to your fashion choices.


Literally infinite, huh? :smallwink:

Yes, literally infinite. You effectively asked "Why would anyone be convinced of anything?" That is a literally infinite set. No offense, but you seem to be finding false positives for misuse of the term "literally" due to your own experience with its misuse.


It doesn't matter what reasons you come up with, if the GM simply doesn't want that NPC to be convinced otherwise.

Which is irrelevant, since that situation would apply to every diplomatic exchange in every aspect of every tabletop game ever. Unusual metaphysics would change nothing.


When a soul does end up in the "wrong place" for the sake of story, it is pretty much always temporary.

Again, irrelevant. Because a soul being in the "wrong" place is one of the most narratively compelling things possible while simultaneously being really weird, it will almost always be introduced by an author precisely to see it resolved. Therefore, it is a plot hook. Plot hooks exist to be resolved. You have effectively called water wet. Other temporary states that exist for the sake of story:

• A criminal gang is extorting local shopkeepers.
• A dirty politician is exploiting innocent townsfolk.
• An evil dragon is menacing a village.
• Star-crossed lovers are separated by the conflict between their respective social factions.

It should be pointed out that some or all of those situations, when they occur in reality, are not temporary or subjected to clean resolution. Thus, their temporary nature is pure narrative convention, not an inherent property, and thus not really of any moment in any event.


So this does not actually counter my point - the soul still has a fundamental place it belongs, and at best you can say it isn't there yet.

That's completely unsupported by your statements; at best, you're begging the question and simply using the restatement of an unsupported claim as support for that same claim. A soul in D&D and some other fantasies with horrorshow afterlives can be construed as belonging wherever it happens to be. If a soul gets pulled from one afterlife and put into another, you can claim that it belonged in the first or second one.


Also, while it can be a good plot point for a good soul to end up in hell and need rescue, you pretty much never see the good afterlife duped into letting in a baby-eater.

Wrong.

a) This flies in the face of the entire (horrifying) point of the Complete Bastard Paladin(tm). Slaughter a thousand orc babies, go to heaven.

b) The writers of Supernatural would like a word with you (vis-a-vis: Kenneth Lay).

This is not a question of diplomacy, or even DM sovereignty. Those are distractions, if not mild forays into stupidity. It is an issue of worldbuilding. D&D is subject to huge amounts of interpretation and houseruling precisely because the unstated, and many stated, assumptions and metaphysical rules of its universe are unpalatable to many of the game's enthusiasts. This means people spot-houserule things, even if it contradicts canon, and may not even realize it.

It comes down to having a mature conversation with the DM. Tell him point-blank what you're about and discuss the metaphysics of the world. This is a heady subject, heady enough that the other players could justifiably be involved. It's also a seriously interesting subject. This is a great opportunity for story-building, even if the soul-diplomacy turns out to be a non-starter. D&D tables rarely deal with the crazypants implications of its nutcase metaphysics (and simply utterly stupid alignment system), instead trainwrecking as soon as the plot has to deal with either or both. You can not only avoid being a casualty, but build this madness into a compelling story by putting all the players, including the DM, on the same page. The NPCs will gain huge amounts of verisimilitude, the world will be tighter, and you get to put a few points in your "mature adult" meter by virtue of playing a silly game of let's pretend.

Deeply cool.

[Psyren]

That's completely unsupported by your statements; at best, you're begging the question and simply using the restatement of an unsupported claim as support for that same claim. A soul in D&D and some other fantasies with horrorshow afterlives can be construed as belonging wherever it happens to be. If a soul gets pulled from one afterlife and put into another, you can claim that it belonged in the first or second one.

Except one claim would be wrong, because the D&D soul has attributes by which you can determine where it belongs - namely alignment, and corruption/obeisant scores.



a) This flies in the face of the entire (horrifying) point of the Complete Bastard Paladin(tm). Slaughter a thousand orc babies, go to heaven.

b) The writers of Supernatural would like a word with you (vis-a-vis: Kenneth Lay).

What sourcebook are either of these from? Do you have a page reference?

[NichG]

The main thing that the 'unusual metaphysics' introduces to the situation is that its a big honking hint of 'hey, I don't want you to resurrect this NPC'.

Yes, the DM can decide that the NPC won't be convinced both in a normal negotiation and in a situation where each word that the NPC speaks in explaining that they won't be convinced causes a PC to permanently lose 1000xp, but the second case provides a greater body of evidence of the DM's decision than the first.

There's no absolute proof that the DM absolutely doesn't want this NPC coming back, no. But there is evidence.

And as to 'metagaming', this falls under the clause of 'decide to act differently' metagaming to prevent gaming dysfunctions. If you believe that the DM may just stop you from succeeding no matter how much time you spend on it, then if you still go ahead with it you're willfully wasting everyone's time at the table to watch you bang your head against a wall that the DM is not going to allow to break.

[Jay R]

Frodo could have buggered off to the other side of the continent from this stupid war thing and opened a lemonade stand.

If your point is that opening a lemonade stand is a "real" plot ("what other plot can there be but the one they make through their actions?"), and saving Middle-Earth from the threat of Sauron's evil isn't, since it isn't the one he made through his actions, the my only reply is that you and I should probably not play in the same game, since we are seeking different things from our gaming.

If your point is anything else, then I can't find it.

Getting back to my point:

If the NPC decided that he wasn't coming back, then he isn't a "Major plot NPC" in any sense except "I wanna bring him back".

There's nothing wrong with "I wanna bring him back"; it's just not the same thing as "Major plot NPC".

[goto124]

And as to 'metagaming', this falls under the clause of 'decide to act differently' metagaming to prevent gaming dysfunctions. If you believe that the DM may just stop you from succeeding no matter how much time you spend on it, then if you still go ahead with it you're willfully wasting everyone's time at the table to watch you bang your head against a wall that the DM is not going to allow to break.

Supporting this. Sounds like the DM has decided to retire the NPC for good. You can't fight the DM anyway- he/she controls the world.