Necromancy and AL

[kalani]

Not true. I actually am very fond of minion-mancy (and summon minions from time to time myself). I am not fond of people who lack the maturity to accept table variation as being an inherent part of it in AL.

Here is your requested answer (which is a paraphrase of everything we have been saying, and which the admins have been saying since day 1).

Animate Dead/Create Undead/Necromancy is a legal and perfectly viable strategy, although table variation should be expected.

• DMs cannot prohibit players from summoning undead at their tables (as the spells which summon undead are legal character options)
• There are no rules regarding what happens to undead between adventures. As such, DMs are allowed to create a ruling for pre-animated undead at their table. Players are expected to abide by such rulings (as the DMs word is final for their table).
• Players should expect table variation regarding the above, and should not expect their DM to honor pre-animated undead from prior adventures.
• Players who summon minions (minion-mancers) should be careful that their turns do not take too long, as this can be disruptive to other players.
• Players who summon minions should be careful that their minions do not hog the spotlight and/or block/prevent other players from participating. This is especially true regarding PC melee combatants.
• Everyone should have equal lime-light, including choice of targets / participating in battle in the manner that they wish. Players cannot prohibit a necromancer from animating dead, nor can the necromancer use their undead to prevent other players from engaging preferred hostile targets in combat. Tactics should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis as needed.
• Minionmancers should allow other PCs to have opportunities to find / disable traps, not just use their undead as walking mine-detectors. Use of this strategy is viable, but only if used sparingly.
• Players who summon minions should be careful that they do not choose all the best targets, leaving none for other PCs.
• Players should not willfully attack a minion-mancers minions for any reason. "Its what my character would do" is not a valid excuse.
• Players casting AoE spells should make every effort to avoid other PCs and their minions. Other PCs should be aware that sometimes - excluding PCs / minions from a spell effect is unavoidable.

I never once said it is ok to deliberately attack another players minions (it is however, sometimes unavoidable that PCs and their minions may be caught in the AoE of a friendly spell on occasion, and providing this isn't the rule and that the player makes every effort to avoid such situations, this is not disruptive). I personally think that paladins who attack a necromancers palanquin of undead are being disruptive myself.

You are misconstruing my stance, and my words. All I have said is that you cannot guarantee that any undead you create will be allowed in a future adventure, and to expect table variation. That is it. I champion necromancers at my table, but make it clear to them that some DMs may expect them to create all undead at the table itself (from corpses found during the current adventure), and that the player cannot start an adventure (at their table) with pre-animated undead.

I have also said that some DMs will allow players to start play with pre-animated undead. That is the point of table variation - that you should expect both results to happen on occasion. If there was a rule stating that no player could begin play with undead, I would not phrase it as "table variation" but as a non-optional rule. The fact that there are no rules regarding undead between adventures is exactly WHY table variation should be expected.

 

[RulesJD]

I fully agree with (most) of your list, as I've also stated several times. Part of your conflusion regarding my arguments is that I quoted your post while summarizing other arguments that have been made throughout this thread.

For example, I'm aware you didn't make the statement regarding having a Paladin attack a Necromancer's minions. But Cascade did, so I wanted to counter that argument and bring it up as a support to the idea that some guidance is necessary to clearly point out to both players and DMs that sort of behavior is unacceptable.

The only real issue you (Kalani) and I disagree on is the carrying over of pre-summoned Zombies/Skeletons, et al spell effects. I believe DMs should treat them no different than other PHB purchased items, you do not. The rest of my issues/statements have been literally trying to state the bullet points you summarized (don't let players attack other players minions, Animate Dead is an AL legal spell, etc) because others in this thread have stated contrary opinions.

Also, the entire point of my re-posting in this thread was to address several of your concerns (not hogging the table, combat efficiency, grid spacing issues, etc), which sadly hasn't been addressed as much as I hoped it would be.

Honestly, I hope the list you just wrote can at least be incorporated into some future AL guidance update/FAQ, which is part of what I've also been asking for since day 1 so to speak.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you for your tier 4 levels of patience, Kalani.

 

[Cascade]

For example, I'm aware you didn't make the statement regarding having a Paladin attack a Necromancer's minions. But Cascade did, so I wanted to counter that argument and bring it up as a support to the idea that some guidance is necessary to clearly point out to both players and DMs that sort of behavior is unacceptable. .

This is still relative and is not (in many and my opinions and experiences) against the rules.

I browsed through the rules and see nothing that covers "resources".
Does a necromancer then have claim to bodies as treasure which are now assumed resources?
Technically, only treasure listed at the end of the adventure can be taken and carried to the next mod. I've never seen a body listed as treasure.
What if the palladin of Kelemvor insists on burning and completely destroying any bodies killed during the adventure so that they cannot be raised?
Does the necromancer player cry foul under "the undermining clause"?

if you want to play something taboo and contrary to the campaign's story and flavor, you should expect push back from other players that play equally within the story. And I suspect most DMs would act the same way.

I would expect, pushing the issue would eventually ban the designated spells / abilities much like Chaotic and neutral evil are.

 

[Pauper]

Going to agree with Cascade on this one -- say an adventure includes a 500gp diamond. Is it undermining the cleric to divide that diamond into gold at the end of the adventure as stated in the ALPG/ALDMG, solely because the diamond could be used as the material component for a Raise Dead spell?

I could make the argument that the adventure designers specifically put a 500gp diamond in the adventure so that it could be used as a Raise Dead material component during the adventure. I can't say the same thing about the corpses left behind by every enemy slain in an adventure. Just because a necromancer could make use of those corpses does not mean he is entitled to do so, especially if others in the party disagree.

--
Pauper

 

[RulesJD]

This is still relative and is not (in many and my opinions and experiences) against the rules.

I browsed through the rules and see nothing that covers "resources".
Does a necromancer then have claim to bodies as treasure which are now assumed resources?
Technically, only treasure listed at the end of the adventure can be taken and carried to the next mod. I've never seen a body listed as treasure.
What if the palladin of Kelemvor insists on burning and completely destroying any bodies killed during the adventure so that they cannot be raised?
Does the necromancer player cry foul under "the undermining clause"?

if you want to play something taboo and contrary to the campaign's story and flavor, you should expect push back from other players that play equally within the story. And I suspect most DMs would act the same way.

I would expect, pushing the issue would eventually ban the designated spells / abilities much like Chaotic and neutral evil are.

See now why I kept posting Kalani? People want to intentionally grief other players by couching it in roleplaying.

 

[RulesJD]

This is still relative and is not (in many and my opinions and experiences) against the rules.

I browsed through the rules and see nothing that covers "resources".
Does a necromancer then have claim to bodies as treasure which are now assumed resources?
Technically, only treasure listed at the end of the adventure can be taken and carried to the next mod. I've never seen a body listed as treasure.
What if the palladin of Kelemvor insists on burning and completely destroying any bodies killed during the adventure so that they cannot be raised?
Does the necromancer player cry foul under "the undermining clause"?

if you want to play something taboo and contrary to the campaign's story and flavor, you should expect push back from other players that play equally within the story. And I suspect most DMs would act the same way.

I would expect, pushing the issue would eventually ban the designated spells / abilities much like Chaotic and neutral evil are.

Going to make a separate post so it's clear what comments go to whom.

Cool, so your Paladin immediate attacks and tries to completely destroy all corpses right? That's your roleplaying excuse for griefing another player?

So sure any time you happen upon a body in an Adventure you're going to immediately try to immolate/pound it into dust. That's your Paladin's excuse for griefing so obviously you can't just ignore it. Can't wait for a player to fail some death saves and watch you Paladin prevent any sort of resurrection efforts. Or have an adventure that involves retrieving a body be unable to be completed because you attacked the body and destroyed it.

Hell I would LOVE to play with your Paladin in DDEX 1-10 which requires the retrieval of a body, only to see your Paladin attack and destroy it.

OH, and even better, my Necromancer will now take the Mold Earth cantrip. Why? Because if you're going to grief me, I'm going to do it right back. I'm going to instantly bury any corpse you're attacking under progressively larger piles of dirt. I'm not attacking you, so it's not PVP by your definition. Or better yet, can't wait for us to happen upon a large battlefield, and your Paladin has to spend several hours destroying each corpse.

You do know how long it takes to destroy a corpse right? All the Necromancer needs is a pile of bones, and bones are really, really difficult to destroy especially by physical means. Have fun with your 10+ rounds of combat attacking 1 corpse, in a battlefield littered with hundreds of them.

I just keep getting so many fun ways of grief you too! Just thought of another one! Any time our party happens upon a graveyard, I'm going to Mold Earth all the earth over the graves. Now your Paladin will be stuck for an entire adventure trying to destroy all those bodies! The rest of the party gets to continue with the rest of the adventure while you're stuck there following your oath that is so strong it literally requires you to break the rules as Kalani listed them and intentionally grief another player.

*edit*

As established already, Necromancers and Animate Dead are not taboo in the storyline NOR is that a sufficient excuse, at least per Kalani's and Greg's guidance, to be treated any differently than a Paladin who hates demons suddenly attacking/griefing a Tiefling player. That is a literal one-to-one comparison, especially in this season where players will ping to a Paladin's Divine Sense as being "Evil Undead" themselves.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would expect, pushing the issue would eventually ban the designated spells / abilities much like Chaotic and neutral evil are.

Nah. Assuming most players don't have a problem, much easier to just ignore the issue and expect the individual pushing to adjust to the responses already given.

 

[RulesJD]

Nah. Assuming most players don't have a problem, much easier to just ignore the issue and expect the individual pushing to adjust to the responses already given.

Exactly, I'm glad we finally agree! Please see Kalani's and Greg's posts stating that Necromancy/Animate Dead are perfectly AL legal choices and that griefing other players, up to and including attacking their minions, is unacceptable play.

 

[kalani]

This is still relative and is not (in many and my opinions and experiences) against the rules.

I browsed through the rules and see nothing that covers "resources".

Does a necromancer then have claim to bodies as treasure which are now assumed resources? Technically, only treasure listed at the end of the adventure can be taken and carried to the next mod. I've never seen a body listed as treasure.

Nope. They can use them during the adventure as they see fit, but you are correct that dead bodies are not treasure. I would consider trophies taken from a dead body as trinkets however, but these trinkets have no value and future DMs are under no obligation to honor them at their table unless the trinket was specifically listed as treasure.

I encourage DMs to allow players to keep trinkets of things they find in their adventures. I also inform players that these are merely keepsakes, and have no value other than being collectibles (such as a scale of vorgansharax or something).

What if the palladin of Kelemvor insists on burning and completely destroying any bodies killed during the adventure so that they cannot be raised?

If said paladin is a PC, this is covered by the ruling below - to paraphrase "It's what my character would do" is never a valid excuse for disruptive behavior (which includes undermining other PCs)

[h=5]How do I deal with players of evil characters, or who venerate an evil deity?[/h]
Just because a player has a character with a darker side doesn’t mean that player has a license to make the game less fun for others at the table. Players are encouraged to have their characters work together despite their differences; a little competition is fine, as long as it stays fun for everyone involved and doesn’t result in other players getting shut out of the experience. If a DM or another player feels as though a player is creating an uncomfortable situation through the excuse of “it’s what my character would do,” the DM is free to give the offending player a warning for disruptive behavior, and if it persists, ask the organizer to remove the player from the table.

Does the necromancer player cry foul under "the undermining clause"?

If they feel the paladin is "shutting them out of the experience", or ""feels as though a player is creating an uncomfortable situation" then yes, they can. I consider crying foul however to be a last resort, and encourage the DM, and players to make every effort to accommodate each other, negotiate, and come to an equitable solution (preferably out-of-game) prior to leaping to this solution.

if you want to play something taboo and contrary to the campaign's story and flavor, you should expect push back from other players that play equally within the story. And I suspect most DMs would act the same way.

Incorrect. If you play a legal character option - you should be treated the same as any other player at the table. Your character should expect to receive appropriate in-character responses from NPCs, but their fellow PCs should treat them as equals, and should not undermine them in any way.

Paladin ass-hats are not allowed, nor are necromancer jerks who seek to monopolize combats and shut-out melee combatants and/or sneaky types who want to find/disable traps. It works both ways, with ALL players being expected to respect other players right to be at the table, and their CHARACTERS right to participate.

If a paladin cannot find a reason to include the necromancer (and their minions) at the table, the paladin player isn't trying hard enough. The character is an extension of the player. Therefore, regardless of what the character would think, the player ultimately decides what their character does, says, thinks, and feels. If you create characters that don't play nice at the table - you are being disruptive.

With that being said however: The paladin player could roleplay this appropriately, while still being inclusive... Find a reason to consider the necromancer an ally (even if only a temporary one). Grumble, complain, and try to negotiate with the necromancer in-character. Show disgust, contempt and restrained intolerance for the character - but (in the spirit of fair play) - also take opportunities to grudgingly acknowledge the characters valuable input....

"I don't like your methods, and find them deplorable - but I cannot fault your results"​

Do you watch Supernatural?
If so, a good example of how this can be played out - is the relationship between Crowley and the Winchesters. Both hate each other, but frequently work together to achieve a specific objective..... The hypothetical paladin and necromancer can do likewise during any adventure in which they participate. Just be mindful of the fact that while the Winchesters and Crowley betray each other just as often as they work together, PCs should not be engaging in double-crosses with their fellow PCs.... They are however, allowed to squabble, disagree, sling verbal arrows, etc - providing that they work together toward an overarching goal....Feel free to use completely different methods to achieve results however (providing those methods do not directly undermine another characters actions).

Verbally throw barbs at each other (within reason), compete in a display of one-upmanship (if both players consent), but don't undermine the other characters and their play-styles.

During season 1 - I had a Paladin of Tiamat who frequently adventured with a Paladin of Bahamut
Both characters relationship came across more as a sports rivalry (my dragon god is better than yours). Every chance we got, we each tried to one-up the other.... If the paladin of bahamut dealt 8 damage, I tried to deal 9 damage. If my rival killed 3 foes, I would try to kill 5. If the party saved a group of villagers, both of us would try to convince them that it was by our respective gods power that ensured their safety (and in my case, I would try to convert them to worshiping or paying homage to Tiamat).