D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Flamestrike]

Not that any of this is necessarily relevant. I don't think there's any indication that OP's character is evil.

He animates dead with necromancy magic. Often. According to the PHB, this makes him evil.

 

[Stilvan]

I have played evil characters who got on fine in a good party. Typically they were Lawful Evil types who played a "devil's advocate" role (heh). They were the ones who pointed out that we could just slit the prisoners' throats and be done with it, we're on a mission to save the world, aren't we? Why are we wasting time on a few mooks who were trying to kill us a minute ago?

Usually the rest of the party would shut this down, and my PC would shrug and accede to the will of the group. Now and then, I would actually talk the rest of the party around to the Dark Side. (In fact, my biggest trouble with this archetype is when I'm too persuasive and the whole party starts shifting toward evil... takes all the fun out of it.)

Not that any of this is necessarily relevant. I don't think there's any indication that OP's character is evil.

According to RAW, as pointed out above, a Necromancer is unabashedly evil, essentially a monster doing things counter to any decent faith. What you're describing is being a dude of Evil alignment - I think there's more latitude there. However, if roleplayed faithfully as someone of extreme self-interest - which I'd say goes beyond "here's an alternative viewpoint" you inevitably arrive at something that is table toxic. The evil you describe is definitely more fun and welcome (I personally love that stuff) but it isn't being faithful to the concept which is a choice of such significance that, at least in many editions, there are actual mechanical impacts.

Let's be honest, any table can elect to handwave anything. But if you want deeper roleplaying I think mixing alignments only produces problems.

 

[Dausuul]

According to RAW, as pointed out above, a Necromancer is unabashedly evil...

Someone claimed this was according to RAW. That person never provided any citations to back up the claim, however, and no one else was able to find any--and I looked pretty carefully, checking both my paper books and D&D Beyond, because I thought I remembered seeing that rule. There was nothing.

If you can find the rule, please cite it. If not, I repeat that there is no reason to assume OP's character is evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

Someone claimed this was according to RAW. That person never provided any citations to back up the claim,

It's in the magic section of the PHB. under the Necromancy school subheader. In the bit where it discusses the schools of magic. Pick up your PHB and have a read. Dont have a page number because I dont have the book on me.

I'm not lying. It says (paraphrasing) 'animating the dead is NOT a good act, and only EVIL people do so frequently.'

Also read the entry on Skeletons and Zombies in the MM. It expressly states that they are animated by 'foul' or 'black' or 'unholy' magic. Pretty clearly not the sort of thing that a morally and ethically 'good' person is going to engage in.

I repeat that there is no reason to assume OP's character is evil.

Repeat it all you want, but if he's animating the dead he's almost certainly not 'Good,' and if he does so often, he's evil.

By RAW.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So what if the necromancer is or isn't evil? That has nothing to do with whether the necromancer and the paladin can adventure together or not. The paladin meets a group that includes a necromancer. The paladin then decides whether or not they want to adventure with a group that includes a necromancer. The paladin PC either stays and is okay with it, or chooses not to adventure with the group.

If a paladin character that is opposed to necromancy stays adventuring with a group that includes a necromancer because the player wants to play with his friends... then the paladin player is not playing in character. And it is not the necromancer player's job or duty to do anything about that. They need not change anything whatsoever. The necromancer is in a group that has already decided they will have him... the new paladin either has to accept that or leave.

 

[Dausuul]

It's in the magic section of the PHB. under the Necromancy school subheader. In the bit where it discusses the schools of magic. ... It says (paraphrasing) 'animating the dead is NOT a good act, and only EVIL people do so frequently.'

Okay, I stand corrected. (What an odd place for the designers to hide that rule.) But the wording in the PHB is a far cry from "a necromancer is unabashedly evil."

You could replace "animating the dead" with "killing sentient beings"--"Killing sentient beings is not a good act and only evil people do so frequently." You wouldn't be wrong! But that doesn't mean you can't be a good-aligned warrior who kills sentient enemies. You just have to be careful to do so only when necessary. A necromancer who raises undead only at need, and disposes of them when their purpose is served, does not have to be evil.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Wow, you just let the mask slip.

Ancient views of what is ‘Just’ vary from today. Aristotle had no issue with slavery, for example.
Just War theory of today, rejects Collective Punishment. So I am not sure what ‘mask’ you speak of.

Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells... is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently. ''

Congratulations, you are quoting a rules straight jacket, akin to Paladin alignment restrictions of old. Yet, Eberron, and the world of the Elder Scrolls games both model entirely viable worlds, that differ from the default assumption in the PHB.

Each table of gamers gets to decide what mechanical rules, what flavor text, and what modifications to the aforementioned, that they wish to use.

Respectfully, the text quoted, may be RAW for you, while another group, may be fine exploring Necromancy as a dangerous tool.

The bodies of the dead are often exhumed and brought to family celebrations in cultures on Earth. I can envision a D&D world where magic is used to put the soul back into a loved one, for one night, that would not be considered evil by the culture that practiced this belief.
Another culture in the same world, may find even touching a dead thing to be evil.

Quoting RAW for mechanical issues, like can a 1st level cleric of life attack with their mace and cast Blindness/Deafness on the same turn, differs from the text quoted regarding the School of Necromancy.

Issues of action economy tend to be universally applied, regardless of setting flavor. Frankly, even in terms of action economy, house rules, abound.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I know it's an old cliche, but this mess happened to me. I was all set to go with a necromancer. My guy was raising dead, the campaign was running smoothly, and then a buddy joined up at level 6. He wanted to roll a paladin.

What's the best way to make the two play nice in the same party? Is there a mechanical solution to the problem? Alternatively, how can I circumnavigate his ire?

I assume this is a classical LG paladin and not one of the new "paladins that aren't what paladins were ever supposed to be" that I hate with the flame of 1000 suns, because as others have pointed out that would easily invalidate the expressed concerns. I also assume that this has not already been established as a free-for-all PVP campaign where anything goes and f you to players who are too weak and timid to strike first and take out your fellow adventurer competition, but is actually the usual kind of campaign where it's not stated or written down but players and their PC's are EXPECTED to get along.

First, your buddy can f'n just pick a different character to run. Not all character concepts and choices are inherently viable in all circumstances. It is NOT an unreasonable request to choose characters and concepts that FIT with the campaign and the existing PC party rather than clash and needlessly antagonize. To deliberately choose a NEW character to join an existing party that is inherently disposed to clash unacceptably with one or more existing members is a jerk move, especially if that player of the new clashing character has not ALREADY cleared the idea with the DM and the other PC's. That's not your problem as a player of an established PC (or shouldn't be), it's all on the player of the incoming paladin as well as the DM for also permitting it. They KNOW (or dang well should know) that they're creating issues where none need to be created - or more to the point, where none are wanted.

HOW do you get along with them? There are simply too many variables to even begin. How is the incoming character going to act? How are you going to feel it's reasonable for your character to respond? Can you accept your character responding differently even if they WANT to respond another way? Etc. Etc.

Second, if this new clash of PC's is going ahead anyway, ALL players are by default still reasonably expected to seek ways for their PC's to NOT clash with other PC's. D&D is not a competition between players, nor players vs. DM so don't treat it like one. If you're playing a new, incoming PC, do your best to make it reasonable for ALL existing PC's to accept you. If you're playing an existing PC, do your best to find reasons for your character to at least tolerate if not fully accept the new PC. If you're still clashing, all involved should be doing their best to minimize the clashing. If one or both of the players concerned just CANNOT see a way to play their PC and have this NOT be a problem, then before the game proceeds at all get this worked out WITH EACH OTHER. COMMUNICATE. Seeking advice from uninvolved parties is fine, but it's NOT WE HERE you need to be talking to - it's the OTHER PLAYER AND THE DM you need to talk to.

Third, again assuming the new clashing mix is allowed for whatever reasons to proceed, the DM should still be all over this, communicating with players if they aren't already communicating with each other to ensure that this does not actually become a problem with the game - because that's part of the DM's job.

Failing all that, you should probably be looking for another group. I suppose another option would be to summarily retire your character and put an end to the conflict that way, but I'd categorize that as letting others take advantage of you because you let them. It will have been demonstrated that the people involved in creating the conflict actually don't care about the experience for the other participants, and you won't likely change that attitude. If they're not listening when given the above reasoning, they'll more likely accuse YOU of being the problem just for complaining. It typically isn't worth fighting that kind of attitude because that's not why people want to play D&D.

 

[Quartz]

Even if you don't want to make it easy on yourselves (they are playing a Paladin after all - morality tests are a common part of the character trope), you might talk with the DM and the other player to purposefully sow the conflict to a breaking point later down the line – maybe the Paladin or the Necromancer becomes a villain because they're so at odds with the rest of the party at that point, and once the big face-hell turn boss fight happens, you or the Paladin's player roll up a new character to replace them.

Please don't do this. This is NOT fun.

 

[tommybahama]

How about this: You make a vow not to raise the dead among the righteous to raise the ire of the Paladin and the DM tells the Paladin that his deity, for reasons of his own, has decided to use your necromancer for his own ends to make good out of evil (like Gollum if you need a literary example, but the apostle Judas came to my mind first). So the Paladin must protect the necromancer's life no matter how abominable necromancy is.

And if you do break your vow and raise dead among the righteous then the Paladin is there to turn/destroy them. It will keep you both honest. If I were roleplaying your necromancer I would laugh off any insults offered by the paladin with a, "now now, remember your vows: You must protect me at all costs!" in a mocking tone followed by a cackle of laughter.

As a side note, I wonder how your other players feel about having to travel with a necromancer? Did you take their opinions into consideration when you made your character? Why would they want to willingly travel with a creature seen as abominable?