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

[Lanefan]

On a broader topic: the discussion so far has revolved around the OP's situation where a Paladin is trying to join an established party containing a Necromancer.

Would - or should - anyone's view be different if the situation was reversed; that a Necro was trying to join an established party containing a Pally? And if so, how do you justify the difference?

 

[FrogReaver]

On a broader topic: the discussion so far has revolved around the OP's situation where a Paladin is trying to join an established party containing a Necromancer.

Would - or should - anyone's view be different if the situation was reversed; that a Necro was trying to join an established party containing a Pally? And if so, how do you justify the difference?

Great Question.

IMO. It's on the player joining the game to create a character that works with the existing group. In this case it would be up to the Paladin player whether or not his character would associate with such a Necromancer. If not then the player joining should pick a different character.

If the group already has a necromancer then making a paladin that wouldn't associate with the necromancer doesn't make sense as that paladin would never join the group in the first place. So he should pick a different character.

That said the characters can dislike each other as long as they are willing to put that aside and work together when things get rough.

 

[Lanefan]

Name another?

{insert any PH race here} is available to play as a PC.
{insert any PH class here} exists as a PC class.
{insert any PH spell here} exists in this game.
{insert armour or weapon restriction by class here}.

I'm already into the hundreds of examples, each of which is the default situation (i.e. rule) until-unless the DM houserules differently.

That Necromancers who frequently get the dead moving must be Evil in 5e at least to some extent is merely one more such example; with the main - and unfortunate - difference being that the rules that lead to this conclusion are not all clearly stated in one place.

 

[FrogReaver]

{insert any PH class here} exists as a PC class.

You do realize that the class rules explicitly state that not all classes will be available in every setting right?

"Twelve classes—listed in the Classes table—are found in almost every D&D world and define the spectrum of typical adventurers."

So classes aren't an actual comparative example to the discussion at hand.

 

[Lanefan]

You do realize that the class rules explicitly state that not all classes will be available in every setting right?

"Twelve classes—listed in the Classes table—are found in almost every D&D world and define the spectrum of typical adventurers."

So classes aren't an actual comparative example to the discussion at hand.

Which makes them even less the default than the Necro example.

Somewhere it also says, I think, something to the effect that the DM can change pretty much anything to suit the game she wants to run? If yes, then everything in the PH is simply a baseline default position.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which makes them even less the default than the Necro example.

Somewhere it also says, I think, something to the effect that the DM can change pretty much anything to suit the game she wants to run? If yes, then everything in the PH is simply a baseline default position.

Not everything but I think we more or less agree there. The issue we keep coming back to is that no one in this thread asked about the default setting. But some started taking default setting specific rules to make a case that it was always this way.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

@Lanefan

Notice the tone of the comment. Taking a setting specific rule and applying it to a character in another game without taking note if there was a difference in setting.

That's where the issue started.

Happily @Flamestrike is backing away from that position somewhat. He's now open to necromancers not being evil in other settings. I think that's a big step for him.

 

[Mike Hinshaw]

The first actual rule in the fifth edition DMG:

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded."

This, in one form or another, has always been the first and primary rule in all editions of the game.

There is a sourcebook from the second edition that you might want to check out - The Complete Book of Necromancers. In that book, they show how you can be a good necromancer - essentially a necromancer is first and foremost a specialist in the School of Necromancy. Most healing spells are from that school, and versions of clerical spells could easily be researched.

Now, as for the animate dead issue, remember that the Negative Material Plane is not itself evil, just like the Positive Material Plane is not good (it is the source for healing magic). Now, in my campaigns, I allow animation of neutrally aligned undead to do tasks such as building, digging, and other very simple labor tasks without it being evil, as long as the necromancer puts the undead back in their graves at the end. There are many precedents for this in fantasy fiction (see the Xanth series). I see mindless undead as soulless, and therefore you are not necessarily doing an evil act.

There is an interesting part of the 2nd Edition Van Richten's Guide to Vampires. They discuss whether or not a vampire can be good-aligned. It concludes that they can at the beginning, but, as time goes on, they get bitter and their alignment slowly shifts towards evil and chaos. It can take a couple of generations, but it happens.

Look at the reasons that a particular form of the undead that is created. If it is for selfish reasons (such as the lich), or due to evil choices (such as the death knight), then their creation is evil. They retain their souls but raising one who a soulless is a neutral act. BTW the mummy has been postulated to be connected to the Positive Material Plane (Von Richtens's Guide to Mummies).

Mike Hinshaw

 

[Flamestrike]

And that means that not all necromancers which frequently create undead are evil!

Say it with me please!

Oh my freaking God. No; of course - if the DM or the setting stipulates that animating the dead is not evil, then it inst evil!

If the DM or the setting stipulate that Clerics must stand on one leg or spontaneously explode or take disadvantage to every check they ever make, that's also how things are!

 

[Flamestrike]

Now, in my campaigns, I allow animation of neutrally aligned undead to do tasks such as building, digging, and other very simple labor tasks without it being evil, as long as the necromancer puts the undead back in their graves at the end. There are many precedents for this in fantasy fiction (see the Xanth series). I see mindless undead as soulless, and therefore you are not necessarily doing an evil act.

You can do as you want in your campaign of course.

Have you ever considered how the families of those undead might react seeing little Timmy or Auntie Mary animated as undead monsters?

Like.. even just digging up someones deceased loved one and dumping the body on their front doorstep is pretty damn evil. You have zero empathy for how that will make those people feel, or even worse, you actually get a kick out of it.

Now imagine instead of digging up other peoples loved ones and dumping the bodies, you dig them up and animate them with magic.

I dont know about you, but if my dead brother walked in the door, flesh withered on his still recognisable face, a slave to someone elses magic (presuming such magic existed), I would be devastated, horrified and enraged.

What kind of a 'Good' person would contemplate that? What kind of a morally 'neutral' person would contemplate that?

It would be the actions of someone who puts their own interests over others pain and suffering, and either doesnt care if they hurt others, or doesnt realise they are. Likely a complete sociopath.

And most likely thus, evil.