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

[Marandahir]

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

Thanks for the shout out on this. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for this route, but that it IS a legitimate roleplaying strategy with a lot of potential for positive memorable experiences IF everyone is on board with it throughout the storyline.

As I said above, you absolutely need buy in from at least the other player and the DM for this plotline. I'd like to ammend that comment – you should have buy in consent from the whole player group. As with anything in life, consent can be granted or taken away at any time, and if this is going down a road that the party isn't comfortable with, you shouldn't go there.

But if the group is comfortable with it, it CAN be very fun. I had a party member back in the day who LOVED playing the double-crossing characters, but would play precarious but ultimately reliable ally most of the time because the party wasn't comfortable with it. But when the party was comfortable with it? He became a campaign villain, started a new character, and was very memorable onward.

 

[aco175]

I wanted to say, congratulations. Paladins are great to have in the party. If you wanted to get on his good side, you could have a zombie assigned to him to help him with his armor.

It is kind of a bold move to pick a paladin if he knows you are a necromancer though. Maybe he is a bit of powergamer and wants to play a more powerful class- without getting a discussion on if the paladin is powerful.

 

[Weiley31]

Necromancer: Huh..looking through the newspaper.

Paladin: What is it?

Necromancer: What do you think about this new Fifth Era Paladin movement? Shows Paladin newspaper article.

Paladin: Oh with the whole alignment restriction lifted? It's just a fad. Not gonna last I tell ya. Sits down on the recliner.

Necromancer: You say that about everything you find strange.

Paladin: All I'm saying is that you won't catch me dead trying out that new hokey philosophy or anything weird like that.

Skeleton: More Ale sir? Hands the Paladin a cold one

Paladin: Sure Jeffers! Takes a long swig. You know, for a Skeleton, especially an evolved Undead, you ain't half bad.

Jeffers: I try sir.

 

[Weiley31]

In the Diablo series, which got two (IIRC)crossover books of its own for DND 3.5, the Priests of Rathma(Necromancers) followed the concept of Balance. That which lives must die, but that which does can live again. Yet one must not ABUSE the Balance. Anything that did got put on a Necromancer's hit list basically.

So a Necromancer could STRIVE for that. There are those who would abuse it (evil Necromancers or those who practice Black Necromancey) and there are those who don't. A Necromancer that practices White Necromancey may allow those who grieve one last chance at getting closure and moving on from a beloved's death. Likewise, a Necromancer may summon an Undead servant, but once the task is completed, return it back to the earth where it belongs now. Or they could be jerks and keep it around. A town surgeon could be a practitioner of Grey Necromancey in order to learn of the body works and allows said surgeon to better treat the living.

Balance.

 

[Li Shenron]

You left off the most obvious idea: they beat the crap out of each other and it happens on-camera; and maybe the other PCs join in.

Another less-obvious idea but I've seen it happen: the party take an in-character vote on whether to accept the Paladin (as s/he's the one trying to join); if it passes, the Necromancer might soon have to leave; if it fails, the Paladin's player will need to roll up somehting different.

It's not that I didn't think about the first... It is just that I really wouldn't suggest it (and think about it... the Paladin might win).

I also don't really like the second one either (which instead I haven't thought about). Both of these are very antagonistic ways to resolve the conflict. The first puts 2 players against each other, the second puts all other players against one of those two. I really don't like where these two ideas will eventually lead the group... honestly if were any of those players (not necessarily the Paladin or Necromancer) and the DM decided to use either of these methods, my trust in such DM would plummet, and I don't know if I would come back. I want to believe that you really didn't mean to suggest these.

 

[Eltab]

When my group played the Doomvault, we had a necromancer Bard in the party. We found out the hard way that a mob of Zombies and "kick down the door and charge in" tactics ... do not mix.

It occurs to me that if you have a tactician in the party, he can figure out where to place that Paladin and your undead such that when the Paladin unleashes a Turn Undead, your undead flee directly into the enemies you really wanted to fight.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not that I didn't think about the first... It is just that I really wouldn't suggest it (and think about it... the Paladin might win).

Yes it might. Didn't say there was no risk involved.

I also don't really like the second one either (which instead I haven't thought about). Both of these are very antagonistic ways to resolve the conflict.

Which makes sense, as without further knowledge the odds are high that bringing a Pally into this group is in some way an antagonistic move in the first place.

The first puts 2 players against each other, the second puts all other players against one of those two. I really don't like where these two ideas will eventually lead the group... honestly if were any of those players (not necessarily the Paladin or Necromancer) and the DM decided to use either of these methods, my trust in such DM would plummet, and I don't know if I would come back. I want to believe that you really didn't mean to suggest these.

Different viewpoints, I guess.

I'm very much a let-'em'-fight DM as long as it stays in character. Were I a player, I'd pick what seemed the reasonable side based on what my character would think and probably dive right in, either to the battle if it came to fighting or to advocating for one or the other if it was political. Or, again depending on whether I was playing the right character for it, I'd look for a way of laughing at both of them and making them both look foolish.

Also, it wouldn't be the DM's decision what method to use; as that's an in-character decision by the players. If the Pally and Necro wanna fight, that's on them. If the party wants to vote, or just drive one or the other (or both!) away, that's on them. Regardless, the DM should just stay out of the way and let it play out, stepping in only if out-of-character conflict arises.

 

[Flamestrike]

A necromancer who raises undead only at need, and disposes of them when their purpose is served, does not have to be evil.

If he does so often, yes he does have to be evil. Says so in the PHB - 'ONLY evil casters do so regularly'.

That's not open to debate. If you regularly animate the dead, you're evil. Says so in the PHB. Animating them is never a Good act (no matter why or for what reason you do so).

Whether that's a metaphysical consequence of using 'dark, foul unholy' magic (as described in the MM under the Zombie and Skeleton entries) to animate them (same as how a Jedi using the Dark Side in Star Wars gets corrupted), or a philosophical consequence of the choice to use 'black magic' to animate and bring into existence evil baby eating monsters powered by unholy dark energy, by defiling the corpse of a deceased sentient creature, is up for debate.

Barring DM intervention to say animating the dead is not, in fact, evil, you cant be someone who regularly animates the dead in 5E and be Good aligned.

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.

I have no problem with this. A DM is free to ignore that passage of the PHB if he wants to, just like he can ignore any rule or text in any of the books he wants to.

But in 5E, by default, animating the dead with magic is not a good act, and ONLY evil creatures do so frequently.

Maybe the OP's DM runs things differently, I dont know. I'm just asserting the core assumption of 5E's necromancy and position on the animating of the dead (its eeevil) under RAW. If that differs in the OPs campaign so be it.

I'm very much a let-'em'-fight DM as long as it stays in character.

I'm very much a 'no way you can introduce that character into this party, without the informed consent of every single other player.'

Whether that's an evil PC being introduced into a good aligned party, or a good aligned PC being introduced into an evil aligned party, 2 clerics of opposing and hostile deities or any other similar scenario.

I'd only allow it if the players were OK with the high potential for PvP conflict, and (in my view) were mature enough to deal with it. All of the players. Otherwise I would veto the character, and require something more compatible with the other characters.

 

[Flamestrike]

Double post

 

[Flamestrike]

Double post