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

[jgsugden]

The point of D&D is to be fun. A D&D game that is a miserable experience for the people playing it is a failed game. If it produces an incredible story, it is still a failed game.

I don't think I advocated for a miserable experience - I merely noted that conflict is a key element of most stories.

Conversely, a game that everyone enjoys is successful, even if the story is nothing but "And then we went here and fought a monster and got loot," repeated several dozen times.

That is a very common style of games. However, in my experiences in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10, and now 20s - when players that have only had experiences in these types of games first experience a well written game that is story driven with character driven storylines - where their actions matter - overwhelmingly find it to be a better experience. So, yes. A dungeon crawl that is agnostic to the PCs can be a success, it is a success in the same way that unseasoned rice can successfully feed you. I'm not telling people that enjoy these types of games that they're having fun wrong. I'm just saying you might be able to have even more fun.

Conflict between PCs can be fun, but it requires that all players and the DM are on the same page as to the level of conflict they find enjoyable.

Agreed, although I'd alter that to say compatible pages, rather than the same page. Same page seems very narrow while we should be more open to a spectrum of (non-offensive) options if we're being good partners.

Some groups are totally cool with PvP combat to the death on a regular basis. However, I infer from the OP that this is not the case here.

I have never experienced a table where it was the norm, outside of a few one shot battle royal scenarios. Regardless, conflict doesn't need to mean violence. As I mentioned, alliance by necessity despite opposing views is a common story element.

So everyone needs to get on the same page, and as a general rule, it is the new person joining the group who should expect to do most of the adapting.

I disagree here.

A long D&D game is a story told over 300 to 400 hours. That could be like 4 to 10 seasons of a TV show once you adjust for wasted time, for reference. Know what makes for boring TV? One track storylines.

When a player wants to change things up, it can often bring something new and interesting to the table. It is not the duty of the new player to conform to the preestablished routine of the table - it is the duty of the entire table to find interesting ways to tell the stories that all the players want to contribute to building. Does this mean that the existing players should bend over backwards to accommodate the new player? Of course not. It means the existing players and the new player should all be looking for ways to tell a fun story with the elements they each wish to bring to the table.

 

[Todd Roybark]

but now we have to hear about those poor skeletons with hearts of gold, whose skeleton mothers loved them,

It is called The Eberron Campaign Setting, see the Undying Court. It has been out since 2004.

Have you been under a rock, or under a roc?

 

[tommybahama]

That Angel, that just turned an entire city to salt, (including infants and toddlers), over a differing view point regarding sexual behavior, seems pretty evil to me.

Wow, you just let the mask slip.

 

[Flamestrike]

Can you provide something that says raising undead is an evil act in 5e?

PHB, Magic section, under the Necromancy school sub-header:

''Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life. Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells... is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently. ''

Undead themselves in the MM are described as being animated by 'foul, unholy black magic' etc as well.

If your PC animates dead frequently he is evil. Additionally, even if he does so occasionally, he is using foul, unholy black magic to do so, and is committing a 'non-good' act every time he does so.

 

[Kurotowa]

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?

This isn't the old days where Paladins only came in one flavor. Talk to the guy about what sort of Paladin he wants to bring. A Heroism Paladin may not care about your undead, a Vengeance Paladin may be fine with it as long as you're using them to fight the greater evil, and a Conquest Paladin could be outright enthusiastic about helping you as long as he gets to lead them into battle. Don't assume that he's going to be a holy boy until you talk with the player about what he intends.

 

[Wiseblood]

Step one: Wait and see. Your friend’s paladin might not have a problem with your stuff. If they do not have a problem you can stop here. If they do go to...

Step two: One of you must relent (or repent) logically this should be you. Paladins are a zealous lot. Pushing at this point by you is vanity. If you can free yourself from ego proceed to....

Step three Option A: Work in secret, (like you should) grow in power and hope he dies heroically and largely intact or...

Step three Option Z: Continue being a necromancer but refrain from doing dark deeds.( ie. play on hard mode)

 

[Lanefan]

Can't say which is best, but there are various possible ideas:

• the Paladin is dumb
• the Paladin is forced to work with the Necromancer by a higher power and cannot refuse
• the Necromancer has creative ways to hide or disguise her work
• the Necromancer doesn't necessarily use the most offending necromancy spells
• dire circumstances force them to work together against a greater evil
• they are relatives, very close friends, or in love with each other
• they just manage to tolerate each other or make a deal about not taking it too far
• they beat the cr4p out of each other, but it happens off-camera

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.

The second one, where the Pally has to work with the party due to divine orders, I've used before to reasonable success; but it doesn't work forever unless you're running a single-story campaign.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's a reason why I think in the videogame Pillars of Eternity they called the spellcasters that studied and manipulated the life and death cycle 'Animancers' rather than 'Necromancers'. It basically stopped the automatic association the players would have of 'necromancy = evil' and thus they'd approach those quests differently.

I personally think it could be very useful for certain tables/campaigns to use "Animancy" rather than "Necromancy" as the spell school name. Because if you think about it... if the word "necromancy" has been co-opted and become synonymous with evil wizards that "Use the dead to destroy the living!!!" in your campaign world... then other wizards would naturally find a new word to describe what they are actually studying to avoid that comparison.

It's why the MPAA gave up on the X rating and eventually created NC-17 after the porn industry co-opted X. Wizards who study the life/death cycle would do the exact same thing.

 

[Stilvan]

I learned my lesson long ago - don't make evil characters. For most people, this is a game about heroics - and it's really best to play along. By choosing to play a "monster" character you've injected a dissonance into the table - other players' characters should want to murder you but of course, that's being "unfun" so they don't. This leaves them with a problem though - how can they roleplay (for example) a cleric's righteousness with any conviction when you dabble in the worst of crimes and scandalously spend short rests with them. Now... having said that, if all the other players were playing evil characters and this dude comes in wanting to play a paladin well, that's his mistake and that flatly shouldn't be allowed by the DM.

There are lots of good guy bad guy team up stories out there but none of them are campaign length material and they are all the focus of the story. I suggest you make a hasty departure ig and reroll as one of those insipid do-gooders.

For the record mine was also a Necromancer who, in his paranoia, had soul-jarred the entire party in secret (note: this was GURPS not D&D). When the Paladin-type turned me into the authorities I was ambushed and almost subdued. As they moved in to restrain me I pointed at my accuser demanded his "God" judge him for his false accusations and promptly secretly snapped the focus (a wooden stick) I had his soul in. The terrified guardsmen fled as his utterly lifeless corpse immediately dropped to the ground. I mean it was delightful fun but you can't exactly carry on after that - not with the campaign and not with that group of players.

 

[Dausuul]

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.