Forums: Advice: A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer. (2024)

Well, is your character Evil?

In both editions, the spell used to create undead to serve you is Evil, and Evil spells are aligned acts, meaning if you do them enough without counterbalancing Good acts you will become Evil.

But you're in a PC group, there are a lot of opportunities to perform Good acts, so staying Good, or at least Neutral, seems pretty plausible.

If you're Good or Neutral then you're a reasonably decent person who does this one bad thing. A reasonable Paladin should disapprove of the undead usage and try and convince you not to, but not necessarily do anything else about it unless it becomes dangerous to innocents or something like that.

If you're Evil, the problem is the Evil rather than the necromancy.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you're Evil, the problem is the Evil rather than the necromancy.

Or you know, the Champion has the Shining Oath or is a follower of Gozreh, Pharasma, or Sarenrae...

Draco18s wrote:

Or you know, the Champion has the Shining Oath or is a follower of Gozreh, Pharasma, or Sarenrae...

Gozreh and Sarenrae have Anathemas against creating undead, not allowing them to exist. So my point stands.

A Shining Oath or Pharasmin Champion has a legitimate problem with necromancy, it's true, but also this is someone creating a character for a group featuring a necromancer already. If they create a devotee of Pharasma or take Shining Oath, they're being disruptive intentionally and you shouldn't game with them.

IMHO, this If anything is a GM mistake. When you have a pre-existing party in an already running campaign, the GM should make clear that it is the new player's responsibility to make a character that contributes to the party cohesiveness. Meaning the new player should either be making a paladin that they intend to play in a way that can at least tolerate the current party's actions (if not approve of them), or choosing a different character to play, one that can tolerate or get along with the current party.

If I'm a paladin (LG), and I decide to start traveling with a group that includes a Necromancer, why did I decide it was okay to do that? What makes that acceptable to me? If I don't have a good answer, then I shouldn't be a paladin. There are a plethora of character options available, choosing to be one of the few characters that you know cannot get along with the existing party is a big problem, and the GM should be the one to step in and say "If YOU can't make it work, you will have to choose something else."

Been a DM/GM/Storyteller for 25+ years, that is where this is coming from.

DRD1812 wrote:

Is there a mechanical solution to the problem?

The crux of the problem isn't mechanical, so there isn't really a mechanical solution. But mechanical changes have made creating undead a less useful tool in the necromancer toolkit. With the process harder to accomplish and the results harder to control necromancers will likely focus more on necromancy spells than Create Undead. Paladins tend to have fewer issues with spells that kill people than the ones that reanimate their corpses. Also paladin isn't an entire class and champions will likely have class options which are not good and have no qualms with evil, and I'd guess we will get evil champions before neutral ones.

Conceptually, the answer is what it always was. Make characters who can play nice with each other, even if you have to bend your character concept somewhat to fit the group.

DRD1812 wrote:

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? And perhaps most importantly: is there a different take on this question in the context of 2e vs. 1e?

Talk to the other player. If he doesn't want to cause disruption, he can choose not to, so long as your character doesn't do anything egregious to be disruptive in turn, like kill people to animate their corpses, or use the bodies of good-aligned races as pack mules, or various other nastiness (soul magic, creating plagues, unleashing free-range self-perpetuating undead like ghouls and shadows on the surroundings, etc.), you should be able to get along and agree to disagree about your differing methods.

This sort of situation is always better solved by out of game solutions, and just agreeing to ignore any fussy mechanical rules that stand in the way of friends getting together to game.

Moppy wrote:

In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.

Annnnd you completely missed the actual issue.

breithauptclan wrote:

Depending on the setting, it may also be possible to re-lore the society. Make it so that raising undead is not necessarily evil. Sort of like how our own society allows us to desecrate corpses in the pursuit of scientific knowledge as long as certain conditions are met.

You could easily argue that using undead is akin to using unmanned drones to avoid casualties - perhaps people could volunteer to a sort of undead milia post mortem rather than having to serve in their prime and risk a premature death?

Perhaps its more of Lawful-Evil, but I could even imagine people selling the right be raised post-death or relatives being paid for being allowed to raise their deceased next of kin. Such contracts could even be time limited, sort of a reverse life-insurance - where if you expect to stay alive for next 25years whats the downside of collecting some gold for some guy wanting the right to raise your cadaver for a period of no longer than 10 years with an expiration period in 25years.

Moppy wrote:

In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.

Except for that pesky evil tag that means it is inherently evil.

Kennethray wrote:

Moppy wrote:

In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.

Except for that pesky evil tag that means it is inherently evil.

And that "common sense" thing that also means it is inherently evil.

Samurai wrote:

We had this issue in one of the PF1e games I played in. The Paladin threatened to kill the Necromancer if he ever created undead or otherwise committed "Evil acts", but promised to leave him alone if he "behaved himself".

So who killed the Paladin?

Tarondor wrote:

Kennethray wrote:

Moppy wrote:

In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.

Except for that pesky evil tag that means it is inherently evil.

And that "common sense" thing that also means it is inherently evil.

You would think that. But I remember before 5 e a player at my table was arguing the whole it's what you do with it that determines if its evil argument. I could just not get past a npc seeing their dead family and friends being used in that way.

Tarondor wrote:

Kennethray wrote:

Moppy wrote:

In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.

Except for that pesky evil tag that means it is inherently evil.

And that "common sense" thing that also means it is inherently evil.

Depends. If people in the society involved view the corpse as being "just a husk" I wouldn't call it evil.

Also, in scarred lands there's hollowfaust, which I wouldn't as a whole call evil, though not good either.

Also, this even though I think the gm handled the situation poorly. Assuming it actually happened.

In Golarion, creating mindless undead is evil for the same reason doing anything with a high risk of killing innocent people as collateral damage is evil, because mindless undead, outside of direct magical control, attempt to murder every living thing they see.

Especially since you can always just make animated objects instead.

Ediwir wrote:

Samurai wrote:

We had this issue in one of the PF1e games I played in. The Paladin threatened to kill the Necromancer if he ever created undead or otherwise committed "Evil acts", but promised to leave him alone if he "behaved himself".

So who killed the Paladin?

He actually died heroically in battle to defeat an enemy, so that resolved that issue! :)

I agree with some of the above, the only real solution is to talk to the person playing a paladin and figure out what they're going to do to make their character work with the party.

It shouldn't be on the Necromancer to adapt their character to the new player, especially if before that everyone else was fine with what they were doing.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

In Golarion, creating mindless undead is evil for the same reason doing anything with a high risk of killing innocent people as collateral damage is evil

There are lots and lots of spells that have a high risk of killing innocent people if used incorrectly. Almost none of them are intrinsically evil, though.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. Whether the reasoning is logical or arbitrary, it's evil because the writers say it's evil.

But even that doesn't actually matter, because this isn't an issue of in-world justification or mechanics in the first place. It's an issue of whether a new character is going to be appropriate for a party or not.

Squiggit wrote:

There are lots and lots of spells that have a high risk of killing innocent people if used incorrectly. Almost none of them are intrinsically evil, though.

Sure, and if used that way they'd be Evil, too. But there are ways to use them that don't carry that risk. There is no such way to use Animate Dead.

In Golarion, Animate Dead also really messes with the souls of the dead, keeping them from interacting properly with the afterlife or other soul-related stuff (as is evidenced by the inability to raise anyone whose body is undead from the dead).

Squiggit wrote:

But even that doesn't actually matter, because this isn't an issue of in-world justification or mechanics in the first place. It's an issue of whether a new character is going to be appropriate for a party or not.

Well, yes, but people were starting to get into the separate 'but why is it Evil' debate. Which varies by setting. I think it's relevant that, in Golarion, there are actually solid reasons it's a bad thing.

Samurai wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Samurai wrote:

We had this issue in one of the PF1e games I played in. The Paladin threatened to kill the Necromancer if he ever created undead or otherwise committed "Evil acts", but promised to leave him alone if he "behaved himself".

So who killed the Paladin?

He actually died heroically in battle to defeat an enemy, so that resolved that issue! :)

Soooooo, did you raise the dead paladin?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure, and if used that way they'd be Evil, too.

I mean, yeah that's kind of the point. Usually it's a matter of context as to whether an action is good, evil or neither. For certain spells, the context doesn't matter at all.

Squiggit wrote:

I mean, yeah that's kind of the point. Usually it's a matter of context as to whether an action is good, evil or neither. For certain spells, the context doesn't matter at all.

The point is that, unlike most spells that only have the potential to wreak harm, every instance of Create Undead does tangible and direct harm inasmuch as it directly effects the soul of the person whose body you are using, as well as creating a being inimical to all life by its very nature.

And, for the record, all other spells that mess with souls are also Evil (that's admittedly exclusively Bind Soul at the moment).

The standards for what made a spell Evil in PF1 were pretty arbitrary, but in PF2 it's pretty exclusively restricted to things that do Evil damage, defend against Good creatures, create undead, and mess with souls (and you can argue the undead thing is due to the messing with souls).

Is everyone just glossing over the small detail that creating undeads in Golarion slowly but surely erodes the fabric of the universe?

“F%@& the consequences”, amirite?

People very much want necromancy in Golarion to be about what you do with Undead that determines the alignment.

That is not the case.

In Golarion, the specifics of Undead (for the majority) makes them evil. It is innate to their nature, though some very small number can resist or change after being evil.

And so the intentional creation of such creatures would reasonable be evil. And it is, the spell has the tag. Doing the act, even with good intentions degrades your soul and moral well being. That's how evil it is.

It's a setting choice made by the creative director. You don't have to like it, you can customize your setting to not have that, but if you're playing "canon Golarion" then it's evil.

Clarify with your GM how they're running it.

If you’re referring to OP they make a comic around Tabletop queries and regularly post them along with the question, I don’t think they’re really looking for specific answers or anything, merely prompting thinking.

Also, 1) the Necromancer is cute and 2) holy f+!! that is sad.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Just carry a lead plate around and when he swings that pally vision towards you hold up the plate to block his detect.

Clearly that has nothing to with this situation, carrying a big lead plate is only done by certain halfling tribes to prove their masculinity.

Rysky wrote:

If you’re referring to OP they make a comic around Tabletop queries and regularly post them along with the question, I don’t think they’re really looking for specific answers or anything, merely prompting thinking.

Also, 1) the Necromancer is cute and 2) holy f*$+ that is sad.

Do they really? What is the name of this comic?

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Just carry a lead plate around and when he swings that pally vision towards you hold up the plate to block his detect.

Clearly that has nothing to with this situation, carrying a big lead plate is only done by certain halfling tribes to prove their masculinity.

Rysky wrote:

If you’re referring to OP they make a comic around Tabletop queries and regularly post them along with the question, I don’t think they’re really looking for specific answers or anything, merely prompting thinking.

Also, 1) the Necromancer is cute and 2) holy f*$+ that is sad.

Do they really? What is the name of this comic?

It is linked at the bottom of the first post, as it always is. The threads started seem to largely be a click baity way to get traffic to said web comic.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The threads started seem to largely be a click baity way to get traffic to said web comic.

And every time I miss it until its pointed out.

Claxon wrote:

It's a setting choice made by the creative director. You don't have to like it, you can customize your setting to not have that, but if you're playing "canon Golarion" then it's evil.

Clarify with your GM how they're running it.

I feel like there's a tension between setting-as-written and players who want to try a new play-style. You're spot-on about the Golarion lore, and that adds a certain amount of interest to a unique setting. It's also a nice way to sidestep the tired morality debate.

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

To that end, I've always liked the White Necromancer from Kobold

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design /white-necromancer/

Personally, if I were playing with a setting were Undead are always evil (which I normally do play the basic Golarion setting) I wouldn't be happy as a GM or player with someone attempting to introduce the white necromancer, which whitewashes away that aspect of the setting.

It didn't help that in PF1 playing minion classes like Undead creating classes or Master Summoner we're overly powerful and hard to balance with the rest of the table.

If I'm not playing in a setting where Undead are always evil, then the white necromancer isn't necessary.

DRD1812 wrote:

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

This is why I like animate objects on a corpse. Ambulatory corpses attacking your enemy stays, but it doesn't impact the soul of the deceased.

DRD1812 wrote:

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

It's called focusing on the non-evil necromancy spells. So no creating undead or trapping souls.

In PF1 there were enough necromancy spells to do that. In PF2... I think we're somewhat close. A few of them are a bit weak, but it's close.

DRD1812 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It's a setting choice made by the creative director. You don't have to like it, you can customize your setting to not have that, but if you're playing "canon Golarion" then it's evil.

Clarify with your GM how they're running it.

I feel like there's a tension between setting-as-written and players who want to try a new play-style. You're spot-on about the Golarion lore, and that adds a certain amount of interest to a unique setting. It's also a nice way to sidestep the tired morality debate.

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

To that end, I've always liked the White Necromancer from Kobold

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design /white-necromancer/

I like the White Necromancer very much. Except for the arbitrary restriction to non-Evil alignment which makes some interesting concepts not legal. Whereas one can actually create a Good necromancer with a very arduous but not illegal road ahead with having to do bad things while staying Good.

Much more interesting than having Create Undead be neutral BTW.

Ediwir wrote:

Is everyone just glossing over the small detail that creating undeads in Golarion slowly but surely erodes the fabric of the universe?

“F++# the consequences”, amirite?

That's really not any worse than the casual polluters of today, with their big cars, yachts, jets, chemical plants, and straws.

DRD1812 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It's a setting choice made by the creative director. You don't have to like it, you can customize your setting to not have that, but if you're playing "canon Golarion" then it's evil.

Clarify with your GM how they're running it.

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

There is. Its called Geb. Just play your campaign in and around the nation of Geb where undead are an accepted part of the social order. Pathfinder prides itself on having something for everyone, necromancer wannabes included.

People who make this into an issue are choosing to be disruptive. An out-of-game conversation is absolutely necessary to sort that sort of thing out.

mach1.9pants wrote:

You made exactly the same post in the Fifth Edition DnD section of ENWorld, and didn't get back to the 30 pages of replies, so I'm confused as to what you are after? In 5E Paladins can be of any alignment, as can Necormancers. Is this a Pathfinder 2 sepcific thing or 5E or what? No such thing as a Necromancer in PF2E or 5E, class wise? You talk about a mechanical solution, so we really need more stats to give that

The point is to give an excuse for a link to the comic. This entire thread, like every other post by the OP, is an ad.

Or just leave the Paladin at the local bar and never go back.

There's nothing that says the group has to accept the newcomer.

Ravingdork wrote:

DRD1812 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It's a setting choice made by the creative director. You don't have to like it, you can customize your setting to not have that, but if you're playing "canon Golarion" then it's evil.

Clarify with your GM how they're running it.

I just wish that there was some way to avoid the issue, allow the playstyle of necromancy, and still work within an AP without feeling like you're rewriting a coherent world arbitrarily.

There is. Its called Geb. Just play your campaign in and around the nation of Geb where undead are an accepted part of the social order. Pathfinder prides itself on having something for everyone, necromancer wannabes included.

People who make this into an issue are choosing to be disruptive. An out-of-game conversation is absolutely necessary to sort that sort of thing out.

Still Evil though. Even if socially accepted.

Like dealing with Devils in Cheliax.

Yeah, bargaining with devils in Cheliax and practicing necromancy in Geb have something in common, they're both evil things done in evil countries.

Socially accepted doesn't make it not evil.

Some people want to play a game where it's not evil.

I personally really don't like that idea, but that's what they want.

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, bargaining with devils in Cheliax and practicing necromancy in Geb have something in common, they're both evil things done in evil countries.

Socially accepted doesn't make it not evil.

Some people want to play a game where it's not evil.

I personally really don't like that idea, but that's what they want.

Well as long as the table is happy everything goes ;)

Ok since the first post isn't really interested in an answer let's go ;)

First I have to say that magical world building is one of my hobby...

For Geb I would point out that even if Urgathoa is NE, Geb is LE... And I would argue that it is a pre-requisite for every kingdom who wants to use undead.

Loyal : Because without strong rule enforced at all cost, a territory who accept undead as a part of their daily routine is fated to quickly disappeared in the belly of a horde of man-eating monsters... ;)
So you can try to make a territory with undead of NE Or CE alignment but if your territory is mostly Neutral/Something or Chaotic/Something then your reign will not last long... :p
You can't afford something other than Loyal in this case, and I would say very, very loyal... Else you can say bye bye to your people and yourself.

Evil : Because summoning is Evil but not only because of that.
You have to think of the people who are going to live in your territory... First you don't need peasant in your territory, most of the menial tasks will be done by undead. And peasant is a big percentage of medieval population... In a way it means you need less people to sustain your realm...
Second all people strongly believing in Gods that abhorre undead will flee first, then you will attract people who LIKE undead, in this case Urgathoa believers and, most importantly, priest who will quickly rise in power.
Then intelligent undead will come too, and with the help of the clergy will want equality, and then with the decline in living people population, they will gain more power than living people...
But undead needs living people to "eat" so slavery or "living people livestock" will be implemented (they got the power to do so AND the time ;) )

Then you got a territory with few living people, sentient undead with most of the power and slavery/"voluntary livestock" (Voluntary Livestock are the people who agree to serve a sentient undead that can make them immortal) to "eat" be legal who need to be strict with the rules 'cause they don't want to unleash hell in their town (their "cattle" could die) or irritate other powerful countries by releasing large horde of undead unto them...

For that I would say that the territory if Geb was incredibly well thought out ;)

Shifty wrote:

Or just leave the Paladin at the local bar and never go back.

There's nothing that says the group has to accept the newcomer.

Or people accept the Paladin and boot the Nethermancer?

Ten10 wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Or just leave the Paladin at the local bar and never go back.

There's nothing that says the group has to accept the newcomer.

Or people accept the Paladin and boot the Nethermancer?

Both are bad options because they passive aggressively try to solve what is ultimately an IRL social issue with some kind of in-game contrivance.