Skeletons and Zombies are by default malevolent and evil. It was 3.x where they were mindless/neutral. Also, if someone was to walk up and tell me to "get...How do you deal with Paladins when you're a caster wanting to cast spells with the [Evil] discriptor?
Could you convince them, for example, that you can create Zombies/Skeletons of creatures without souls?
Fact: Skeletons and zombies are mindless.
Fact: Negative energy is not evil.
Fact: Animate dead does not affect souls. It does not rip souls from heaven or hell to animate the dead.
Fact: You can use flesh to stone on a statue, resulting in a Corpse. You can then cast animate dead on that corpse, making an undead that was once stone.
Fact: Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor.The Paladin code bars her from working with evil associates for long, or someone who constantly is offending her code. If the caster is Good (in the case of wizards or sorcerers, who have no restrictions on casting the spell), or Neutral (such as gray clerics), the Paladin may find it offensive, but perhaps tolerable.
Honestly, if the Paladin makes a fuss about it, you may not be able to convince them if they refuse to listen. However, it's absolutely impossible to argue that undead are innately evil without resorting to "well just because they are", which in a real situation has no weight.
Honestly, I'd let the Paladin and the rest of the group know that it's the Paladin being unreasonable. The Paladin has no right to say what the rest of the party does. Request, sure, but if the Necromancer in the party pops some undead zombies up, and the Paladin complains, he's free to leave. It's not you that is causing the problem, but the Paladin and his rigidness. The Paladin is the one who is creating the problem (notice the Necromancer likely doesn't have a class feature telling him he can't be friends with the Paladin), so either he can get over it, or he can get lost.
It's as simple as that.
Also people tend to take issue with the whole violating the dead aspect particularly when you take said dead and make more dead with them. Then you have gods that take issue, plus laws against it.
Plus, let's face it, there's evil descriptors over all those animate dead type spells.
That being said, every bit of that is a GM thing not a paladin thing. Not get upset at the paladin for following the expectations laid for him by the game.
If a GM changes the rules to fit that idea then your argument actually has ground to stand on.
This Spam Detect Evil idea is one which I think is morally flawed for a Paladin. As a Paladin use of the DE ability is an infringement upon the rights of most people. It would be the same thing as walking into someone's home and hooking them up to a polygraph device without asking them permission and then proceeding to question them about there whereabouts. A Paladin who follows a code of Chivalry and Honor would use it only when he has obtained proper consent to do so.
In addition most societies have high ranking evil members of their governing bodies. I am sure that they would have laws in place restricting the extreme use of DE.
Really then? So cops shouldn't be allowed to use laser detectors for speeding cars because it's an infringement on your rights as a motorist?That's the type of logic at work here.
|
James Jacobs has some interesting things to say on the evilness of undead and their creation, as well as how it affects and corrupts souls over here if you'd like to see.
A campaign can be run with evil characters in mind (I'm running one). It's a very different experience from normal, and somewhat difficult to run - it's easy for them to run off on a random tangent for some unexpected looting and killing.
My solution;
We run 2 groups that I DM.
1. The Heroes! Everyone is Good or neutral with good tendencies. These guys do the right thing most of the time. The have fun running adventures where they save the princess, the kingdom, the day and sometimes, the world. They consist of an Aasimar LG Paladin/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight, a Human NG Witch, a NG Elf Druid and a CG 1/2 Elf Rogue/Ranger.
2. The Bad Guys! This is the morally ambiguous group that pretty much does what they want. We play this group about once every 3-4 games to liven things up. Its a surprisingly FUN game, and while everyone looks forward to playing them, they ALL enjoy playing the Heroes more often. I think its because they don't want to ruin this group by overplaying it. They consist of a LE Tiefling Monk, a NE Tiefling Rogue/Assassin, a NE Human Necromancer and a CN Cleric/Bard.
I almost ALWAYS play with either friends and or family. (usually a mix of both) and I NEVER DM anymore for random people at the LGS or anywhere else. I find that it has drastically reduced the pain of dealing with conflicting player interests to either run 2 parties and/or limit your gaming circle to exclude players that are purposefully disruptive to a night of COOPERATIVE fun. Because in the end, if your players are REALLY thinking of running a LG Paladin and a Necromancer who plans to cast Animate Dead regularly in the same group, at least ONE of those players is intentionally causing conflict. Address it with the suggestion of 2 parties. If one (or both) of the players cry about it, you know you have more than just a battle of LG and Evil on your hands.
Let me get this straight? If one player wants to play a paladin, the rest of the group has to kowtow to said wish? I think not. I'm DM'ing a Carrion Crown right now, and we have a Paladin the group, but the issue was cleared with all players in character creation, and everyone built their characters accordingly, resulting in a mix of good and neutral characters.
However, conversely, if 3 of my 4 players wanted an evil campaign and the 4th wanted to play a Paladin? I'd give him the choice of playing an antipaladin instead, or any other class for that matter, or play a paladin and face the consequences. Just because the Paladin class has a strict code doesn't give one player the right to subjugate the desires of three other players on a whim to play one.
I've DM'd good, neutral, and evil campaigns and all of them can be fun and work equally well. All of them, however, are incumbent upon mutual respect for one another by everyone at the table.
On the first paragraph, I mostly agree. As long as no-one expresses some kind of issue with it (and it better be a good one - Any character can view undead as crimes against nature, and ones who use it as even worse), then a Paladin is fine.
On the second paragraph, I believe I mentioned evil campaigns in another post, and mentioned that it's very different from a normal campaign. Assuming the campaign is a normal one (the OP hasn't said anything to suggest otherwise), then no-one should be playing an evil character - and thus have no issue with a paladin, as long as the Paladin doesn't overstep his bounds.
And the third paragraph, I agree completely.
I also don't think a Paladin is an "issue". All players have limits while playing - but any character class (Druid, Cleric, Paladin, and Monk in particular), can be pushed too far. There's no reason to single out a paladin, or any class. As long as everyone is reasonable, the game works fine with any good and neutral alignments and any combination of classes.
I don't think that anyone should be trying to trick anyone else and I hate when players make characters that are certain to cause party conflict. So I think you should talk with the Dungeon Master and the paladin's player about how to handle it and come to an agreeable point.
However, to add into the sub-discussion of the thread, I think that Paladins are the most selfish class that a person can play. They essentially force everyone else to build their character around the Paladin and walk on eggshells during play. Plus most people seem to want to play them in the most annoying way possible. I believe that before you're allowed to play a Paladin you should have to ask everyone else in the group if it's okay, because it's not just a personal decision, it's one that effects everyone.
Also why is it that Paladin's always get special treatment when it comes to character idea conflicts? If the player with the Necromancer came up his character first, then the Paladin should be the one to change. If it happened at the same time then it should have been resolved then.
I recommand that before character creation everyone give a brief overview of their character concepts as a way to avoid conflicts.
|
How do you deal with Paladins when you're a caster wanting to cast spells with the [Evil] discriptor?
Could you convince them, for example, that you can create Zombies/Skeletons of creatures without souls?
You cast your spell, and see how the paladin reacts.
If he doesn't do anything about it, especially if he keeps ignoring it, he's a bad player. If he does do something about it, you'll probably get mad.
The DM needs to step in, but whoever was playing their character first probably gets priority. You guys need to work it out, but if the paladin player loses his character somehow, I hope he makes a new character specifically bent on killing necromancers and see how you like it.
My solution;
We run 2 groups that I DM.
1. The Heroes! Everyone is Good or neutral with good tendencies. These guys do the right thing most of the time. The have fun running adventures where they save the princess, the kingdom, the day and sometimes, the world. They consist of an Aasimar LG Paladin/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight, a Human NG Witch, a NG Elf Druid and a CG 1/2 Elf Rogue/Ranger.
2. The Bad Guys! This is the morally ambiguous group that pretty much does what they want. We play this group about once every 3-4 games to liven things up. Its a surprisingly FUN game, and while everyone looks forward to playing them, they ALL enjoy playing the Heroes more often. I think its because they don't want to ruin this group by overplaying it. They consist of a LE Tiefling Monk, a NE Tiefling Rogue/Assassin, a NE Human Necromancer and a CN Cleric/Bard.
I almost ALWAYS play with either friends and or family. (usually a mix of both) and I NEVER DM anymore for random people at the LGS or anywhere else. I find that it has drastically reduced the pain of dealing with conflicting player interests to either run 2 parties and/or limit your gaming circle to exclude players that are purposefully disruptive to a night of COOPERATIVE fun. Because in the end, if your players are REALLY thinking of running a LG Paladin and a Necromancer who plans to cast Animate Dead regularly in the same group, at least ONE of those players is intentionally causing conflict. Address it with the suggestion of 2 parties. If one (or both) of the players cry about it, you know you have more than just a battle of LG and Evil on your hands.
+1
I've been playing with/DM'ing the same crew for decades, and it really helps party cohesion. In our case, everyone gets together finds out what each wants to play, and then design their characters around a group concept everyone decides upon.
If I was in a situation where I had new players, I would foster precisely this sort of discussion to prevent any such issues and make sure everyone had a character they could enjoy and work with one another.
I don't think that anyone should be trying to trick anyone else and I hate when players make characters that are certain to cause party conflict. So I think you should talk with the Dungeon Master and the paladin's player about how to handle it and come to an agreeable point.
However, to add into the sub-discussion of the thread, I think that Paladins are the most selfish class that a person can play. They essentially force everyone else to build their character around the Paladin and walk on eggshells during play. Plus most people seem to want to play them in the most annoying way possible. I believe that before you're allowed to play a Paladin you should have to ask everyone else in the group if it's okay, because it's not just a personal decision, it's one that effects everyone.
Also why is it that Paladin's always get special treatment when it comes to character idea conflicts? If the player with the Necromancer came up his character first, then the Paladin should be the one to change. If it happened at the same time then it should have been resolved then.
I recommand that before character creation everyone give a brief overview of their character concepts as a way to avoid conflicts.
I agree with the first paragraph wholeheartedly in this situation.
I completely disagree with the second paragraph. The Paladin you describe is overstepping his bounds as a player. In my group, we have a N Ranger, a CG Sorcerer, and a CN Bard. The Bard oversteps his bounds by intentionally doing things that border on evil, but otherwise we work just fine. The sorcerer does chaotic stuff (nothing comes to mind, unfortunately), but it's not extreme, so I let it slide. The ranger is mild in everything (and shows no hints of evil), so I let her do her thing. When I negotiate fees for the group, I mention that we will need appropriate payment, though I would be happy to do it for free.
When players overstep, they are being selfish. Paladins are not immune, but Paladins are expected to be in the game occasionally - characters who skirt on evil are not (in general).
Also, what's with the "First Come, First Served" idea? Just because I had to work and it took me 3 more days to decide on a character than my friend, I get shafted? This is a situation best settled through GM mediation.
The last part I also agree on. I wish our group had done this ahead of time so that I wouldn't be considering leaving now.
Did the OP ever answer my question about the rest of the party? I never saw a response, but might have missed it. That really will tell us who's out of step.
who said anything about the necromancer being evil or the act of raising dead evil this is a subjective moral issue because yes while some view desecrating the dead as a great sin or moral travesty others can see the use of the dead (what they would view as sacks of meat and bones) to save or protect the living a noble endeavor .
what if the end allways justified the means and honest pure good came from the use of "evil"
There is no subjective morality in D&D - D&D morality is objective. Notice how "Good", "Law", "Chaos", and "Evil" are defined? You don't decide what is really good or evil - the book does, unless the GM makes changed to it. Though adjudication is necessary in some situations.
I think a Paladin would protest using Evil to perform good deeds unless there was literally no other way that offered any realistic chance of success.
I don't think that anyone should be trying to trick anyone else and I hate when players make characters that are certain to cause party conflict.
That's the point I was trying to make, no matter what class you want to play, it should fit the concept of the group as decided upon by the players at the onset of character creation. I wasn't singling out paladins. If the group collectively decides on a traditional heroic concept and then one guy decides to make a priest of Orcus, he'd be just as wrong. To clarify, my own style is not "first come, first serve" but rather "everyone agree on an ethos and then create characters accrordingly".
Also, what's with the "First Come, First Served" idea? Just because I had to work and it took me 3 more days to decide on a character than my friend, I get shafted? This is a situation best settled through GM mediation.
I agree that it is best settled through mediation with the Dungeon Master, it has just been my experience that when someone wants to play a Paladin they get bumped to the front of the line as far as character ideas go. I would say that it is a sign of a bad Dungeon Master, but I've had the good luck to have had some truly excellent Dungeon Masters over the years, and all of them did it.
As far as 'First Come, First Served' if one player makes it known to the group that they want to play a certain type of character and then half-an-hour or more later someone else says they're going to play a character that is going to conflict with the first, well I'm sorry, unless the other player is willing to change concepts, no. In that case it is indeed 'First Come, First Served'. I'm pretty easy going in my games, but I don't put up with character conflict that can be avoided.
I've been in the same sitution as the original poster; I told the group I wanted to play a Necromancer and a bit later someone decided to play a Paladin. Guess who got the raw end of that deal. Yes, I'm a bit biased about it but I often feel that when someone choses to play a Paladin they basically throw down a Veto on a wide range of character concepts, which is why when I Dungeon Master I require that everyone be in agreement about characters before they put pencil to paper.
I'm also not so thrilled about the charactization of Paladins. Most of my experience with Paladins is that their character concept goes as far as being a Paladin.
Robert Carter 58 - Your example with the NPC Paladin is fine - an NPC should not override a PC in virtually any circumstance.
And you say +1 to GravesScion's post. Which lead to the obvious question -
You're running a game. The group is together for creating characters. Jack wants to make a Paladin of Sarenrae. Jill wants to make CN Necromancer casting loads of evil spells.
Considering casting an Evil spell is an evil act, how would you balance these different tastes?
As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM. Could be immediate, could be after you cast the spell 100 times, could be never. Could be that as long as you cast the spell for good purposes and do enough good acts to balance out your karma that it'll NEVER have an effect.
The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!
How do you deal with Paladins when you're a caster wanting to cast spells with the [Evil] discriptor?
Could you convince them, for example, that you can create Zombies/Skeletons of creatures without souls?
If they don't have spellcraft they won't know what spell you are casting, and most don't.
Some GM's don't consider such spells to be evil.If neither one of those works for you then you may have to cut back on evil spell casting.
You may also have to not use evil spells.
I always find these Paladin Discussion thread strange. they seem to always make everything the Paladins Fault. Ultimately the only time the Paladins behaviour Is of concern is if they joined the Campaign later.
Secondly as far as PF goes there is in fact absolutely zero Moral Judgement issues involving undead or animate dead or /anything/ with the Evil descriptor. Pathfinder short of house rules deals in Absolutes.
Most of these problems seem to arise with playrs pretending their charactr is good and basically doing Vile things and then arguining Subjective orality where it doesnt exist.
Really the Op has 3 Choises.
1) Discuss it oocly with the paladins player and 1 of the 2 characters has to leave.
2) the Paladin Kills him and his Undead
or 3, Attempt to kill the Paladin.
And I think Paladin's getting the slightest of bumps is OK in some circumstances.
I mean one can play a Wizard (and even a Necromancer) without offending a Paladin completely - just don't do the evil stuff (which is, admittedly why you played a Necromancer - but then who really has more of an issue, the Paladin or the Necromancer?).
I don't think a Paladin "Vetos" any class, and only some limited options. However, some class selections (like Necromancers) can easily veto classes and even alignments if you let the player indulge too much.
My own example included concepts being presented over a long period of time - if everyone is together...well, I still think a discussion is best, even if someone jumps in later with another idea. Just because I took a little longer, I still get the short end of the stick? I dunno, I just don't agree with it.
Like I said, lines have to be drawn, and I'm more inclined (like your GMs) to let people play their Paladins as long as they don't over-step their bounds. Of course, any player can go too far with any class and any concept - it's all a matter of the selfishness of the player, in the end.
There is an undead appearance eidolon evolution in Ultimate Magic. If you want a badass undead minion, you have more flexibility with an eidolon anyway.
If you want a large number of mooks, you can go the broodmaster + undead appearance route.
If your "undead minion" is not evil, the paladin doesn't have to do anything about it.
You no longer have to cast spells with the evil descriptor to have an awesome undead follower.
You could even take on a broodmaster summoner cohort for extra undead minion fun.
-------------------------------------
If you still really want to cast evil spells, then your character is limited in his conduct by requiring that he preform evil acts and champion evil over good. You are shackled with the evil alignment's restrictions and have to keep doing evil things to keep your character powerful.
Wait, who wants the character concept that is causing problems for the group again?
Ultimate Magic has summoner evolutions that make the Eidolon look and function almost exactly like an Undead creature. You should look into it. That way, it only *looks* like an undead abomination in the eyes of all that is holy.
But it doesn't ping evil. Win/Win.
EDIT: Ninja'd!!!!!!!
I think in this kind of situation it's the odd duck that needs to give. If the party is leaning towards amoral as a whole, I doubt that a paladin would be a good choice. Likewise, if the party is more moral, I doubt that playing the necromancer would be prudent either. While you may be focused on the class who can't "ignore" your actions, it's of pivotal importance to keep the group as a whole in mind. Also you may want to talk to your DM about making a varient of the Animate dead that makes a bunch of limited constructs ala animate object that works in a similar manner.
Ultimate Magic has summoner evolutions that make the Eidolon look and function almost exactly like an Undead creature. You should look into it. That way, it only *looks* like an undead abomination in the eyes of all that is holy.
But it doesn't ping evil. Win/Win.
That sounds like a wonderful compromise. You get your undead bodyguard, don't cast evil, and he can't attack you for it (since your Eidolon is your alignment - not evil).
Yeah mdt is right. Talk it over with the other player and the GM. Many problems can be solved by simply talking through them. And who knows you might be surprised by the results. I let my paladin fall for friendship sake. The situation was a bit different but who knows.
Really, really.... This is dum.... Argument cant every one play nice in the sandbox. Forget my character is this so you can't do that. This game has a whole country that worship an arch devil Asmodeous and several Good and Lawful Gods such as Iomedae and Sarenrae that are friends with him and that work together. If they did not lose there godhood then whole argument is moot point. So evil wizard, bard, rouge, sorcerer, witch, and or cleric etc can work and be friends with paladins, good cleric and inquistor and still be fine. Play and have fun.
Yes the paladin most likely can not tell what spell is cast cause he no ranks in spellcraft. He also is most likely not able to ID demon or devil cause they don't have enough rank in knowledge planes to hit the DC. Yes lie to him all you want cause he little or no rank in sence motive. This what need to talked about class that can't do there own job. The flaws in this game I have been harping about sense 3.0 though 3.5 and still now in 3.75 or pathfinder. The skill system needs major work cause it is greatly broke.
Really, really.... This is dum.... Argument cant every one play nice in the sandbox. Forget my character is this so you can't do that. This game has a whole country that worship an arch devil Asmodeous and several Good and Lawful Gods such as Iomedae and Sarenrae that are friends with him and that work together. If they did not lose there godhood then whole argument is moot point. So evil wizard, bard, rouge, sorcerer, witch, and or cleric etc can work and be friends with paladins, good cleric and inquistor and still be fine. Play and have fun.
Yes the paladin most likely can not tell what spell is cast cause he no ranks in spellcraft. He also is most likely not able to ID demon or devil cause they don't have enough rank in knowledge planes to hit the DC. Yes lie to him all you want cause he little or no rank in sence motive. This what need to talked about class that can't do there own job. The flaws in this game I have been harping about sense 3.0 though 3.5 and still now in 3.75 or pathfinder. The skill system needs major work cause it is greatly broke.
Your talent for non-sequitur is astounding.
All this talk about not mixing good and evil partys is downright offensive booo alignment segregation... really why take the fun out of have two opposite axis players. afterall if your playing an evil character is it really the best idea to run around screaming IM EVIL IM EVIL anyways? i think that gets you killed by good npc as well. if your gonna play a evil character haveing a paladin on your team will just keep you on your toes. now generally necromancy is evil hard to argue aginst that point thats awhole lot of it that has the evil descriptor and what not. (i love the dressing zombies up like people idea beautiful) I would do alot of off screen undead creation if it was me away from the pally or maybe invest in some illusion spells.
I wonder why it is that several people quoted my post and argued that undead were evil. Are they illiterate? Can they not read? I'm pretty sure I said, specifically, undead were mindless. I'm pretty sure, I said specifically, negative energy isn't evil. I'm pretty sure I said that you can create undead from bodies that were never alive.
Did I ever say, beyond the logical conclusion of the idiocy that is the 3.5/PF undead alignments, that they were not evil? No. I didn't. Likewise, I didn't ask what James Jacobs said about the fluff behind the Golarion campaign setting when necromancers somehow not being right by the dead, even though people tear dead things up and eat them, wear them, burn them, make writing materials out of them, make ornaments out of their bones and teeth, and stuff them like pitiful mockeries of life in their study. No, I'm pretty sure I said negative energy wasn't evil, and I'm pretty sure I said they were mindless, and I'm pretty darn certain that I said that you could animate them out of statues.
Heck, polymorph any object + animate dead would let you make undead without even killing anything. Take a twig, turn it into a carcass of something you want to animate, then cast polymorph any object again to turn that carcass into the same kind of carcass (duration = permanent), then cast animate dead. ??? = Profit!?
But I'm 100% certain I never claimed that the undead were not evil. There's no reason for them to be. Heck, their very fluff text contradicts itself. It's logically stupid for them to be evil (mindess = cannot make moral decisions, moral decisions are required for alignment, if you're aligned without morality then you should have the appropriate subtype).
However, get your facts strait before you start arguing against scarecrows.
EDIT: Meanwhile, yeah. If the Paladin is the only one in the group with a problem with it (it's likely the only one in the group with a potential built-in problem), the Paladin can take a hike. It's not her place to tell the other PCs what they can and cannot do. The Paladin has just as much right to walk away as she wants, but that's her prerogative. If the necromancer isn't hurting anyone, and isn't using the undead for nefarious purposes, the Paladin has no leg to stand on in the matter. If someone has to go, it should be the one who started the problem in the first place (the Paladin).
I wonder why it is that several people quoted my post and argued that undead were evil. Are they illiterate? Can they not read?
Not exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of those you're trying to convince.
And irregardless of everything you say those are all things that are left to the GM to decide, not the players in question. Thump the necronomicon over there heads about your opinions and how you think the alignment system is persecuting the living dead all day long but without the GM's approval it's all a moot point. That's the only fact worth considering in terms of this thread.
Also I think it all comes to a blatant ignoring of how alignment works in terms of the cosmology the game presents. Law, Chaos, Good, adn Evil are not simple moral choices. They are energy forces as tangible and malleable as gravity or electromagnetism. The same goes for Positive and Negative energy. The designers adn writers of the game put forth that positive and negative energies are associated with life and death respectively. That means that everything negative energy is abhorrent to life.
When you create an undead, mindless or not, soul rending or not, you are fudging with the fundamental forces of the cosmos, essentially leaking more negative and thus dangerous energy into a world filled with life. This is not taxidermy or leatherworking, this is reaching your hand into the deepest darkest hole in the universe so black and hateful that it snuffs out life merely by being in its presence and then suffusing that energy into that which once had life and (from a druidic perspective) would have broken down in its base components and became more life.
Now, it's merely an engine that is a mockery of life. It's sheer existence is what's evil. The fact that it's a living gateway to that energy is what matters. So perhaps the issue isnt the corpse but the fact that you're willfully screwing with the natural and healthy order of the cosmos, the universe itself, to have a clankity servant to bring you tea.
You can call this a question of moderation too. Since too much positive energy kills jsut as readily as a little bit of negative. Too much negative energy rips the boundaries of life and death asunder and force the unliving to rise to snuff out the lives of the living and otherwise cause all sorts of havoc in a positive energy run world.
And of course you can ahve societies that think exactly as you do. HEck, I've run them before, does quite a bit to the good aligned characters sense of complacency. Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from being fueled by an engine and energy that wants nothign more than for you to be dead and spawns creatures at random so heinous and vile (start with Nightwings and work your way out)as to make fiends seem like saints.
Talk with the GM and apply a little creativity. My suggestion would be to make an alternative spell for each undead-creating spell the wizard wants to use. Each alternative spell creates homunculus-type creatures out of mud, clay, etc. that have the same HD, AC, etc. as a zombie or a skeleton.
Now the wizard gets to create a neutral army of minions that are just as powerful and useful as undead would have been. Maybe make them vulnerable to dispel magic instead of positive energy or something to balance it all out.
Peace and harmony returns to the party.
I'd rather have a paladin on my team then a necromancer.
Nine times out of ten these complaints inevitably turn out to be "I wanna be lolevil but the big bad paladin won't let me wreck the group ;_;"
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
Because people have a raging hate-on for paladins and their code.
I wonder why it is that several people quoted my post and argued that undead were evil. Are they illiterate? Can they not read?Not exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of those you're trying to convince.
And irregardless of everything you say those are all things that are left to the GM to decide, not the players in question. Thump the necronomicon over there heads about your opinions and how you think the alignment system is persecuting the living dead all day long but without the GM's approval it's all a moot point. That's the only fact worth considering in terms of this thread.
Sorry. I'm tired, and I'm a bit annoyed by constantly being misquoted and argued against (as I have been in a few other threads), and I guess I just got kind of angry since they apparently didn't bother to read my post before they started arguing with it.
As to winning the hearts and minds of people I'm trying to convince, I guess I've given up on that. I've tried to legitimately argue this since 3.5 made the bone-headed choice to make mindless undead evil. I've read the articles where they discussed it (it was to allow Paladins to smite them, but it was the lamest, laziest, and most ignorant way to do so ever). People aren't going to up and decide that undead should be neutral. I've argued it 'till I was blue in the face, and people really have no care. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence to logical fallacy, it doesn't matter.
So, I wrote what I wrote as a piece of advice, and that piece of advice is not to let the paladin player push the party around. Likewise, the GM is relevant only as far as the undead alignment nonsenses goes. When it comes down to who decided to play the Paladin and then cause problems within the rest of the party because of his/her choice in character, then the blame is on them.
Example: If I'm playing a Paladin (and I do play Paladins), I'm not going to join a group and then start demanding that the rest of the party conform to me. If the party is a problem for my Paladin, then either my Paladin can talk to them about it, learn, grow,and get over it, or if they're constantly an affront to my moral code, then I'll roll a new character that's less disruptive to the group, that doesn't have any stipulations about losing my abilities for tolerating their presence. Nine out of ten times, I could probably achieve the same flavor as a Paladin with a psychic warrior, cleric, or even a ranger, just with different abilities.
I'd rather have a paladin on my team then a necromancer.
Nine times out of ten these complaints inevitably turn out to be "I wanna be lolevil but the big bad paladin won't let me wreck the group ;_;"
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
Well if the necromancer is intentionally causing problems, then yes it would be the necromancer's fault. But if the necromancer is just doing necromancer things for the greater good or at least keeping overly neutral, then the Paladin should be able to tolerate him/her.
Truthfully, I greatly respect Paladins. I've also had very few of them fall during my games (I can't actually remember one). I've seen a number of Paladins and Necromancers or things like Malconvokers in the same party, and it can lead to very interesting party dynamics and roleplaying opportunities - but a lot of people aren't really down for that.
From a practical point of view, I'd rather have the necromancer. They're more useful in general. Undead can be used as meat shields, and anything fighting your undead are things that aren't harming your party or anyone you're protecting. Undead are also immune to mind effects, fear, negative energy, energy drain, ability damage, etc. They are easy to come by, and can be made to be quite resilient (bloody skeletons basically recycle themselves). Likewise, the necromancer (if arcane or divine) likely has a number of other useful benefits that they can bring to the party, including buffs and/or healing.
Sadly, most of the Paladin buffs are pretty mild or unremarkable, at least until high levels, and even then, they generally have very limited ranges as far as their auras go.
Paladins are wonderful, Necromancers are wonderful. Truth be told, they're better as a team.
|
|
I don't think that anyone should be trying to trick anyone else and I hate when players make characters that are certain to cause party conflict. So I think you should talk with the Dungeon Master and the paladin's player about how to handle it and come to an agreeable point.
That's the best solution. 'Fixing' stuff like this by deliberately instigating interparty conflict is never a good idea. It should be dealt with out of game, and, preferably, during character creation, when everyone agrees to either make a Paladin-friendly party, or to make a normal adventuring party, or perhaps even to make a totally amoral 'anything goes' party.
However, to add into the sub-discussion of the thread, I think that Paladins are the most selfish class that a person can play. They essentially force everyone else to build their character around the Paladin and walk on eggshells during play. Plus most people seem to want to play them in the most annoying way possible. I believe that before you're allowed to play a Paladin you should have to ask everyone else in the group if it's okay, because it's not just a personal decision, it's one that effects everyone.
Also why is it that Paladin's always get special treatment when it comes to character idea conflicts? If the player with the Necromancer came up his character first, then the Paladin should be the one to change. If it happened at the same time then it should have been resolved then.
I recommand that before character creation everyone give a brief overview of their character concepts as a way to avoid conflicts.
Agreed.
One PC dictating to other PCs which of their class abilities they are allowed to use, because of *his* code of conduct or alignment restrictions, makes no more sense than playing a wizard who imposes the 'can't wear armor' restriction of his class on the rest of his party by destroying their armor.
Your character's class restrictions should restrict your chooses, not everybody elses.
I'd rather have a paladin on my team then a necromancer.
Nine times out of ten these complaints inevitably turn out to be "I wanna be lolevil but the big bad paladin won't let me wreck the group ;_;"
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
I have to agree with you and many others here. The paladin is not the problem. They guy wanting evil"if mindless" minions wretched from the bodies of dead being{ defiling those bodies and most likely its resting place as well as maybe harming or corrupting a soul} is the one causing the issue.
If your doing something most people and nations finds wrong, evil or outright distasteful ,Then you can not really claim the paladin is causing the issue.
I'd rather have a paladin on my team then a necromancer.
Nine times out of ten these complaints inevitably turn out to be "I wanna be lolevil but the big bad paladin won't let me wreck the group ;_;"
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
I have to agree with you and many others here. The paladin is not the problem. They guy wanting evil"if mindless" minions wretched from the bodies of dead being{ defiling those bodies and most likely its resting place as well as maybe harming or corrupting a soul} is the one causing the issue.
If your doing so ,Then you can not really claim the paladin is causing the issue.
Nothing in the rules says animate dead corrupts or harms a soul. Nothing. Never has, and hopefully, never will. Likewise, you don't even need bodies of living creatures create skeletons and zombies, because you can manufacture bodies in a variety of methods.
Nothing in the rules says animate dead corrupts or harms a soul. Nothing. Never has, and hopefully, never will. Likewise, you don't even need bodies of living creatures create skeletons and zombies, because you can manufacture bodies in a variety of methods.
If you have the juice toMake bones that where never alive just to make low end skeletons, then you are just causing trouble just to be causing it.
If you have the power to do that, you can make way better minions the 1/3 Cr skeletons that everyone will think are evil {And that will be evil anyhow to spells if ya animate your "created" bones the normal way anyhow}
|
But I'm 100% certain I never claimed that the undead were not evil. There's no reason for them to be. Heck, their very fluff text contradicts itself. It's logically stupid for them to be evil (mindess = cannot make moral decisions, moral decisions are required for alignment, if you're aligned without morality then you should have the appropriate subtype).
Mindless = - on the Intelligence score, fortunately they have 10 wisdom to judge things. He may not be book smart, but he morally must kill everything that moves (hopefully the good guys....he is a monster.) Sounds evil to me. BTW Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness and intuition, a creature with wisdom of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious. (Intelligence is learning and reasoning)....Therefore, by the Core Book descriptions (pg16-17) the skeleton/zombie can't learn new tricks (hence the lost feats) but is aware, has willpower and capable of rational "thought" or impulses (Wisdom > 0)
Moral test. 10ft room. Baby and a zombie..zombie sees the mom run away and shut the door. Will the zombie return the baby to mom or will he eat the baby? Morality and undead is a very bad idea to put to the test. Conversely, undead is an unnatural state of being, for them to be anything other than evil is illogical. Just throwing that out there...and that's probably why the paladin's are so up in arms about their existence in the first place. now its time for sleep.
|
|
Nothing in the rules says animate dead corrupts or harms a soul. Nothing. Never has, and hopefully, never will.
While that's true (at least, currently, in Golarion, according to James Jacobs, although not according to Classic Horrors Revisited), the fact that skeleton and zombie humans are pretty much junk makes it a meaningless distinction. Evil or not, soulless or not, it's a suboptimal choice (and tacky). Anything worth pissing off a paladin should be worth that fight.
If you are using animate dead on something that isn't a dragon, hydra or outsider, it's mostly a waste of good onyx that would have been better spent on paying a hireling to do the same thing. 25 gp of onyx for a 1 HD skeleton, or 2 sp a day for a 1st level commoner peasant to carry your gear. Make a good Diplomacy roll, and you can even get a reasonably attractive peasant who will cook your dinner and sleep with you.
Instead of the paladin feeling obliged to smite your baggage-handler, he'll be motivated to protect her (or him, depending on what sort of companionship your character prefers).
I wonder why it is that several people quoted my post and argued that undead were evil. Are they illiterate? Can they not read? I'm pretty sure I said, specifically, undead were mindless. I'm pretty sure, I said specifically, negative energy isn't evil. I'm pretty sure I said that you can create undead from bodies that were never alive.
Maybe because they read the book and it says they are evil. They may not have read any posts of yours. Undead may not be evil in your game, but that's rule 0, not RAW. Skeletons and Zombies are NE according to the Beastiary. The requisite spells to create undead have the "evil" descriptor as well. That's the starting point of this discussion as far as I know.
Did I ever say, beyond the logical conclusion of the idiocy that is the 3.5/PF undead alignments, that they were not evil? No. I didn't. Likewise, I didn't ask what James Jacobs said about the fluff behind the Golarion campaign setting when necromancers somehow not being right by the dead, even though people tear dead things up and eat them, wear them, burn them, make writing materials out of them, make ornaments out of their bones and teeth, and stuff them like pitiful mockeries of life in their study. No, I'm pretty sure I said negative energy wasn't evil, and I'm pretty sure I said they were mindless, and I'm pretty darn certain that I said that you could animate them out of statues.
This is a discussion on the possibilities in a PF game. Whatever you think of the "idiocy" of it is pretty much irrelevant. The only opinion, besides the rules, that is relevant is the DM. They may agree with you, or not. Given the question the op posited, I doubt they agree with you or it wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Btw, I'm pretty sure if you turn a statue to flesh what you end up with is a pile of soon to be rotten meat, not a corpse. If you did animate it, it wouldn't be a corpse, just an animated "meat" statue. Sounds nasty though...
Heck, polymorph any object + animate dead would let you make undead without even killing anything. Take a twig, turn it into a carcass of something you want to animate, then cast polymorph any object again to turn that carcass into the same kind of carcass (duration = permanent), then cast animate dead. ??? = Profit!?
That's a DM decision I think. Using a second casting of the Polymorph any Object to evade the limitations of the spell smacks of meta-gaming at best. Personally I'd say that if it's never been alive it can't be dead / undead, but that's just my opinion.
But I'm 100% certain I never claimed that the undead were not evil. There's no reason for them to be. Heck, their very fluff text contradicts itself. It's logically stupid for them to be evil (mindess = cannot make moral decisions, moral decisions are required for alignment, if you're aligned without morality then you should have the appropriate subtype).However, get your facts strait before you start arguing against scarecrows.
EDIT: Meanwhile, yeah. If the Paladin is the only one in the group with a problem with it (it's likely the only one in the group with a potential built-in problem), the Paladin can take a hike. It's not...
You're approaching "evil" from a very modern / logical / scientific point of view. Any action can be "explained" away and nothing is "really" evil. In short, you just have a bad case of modern cultural relativism. Nothing too serious :) D&D / PF always posited evil as a real force, hence all those evil gods, devils, demons, daemons, undead, and yucky spells. Somehow I don't think psychoanalysis will help them get over it. Anyway, the role and nature of evil in any game is, in the end, up to the DM. Neither of us are his DM. As for the rules, they support evil as an actual force, on the classic western pre-scientific model. Anything else is rule 0 / DMs choice.
Oh, just as a bit of health related advice... no low-mid level squishy magic user type should tell a Paladin to take a hike. Unless, it'a an overland route to the next adventure and the group is walking :D
when I Dungeon Master I require that everyone be in agreement about characters before they put pencil to paper.
+1