Don't forget that part of a paladin's alignment is "lawful". The paladin player can work it into their character's background story that the paladin is assigned to assist the party for the greater good, and is to allow the necromancer to use their preferred means of saving the world or whatever. The paladin won't like it, but will be given the honor of dispatching the necromancer at the end of the quest, or the assignment is a test of obedience, or something. Not perhaps the most original idea, and it'll be contrived, but it'll work. I don't know the full details of how the part forms, so this specific explanation might not work, but a creative group of players can make it work.
Because people have a raging hate-on for paladins and their code.
Why does the paladin have to be the one to suck it up?
To be honest, I think a lot of this results from non-planned character creation that results in players on one side or the other getting the short end of the stick somehow. If everyone knows what type of party it's going to be prior to character creation this should never be an issue.
In my Carrion Crown group, one player was having trouble building a battle cleric that did what he wanted and would be an effective FOP. So the fighter made a paladin instead, and the rogue took a trait to get survival so tracking was covered. Everyone ended up happy with their characters. It's really not that hard to meet each other halfway. . .
Are you deadset (groan) on playing a necromancer? Sounds like your character is going to cause a party schism.No, but I'd like to have the option for 'disposable' minions.As a lark, one of our players played a "secret" good necromancer. The concept was he honestly believed that the undead got a bad rap, and believed that if he could show that some undead could be used to do good, people would come around.
He would dress up the various undead he created in elaborate disguises, give them names and say they were his co-horts.
Fun part was when he had to convince the party clerics not to heal them.
It was silly, but the player really invested time and effort into making the concept work.
I want to buy this player a beer.
Just tell the Paladin player that he has the following choices.
1. Play a character not shackled to a Good alignment.
2. Look forward to lots of party drama where he's probably a one man minority.
3. Look forward to playing a fighter without training or bonus feats.
So I'm curious about why everyone freaks about the Pally as being a source of 'drama', but hey a Necromancer is perfectly kosher.
I've seen more parties come to grief with 'evil' characters who they try palm off as 'CN' than I ever have with Paladins being the source of tension. usually played by cheezy emokid players who contribute very little anyhow - total epeen.
I've recently been playing a dwarven transmuter with a bit of necromancy in a group alongside a paladin-ish character. (One of the Knights of Solamnia in Krynn). My character actually got on pretty well with the Lawful Good knight because I clearly had a screw loose and the knight saw that there was a chance of redemption for me. Yes, I occasionally raised monsters as undead (most recently, a huge blue dragon), but I honestly thought that they had spirits and was distraught when my 'friends' were killed. The knight tried to explain to me why animating dead bodies was wrong, but really his argument came down to 'it just is' so he couldn't convince me. I saw it as 'mending' the dead thing, and I was quite confused when my offer to mend him so he could fulfil his oath to return the dragon orb to Solamnia should he be broken was rejected. The Knight's compassion for me, (and recognition that despite being an evil necromancer I was siding with the forces of good), meant that he didn't push too hard and because he treated me with respect I generally refrained from casting animate dead because 'Theo wouldn't like it'. This paid off for Sir Theo because last time we were hit with an unholy blight, I took damage. :-(
Having said that, an out and out paladin would probably have to kill the undead dragon travelling with him even if he was still hoping to redeem the necromancer who created it.
Zomg, actual roleplaying 'n' stuff.
You mean the Paladin didn't have to immediately 'fall' or get punished, or arbitrarily act lawful stupid?
Could this be...!?
/good work :)
|
To be honest, I think a lot of this results from non-planned character creation that results in players on one side or the other getting the short end of the stick somehow. If everyone knows what type of party it's going to be prior to character creation this should never be an issue.
Yeah, this solves most problems before they happen, if the players get together and choose to design their characters to work together.
I've seen vastly more interparty conflict over social status issues (in games like GURPS, where one character is a knight, and attempts to lord it over the others), or the 1st/2nd edition Paladin-Cavalier, which seemed designed to promote PVP over issues of 'killstealing' or whatever. We spent over a decade gaming with a strict 'no Paladin' rule, because of this, but as we've gamed with less and less of the sorts of people who used the class code and restrictions as a bludgeon to impose their will over their fellow PCs, it's lapsed, and we've had a couple noble, virtuous paladins who weren't wannabe tin-played tyrants who attempted to impose their code of conduct on everyone else at the table.
With mature players (with the caveat that maturity often has no correlation with physical age), it seems less of a problem, but others seemed to use the paladin (or knight, or ventrue, or whatever) as an excuse to socially bully the rest of the players.
That gets old. The rest of the party aren't the enemy. The GM shouldn't be the enemy, either (if only 'cause he'll never lose...).
It should be a cooperative game, not a confrontational one.
There was a time I thought removing alignment from the game would be a workable solution, but, in some cases, it might even inflame player-vs-player (with some players mistaking a game with no imposed code of morality as some sort of anything goes backstab-fest, or using social status, in GURPS or Vampire, as the new 'excuse' to be a dick to other players). Ultimately, the jerk player is going to be a jerk player, and removing alignment, or social class / status, or the Paladin, or the necromancer, from the game, just removes some of their easiest excuses for jerkish behavior, but doesn't necessarily mean they won't find some other excuse to behave badly.
Inter-party *tension,* can be fun. In an Eberron game, where a Karrnathi Paladin operates in a culture that regularly animates the dead for a second round of service to their country, that sort of thing could be fun, as the character respects that this is lawful and proper behavior, and serves the will of the people (with even those to be animated having agreed to the practice beforehand), promotes the common good, saves lives, etc. and still have a visceral distaste for the practice.
Golarion doesn't have anything explicitly like this, although it's quite possible that some Hellknight Paladins have to swallow their distaste and accept that Abadarite Clerics among them will use animated dead on occasion. With the right backstory, *some* wiggle-room could be allowed. With the right roleplay, on both the part of the necromancer and the paladin, it could even add to the game, and not detract from it.
Nobody says that Paladins have to be idiots, after all. If paladin Bob has Knowledge (planes), he might be quite aware that negative energy isn't evil, and that it's something of a mystery why mindless undead detect as evil. He might be interested in finding out why, and if it's a sign of some sort of taint falling upon the state of death itself. Dead bodies aren't evil. The souls of the righteous dead aren't evil. Negative energy isn't evil. But some conjunction of these things becomes evil. Is there some sinister taint encrouching upon the state of death itself, causing disembodied souls, perhaps even those of goodly clerics, other paladins, noble heroes, etc. to become evil, over time, as death itself is becoming corrupted? To a Paladin, the ability of something that has no evil components to become corrupted by evil could be seen as an existential threat.
Are those who are ressurrected from the dead similarly tainted, by their time as mindless corpses / discorporate souls? After all, both mindless corpses and discorporate souls are inclined towards evil...
Since souls absent bodies eventually become evil, are the souls of neutral individuals damned? Is it not 'enough' for someone to not be evil, since, upon death, they will be bodiless spirits, universally damned to evil tendencies? A paladin who follows the 'logic' of the rules, would want to convert as many souls to good as possible, in the hopes that they would travel to the upper planes, and be protected from sliding into evil.
A party with a paladin player and a necromancer player who are both interested in exploring such philosophical matters, in figuring out why and how such things operate, and perhaps, if possible, working together to cleanse or defeat whatever taint or corruption lies upon the otherwise non-evil state of death, could make for an interesting storyline.
It could even make for an Adventure Path, and like Rand al'Thor, cleansing the taint on saidin, the party might end up 'fixing' the inconsistent rule, and unmasking whatever dark force is encroaching on the souls of the honored and righteous dead, and corrupting them to evil, turning even the brightest afterlives into grim life-hating places.
See we've replaced status mongering party bludgeon paladins with cheezeball mightymorphinpower Necro's who want you to accept that thei half vampire necromancer dressed in black who looks like he moonlights in some goth industrial band is actually totally *NOT* evil and you should accomodate the party around his right to be 'unique'(ly the same as every other cliche Necro)
Belatedly, stone to flesh doesn't turn a statue into a corpse anymore. It turns a stone statue into a meat statue. You don't get bones in the deal.
Great stuff when applied to fish! all the flavour and goodness without picking bones out of your teeth!
Paladin us the only class in the book that forces other people's hands in what they can or can't play, because of the potential loss of abilities. Everyone else can happily get along, engage in theological or moral debate and find a compromise. Even evil necros can work with the lawful good if necessary, so it's just paladins that have the problem.
Seriously, either ban them from the game or allow the Grey Guard as a player alternative, and leave the diehard religious fanatics to the NPCs.
Paladin us the only class in the book that forces other people's hands in what they can or can't play, because of the potential loss of abilities. Everyone else can happily get along, engage in theological or moral debate and find a compromise. Even evil necros can work with the lawful good if necessary, so it's just paladins that have the problem.
Just being a stickler for RAW - Lawful Ex-Barbarians cannot rage, and Chaotic Ex-Monks are prevented from taking any further levels.
Similarly a Cleric who violates his god's code of conduct loses all spells and class features.
Paladin us the only class in the book that forces other people's hands in what they can or can't play, because of the potential loss of abilities. Everyone else can happily get along, engage in theological or moral debate and find a compromise. Even evil necros can work with the lawful good if necessary, so it's just paladins that have the problem.
Seriously, either ban them from the game or allow the Grey Guard as a player alternative, and leave the diehard religious fanatics to the NPCs.
If you can "get along" with a truly evil b@stard in your party and you describe yourself as "good"... you aren't. Good that is, or "getting along". Just because the other characters aren't Paladins doesn't mean they want an evil character in the party. H3ll, even when I played an evil charcater I didn't want any other evil characters in the party. Couldn't trust the evil SOBs :D
Paladin us the only class in the book that forces other people's hands in what they can or can't play, because of the potential loss of abilities.
So if I took an Assassin that wouldn't be forcing the other players hands right? What about Druid - can we burn down the wilds with him in the party?
It's not just Paladins, it is a whole range of player choices that can limit or shape the party.
Are you deadset (groan) on playing a necromancer? Sounds like your character is going to cause a party schism.No, but I'd like to have the option for 'disposable' minions.I'll join with MDT's voice.
The Paladin will likely have issues with your behaviour, because he'll be good (assuming he is a "he")
The barbarian will likely have issues with your behaviour, if he's Good.
The fighter will likely have issues with your behaviour, if he's Good.
The ranger will likely have issues with your behaviour, if he's Good.
The wizard will likely have issues with your behaviour, if he's Good.
The cleric will likely have issues with your behaviour, if he's Good.
well, you get the picture...
'findel
I agree.
"Disposable" minions also cover hired mercenaries, once you go evil you don't care if it is living or undead when you throw it under the grinder.
The OP's character is Evil.
Even if not a Paladin, the rest of the "good" world will oppose the OP's character if he flaunts his evil ways in their face.
This is not a character issue, this is an issue that needs to be solved OOC: - "Hey guys, are we playing a group of Heroes or is it cool if we play evil villainous necromancers?"
|
Can anyone else say 'Hellknight Paladin'?
It is not impossible for a Paladin to work with, or even serve, evil characters... especially in Pathfinder (which relaxes the code slightly compared to v3.5).
A Paladin and (evil) Necromancer can co-exist in the same party IF the GM sets it up such that there is a need for the greater good in such an alliance AND the Necromancer is willing to either avoid overtly evil actions or at least limit them to things which can be done behind the Paladin's back. If not then the characters will be enemies and chances are one of them dies quickly.
This is really no different than putting a person who wants to destroy plants and animals in a party with a Druid, or Clerics of violently opposed deities in the same party. There are all kinds of character concepts which do not work together.
Generally speaking if you want to play an OVERTLY evil character you either need a GM, party, and locale within the game world which are all 'ok' with that or you can expect to be killed quickly. I mean, it isn't just the Paladin... how do you suppose the city watch is likely to react to you touring around with a band of zombies?
I mean, it isn't just the Paladin... how do you suppose the city watch is likely to react to you touring around with a band of zombies?
Watch as you get accused of GM fiat :p
Kill the paladin and go on about your business?
Actually you should kill the paladin, raise his corpse as a zombie and then go on about your business.
But seriously, there needs to be some party cohesiveness. An evil necromancer simply shouldn't try to team up with a paladin. One of you have to change your character concepts. Or maybe come to an in character compromise (e.g. only raise the corpses of your enemies if that enemy was evil and beyond any possible redemption).
I had a player play a necromancer in a game with a paladin actually.
It was a monstrous campaign, and the Paladin was a Paladin of Bahamut (half-dragon) and the other was a Drow Bone Oracle.
The bone oracle had feats for necromancy, had all the revelation for necromancy, but.... didn't raise undead. Instead, he controlled existing undead, took them over, made them fight other undead, and then destroyed them.
He took the position that as a necromancer, it was his job to put a halt to the evil use of his branch of magic. Him and the Paladin got on famously.
(I haven't gone through every post so sorry if this has already been posted)
If your character isn't set in stone yet, and don't mind trying something a little... exotic, I'd recommend playing an oracle with the Juju mystery (if you have access to the Serpent's Skull adventure path #36 "City of Seven Spears"). Basically, voodoo priest with the ability to create NONEVIL (if you are nonevil) undead (neutral if mindless, YOUR alignment if thinking) should you choose the spirit vessels mystery AND the ability to animate more dead as well as the ability to animate max HP zombies and juju zombies. Oh, and all necromancy spells that create undead lose their evil descriptor when you cast them. So it becomes a cultural issue of belief instead of an absolute moral one. The paladin can detect evil all he wants and nothing will ping because there is no evil involved.
(I haven't gone through every post so sorry if this has already been posted)
If your character isn't set in stone yet, and don't mind trying something a little... exotic, I'd recommend playing an oracle with the Juju mystery (if you have access to the Serpent's Skull adventure path #36 "City of Seven Spears"). Basically, voodoo priest with the ability to create NONEVIL (if you are nonevil) undead (neutral if mindless, YOUR alignment if thinking) should you choose the spirit vessels mystery AND the ability to animate more dead as well as the ability to animate max HP zombies and juju zombies. Oh, and all necromancy spells that create undead lose their evil descriptor when you cast them. So it becomes a cultural issue of belief instead of an absolute moral one. The paladin can detect evil all he wants and nothing will ping because there is no evil involved.
That is both awesome and broken! :-)
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?
This is easy!
Just add anti infront of Paladin and he will have no problem with it.
Sounds like the party is pretty much evil if you have a guy animating undead and everybody else is good with it. So make him an antipaladin and go forth and kill farmers, and destroy small town so you can have an army of undead shambling around with you.
Just be ready for when the local king or other good orgnaization find out about your evil party and send the real paladins to "Purge the land of evil!"
|
This really just makes me want to write out that "White Necromancer" class just to have a necromancer and paladin that can be total bros right out of the box.
I can't help but wonder if the sides being taken are mostly dependant on whether someone has had bad experiences with Lawful Stupid paladins or bad experiences with "Evil but not really, LOL make the paladin fall" players.
If the party is mostly good, necromancer guy is probably going to be on the outs if he's going to be defiling bodies in front of them.
If the party is mostly evil/amoral, paladin is probably going to be on the outs.
Or, y'know, mutual compromise.
Kill the paladin and go on about your business?
Kill pally, raise as zombie, put a skirt on him, go about your business.
|
|
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.
The problem is the OP said:
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?
The first part can only be dealt with if the paladin does not know.
The second part cannot be dealt with because undead are evil.
You might disapprove of the rules, and that's fine. But if we're going by the book, a paladin probably can't use the "party with evil to fight a bigger evil" excuse forever. He can use it when the animated dead would prevent a greater evil from happening, but once that's done, he cannot tolerate it any longer. The problem is that there's a player playing the paladin being restricted by the code, and there's a player playing the necromancer who probably isn't very happy he can't do whatever he wants. They BOTH lose. It's much better to head this off at the pass than to deal with unhappy players, or to have an agreement on what's acceptable and what is not.
Plus, the only reason I'm saying this is if the players CANNOT deal with it like grown ups. If they can and can control themselves, there's no problems. This is why I would rule whoever was in the game first has priority. It's like somebody doing something for a while, and the new person just comes into the game and messes up what the first person was doing for weeks/months/years. Ideally, I would make sure both players understand what might happen and to address those things beforehand.
I believe playing an evil character in a party with a paladin will end up f!%$ing over the paladin. Most players just can't help it or deal with a paladin, and tries to f@+* them over any chance they can. When I play with a paladin, I make sure I don't do things that might f+$# over a paladin because it's unfair for that player to deal with the DM, the situation, and allies. I'm not rolling over for the paladin, but I don't kill without a good reason or blatantly do evil acts without a really good reason, especially in the view of the paladin. Doing evil stuff away from the paladin is in theory okay, but it often reveals itself somehow, and then the characters have to deal with it, and thus the players have to deal with it.
It's sound fun to mess with the party dynamics and a paladin until game sessions are lost from the arguments that arise from it. It's better to avoid it altogether.
Here's a suggestion. Play something else. Or ask the player if they are willing to stop playing a Paladin. But if you are both dead set on playing polar opposites, do both of yourselves a favor and find a new game. Because this sort of BS is just going to make your gaming group explode. Especially since if you're summoning undead, the Paladin's Smite is likely going to smash you into little bits if it comes to a fight. Wizards are generally very squishy around Paladin's with active smites. Either way, it won't end well.
Other people have supported this advice and I can't repeat it enough. If the two of you can't hash out some kind of compromise that doesn't entail one of you screwing the other over, then you really don't have any business playing in the same game. One or both of you needs to find the wisdom to compromise on this issue and, assuming you're both creating PCs at the same time, there's no reason to expect the paladin player to compromise any more than you.
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).
What happens if this necromancer who created these undead for non-nefarious purposes dies or somehow loses control of them? Those non-nefarious undead immediately start doing nefarious things and killing lots of stuff. Just because this one guy doesn't have bad intent when he creates them doesn't absolve him of things when the undead go on the rampage.
So yes, the paladin DOES have a leg to stand on in opposing the creation of undead, no matter what the purpose of their creation.
See we've replaced status mongering party bludgeon paladins with cheezeball mightymorphinpower Necro's who want you to accept that thei half vampire necromancer dressed in black who looks like he moonlights in some goth industrial band is actually totally *NOT* evil and you should accomodate the party around his right to be 'unique'(ly the same as every other cliche Necro)
Not really. The necro in my group is very much the withering hateful old man who relishes in his power to suck souls and create skeletons out of his fallen foes for the soul purpose of attaching with the others to form his bone throne.
Oh and he's freaking Norse. So your argument is invalid we're playing death metal here.
The others in the group were okay with it at first since they hold different values than the pseudochristian empire around them but it's kind of taken a turn for the truly malevolent so they're discussing ways of removing his blight from the world. Particularly since he has this tendency to black out when communing with the dark gods and turning areas around him into negative energy dead zones.
I think the best approach to go with is simple -- Who was there first? As a general rule, you should not add a new character to a party that won't tolerate him, nor should you have an existing character develop in a way that would create conflict within the party. In this case, it appears that you have a spellcaster who has developed an interest in things that at least one other party member would disapprove of -- so he shouldn't go there.
A similar situation could have arisen in my game between a lawful good paladin and a chaotic neutral summoner (the latter played by me). While I could see that it might be useful to summon a demon once in a while, I would refrain from doing so because I value harmony with the paladin too much -- and it is easy to see that he would feel the same way about demons that my chaotic character would feel about devils. In any case, elementals are generally less treacherous than demons or devils and would most likely enjoy the sorts of tasks that I would set them to.
OK, so I started to get tired of reading on this last page and decided to just go ahead and throw in my two cents.
I think that arguing over whether an action is or is not evil (or even good for that matter) in game is going to be an exercise in futility. The reason I say this is in the real world, people rarely agree on what is and is not OK, even people of the same religious path tend to have a variety of beliefs on certain topics. Also, in real life, those who are "evil" (serial killers, serial rapists etc.) don't go around announcing to everyone that they indulge in these dark past times. Why? Because they know that they won't be accepted, and will most likely be turned over to the police who will lock them away either in jail or a mental hospital for a very long time. How frequently do we hear about the friends, relatives and neighbors of "the bad guy" exclaiming how they never would have suspected John Doe of being [insert criminal type here] because he was always so well behaved, polite, always went to church, never raised his voice etc.
To me it seems that the solution would be for the necromancer to practice his arts in secret, away from the group (especially the paladin)as much as possible. Which, in my opinion good role-playing dictates that he should anyway when in mixed company, paladin or no paladin. If the necromancer wants to use spells to craft undead minions to do his bidding, perhaps he can work it where he is able to do so away from the group and then meet with his minions in secret, having them follow the party at a distance and sending them off to complete tasks.
As far as the paladin goes, no one likes it when some one is constantly on their backs telling them how to live their lives and pointing out all of the things they are doing wrong. The player can either play the paladin as an obnoxious, harping zealot and deal with the disdain of the other players or find a way to work with them, offering patience, love and all of those other warm fuzzy feelings to help light the way to the LG path.
I have been in the paladins shoes a couple of times. Once I played (RL with friends) a "willingly naive" paladin in a group with a CN(tending to evil) halfling thief-type character. It was fun looking the other way and willingly being deceived/constantly misinterpreting the halfling actions, but it was MY choice to play it that way. If your paladin player is willing to play this way, it could be fun. But it needs to be HIS choice or it won't be fun.
Another time I was playing (online with strangers) a NG cleric of Pelor and I discover that 1 character is a N acane caster that is summoning evil creatures and another is a evil mercenary who wants to murder captives. I tried to deal with it In-character and asked them nicely to desist. They both reacted and basically said "@&&%$ you", so I stopped healing them. It caused much tension and the game became NOT FUN. The Dm was the one I blame for this mess because he allowed these characters to exist in the same party and just let the problems fester.
So, talk with the other player and the DM about this issue. See if you can come to a compromise. This is a game you are playing for fun. If you help to make it fun for everyone, it will be a better game.
Have you tried stabbing him in the face till he stops looking? Repeat as needed.
+1
It's the only way to make sure.|
|
It caused much tension and the game became NOT FUN. The Dm was the one I blame for this mess because he allowed these characters to exist in the same party and just let the problems fester.
I've played with some GMs that *thrive* on this sort of adversarial reaction, and one even bragged about how he didn't have to actually write up an adventure, since the players would spend the night fighting amongst themselves.
That's no way to spend an evening, IMO.
So, talk with the other player and the DM about this issue. See if you can come to a compromise. This is a game you are playing for fun. If you help to make it fun for everyone, it will be a better game.
100% the way to handle things. Work together so that everyone has fun. If that means no evil spells, so be it. If that means no paladins, that's also a valid choice.
There's plenty of other classes and spells that do play well with others, and don't restrict the choices and playstyle of others.
.
..
...
....
.....
Have you tried stabbing him in the face till he stops looking? Repeat as needed.+1
It's the only way to make sure.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
- Ripley
Kudos to the "spellcraft" option. Spellcraft is trained only, so unless he has ranks in it (and enough of a check to where he knows the animate dead spell is an evil spell), he doesn't really know what's going on.
However, summoning a pile of evil creatures (or at least evil subtype) is definitely a cause for concern, regardless of how they were summoned. If I were playing a paladin in that party, I'd have an honest chat with the character about what was going on. Then I'd explain the consequences of creating undead and why it is evil.
If the caster continues to cast it and blows my paladin off, I'd be generally annoyed at his lack of empathy. If the GM were convert his alignment to evil (for additional actions beyond animating undead, I'm sure), that's when the potential trouble would start. The GM can head this off by simply putting the party against a greater evil:
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
|
|
Why is it that you have to find a way to trick the Paladin? Is it that you want to ruin his fun? There's enough issues with playing Paladin without having your supposed friends trying to stab you in the back, stab you in the eyes, trying to make you play a character with TSTL syndrome (Also known as Too Stupid To Live Syndrome, because if you're letting a team mate raise dead, you are too stupid to live if you're a Paladin), and generally giving you ten times the grief you get from just being a paladin.
Here's a suggestion. Play something else. Or ask the player if they are willing to stop playing a Paladin. But if you are both dead set on playing polar opposites, do both of yourselves a favor and find a new game. Because this sort of BS is just going to make your gaming group explode. Especially since if you're summoning undead, the Paladin's Smite is likely going to smash you into little bits if it comes to a fight. Wizards are generally very squishy around Paladin's with active smites. Either way, it won't end well.
I wold like to second or third what MDT has said. Why is it the paladin that has to put on "blinders". If people insist on playing characters that will constantly be not only irratated at each other, but on the edge of violence, you will eventually end up with angry players.
My suggestion would be to take the offending dark wizard and stuff him in a trash can full of holy water seal the lid and let him drown.
Why should the players who want to play heroes, or generally good aligned characters have to
sit there and pretend that nothing is happening, i have to separate my player from my character knowledge, even tho this thief is robbing people, and the party blind.
Anyways i just get tired of "fool the paladin" so we can do x or y. Paladins are very useful and can often help with far more problems then they cause.
if anything else they make good loot holders. people assume the paladin wont knowingly cheat them .
Are there ways we can convince the player who wants to cast spells with the evil descriptor, that a) it might not be a good idea and b) perhaps there are other spells he can use?
Just a thought.
In essence, it's kind of stupid on both sides.
One, this person is playing a paladin with party members doing "bad" things, and if it's the majority, well, why not play an anti-paladin instead?
Two, A paladin is in the party. You cast evil spells and make undead. This is a great opportunity for inter-party conflict that can be resolved without violence. However, you're whining because you now have to roleplay this out instead of your spells working just the same way as every other spell does.
Pretty much every game I've been in or DMed has had changes to the spell lists. One had no summoning spells. Ever. My games I tend to ban Slow because I think it's far too effective. One of my favorite games I played in, I was a druid who thought that summoning outsiders was corrupting the material plane (And it turned out I was partially right: Their dismissal was causing it), so I berated the wizard every time he cast a summoning spell. In the end, I summoned things that worked just as well, he moved on to off-controlling and picking off injured creatures that ran, and our party was a whole again.
In short, you all have a serious communication problem if you can't resolve something like this in game, and if you think attacking each other is a suitable response, you may be roleplaying a sociopath (If you know you are roleplaying a sociopath, you're doing a great job!).
One doesn't have to be a paladin to R-P morality!
Whether creating undead is Evil is a question in its own, but any disrespectful behaviour could (and should) draw the ire out of ANY good character.
The problem isn't with the paladin nor with the necromancer; it is, and always is, with the players...
'findel
I'd use a Juju Oracle. Unless it was errated out, when they animate juju zombies, the zombie shares the casters alignment. Using that, you could truthfully say that the juju zombies are good spirits (if the character is good) who animate the bodies in order to help you. That's pretty much how we got around a similiar situation in my group.
What about a paladin of a LN deity who believes in using the bodies of the dead to redeem the souls of the wicked in the afterlife?
It would all be in the setting being used, but in golarion for exsample the goddess of death does see undead as things that should not be. Most civilized lands see undead as abominations. Fr you get the same issues with the god of the dead outlawing such things and his paladins hunt them tirelessly.
The real issue is unless the GM changes it the spell is evil and so are the mindless undead crafted. I know some here do not like that but it is what it is. They are evil and so is the spell used to create them.Its not just the paladin that this is going to upset of offend. It may well be illegal in most cites and towns and the act is likely to make them enemies of non evil groups and faiths all round.
The paladin is not the issue, crafting undead is the issue.
|
Yeah, what OTHER option would there be for a Paladin and an Evil Character? I mean, they basically have to kill each other, right? It's the only option. It's not like they can work together despite their differences, right?
OH SNAP.
Seltyiel and Seelah in Council of Thieves
Yeah, if you guys can't reconcile the idea of good and evil joining forces for the common good, just don't try Paladin. But don't whine about how it's impossible and pretend that the drama is necessary.