Hi I'm starting Rise of the Runelords next week for my group.
One of my players is a cleric of Cayden Cailean and the other is a cleric who wants to play a necromancer type character (he hasn't chosen his deity yet).
The player playing the good cleric has expressed his concern to me however. He feels that allowing the other cleric to desecrate the corpses of fallen enemies, by turning them into undead is directly against his religious beliefs.
Both of these players are rather poor roleplayers (Thats probably being over generous) and I know they wont have their characters have conflict within the game due to their conflicting beliefs. It will more than likely just be out of character conversation about "how I shouldnt let you do that", and thats about as far as it will go.
Obviously the easy option is to tell the necromancer he cant play that type of character, but ever since we started playing he has been telling me he wants to play a necromancer.
Any input would be great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all necromancy is evil.
Cultures could exist where necromancy is totally normal.
Eberron has an entire society of good liches.
Have the two character's conflict but have the necromancer come up with a good rational and logical reason why undeath shouldn't be considered evil
Have his religion believe the soul is important while the meat means nothing.
Or have his religion believe that rising a dead enemy to help you can help lead his soul to a better afterlife.
The conflict can always be there, but the necromancer doesn't have to be evil so the conflict can come down to a matter of opinion instead of a good vs evil argument.
Hmmm I hadn't considered that angle Fleshgrinder.
I'll put this foward to this foward to the necromancer and ask for his thoughts. I'll probably use this to try and improve the groups roleplaying, I may end up killing two birds with one stone.
I have a person who has always wanted to play an assassin. Every time I've told him no, I don't run campaigns with evil PCs, except for rare "evil campaigns" which I usually tire of quickly and haven't even considered running one recently. So every time he brings it up i say "Nope".
If somebody wants to play the BBEG that's their prerogative. Its also your prerogative to say no, I disallow it. Animate dead is an evil spell, and character who drags somebodies corpse around as a slave is going to have a hard time saying his character is neutral. Even if they do manage, other players and NPCs aren't going to have favorable reactions. Another reason why I suggest disallowing it is the "never give the NPCs something you don't want the PCs to have problem". A necromancer cleric with a huge skeleton is a potentially unbalancing problem.
On phone a.t.m. so hopefully this comes out legible...
While Necromancy by it's nature is never "good" (at least if the spell has the "evil" descriptor), it isn't neccisarily evil, more neutral, if the evil is used for good ends (that's kind of one of the uses of neutral).
If you're unfamiliar with GW's Warhammer 40k setting, they have a type of space elf world where the elves essentially have to practice necromancy because otherwise they wouldn't have the numbers to survive. The choice they had was necromantic warriors (basically souls guiding robots), or not having enough soldiers and their culture being 100% unable to survive and dying out. To protect their living and way of life, they had to use the dead.
In that sort of situation, while it's certainly not "good", it would be one that even a good cleric, and even more then a few good paladins, could concede while it's not their belief, they can't wipe it out as it isn't clearly evil either. (mind you, some of them could decide it must be wiped out, but the point is either view is okay and acceptable rp, itwould be the players choice)
HOWEVER... in those situations, a truly 'good' character would probably try and get invested in a culture like that, and help them rebuild to the point they don't have to use necromancy anymore... at which point if they continue to, THEN it would be viewed (and indeed probably would be) evil.
Note that those aren't the only situations necromancy comes off as neutral not evil... the key thing is this...
the act of necromancy is generally evil, and in some cases specifically so
however
2 things factor into the alignment grid, means and end
so
if you means are 'evil', but your end is 'good' or sometimes 'neutral', you end up with a net result that's neutral, not evil.
(note however, your net is never really 'good' using the DnD/PF system)
Now if your necromancer PC is definitely evil, enjoying it evil, foul nasty evil, then yes... you have a problem.
[sidenote: also keep in mind, the alignment system is one of the most table-dependant parts of the book. just remember rule 1: have fun. if a bogged down debate is stopping that, and you can ignore it (which 9 of 10 times with alignment you could), then ignore it.]
Much of this depends on the specifics of the necromancer character. Is the character evil? What deity does he serve? Does he actively create undead servants, or simply specialize in powers over undead?
Without knowing more about the characters in question we cannot provide you with answers. My suspicion, though, is that these characters will not get along at all. Raising the dead to unlife is universally an evil act in Golarion, and pretty much all of the good deities actively denounce and oppose it. A cleric of Cayden Cailean might tolerate a necromancer, but the necro would have to be extremely self-restricting.
Hmmm I hadn't considered that angle Fleshgrinder.
I'll put this foward to this foward to the necromancer and ask for his thoughts. I'll probably use this to try and improve the groups roleplaying, I may end up killing two birds with one stone.
It's the angle I often take in these situations.
I don't like the default black and white alignment system, so I grey the thing up significantly and take a lot of spells and remove inherent "good" or "evil" descriptors.
I don't believe any action is inherently good or evil, it's all about the details, and I apply this to my gaming as well.
|
You might want to check out the White Necromancer class in Kobold Quarterly 19.
Check it out Here :)
Funny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.
If they are both poor role players why does one care?
What I'm saying is I think they might be better role players than you think.
Tell them they need to discuss it in character. The two can have philosophical discussions while adventuring. If they reach some middle ground, I would give them an XP reward.
If you're unfamiliar with GW's Warhammer 40k setting, they have a type of space elf world where the elves essentially have to practice necromancy because otherwise they wouldn't have the numbers to survive. The choice they had was necromantic warriors (basically souls guiding robots), or not having enough soldiers and their culture being 100% unable to survive and dying out. To protect their living and way of life, they had to use the dead.
One could argue that the desire to continue such a culture is pretty evil, especially since every eldar soul is destined to feed an evil god once it dies without having access to a soul stone (a nearly impossible to acquire resource). Also the eldar are hardly "good" to begin with, willing to sacrifice entire planets full of non eldar to eternal damnation and slaughter to save a handful of their own.
To be fair, that does make them better than most other factions, the 40k alignment chart definitely lacks 6 alignments (non evil for those keeping score). For instance they are "nicer" than their dark kin (who eat souls to replace the parts of their soul that the evil god is slowly draining away). But not nicer than the tyranids (who are the closest to neutral in game if you require intent for evil, all they do is eat everything organic).
The biggest issue, though, is that the cleric of CC has already expressed discomfort over the necromancer's inclusion in the group. The creation of undead would violate the dictates of his deity, and he has reason to be concerned. If the player is voicing this now, it is unlikely to resolve itself and instead cause increasing strife as the campaign progresses. What you are seeing here is an early symptom of a party in conflict. You can ignore it and allow the necromancer, but if you do don't be surprised if the situation festers over time and blows up in your face.
I will repeat: Since this is Rise of the Runelords it is important to realize that the creation of undead is an inherently evil act in the setting.
On phone a.t.m. so hopefully this comes out legible...
While Necromancy by it's nature is never "good" (at least if the spell has the "evil" descriptor), it isn't neccisarily evil, more neutral, if the evil is used for good ends (that's kind of one of the uses of neutral).
If you're unfamiliar with GW's Warhammer 40k setting, they have a type of space elf world where the elves essentially have to practice necromancy because otherwise they wouldn't have the numbers to survive. The choice they had was necromantic warriors (basically souls guiding robots), or not having enough soldiers and their culture being 100% unable to survive and dying out. To protect their living and way of life, they had to use the dead.
In that sort of situation, while it's certainly not "good", it would be one that even a good cleric, and even more then a few good paladins, could concede while it's not their belief, they can't wipe it out as it isn't clearly evil either. (mind you, some of them could decide it must be wiped out, but the point is either view is okay and acceptable rp, itwould be the players choice)
HOWEVER... in those situations, a truly 'good' character would probably try and get invested in a culture like that, and help them rebuild to the point they don't have to use necromancy anymore... at which point if they continue to, THEN it would be viewed (and indeed probably would be) evil.
Note that those aren't the only situations necromancy comes off as neutral not evil... the key thing is this...
the act of necromancy is generally evil, and in some cases specifically so
however
2 things factor into the alignment grid, means and end
so
if you means are 'evil', but your end is 'good' or sometimes 'neutral', you end up with a net result that's neutral, not evil.
(note however, your net is never really 'good' using the DnD/PF system)Now if your necromancer PC is definitely evil, enjoying it evil, foul nasty evil, then yes... you have a problem.
[sidenote: also keep in mind, the alignment system is...
I never thought the Eldar would come into this discussion haha. And off topic I and VERY familiar with 40k I've been playing since 3rd ed. Talos Valcoran is actually the name of a Night Lord chaos marine.
One other problem I can foresee from a GM perspective is if the necromancer ends up raising corpses in view of others. I can seriously see him raising the dead in the middle of Magnimar. And I really dont want to have to deal with the repercussion of that.
I thought I'd point this out before someone else does. I think I've already made my mind up and what I want to do, and my friendship (one of my best friends) with the player is trying to make convince myself of reasons it's ok.
Who else is in the party?
Funny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.
How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?
I have previously played in a campaign (Age of Worms) as a Paladin, and one of the other players played a Necromancer. The Necromancer was True Neutral (previously a follower of Aroden), and only raised skeletons/zombies of the monster type as a means to help us fight evil. She also only tried controlling undead, not raising our fallen enemies or other stuff the Paladin would disapprove of. Her premise was a 3.5 prestige class that allowed her to summon and control evil creatures for the path of good. The two characters got along surprisingly well.
It really depends on how they want to play said necromancer, and what the other cleric sees as his/her viewpoint of undead. I don't think Cayden Calean actually has as much of a viewpoint on them as say, Pharasma, so if the two players can work out how they'd feel about the others' work, I'd say go for it.
Funny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?
As I said above It probably has to do with the player has been asking for a while and he is a close friend of mine
Who else is in the party?
The party consists of:
Human Fighter NGHuman Barbarian CG
Elf Wizard NG
and the two clerics.
The biggest issue, though, is that the cleric of CC has already expressed discomfort over the necromancer's inclusion in the group. The creation of undead would violate the dictates of his deity, and he has reason to be concerned. If the player is voicing this now, it is unlikely to resolve itself and instead cause increasing strife as the campaign progresses. What you are seeing here is an early symptom of a party in conflict. You can ignore it and allow the necromancer, but if you do don't be surprised if the situation festers over time and blows up in your face.
I will repeat: Since this is Rise of the Runelords it is important to realize that the creation of undead is an inherently evil act in the setting .
This.
While much of the advice in this thread is really good, it doesn't take the setting into account. Granted, Talos, you are free to change the setting canon in your game to accommodate things like the White Necromancer or similar ideas. It's your game after all.
On the other hand, just to play both sides, you may be able to keep the Necromancer and the setting canon intact if you can convince the player of the Cayden cleric to bend a little. I honestly think the CG deities are probably the only deities on the good side that would be willing to allow for the creation of mindless undead for the greater good. Cayden is very free-spirited and he doesn't necessarily have opinions on undead one way or the other. There's something to be said about his hatred of slavery and how that would be applied to mindless undead being controlled by the necromancer but that's just good fodder for philosophical debate really. To make it easy, just say the souls have long since departed and the minions are merely physical husks. No mind, no soul, no problem.
The biggest issue, though, is that the cleric of CC has already expressed discomfort over the necromancer's inclusion in the group. The creation of undead would violate the dictates of his deity, and he has reason to be concerned. If the player is voicing this now, it is unlikely to resolve itself and instead cause increasing strife as the campaign progresses. What you are seeing here is an early symptom of a party in conflict. You can ignore it and allow the necromancer, but if you do don't be surprised if the situation festers over time and blows up in your face.
I will repeat: Since this is Rise of the Runelords it is important to realize that the creation of undead is an inherently evil act in the setting .
This.
While much of the advice in this thread is really good, it doesn't take the setting into account. Granted, Talos, you are free to change the setting canon in your game to accommodate things like the White Necromancer or similar ideas. It's your game after all.
On the other hand, just to play both sides, you may be able to keep the Necromancer and the setting canon intact if you can convince the player of the Cayden cleric to bend a little. I honestly think the CG deities are probably the only deities on the good side that would be willing to allow for the creation of mindless undead for the greater good. Cayden is very free-spirited and he doesn't necessarily have opinions on undead one way or the other. There's something to be said about his hatred of slavery and how that would be applied to mindless undead being controlled by the necromancer but that's just good fodder for philosophical debate really. To make it easy, just say the souls have long since departed and the minions are merely physical husks. No mind, no soul, no problem.
I think that what is convincing not me allow it is I dont want the whole tone of the peoples view on the party to be skewed by one player raising corpses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try reflavoring the necromancer as a 'caller of ancient heros'. His brand of Necromancy is a non evil pact with ancient forfathers, passed on clansmen, dead Paladins and good cavaliers, etc. These would be souls that WANT to come back and aid the living in a good, just cause to continue their heroic deeds and to fight evil past even their own deaths.
Or they could be souls on the very edge of damnation or salvation who want to try one more good deed to assure their eternal bliss in the heavens and come willingly for good reasons.
Of course your necromancer would have to be good aligned and act with respect towards the dead but he would still be able to use the Necromantic powers.
How about that idea?
As I said above It probably has to do with the player has been asking for a while and he is a close friend of mineFunny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?
Point being, you made a blanket ruling about the other player's assassin idea rather than figure out a way to make one work. Now you're trying to shoehorn a different definitively evil character concept into not being evil.
Part of your job as GM is to be consistent. Playing favorites among your players will not turn out well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try reflavoring the necromancer as a caller of ancient fallen hero's. His brand of Necromancy is a non evil pact with forfathers, ancient tribesmen, dead Paladins, etc. These would be souls that WANT to come back and aid the living in a just cause to continue their heroic deeds past even death.
Or they could be souls on the very edge of damnation or salvation who want to try one more good deed to assure their eternal bliss in the heavens.
Of course your necromancer would have to be good and act with respect towards the dead but he would still be able to use the Necromantic powers.
How about that idea?
I like this idea a lot actually. The bodies could be merely vessels for the souls of fallen heroes who wish to still help. Or maybe the character's previous party had been all killed apart from him and he summons their souls into the bodies with their permission.
Since the OP is familiar with WH40k, ask yourself this:
Are Necrons evil?
At face value, most would pipe up and go "of course they are!"
But consider this, they can't breed. They have no method of reproduction other than the conquest and conversion of other living things.
They are also under constant threat as anyone would destroy them if they discovered them sleeping dormant in their tomb world.
Really, the Necrons are neutral. They are a force of nature.
They have no choice but to do what they do to survive. They are no more evil than Tyranids.
So, again, necromancy can have so many angles and so many alignments related to it.
As I said above It probably has to do with the player has been asking for a while and he is a close friend of mineFunny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?Point being, you made a blanket ruling about the other player's assassin idea rather than figure out a way to make one work. Now you're trying to shoehorn a different definitively evil character concept into not being evil.
Part of your job as GM is to be consistent. Playing favorites among your players will not turn out well.
Well yes and no. There's a difference between a character who basically wants to be a murder and a character who can be looked upon as neutral.
Well yes and no. There's a difference between a character who basically wants to be a murder and a character who can be looked upon as neutral.As I said above It probably has to do with the player has been asking for a while and he is a close friend of mineFunny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?Point being, you made a blanket ruling about the other player's assassin idea rather than figure out a way to make one work. Now you're trying to shoehorn a different definitively evil character concept into not being evil.
Part of your job as GM is to be consistent. Playing favorites among your players will not turn out well.
Not really. Technically all player characters can be viewed as murderers. That's not what the Assassin PrC represents. The Assassin commits evil acts for their own gain and without remorse. Generally speaking, a necromancer does the same. They are birds of a feather, and the fact that you are attempting to find an exception to this and not the Assassin demonstrates bias on your part. It could end poorly.
I like this idea a lot actually. The bodies could be merely vessels for the souls of fallen heroes who wish to still help. Or maybe the character's previous party had been all killed apart from him and he summons their souls into the bodies with their permission.
Just have the bodies he uses as 'sell components' turn to ash and have these 'hero's crawl out of them. The bodies he uses will determine the strength of the undead as normal, they just will always look like these ancient dead hero's he calls.
He and you could even make a list of specific stories and hero's for each variation of undead spell he creates so he knows 'who' he is calling to add to the story.
Since the OP is familiar with WH40k, ask yourself this:
Are Necrons evil?
At face value, most would pipe up and go "of course they are!"
But consider this, they can't breed. They have no method of reproduction other than the conquest and conversion of other living things.
They are also under constant threat as anyone would destroy them if they discovered them sleeping dormant in their tomb world.
Really, the Necrons are neutral. They are a force of nature.
They have no choice but to do what they do to survive. They are no more evil than Tyranids.
So, again, necromancy can have so many angles and so many alignments related to it.
I agree with this line of reasoning (pre Matt Ward of course). I'm sure the Imperium wouldn't agree that the necrons are neutral though. I suppose the recurring theme of this thread is that the act of necromancy can be viewed as subjective. The necromancer might think he isn't evil but if everyone else does it doesn't matter.
I like this idea a lot actually. The bodies could be merely vessels for the souls of fallen heroes who wish to still help. Or maybe the character's previous party had been all killed apart from him and he summons their souls into the bodies with their permission.Try reflavoring the necromancer as a caller of ancient fallen hero's. His brand of Necromancy is a non evil pact with forfathers, ancient tribesmen, dead Paladins, etc. These would be souls that WANT to come back and aid the living in a just cause to continue their heroic deeds past even death.
Or they could be souls on the very edge of damnation or salvation who want to try one more good deed to assure their eternal bliss in the heavens.
Of course your necromancer would have to be good and act with respect towards the dead but he would still be able to use the Necromantic powers.
How about that idea?
That is a good idea. If you're willing to do some reflavoring this could really work. This character idea screams to be given a Horn of Valhalla later in the campaign. Considering this is RotRL you're running, the Land of the Linnorm Kings is not that far to the north (well, it's pretty far but you know what I mean). An Ulfen cleric who calls upon ancient heroes to rise from their barrows to deal with an equally ancient evil is even fairly thematic. I like it.
Or a Shoanti cleric who practices ancestor worship. Even more thematic.
Edit: And to add to what Gilfalas said regarding variations on the undead spells - you could substitute more thematic undead at the appropriate CR points. For example, instead of Ghouls for Create Undead (11th level or lower) you could use Draugr. Just a thought.
Not really. Technically all player characters can be viewed as murderers. That's not what the Assassin PrC represents. The Assassin commits evil acts for their own gain and without remorse. Generally speaking, a necromancer does the same. They are birds of a feather, and the fact that you are attempting to find an exception to this and not the Assassin demonstrates bias on your part. It could end poorly.
Well yes and no. There's a difference between a character who basically wants to be a murder and a character who can be looked upon as neutral.
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
I might as well ask since its on topic, how much does summoning undead effect the balance of the party?
Well there is also the idea they used in Planescape with the dustmen. In Planescape Torment they make a big deal about the dustment collecting contracts with people to make use of their bodies after death. For some gold now (actually a handful of copper, beggers are as good as a king for skeletons and zombies) they give up their body to be used as a servant of the faction until it is destroyed or falls apart due to the passing of years. Since its mutually agreed upon, it can said to not be slavery, its transfer of property. Still makes the spell evil, but the faction itself isn't evil (IIRC) since it provides an important service (collection and internment of the dead) and doesn't seek to harm the living.
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
Then why not view the Assassin in the same way. The only reason it is considered evil is because of an alignment restriction which, as we are discussing re-flavoring classes anyway, can be hand-waived. Why couldn't an assassin kill to help others? If the assassin kills a landowner known for terrorizing and abusing his servants, is this an evil act?
The simple fact is that both the Assassin and the necromancer are inherently evil concepts. With some work and houserules they can both be redefined to allow for non-evil characters. That said, the OP is only attempting to do this for the necromancer concept, after refusing to do this for the Assassin. That demonstrates potential bias.
I've never found it too bad since so many things exist that can gib undead.
Especially if the PC gets well known, he can expect more of the BBEG's goons to be carrying around maces of disruption.
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
This is not arbitration, this is houseruling. The rules are crystal clear regarding necromancy. No adjudication required.
If he wants to houserule good/neutral necromancy, that's fine. I just think he didn't give the other player a fair ruling if he's willing to houserule one definitively evil concept but not another.
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
Then why not view the Assassin in the same way. The only reason it is considered evil is because of an alignment restriction which, as we are discussing re-flavoring classes anyway, can be hand-waived. Why couldn't an assassin kill to help others? If the assassin kills a landowner known for terrorizing and abusing his servants, is this an evil act?
The simple fact is that both the Assassin and the necromancer are inherently evil concepts. With some work and houserules they can both be redefined to allow for non-evil characters. That said, the OP is only attempting to do this for the necromancer concept, after refusing to do this for the Assassin. That demonstrates potential bias.
I'd like to mention that it's been over a year since the player has even mentioned being an assassin.
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
Then why not view the Assassin in the same way. The only reason it is considered evil is because of an alignment restriction which, as we are discussing re-flavoring classes anyway, can be hand-waived. Why couldn't an assassin kill to help others? If the assassin kills a landowner known for terrorizing and abusing his servants, is this an evil act?
The simple fact is that both the Assassin and the necromancer are inherently evil concepts. With some work and houserules they can both be redefined to allow for non-evil characters. That said, the OP is only attempting to do this for the necromancer concept, after refusing to do this for the Assassin. That demonstrates potential bias.
It's easier to make an argument for murder always being evil, even if done to evil people.
Raising the dead is a lot grayer, especially since settings exist with good necromancers and good undead already.
Maybe have the necromancer raise unliving instead of undead.
I might as well ask since its on topic, how much does summoning undead effect the balance of the party?
Potentially greatly. The creation and summoning of undead is generally something reserved for NPCs, especially BBEGs, and as such there are more ways to increase the number and power of a character's undead thralls than there are more conventional summons. If a player starts digging through the available material resources they can end up leading their own isolated zombie apocalypse. This is especially true if you allow access to third-party materials.
Let me just clarify and give more information on some stuff.
No1. The assassin wanted to play a character where he would kill a shop owner in his sleep if he gave him a bad deal.
No2. This was quite a while ago back when we first started playing pen and paper games. First campaign is a lot different to now.
It's easier to make an argument for murder always being evil, even if done to evil people.
Though if you were going to make such an argument then all PCs would end up being evil. Murder is an individualized concept which can be applied to a party of heroes just as readily as a band of marauding orcs.
Murder is not the defining concept of the Assassin PrC. It's killing for personal gain, whereas good and neutral characters generally kill for a cause. Redefine the Assasin PrC to allow killing for a cause as well, and it is easily adoptable by non-evil characters.
Let me just clarify and give more information on some stuff.
No1. The assassin wanted to play a character where he would kill a shop owner in his sleep if he gave him a bad deal.
But without more information, which you currently lack, the necromancer could do the same thing to the shop owner. And then raise him as an undead thrall under the character's control.
Before we can address your situation, you have to find out more about your player's character concept. Until then anything said here is nothing more than supposition and theorycraft.
I still vote for the cleric to raise unliving instead of undead.
unliving are just undead that retain their original mind/soul.
So he'd have to ask nicely to get them to do things as they're free to act as they see fit, unless you use spells to the contrary.
Let me just clarify and give more information on some stuff.
No1. The assassin wanted to play a character where he would kill a shop owner in his sleep if he gave him a bad deal.
No2. This was quite a while ago back when we first started playing pen and paper games. First campaign is a lot different to now.
Whoa, wait up a second. Now it makes sense. Honestly, I'd probably let my friends play whatever they wanted to as well if they killed people for money. ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Spirit Vessels (Su): You can channel wendo spirits into lifeless bodies, reanimating them to aid you. Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment. When using the animate dead spell, you can control 6 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level rather than 4 HD. In addition, any zombies or juju zombies you create using animate dead, create undead, or similar spells possess maximum hit points.
