Is this going to be a problem? (Paladins)

[killem2]

A newer player wants to be a Paladin in this session in which I am a player, and I'm thinking of creating (should my current fighter die, very possible), a LN Cleric who focuses very heavily on undead usage.

According to the code of conduct, there should be zero issues, and the paladin should not have any worries of losing anything right?

[Fates]

Depends on how your game treats the undead. Canon D&D fluff generally regards the animation of the dead to be an objectively evil act, and so a paladin would be all but forced to prevent it. Of course, there is some controversy around this, as the greyhawk goddess Wee Jas's clerics are known to create undead, but Wee Jas also has some paladins. I'd say you should ask your DM how necromancy is viewed by most civilized folk in the campaign, and thus how the paladin would be likely to react.

If you think the paladin would object, you can always deceive him. A couple eternal wands of Gentle Repose and Nondetection should prevent him from suspecting anything, unless of course he ever tries to heal them, or uses Turn Undead around them.

[Flickerdart]

The paladin's code doesn't say anything about undead. He himself may not commit evil acts, but you're the one raising them, nor may he associate with evil people, but you are not evil. As long as you can stay Neutral, he has no requirements to go medieval on your hiney.

[Slipperychicken]

You need to hash this out with both the DM and the Paladin player, ideally at the same time, before the Paladin enters the game.

You need to check with the DM about undead morality and Paladin's interactions with undeath. Whether it's OK for Paladins to adventure with the undead is important. Also, the player needs to know how the setting deals with it, and how he thinks his character would feel and act. Only afterward can you come up with ideas about how they would interact.

[Fates]

The paladin's code doesn't say anything about undead. He himself may not commit evil acts, but you're the one raising them, nor may he associate with evil people, but you are not evil. As long as you can stay Neutral, he has no requirements to go medieval on your hiney.

But in D&D 3.5, the vast majority of undead are inherently evil, ergo by associating with the LN cleric he would be indirectly associating with evil creatures. Whether or not unintelligent undead should inherently be evil is a matter of much dispute around here- I personally do not believe that they should be, as they lack any sort of mental capacity, and so do not have emotions or motivations.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The only generally valid answer we can give you on the forum is "maybe."

RAW, it probably shouldn't be a problem but when you get into alignment in general and particularly alignment of undead you're getting into a highly group-dependent area.

As others before me, I'll have to -strongly- suggest that you talk to that player and the DM to get a concrete answer and start working on a compromise if that answer turns out to be "yes, that's a problem."

[Grod_The_Giant]

Talk to your group, subjective alignment issues, etc, etc.

[Big Fau]

But in D&D 3.5, the vast majority of undead are inherently evil, ergo by associating with the LN cleric he would be indirectly associating with evil creatures. Whether or not unintelligent undead should inherently be evil is a matter of much dispute around here- I personally do not believe that they should be, as they lack any sort of mental capacity, and so do not have emotions or motivations.

That part of the Paladin class is not a part of the Code of Conduct. It's actually given a separate entry in the class, so it can be argued that (by RAW) there is no penalty for associating with a LN Cleric who regularly uses Undead (the Paladin is associating with the Cleric, not the undead).

[Thrudd]

If I were the paladin, I'd immediately turn or smite whatever undead you created first chance I had, and then tell you "don't do that again, it's unholy". If you kept at it, I'd have to consider you were someone working with dark forces and stop associating with you. Unless my setting was one where mindless undead were integrated into society and my paladin was from a place where they are just a part of everyday life for everyone. The fact that I (as a paladin) have an ability to turn and destroy undead granted by supernatural forces implies that it is intended for me by said supernatural forces to do so whenever possible. I would feel the same for a cleric with the turn undead ability, the power is granted to them from their god or divine source because undead need to be destroyed. Conversely, I suppose a cleric or blackguard with rebuke undead would feel it their divine imperative to create and spread undeath wherever possible as a part of their service to the dark forces they gain their power from. So unless your DM specifically has a setting where the paladin would not be expected to act this way and all the players know it, I would expect any creation or use of undead to be at least strongly frowned upon by the paladin and any good clerics, if not being a source of inter-party conflict or dissolution of association. Just being lawful neutral is fine, so long as you don't use negative energy too much or overtly or call on evil forces from the outer planes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If I were the paladin, I'd immediately turn or smite whatever undead you created first chance I had, and then tell you "don't do that again, it's unholy". If you kept at it, I'd have to consider you were someone working with dark forces and stop associating with you. Unless my setting was one where mindless undead were integrated into society and my paladin was from a place where they are just a part of everyday life for everyone. The fact that I (as a paladin) have an ability to turn and destroy undead granted by supernatural forces implies that it is intended for me by said supernatural forces to do so whenever possible. I would feel the same for a cleric with the turn undead ability, the power is granted to them from their god or divine source because undead need to be destroyed. Conversely, I suppose a cleric or blackguard with rebuke undead would feel it their divine imperative to create and spread undeath wherever possible as a part of their service to the dark forces they gain their power from. So unless your DM specifically has a setting where the paladin would not be expected to act this way and all the players know it, I would expect any creation or use of undead to be at least strongly frowned upon by the paladin and any good clerics, if not being a source of inter-party conflict or dissolution of association. Just being lawful neutral is fine, so long as you don't use negative energy too much or overtly or call on evil forces from the outer planes.

Even if you were a paladin of Wee Jas?

OP:

This kind of melodramatic crap is exactly what you want to -avoid- by having that discussion everyone's suggesting.

[Thrudd]

Even if you were a paladin of Wee Jas?

OP:

This kind of melodramatic crap is exactly what you want to -avoid- by having that discussion everyone's suggesting.

Obviously not if I was a paladin of an evil god, or the god of death/undeath, or who is specifically from an environment where using mindless undead is not seen as evil. This is assuming a normal LG paladin with the standard abilities. A LG paladin would not normally be cool with the undead, IMO, and my post was to advise that it is possible other players may feel the same. If the DM wants these players to get along, he'll need to fluff it up with a setting that makes it ok for a paladin to accept undead, or make sure the paladin isn't your ordinary, by the book LG sort. At best, as a PC I could play it off as just being generally grumpy and distrustful of the cleric who keeps raising undead, and making a point to let him know my apprehension. The DM will need to decide if it is appropriate for these two characters to adventure together for an extended amount of time. If it were me, I would probably rule that it is not appropriate, and one or the other of them would need to change their character concept somewhat so the party can stay together. Or let one of them go off on their own at some point, and the player roll up another character to be in the party. That's part of the difficulty with classic paladins and mixed alignment parties. They don't fit in well in all situations.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Obviously not if I was a paladin of an evil god, or the god of death/undeath, or who is specifically from an environment where using mindless undead is not seen as evil. This is assuming a normal LG paladin with the standard abilities. A LG paladin would not normally be cool with the undead, IMO, and my post was to advise that it is possible other players may feel the same.Wee Jas is a core deity who is lawful neutral and -does- sponsor paladins. Even in a core, by-the-book game there will be a subset of the paladin set that follow her. This was my entire point. Even in a core, by-the-book setting a paladin isn't automatically anti-undead.


If the DM wants these players to get along, he'll need to fluff it up with a setting that makes it ok for a paladin to accept undead, or make sure the paladin isn't your ordinary, by the book LG sort. At best, as a PC I could play it off as just being generally grumpy and distrustful of the cleric who keeps raising undead, and making a point to let him know my apprehension. The DM will need to decide if it is appropriate for these two characters to adventure together for an extended amount of time. If it were me, I would probably rule that it is not appropriate, and one or the other of them would need to change their character concept somewhat so the party can stay together. Or let one of them go off on their own at some point, and the player roll up another character to be in the party. That's part of the difficulty with classic paladins and mixed alignment parties. They don't fit in well in all situations.

That's putting way more responsibility on the DM than is appropriate. Having to rebuild the entire setting just so -you- feel comfortable with your paladin seeing undead as anything other than auto-smite material seems a bit selfish.

The burden lies on all three; the DM -and- both of the players in question and choosing not to bring it up before or during character creation when you know it could be a problem is just a d-bag move that's practically begging for unnecessary OOC drama.

[ArcturusV]

But in D&D 3.5, the vast majority of undead are inherently evil, ergo by associating with the LN cleric he would be indirectly associating with evil creatures. Whether or not unintelligent undead should inherently be evil is a matter of much dispute around here- I personally do not believe that they should be, as they lack any sort of mental capacity, and so do not have emotions or motivations.

Honestly I find it bad enough that Paladins have to deal with "Associates with" restrictions. It's one of the few house rules about Paladins I'm pretty universal with, dropping the Associates With that is.

But in this case you're not even really talking about Associates with. You're talking Friend of a Friend degrees of separation. This would be like saying you can't party with the Druid because his dingo ate someone's baby.

[Thrudd]

Honestly I find it bad enough that Paladins have to deal with "Associates with" restrictions. It's one of the few house rules about Paladins I'm pretty universal with, dropping the Associates With that is.

But in this case you're not even really talking about Associates with. You're talking Friend of a Friend degrees of separation. This would be like saying you can't party with the Druid because his dingo ate someone's baby.

Lol...if his Dingo ate a baby, I think the paladin or pretty much anyone else good would kill it. If it killed more than one baby, they would definitely kill it, and probably assume the druid is evil for letting his pet eat babies. If it was just some random dingo, then the druid has nothing to do with it and nobody would blame him. The paladin won't blame the cleric for any random undead creature they encounter, whatever the cleric's alignment is. It's only when he's creating undead creatures and they are following the party around that it's an issue. Paladins have to be LG. Even mindless undead are NE, and radiating negative energy, the two don't mix. Wee Jas may be a core book deity, but paladins are always LG, and Wee Jas is LN with LE tendencies. Even if she has a paladin following her for some reason, they aren't OK with undead, because they are LG. More likely she has a blackguard following her, or an anti-paladin, or some other paladin-like non-core class. Unless the DM has an altered setting where it is specified as ok for a LG paladin to follow a Neutral deity with evil tendencies. (In the latest Next module, there are actually core paladins of all three Lawful alignments, each with different powers. So a LN or LE paladin who can rebuke undead instead of turning is a possibility)

Yes, the DM and both players should talk about it before jumping into the campaign with these characters. Maybe they want to play out inter-party drama and role play this sort of moral quandary, but if they don't they'll need to make sure they are all on the same page.

[Fates]

Honestly I find it bad enough that Paladins have to deal with "Associates with" restrictions. It's one of the few house rules about Paladins I'm pretty universal with, dropping the Associates With that is.

But in this case you're not even really talking about Associates with. You're talking Friend of a Friend degrees of separation. This would be like saying you can't party with the Druid because his dingo ate someone's baby.

Well, I was assuming that the Cleric would be bringing his undead minions around with him on their adventures. Even if the undead are under the cleric's control, I fail to see how this doesn't count as associating with evil creatures.

And the difference is that the dingo only ate someone's baby because it's his nature- according to D&D 3.5 logic, animals aren't smart enough to have legitimate goals, opinions, or motivations, and so are always true neutral. The cleric's wights or skeletons or what have you are actually infused with evil energy, and this causes them to be evil abominations for reasons. And evil things must be destroyed or avoided at all costs.

It's utter bull, but we are working within the scope of D&D/paladin logic here. The OP's DM and the paladin's player may dictate otherwise, and I would fully support that.

[killem2]

I'm talking with my DM about it, I'll see what he says, but he's usually a pretty RAW first kinda guy, like me.

So, if the rules can handle it, we let them, but if it will get wishy-washy we want to catch it ahead of time.

My personal view on it, since I am also a DM, I would not care. I would see it as a very bad thing if a LG paladin, tried to crush a person based on their spells alone and not their actions.

Sure, the paladin might annoy the LN Cleric who uses undead, until he himself became undead from killing himself, because he was tired of being preached to.

Not everything must be life or death, Diplomacy is a paladin class skill after all. :smallwink: Just as a Paladin can use atonement to be forgiven, I find it hard to believe most Paladins would not see this virtue as a chance to bring the rotten to a higher status, (should such a possibility be able, IE thief who robbed for his family vs demon of a dark army)

[Telonius]

Is the Cleric going to be creating new undead, or just using undead he happens to find? Command Undead and Control Undead are not [Evil] spells.

[JaronK]

I'd say actively running around with evil creatures all the time and with a companion that keeps creating them is no good for Paladins, especially considering what the Bone Knight class says about this (it's a class for LG Paladins that want to work with undead, and they fall when they take the class because Paladins can't do that).

With that said, could the Paladin play as a Cleric/PrC Paladin/Bone Knight? That would solve things nicely.

JaronK

[BWR]

Talk to DM and other player. If DM rules that animating and using undead is evil, make something else. It really pisses me off when someone brings in a character that will just cause party strife, especially without OKing it beforehand.

[LTwerewolf]

Yeah in our games, a paladin would have to 1) try to prevent you from doing it and 2)destroy them if you did complete it. They;'re not supposed to be tolerant of the undead.

[Segev]

Alignment discussions are always sticky. Personally, I would argue that a paladin who objects to undead to the point of attacking them is not behaving lawfully. Unless the undead are being put to an evil use, they're just there. Moreover, they're unquestionably the property of their creator.

That said, it still behooves the necromancer to not deliberately antagonize the paladin's sensibilities. Make your undead as un-repulsive as possible. If you can, get them into full plate. As a cleric, put them in tabards decorated with your holy symbol. The unit of soldiers should bother the paladin much less than a constant reminder of the undead that are fully visible. The canon alignment of skeletons and zombies, at the least, is "neutral," I believe. Casting an [evil] spell is definitely uncomfortable for a paladin to witness, but as long as you engage in a counterbalance of enough good to keep yourself neutral on that axis, he shouldn't complain any more about you than he does about the wizard's occasional tampering with forces beyond his ken, or the barbarian and rogues' possibly unnecessary roughness when being...thorough...in ransacking the dungeon for loot.

[killem2]

I had started a thread about this once, but I didn't want to necro (it was a while ago).

I am trying to build a cleric that uses undead that used to be criminals and make them serve the will of the law.

He's L/N and so dedicated to law and order that, he idolizes the concept and feels it is unjust that criminals get out of their punishments simply by dying.

I want to RP a race that lives a very long time, and thus has spent much of their adult life being a real judge, and one that over time hasn't exactly become delusional with his views but he's very dedicated to and stern.


Yeah in our games, a paladin would have to 1) try to prevent you from doing it and 2)destroy them if you did complete it. They;'re not supposed to be tolerant of the undead.

I respect your view, but I'd have to say, is it the most diplomatic way to handle the issue?


Talk to DM and other player. If DM rules that animating and using undead is evil, make something else. It really pisses me off when someone brings in a character that will just cause party strife, especially without OKing it beforehand.



We are a very cool group we also all know each other. I've been working with this concept for a while and my DM knows about it, this new player is actually a young man (age 12) who was so cool and collective and just well behaved in my own session, that we invited him to play with my buddy as the dm (who plays as a character in my sessions).

He asked about info on paladin and he may not even end up being one, but its a good to get other's opinions on the situation and how it can be handled.

I find it hard to believe a class can cause strife when simple rules changes can help with that, or common sense can even handle it.

As it stands, if a paladin is played in some strict and stupid way that seems to be the sterotype, its no wonder they are rarely played because there would be no way you could play along side anyone.

[SimonMoon6]

I respect your view, but I'd have to say, is it the most diplomatic way to handle the issue?


Sounds like it to me. When the paladin says, "Hey knock it off with the undead," and you don't, then, yeah, he's got to attack you. Diplomacy comes first and then punishment when diplomacy fails.




I find it hard to believe a class can cause strife when simple rules changes can help with that, or common sense can even handle it.

Yeah, it's terrible that an undead-controlling cleric will cause all this strife. People shouldn't play them.

Oh, wait, you meant it the OTHER way? :boggle:

Here's what I'm hearing: Controlling evil evil undead all the time is really cool. Nobody should object to me doing evil evil things like having evil evil undead around me all the time. Anybody who objects to evil evil stuff like having evil evil undead around is just a jerk.

And I want to say, maybe the problem is not with the paladin?

But, yeah, I know *some* people (usually evil people) think making more undead is cool. But that's because they're evil. :)

[LTwerewolf]

It really isn't the most diplomatic way of doing things, but paladins have their code. The problem with the undead is that they're irredeemably evil. They wouldn't have any easier a time tolerating undead than they would fiends. This is really the only part of the paladin's code I believe is as rigid as it is.

Creating undead is also an evil act, which you're performing in front of him. He can take issue with that, although I don't believe it would have to devolve into the two of you fighting.

Some people play paladins as having a stick in an unpleasant location, and I don't think that needs to be the case, except in instances of this type of evil.

I would see a paladin having as much of an issue with a malconvoker. Not that their goals aren't typically in line, but because of the method going about accomplishing those goals.

[killem2]

Sounds like it to me. When the paladin says, "Hey knock it off with the undead," and you don't, then, yeah, he's got to attack you. Diplomacy comes first and then punishment when diplomacy fails.


Except that isn't diplomacy. That's dictatorship. A diplomatic solution would be to acknowledge the Cleric is not evil, and is not acting evil, and when the paladin stops for two seconds to realize that the Cleric is actually punishing unlawful miscreants, he would see this.



Yeah, it's terrible that an undead-controlling cleric will cause all this strife. People shouldn't play them.

Oh, wait, you meant it the OTHER way? :boggle:


I see no strife in the purpose of the character.



Here's what I'm hearing: Controlling evil evil undead all the time is really cool. Nobody should object to me doing evil evil things like having evil evil undead around me all the time. Anybody who objects to evil evil stuff like having evil evil undead around is just a jerk.


Doing evil things would not longer make me Lawful Neutral thus, negating the need for this thread. I am not committing evil acts.



And I want to say, maybe the problem is not with the paladin?

But, yeah, I know *some* people (usually evil people) think making more undead is cool. But that's because they're evil. :)


Problem is more to do with the lack of real substance to the paladin on an issue that has far to much grey area to be contained in such a black and white method.

Except I'm not evil, I'm Lawful Neutral, perfectly allowed to make undead, and should be judged by the actions of the Cleric, and through diplomacy and intelligence, the Paladin should not be punished for allowing Law to prevail.

Seems to me that most paladins seem to only need to be lG instead of LG, and Law seems to fall away.

[LTwerewolf]

Keep in mind several of the spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor, and thus is actually an evil act.

[The Corinthian]

All the core ones, in fact.

If you house rule that away, then mindless undead probably shouldn't be evil and then there probably shouldn't be any problem. But by RAW, I agree with LTWerewolf.

[NichG]

This is not a situation that the rules can resolve.

Both of you need to be very upfront about the character you intend to play, discuss whether or not your characters can get along, and if they can't you should 'audition' your characters and let the rest of the group pick one or the other to join, while the other player plays something else.

Any argument that goes like 'the rules say you should play your character this way', aside from being invalid, is basically badgering someone OOC to try to take virtual control of their character. Its as much dictatorship to say 'you can't play a paladin that just objects to undead on principle' as it is to say 'you can't play a cleric who makes undead'. The IC answer is just: these people would simply not join the same group. Thats why you have to discuss this OOC first and explicitly make sure that this won't cause conflict.

[erikun]

I wouldn't say that the Paladin is really the problem here. Good-aligned Clerics, Druids, and just about any character who has a major problem with undead is going to have issues with another character intentionally creating undead and marching them around everywhere.

This is why the recommendation to talk to your DM and potentially affected player(s) to work something out. If you want the RAW interpretation, creating undead is always evil evil Evil and the character is evil evil Evil for doing so. However, as you pointed out, there could be reasons for making undead that aren't evil and the creation of undead as "always evil evil Evil" is something that is reasonably open to interpretation.

The players should be aware of what interpretation the game will be using. Using the "Creating undead is just like making wagons, but squicky due to using human bodies" reasoning is likely to produce very different reactions - from the Paladin and everyone else - than using the "Creating undead involves summoning the dark gods onto the material plane and giving them host bodies" reasoning or whatever other concept you have. Once again, this is why you'd want to talk to your DM (and everyone else) to work out some good reasoning for just what creating undead involves.

[killem2]

Here is the thing, wouldn't it be bad for a Paladin to start crap with another god's person, with out a cause?

Don't gods have their own channels of dealing with things?

If Pelor wants his paladin to remove all undead, but then WeeJas wants their clerics to punish the undead through punishment listed in my character type and the cleric isn't Evil, and by their god is considered doing good work, and if you were to remove the undead aspect of it and determine if the work is still good, are you risking a holy war between gods by taking this into your own hands? :smallyuk:

[NichG]

Here is the thing, wouldn't it be bad for a Paladin to start crap with another god's person, with out a cause?


Not really. This reasoning could be used to say that Paladins should not act in any capacity, period. That thief might worship Olidammara, and if the Paladin of Tyr apprehends the thief they could be starting crap between Tyr and Olidammara. That NE murderer might worship Fharlanghn, who is TN and thus just one step away, so the Paladin would risk starting crap between their god and Fharlanghn.

Its absurd to assume that being a cleric or paladin means you must always be paralyzed and unable to take decisive action because it could cause strife between gods.



Don't gods have their own channels of dealing with things?

If Pelor wants his paladin to remove all undead, but then WeeJas wants their clerics to punish the undead through punishment listed in my character type and the cleric isn't Evil, and by their god is considered doing good work, and if you were to remove the undead aspect of it and determine if the work is still good, are you risking a holy war between gods by taking this into your own hands? :smallyuk:

In some sense the existence of paladins and clerics is so that the holy war gets fought on the ground between those paladins and clerics, rather than between gods that are busy holding up fundamental concepts of the universe. Its far better for the paladin to kill the cleric or the cleric to kill the paladin and for that to be the end of the conflict than for Wee Jas to go try to kill Pelor, and end up with solar flares and legions of the dead escaping the hells or whatever, so the gods won't generally escalate.

For that matter, Wee Jas would probably say 'why did you insist on traveling with a Pelorite who is sworn to destroy your creations, anyhow?'

This doesn't mean that the gods don't back up their followers. They do. The Paladin gets a Smite Evil, Divine Grace, etc, and you get your spells per day.

[SimonMoon6]

Here is the thing, wouldn't it be bad for a Paladin to start crap with another god's person, with out a cause?

No, that's what paladins are FOR. And doing horrible horrible evil evil EVIL things like making undead *IS* a cause to fight against. No matter how much the person making the undead tries to justify why they are not evil, the fact of the matter is that they ARE evil. Making undead IS evil, no matter how much you try to justify to yourself why it's not.



Don't gods have their own channels of dealing with things?

Yes, they're called paladins. And clerics for the non-LG gods.

[erikun]

Here is the thing, wouldn't it be bad for a Paladin to start crap with another god's person, with out a cause?

Don't gods have their own channels of dealing with things?
Gods do have their own channels for dealing with such things. The channel is the god's followers who they have given their powers to: Clerics, Paladins, and similar. If a god doesn't want to start things between themselves and other gods creating undead, then they wouldn't have "Destroy all undead, no exceptions" as a big part of their mythos.

You want the creation and use of undead to be non-evil. The default RAW of D&D is that creation and use of undead is evil. Discussing the matter with us, who are not in your group and not at your table, is not going to change that at all.

The reason to talk with your DM and with your group is that most people are probably going to assume the default RAW in the situation - that creating and using undead is (probably) evil. If you don't want it to be, then you need to make the other players aware of this and see if they agree to it. Otherwise, you might have the Paladin and other characters immediately attack the undead and your character on-site, regardless of the DM rulings, because they're assuming (for good reason) that someone walking around with and raising undead is doing evil acts.

The only thing we can do on this board is inform you of what the default RAW is, and offer suggestions. It's your gaming table who you really need to talk to in order to work things out.

[killem2]

Not really. This reasoning could be used to say that Paladins should not act in any capacity, period. That thief might worship Olidammara, and if the Paladin of Tyr apprehends the thief they could be starting crap between Tyr and Olidammara. That NE murderer might worship Fharlanghn, who is TN and thus just one step away, so the Paladin would risk starting crap between their god and Fharlanghn.

Its absurd to assume that being a cleric or paladin means you must always be paralyzed and unable to take decisive action because it could cause strife between gods.



In some sense the existence of paladins and clerics is so that the holy war gets fought on the ground between those paladins and clerics, rather than between gods that are busy holding up fundamental concepts of the universe. Its far better for the paladin to kill the cleric or the cleric to kill the paladin and for that to be the end of the conflict than for Wee Jas to go try to kill Pelor, and end up with solar flares and legions of the dead escaping the hells or whatever, so the gods won't generally escalate.

For that matter, Wee Jas would probably say 'why did you insist on traveling with a Pelorite who is sworn to destroy your creations, anyhow?'

This doesn't mean that the gods don't back up their followers. They do. The Paladin gets a Smite Evil, Divine Grace, etc, and you get your spells per day.


I understand what you mean, but what I am saying is, if the code of conduct sets forth rules for the kind of players he can hang with, and of all of the problems he has, basically being offended is the issue her, because if it is laid out the purpose of using undead, then where does a paladin draw their line in the sand to say, how much of the good things must I forget about, just to correct one wrong?

If your god says,

Your friends must be:

LG,LN,N,CG,NG ONLY.

Do not associate with someone who offends your morals.

Do not help someone who is evil, and do not help some one in need if it ends up being for an evil purpose

How in the hell could your god be happy ever? Because my god says its ok for me to do this, and this poor paladin has to basically do nothing or leave for hanging with my LN Cleric for using undead, for just purposes?

Are paladins suppose to be perfect? There is no leeway? No saying to yourself, dang, this gang of people are really awesome, and they are going on an awesome quest for good and nobility, but I have to say no because this one wacko has a fetish for using undead who used to be criminals?

pshaw, give me a break :thog:

[Thrudd]

It's a cool concept for a character, the LN cleric who feels like he is punishing criminals by raising them as undead. As someone who is neutral, it is fine to use both negative and positive energy, and animate the dead. But by book definition, undead are evil, period. Even mindless zombies and skeletons are Neutral Evil. A diplomatic paladin (again, a btb LG paladin), would say that you shouldn't create undead, because although you may have them under your control for now, they are animated by pure evil energy from the negative material plane. As soon as you stop controlling them, their only directive is to attack and destroy life. Even the mindless ones. His duty is to protect the world from such creatures. He shouldn't attack you, the neutral cleric, outright. That would be unlawful. But destroying whatever undead you create he would not see as unlawful. They are not your possessions, and they are not law abiding citizens. They are desecrated corpses animated by negative energy, evil incarnate just waiting to be released onto an unsuspecting world. That's why paladins and good clerics get the ability to turn and destroy undead, and smite evil, because of the existence of such things. It's always possible, that you can roleplay it out and convince the paladin that undead are not always evil and you are using them for a good purpose. If it were an NPC paladin, I'd say you'd need some pretty high diplomacy and/or bluff rolls to pull that off.

[theIrkin]

the idea is that undead are inherently evil. evil energy, evil aura, etc. so regardless of what their purpose is, they are an embodiment of evil, which paladins must strive against. now, can there be paladins who realize there must be some flexibility? yes. heck, there's even a prestige class (greyguard) if you're too lazy to come up with an rp justification. and can undead not be perma-evil? yes, DM fiat and whatnot.

[Flickerdart]

regardless of what their purpose is, they are an embodiment of evil, which paladins must strive against.
Not quite. Let's take a look at the paladin's code:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
So far so good. The paladin is not committing an evil act nor changing her alignment simply by letting undead exist.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
Unless having undead minions is illegal, this doesn't come into play.

help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)
Doesn't come into play.

and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
As long as you prove to the paladin that you can control your undead, they are no threat to innocents.

Well, it all checks out. There's nothing compelling a paladin to kill every undead they see just because they're undead.

[Slipperychicken]

Are paladins suppose to be perfect? There is no leeway? No saying to yourself, dang, this gang of people are really awesome, and they are going on an awesome quest for good and nobility, but I have to say no because this one wacko has a fetish for using undead who used to be criminals?


Yes. Paladins are sponsored by the powers of goodness because they are the ultimate paragons of moral virtue, truly pure of heart and mind, totally devoted to the ideals of goodness. If you can't handle that, you can always be a Crusader, or at worst retrain into another class. No one's forcing you to be a Paladin.

[Kelb_Panthera]

the idea is that undead are inherently evil. evil energy, evil aura, etc. so regardless of what their purpose is, they are an embodiment of evil, which paladins must strive against. now, can there be paladins who realize there must be some flexibility? yes. heck, there's even a prestige class (greyguard) if you're too lazy to come up with an rp justification. and can undead not be perma-evil? yes, DM fiat and whatnot.

This isn't actually what RAW says. Only the creation of undead is an evil act. Both neutral and even good characters can commit evil acts without automatically becoming evil as long as they do as much or more good than they do evil.

The undead themselves are -frequently- but not always evil. Intelligent undead can be whichever alignment they choose, just like any other intelligent creature, though circumstance often makes it difficult for them to become or remain good. Mindless undead sometimes default to evil but also sometimes default to neutral. Read the creature's entry to be certain.

Finally, negative energy is -not- inherently evil though it is often associated with evil.

As flickerdart just pointed out, quite succintly, there's -nothing- in the paladin's code regarding undead at all and the associates portion of the paladin description is a -seperate- entry from the CoC so a paladin doesn't fall simply for associating with the undead if they are evil. (a strict interpretation of that entry says that he's simply incapable of associating with such characters and a reasonable interpretation [and the one I favor] is that the entry is poorly placed flavor text.)

RAW, there doesn't have to be a problem here. The problem is that this RAW is more subject to misinterpretation and DM fiat than most.

Have that discussion.

[NichG]

Are paladins suppose to be perfect? There is no leeway? No saying to yourself, dang, this gang of people are really awesome, and they are going on an awesome quest for good and nobility, but I have to say no because this one wacko has a fetish for using undead who used to be criminals?

pshaw, give me a break :thog:

Sure there's leeway. But you have to remember, the paladin is not just their code. Paladin of Wee Jas? No problem, hangs out with you and your undead without any real qualms. Paladin of Pelor, sworn to destroy undead as one of the most important parts of their religion? Of course there's going to be a problem. For that matter, it would make a lot of sense for that paladin of Pelor to make it his business to stop you from making undead, not because his Code forces him to, but just because he believes that making undead is immoral and wrong. Thats not a rules thing, its a character thing.

So thats the IC situation, and its again not an issue of the Code but of moral characters doing what they think is right.

The problem becomes if OOC you and this other player don't come to an understanding beforehand. Maybe the other player is playing a character who doesn't have a problem with undead, or is willing to play such a variant. But if you don't discuss it beforehand, odds are his character will have a problem with undead, because thats kind of the default in a setting where undead are mostly evil. So basically its on you two to figure out if you can come to an agreement. If his character concept demands 'no undead' and yours demands 'undead' there isn't a way to prove that you are 'right' and he is 'wrong' - one of you will have to budge.

This isn't about the rules, its about the characters you both want to play - you'd have the exact same problem if one of you wanted to play a thief and the other a cop. You could make that work (White Collar...), but only if you're both on the same page.

[Slipperychicken]

This isn't about the rules, its about the characters you both want to play - you'd have the exact same problem if one of you wanted to play a thief and the other a cop. You could make that work (White Collar...), but only if you're both on the same page.

Even cop and regular thief work since it could be a deal; the thief helps catch crooks (acting in some capacity as a specialist, guide, or informant), while the police agree not to lock him up for his crimes. The two might not like the deal, and have some tension or mistrust, but they ultimately need to cooperate since it advances both their interests (thief remains a free man, while the cop gets to bust more/bigger criminals).

[NichG]

Even cop and regular thief work since it could be a deal; the thief helps catch crooks (acting in some capacity as a specialist, guide, or informant), while the police agree not to lock him up for his crimes. The two might not like the deal, and have some tension or mistrust, but they ultimately need to cooperate since it advances both their interests (thief remains a free man, while the cop gets to bust more/bigger criminals).

Thats what the TV show 'White Collar' is basically, and why I mentioned it :smallsmile:

[Slipperychicken]

Thats what the TV show 'White Collar' is basically, and why I mentioned it :smallsmile:

Wow, I am just not getting any references today. I thought you were talking about having the thief being a white collar criminal.

[ArcturusV]

Well, the title character in there is. Art Forgery, Con Games, etc.

But in the interest of making things go smooth as possible? Even if you had determined there must be a conflict between these two (Not that I'm convinced there IS necessarily. Similarly with how a Paladin might put up with a Malconvoker. Pointing lesser evil at the head of Greater Evil, and hoping for mutual destruction strikes me as a good thing that the paladin might get behind), it doesn't have to be a fatal conflict. It could just be to the point of it being clear disapproval and little barbs. Like the Paladin goes and uses Smite Evil to dust some Mummy and looks at the Necromancer as if to say, "See, Good is better than Undead, not too late to reconsider..." It can just remain a tense, but cold, conflict. Rather than a situation where you have to have one or the other.

I mean the Associates With, if I remember right, was based off the 2nd edition rule for Paladins. Which wasn't about "Teammates" so much as the fact that every Hireling, Cohort, minion, etc, etc, etc, that they ever hired or recruited had to be Lawful Good (At least to the best of their knowledge, and if they ever found out otherwise had to fire them right away). Guy carrying your loot for you out of the dungeon? He had to be Lawful Good. Steward of the Dirt Farm some lord gave you? Had to be Lawful Good.

At the very least? Redemption is one of the higher "Good" ideals in DnD. Turning something that is Evil into a force for Good. If you played up that angle, where it's not so much "It's either him or me!"... there shouldn't be too much trouble with it.

[Slipperychicken]

every Hireling, Cohort, minion, etc, etc, etc, that they ever hired or recruited had to be Lawful Good (At least to the best of their knowledge, and if they ever found out otherwise had to fire them right away). Guy carrying your loot for you out of the dungeon? He had to be Lawful Good. Steward of the Dirt Farm some lord gave you? Had to be Lawful Good.


That's not such a bad hiring policy in general. It's basically personality profiling that can be done with a cheap, easy scan. One would imagine that D&D organizations would have a massive bias in favor of Lawful and Good employees and applicants.

[ArcturusV]

That's what I'd figure. Even an Evil organization would probably rather have Neutrals than Evils. And Lawful at that.

[Tvtyrant]

In my current game undead are inherently evil, but if I had a player wanting to play a Necromancer I would probably just change the world to make it neutral. It would seem odd to me to enforce some philosophical view point against the main purpose of the game; having fun.

[killem2]

Yes. Paladins are sponsored by the powers of goodness because they are the ultimate paragons of moral virtue, truly pure of heart and mind, totally devoted to the ideals of goodness. If you can't handle that, you can always be a Crusader, or at worst retrain into another class. No one's forcing you to be a Paladin.

Correct, I'm the Cleric :) F*** Paladins I would never play the core version. Dragon 310 has some saving graces for the class though.

[LTwerewolf]

This entire debate could be solved by having him play a crusader instead.

[olentu]

Yeah, I'm going to chime in for the it would probably be a good idea to work the situation out ahead of time side. Creating undead, channeling negative energy, and so forth are evil and also things that an undead focused cleric is rather likely to do. The whole thing sounds like it could end rather badly very quickly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This entire debate could be solved by having him play a crusader instead.

A crusader's not the same thing as a paladin in fluff and especially not in mechanics. That's like saying killem2 could solve the problem by playing a dread necromancer instead (even though that's not really true, I'm making a point.)

Telling one or the other player his choice is invalid is -not- an ideal solution. It's a last resort when attempts to reconcile the two have failed and should come with a compromised caveat that if they conflict again the one who kept his character this time must automatically be the one to change it next time.

[Thrudd]

I'm talking with my DM about it, I'll see what he says, but he's usually a pretty RAW first kinda guy, like me.

So, if the rules can handle it, we let them, but if it will get wishy-washy we want to catch it ahead of time.

My personal view on it, since I am also a DM, I would not care. I would see it as a very bad thing if a LG paladin, tried to crush a person based on their spells alone and not their actions.

Sure, the paladin might annoy the LN Cleric who uses undead, until he himself became undead from killing himself, because he was tired of being preached to.

Not everything must be life or death, Diplomacy is a paladin class skill after all. :smallwink: Just as a Paladin can use atonement to be forgiven, I find it hard to believe most Paladins would not see this virtue as a chance to bring the rotten to a higher status, (should such a possibility be able, IE thief who robbed for his family vs demon of a dark army)

Of course, there is no way the paladin would be justified in actually attacking the LN cleric, as long as he wasn't actually being evil and hurting people or impeding the mission of "good". He would just have a problem with all the zombies the cleric keeps creating (assuming we're BTB 3.5 monster manual, where zombies are NE and created by negative energy), and what the paladin does about those is another matter. As long as the undead creations are under control and not causing harm to innocents, I wouldn't rule that the paladin take a fall/power hit. If he doesn't keep an eye on them, and one of them gets loose and munches on an innocent civilian, it may be seen as a dereliction of duty and result in a fall. So the best case scenario I see with a RAW-PHB-LG Paladin and your LN cleric/zombie master is that the paladin expresses his strong disapproval of creating undead and vows to destroy them if the cleric ever takes his eyes/control off of them for even a second. This could give rise to some amusing situations, or some tense ones, but shouldn't prevent the party from adventuring together.
I believe any Good or especially LG character of any class would/should feel the same, as undead are by nature dangerous negative energy creatures, and only with powerful magic or divine power are they controlled and prevented from eating people or draining their life force. However, player groups may vary on this, a lot of people seem to feel like animated dead should not be considered the same as intelligent undead and so have different rules for them in their games, and still others think all undead shouldn't automatically be evil because they like to play undead characters or necromancers. All my statements and opinions have been assuming strictly by-the-book interpretations of these things.
It does take some thought to play a paladin without acting like an idiot. Having a well defined setting and society for the paladin to exist within helps tremendously. You really have to consider what "good" and "lawful" means, the character's morals and objectives need to be as clearly defined as possible within the context of the campaign setting. Going only by what is in the PHB is too vague in regards to these things, it needs to be clearly layed out by the DM and/or paladin player. In the case of a new player, the DM should really be the guiding hand.

[Slipperychicken]

A crusader's not the same thing as a paladin in fluff and especially not in mechanics. That's like saying killem2 could solve the problem by playing a dread necromancer instead (even though that's not really true, I'm making a point.)


I personally experienced an eerily similar situation to the OP.


When I played dnd for the first time, I wanted to be a Paladin (being a self-righteous hammy idiot is fun). My brother knew more than me and steered me toward the Crusader class. Although I initially protested, I couldn't really find much fluff difference between them, and the class offered basically everything I wanted from the Paladin class (being a great melee tank and having shiny holy-sounding powers) without the code's baggage. When it was revealed my brother was playing a Dread Necromancer, I had a much easier time accepting it while expressing reservation and making a compromise. Looking back, I know it would have been a lot less enjoyable if my character had been straitjacketed by the Paladin code and likely forced to kill my brother's character.

[Big Fau]

A crusader's not the same thing as a paladin in fluff and especially not in mechanics.

The only fluff difference is how deep the stick is.

[Slipperychicken]

The only fluff difference is how deep the stick is.

The Crusader's stick can also be rotated to any alignment other than TN.

[tomandtish]

Definitely talk about this anyway, since even a Paladin of Wee Jas might have a problem with this:

"Wee Jas thinks of herself as a steward of the dead. Though she is a relatively benign death goddess, she has no problem with undead being created - as long as they are not reanimated against their will, and their remains are procured in a lawful manner. Wee Jas is unconcerned with questions of morality; if it can be done within the confines of the law, she will allow it."

In short, it sounds like the DM would need to make some modifications to Wee Jas anyway in order for this to be allowable by one of her clerics. Therefore, you're altering the basic dogma of the Goddess of Death (which potentially alters how everyone sees the issue).

[EvilJames]

Wee jas doesn't like undead much either. She tolerates them in very specific circumstances but they have to be destroyed ritually the moment that circumstance ends. Making undead is an evil act by RAW even though the cleric is himself LN and trying to do good an neutral things with those undead, that's simply not going to cut it if he's committing those evil acts in front of the paladin. The Paladin is obligated to try and stop evil. Now if you have legal permission to do this then he's not likely to get physical about it, but you can be sure the local governments about to get an earful.
If that bears no fruit then a paladin is likely to just not adventure with the cleric. Evil acts are evil acts after all and no paladin would willingly be a party to them. Now if the DM refluffed mindless undead to not be evil to create then the paladin would have no problem

[AutumnLotus]

Simple/Gritty Solution? Just avoid using spells or effects that are [Evil], and preferably create intelligent undead or better yet just command undead you happen to stumble upon.

Paladins are easy to deal with if your DM and Pally player are easy to deal with. Honestly any DM that allows an undead user in the first place generally is nice about these sorts of things. For paladins just point out how undead themselves are about as evil as the alignment makes them to be. If a player decides "Herp Derp Imma murderize you", then call them out on it. Its a sad time when you have to do that, but if a paladin has trouble reading their own laws, then things will go to hell when they hit one of the maaaaaaany grey areas the CoC brings up, can of worms and all that.

[killem2]

Update: We went with the lawful nuetral paladin variant from dragon 310. DM allowed him to switch leadership (since it's banned) to a special mount, a clock work steed. :smallbiggrin: Kid's pretty happy.

All is well, crisis averted.

[cerin616]

My suggestion? Build a new class similar to the whole "paladin of tyranny/slaughter/freedom" thing

Paladin of Wee Jas - Alignment LN
etc etc. turn/rebuke as neutral cleric, switch a few spells,

[Gavinfoxx]

Ask your GM, with the other player there, whether Necromancy is Playing With Fire or Crawling Darkness

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy