Cleric vs. Necromancer

[Chester]

Hello!

In my current party (3.5), I play an evil Dread Necromancer. My buddy plays a good Cleric. Conflict of interest, blah blah blah.

At earlier levels, it was easy to justify the characters' alliance, but as our levels increase and our ultimate goals diverge, I'm finding it difficult for the both of us to justify cooperation. (His character is completely aware of what I am.)

Any tips or insight on how to continue to allow these two characters to co-exist without forcing either of us to make significant changes to our characters' alignments, motives, etc?

[eggynack]

I don't really know how you guys would coexist despite your conflicting motivations, because I know nothing about what those motivations are. Evil is a broad umbrella term that covers a massive range of possibilities, as is good. Why are you two actually coming into conflict?

[GilesTheCleric]

Just because you have different goals or alignments doesn't mean that your characters can't meet on something else. Maybe they both really enjoy discussing the poetry of Elminster, and so are friends because of that. Perhaps because they've adventured so long together, they have a sense of camaraderie. Or they could both have something common at stake - they've been insulted by the bbeg, or something important to them is at risk (hometown, a guild, etc).

[Captnq]

What EXACTLY is the conflict?

[Chester]

What EXACTLY is the conflict?

Yup, should have clarified.

I'm a manipulator. I seek to become a lich at level 20 (though this ultimate goal has not openly been discussed). I raise, control, summon, etc. undead creatures. My character has influenced and manipulated a good member of the party into turning evil (though this particular player got on board with the idea).

I suppose the real question is this: How can I help my friend, who is a brand new player to D&D, feel comfortable with playing a good character in a predominantly neutral party (I'm the only evil one, but also the party leader) without changing my own play? He's into the hack-n-slash aspects of the character, so he's having a bit of trouble figuring out how to justify his cleric's relationship with mine.

[eggynack]

Well, presumably the two of you have the same basic goal. Like, if you're saving the world, and he's saving the world, you're saving the world together. The same applies if you both share the quest of finding the most delicious candy ever. Good characters and evil characters can have the same goal. Either that or the poetry thing. Having two diametrically opposed characters arbitrarily share the love of some random thing sounds kinda neat.

[Psyren]

Greater Evil. He doesn't have to like working with you, but it's going to take all of you to handle the Big Bad, and you're not doing anything too major. Same reason Belkar is still in the OotS.

[JusticeZero]

You could also get philosophical about your motives and such. Lay out your reasoning for why you are evil. Then slip the Cleric's player some philosophical ideas that counter yours. Turn the thing into a philosophical debate, and let them be right fairly often. Then, you aren't just a bad guy, you're a bad guy because of reasons X, Y, and Z that are coherent and comprehensible. Maybe you believe that the system of the afterlife is both flawed and horrible, and undeath is a merciful reprieve from it. I can, for instance, imagine a necromancer who raises the evil as undead every chance they can, because they believe it is more merciful than the punishments their souls would receive in the evil planes. That turns it from "Wow, that guy is horrible" to "I can see where that guy is coming from.. I don't agree, and he squicks me out, but at least he's consistent."

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Greater Evil. He doesn't have to like working with you, but it's going to take all of you to handle the Big Bad, and you're not doing anything too major. Same reason Belkar is still in the OotS.This is the usual way to explain party differences. But that still leaves the end game, where the BBEG is gone, and the OP still wants to rule the world the party saved.

I'd huddle up with the Cleric's player and the DM and discuss what kind of end game they're considering. Maybe the two of you can reach some sort of understanding that you'll cooperate as long as you do X and he does Y. In this instance X might be "not rule the world" and Y might be "ignore the presence of your evil."

If the goals do ultimately diverge, maybe your PC becomes the final BBEG at the end of the game, and you end up playing another PC and try to defeat him? That would require a lot more discussion with the GM, but as a player I'd find it neat that my PC's arc became the final plot point (with my input and consent, of course).

[Psyren]

This is the usual way to explain party differences. But that still leaves the end game, where the BBEG is gone, and the OP still wants to rule the world the party saved.

At that point, either there is another great threat, so the campaign continues, or there isn't, so the campaign is over. They can duke it out to their heart's content then (in the epilogue), or simply come to an accord and part ways - civilly, if not amicably. Say, each founds a nation, and their descendants/scions continue the raging debate of whether to necro or not.

The alternative is to have them do some kind of PvP scenario; given that the game is poorly designed for PvP at best, this route is ill-advised as it won't really settle anything and can even lead to hurt feelings.

[Chester]

If the goals do ultimately diverge, maybe your PC becomes the final BBEG at the end of the game, and you end up playing another PC and try to defeat him? That would require a lot more discussion with the GM, but as a player I'd find it neat that my PC's arc became the final plot point (with my input and consent, of course).

That was the original idea. Got other members of the party in on it. :smallbiggrin:

The problem is that the cleric is a new player, doesn't quite get the role-playing concept and really have a tough time swallowing that. :smallannoyed:

Still, I have a few angles with which to approach the characters, so thanks for the feedback all!

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. I don't see how it's that much of a problem. The real problem I'd see in there is that you're (apparently) trying to actively convert heroes to Evil, and he's good aligned. His conflict shouldn't be against you directly at this point. But with the players you're turning. He should be, as a good cleric, trying to guide those who have fallen under your sway back towards a good path. He may not be able to redeem you... he may need you to kill Darth VonEvilguy... but that doesn't mean he should let you sucker others in.

Once the bad guy is gone? That should really be the end of the campaign. The "I'll deal with him later" doesn't need to come up. If you really want to run a sequel campaign (Next Generation or something) in that world you might want to decide what happened. But it shouldnt' really be that big a problem.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

To be honest, if I'm reading into the OP correctly, ending the campaign after some evil NPC dies and cutting off the "I'll deal with him later" tension seems like it would be incredibly unsatisfying. If I was playing the evil character I'd want to fight and lose just to end the story properly.

[Segev]

Okay, you've said several times the Cleric's player is "new to the RP thing." What do you mean us to take away from that? How is this contributing to there being a problem? What do you believe the Cleric's player's expectations to be, and how do they differ from yours?

[ArcturusV]

Maybe Goodbye. But it depends on how it is done.

One thing I do a lot of IS sequel campaigns. When I do retire a set of PCs... I'll start up another campaign, set in the same world. Maybe a few years later. Maybe a few decades later.

So my mind was trapped in that sense. Having the issue "unresolved" at the table, and a mystery for the next game can be interesting. One of the neat bits about the sequel campaigns is Legacy stuff. Least so I've found with groups. They're naturally curious about what impact their characters had, and discovering those things is interesting.

So less of a "Solve it at the table" at the moment, and just checking to see what everyone's retirement plans are, and deciding behind your DM screen what happens with it (Based logically on what you know of very familiar characters at that point, their powers and capabilities).

[Psyren]

To be honest, if I'm reading into the OP correctly, ending the campaign after some evil NPC dies and cutting off the "I'll deal with him later" tension seems like it would be incredibly unsatisfying. If I was playing the evil character I'd want to fight and lose just to end the story properly.

But how is throwing the fight any different than having the battle take place in an epilogue? Because you rolled initiative first?

And if you don't throw the fight - again, this game is just not designed for PvP at all. A lot of factors can affect who wins and who loses, and skill isn't even the main one.

[ChaoticDitz]

But how is throwing the fight any different than having the battle take place in an epilogue? Because you rolled initiative first?

And if you don't throw the fight - again, this game is just not designed for PvP at all. A lot of factors can affect who wins and who loses, and skill isn't even the main one.

Numbers is probably the main one, though. And I get a sneaking suspicion that despite him having been their leader, the other party members will likely not side with the Necromancer here, if only because his interests might oppose theirs on a grand scale regardless of alignment.

I mean, imagine if he wants the entire world as his undead horde? I can think of plenty of Evil characters who would be like "Uh, no" to that.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

But how is throwing the fight any different than having the battle take place in an epilogue? Because you rolled initiative first?

And if you don't throw the fight - again, this game is just not designed for PvP at all. A lot of factors can affect who wins and who loses, and skill isn't even the main one.1. How do you know the group is going to kill any ol' BBEG? Same idea.
2. A Dread Necromancer PC is basically a built-in boss fight. He has minions, AoE control effects, and potentially NPC allies as well.
3. If you think PVP is going to be terrible, the OP can hand in his character sheet once he turns full villain. Boom, no longer PVP.

[Chester]

Okay, you've said several times the Cleric's player is "new to the RP thing." What do you mean us to take away from that? How is this contributing to there being a problem? What do you believe the Cleric's player's expectations to be, and how do they differ from yours?

Well, as a good priest and new player, he believes
a) good is good, evil is evil. Good vs. evil is "the thing"
b) a good priest is bound by his god to destroy all evil things
c) alignment is the definitive trait of all characters

As an evil necromancer and more experienced player, I believe
a) good and evil are gray (which is why we have neutral); some arguably evil acts are committed by those who truly believe they are doing good
b) a good priest must exercise good judgement before rushing in to "destroy all evil"
c) alignment serves as a guide and basis for character motives and interactions, but not as a definitive trait--that's why we have class, etc.

Basically trying to give him a tangible reason to be OK with a necromancer in the party. I'm thinking I'll explain it to him in terms of political ideology: a liberal and conservative can have heated arguments and clash over ideological differences all day, then go out for a beer and be buddies.

[Raven777]

I'm a firm believer in "gameplay > story", so that roleplay is to bend around the mechanics, not the other way. Explain to your friend that your Necromancer and his Cleric belong in the same party for the exact same reasons Warlocks and Paladins belong in the same WoW raid. Because playing any other way would deny actual players from fully enjoying all the perks of their characters, and this would be bad.

Now, if you truly feel the need to come up with in-character reasons, friendship over common points of interest, or over common goals, or over common worldviews, or over the months of adventuring and defying death together saving each other's ass four times a day, is a good starting point.

[Chester]

Explain to your friend that your Necromancer and his Cleric belong in the same party for the exact same reasons Warlocks and Paladins belong in the same WoW raid. Because playing any other way would deny actual players from fully enjoying all the perks of their characters, and this would be bad.

THIS. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you, it's actually a really great way to explain it.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, as a good priest and new player, he believes
a) good is good, evil is evil. Good vs. evil is "the thing"
b) a good priest is bound by his god to destroy all evil things
c) alignment is the definitive trait of all characters

There is a passage... somewhere... that contradicts this absolutely. Basically it says that a lot of relatively normal people are evil—the inn-keeper that cheats his customers, the step-mother that slowly convinces her husband to treat their children together better than his previous children (though not to the point of abuse), the slum-lord—but that doesn't mean that it's okay to smite them, and indeed a paladin would fall if they did so.

I'm having trouble finding it, though. :smallmad: Anyone know where it is? Because it sounds like the cleric's player should read it. There's also stuff saying that one who pays evil unto evil tends to be neutral rather than evil.

[Psyren]

1. How do you know the group is going to kill any ol' BBEG? Same idea.
2. A Dread Necromancer PC is basically a built-in boss fight. He has minions, AoE control effects, and potentially NPC allies as well.
3. If you think PVP is going to be terrible, the OP can hand in his character sheet once he turns full villain. Boom, no longer PVP.

1) I presume you find out there's a BBEG/greater threat the same way you do in any other campaign.
2) Okay.
3) The necromancer becoming an NPC is a fine idea. It was the players duking it out against each other that I was found unfavorable.

[Honest Tiefling]

The Dread Necromancer is needed to defeat whatever it is that you are defeating, yes? I assume that the Dread Necromancer is not wholly evil and eating babies left and right. He must have some ability to want to save the world. Therefore, would he not be ripe for conversion to a more altruistic path? His services are not just needed now, but he is dangerous left alone, and would be a powerful force for good (Or neutral, good enough, amirite?) if he could only be guided there.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Well, as a good priest and new player, he believes
a) good is good, evil is evil. Good vs. evil is "the thing"
b) a good priest is bound by his god to destroy all evil things
c) alignment is the definitive trait of all characters

As an evil necromancer and more experienced player, I believe
a) good and evil are gray (which is why we have neutral); some arguably evil acts are committed by those who truly believe they are doing good
b) a good priest must exercise good judgement before rushing in to "destroy all evil"
c) alignment serves as a guide and basis for character motives and interactions, but not as a definitive trait--that's why we have class, etc.

Basically trying to give him a tangible reason to be OK with a necromancer in the party. I'm thinking I'll explain it to him in terms of political ideology: a liberal and conservative can have heated arguments and clash over ideological differences all day, then go out for a beer and be buddies.

Well it should be easy to rationalize as long as your not comically Snidely Whiplash evil.You dont even need to refer to yourself as "Evil" per say just "Practical and with an enlightened morality"

and if all else fails justify staying with this good character by declaring your undying burning love for them that has always been teeming beneath your cold exterior while tears form in your eyes.All you need is love

[Ansem]

You outmatch him though, your spell list is designed on breaking and hurting him.
He needs to have prepared the right spells.
Going undead should make you insanely OP, but he can do some harm on you if not well protected.
Add to that you got your minions though and with some feats and your turning you could give them a well enough boost he can't use his turning against them.

[ArcturusV]

There is a passage... somewhere... that contradicts this absolutely. Basically it says that a lot of relatively normal people are evil—the inn-keeper that cheats his customers, the step-mother that slowly convinces her husband to treat their children together better than his previous children (though not to the point of abuse), the slum-lord—but that doesn't mean that it's okay to smite them, and indeed a paladin would fall if they did so.

I'm having trouble finding it, though. :smallmad: Anyone know where it is? Because it sounds like the cleric's player should read it. There's also stuff saying that one who pays evil unto evil tends to be neutral rather than evil.

Sounds familiar. I'd almost think Exalted Deeds would cover it. But I can't say for certain. I know Exalted Deeds covered things like "Just because you're Lawful Good doesn't mean you follow every law some goober in a castle makes up" or example. As well as "Good should never fight Good as both sides will go to the last mile to make war the last resort in that case and compromise long before coming to blows".

At the very least? Remind the Cleric that how Good and Evil are defined have one key, important split.

Good is about Acts.

Evil is about Intentions.

I always thought it was kinda weird myself. But that's how it is. Good characters are defined by their actions. There's things that good character "just don't do"... like betray a teammate that they have sworn to work with, no matter how vile he is. If they do? It's generally more in the "... We're no longer teammates... you got 48 hours then I'll hunt your ass down" type rather than a sudden attack. Things like this are how the "strange bedfellows" story lines start out. Because Good people are constrained to their acts, and will honor the team up. At least "until the world is safe" or something.

But Good? Good is all about those Actions. Reasons don't come into it. Murdering someone who can't defend themselves in some manner (Be it martial, legal, etc) is still not a good act. Even if they're Baby Eater McDemonspawn. The fact that he's evil? And that your intention is to stop his evil before he goes and eats another baby? Doesn't really ring into it. Particularly if you're a character who draws power from alignment based sources like a Cleric, his God is likely to look at that and go "... wow... not cool... go atone!"

Evil however is all about intentions. Evil can get away with doing "Good" actions, saving people, killing demons, etc, etc, while still being Evil, because the check for Evil isn't "What you do", it's "Why you do it". The PHB doesn't touch on this too terribly much, but it's there between the lines if you look. Good being defined by actions and patterns of behavior, and evil being defined by reasons for actions like "Service to some dark master" or "the sheer thrill of causing suffering to others" and such.

So it's not like the cleric can strike first without risking his Good alignment. And depending on the situation, possibly his cleric powers. Which will leave him at "Subpar Warrior Class" against a fully powered Necromancer. Which he should know about/be told about. So he needs to wait until their deal is over, or the Necromancer makes the first move to break their arrangement. That's always the problem with being a protagonist, you're reactionary by nature, not proactive.