New player is a necro monster

[Galdor Miriel]

Some friends and I are presently embroiled in the excellent Shackled City adventure path and it has been really fun. Lots of unexpected twists and turns and it keeps you moving. However, one of our PCs died, and was not raised. His new character is a favored soul of wee jas who chose animate dead as one of his spells and he has started to raise the slain.

problem: Up to now many of us, myself included, have been uber good heroic types and one of us is a fairly inflexible paladin.

The dm has handled this problem great as when we have unresolvable differences we do a diplomacy/intimidate check to decide. Great system works well.

problem: I feel sorry for the favored soul who is a great player because it was his guys build.

The solution I want from the great minds at GITP is a nice role play way to make the evil animate dead spell acceptable to some uber good characters to allow him to explore the character options, something that can overcome a stubborn paladin.

[Tellah]

Well, in the black and white world of D&D, animate dead has the [Evil] descriptor. That's a hard hurdle to jump, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way at your table. Rule zero and all that.

In Eberron, for instance, one elven culture is known for creating undead with positive energy, and are in fact ruled by positive-energy liches. Eberron is also a world without absolute alignments, in which a chromatic dragon can be good and a metallic can be evil, devils can be chaotic and demons lawful. Ask your DM if creating undead is a necessarily evil act in his world. Ask also if Wee Jas, in his world, chooses only evil people to enact his will on the Prime Material. If one can be a favored soul of Wee Jas without being evil at his table, then it's a simple matter for the player to change the "E" at the top of his character sheet to an "N".

If that won't work, consider altering the Paladin's code a tad. Perhaps she can travel with evil characters if her intent is to show them, by example, the error of their ways. The Favored Soul could also shield himself from detect evil each day, although at the expense of a spell. I doubt the Paladin will be fooled for long when the zombies start following the party around, however.

Finally, it may be best all around if this player reconsiders his build just a bit. Necromancer builds are pretty poor, even when optimized, and choosing Favored Soul is far from optimized.

[Starsinger]

Minor nitpick, but since Wee Jas is one of my favorite deities... Wee Jas is a lady, Tellah :)

Anyways, Animate Dead is [evil] because it operates under the assumption that the dead are sort of sacred and disturbing them is a bad idea. In some cultures, this isn't so, and personally, I don't see why the spell is necessarily evil 100% of the time.

[PinkysBrain]

The consecrate spell metamagic feat can turn any spell into a Good spell ;)

[Innis Cabal]

the spell isnt evil for those reasons...its evil becuase the magic used to do the spell is evil. Magic is not about intent, its about how the multiverse views the spell.

[Starsinger]

Like Deathwatch right? Animate Dead is evil because some guy at WotC said, "Animate Dead should be evil because I think making undead is evil." And arguably, it should be about intent. Like say, Deathwatch, if a Cleric casts deathwatch so he can know when someone needs to be healed, is it still an evil spell? It has the evil descriptor, making the multiverse see it as such.

[Dausuul]

Like Deathwatch right? Animate Dead is evil because some guy at WotC said, "Animate Dead should be evil because I think making undead is evil." And arguably, it should be about intent. Like say, Deathwatch, if a Cleric casts deathwatch so he can know when someone needs to be healed, is it still an evil spell? It has the evil descriptor, making the multiverse see it as such.

Nowhere in the RAW is it stated that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act. The descriptor only determines who gets to cast it (no good clerics or clerics of good deities) and what modifiers affect it (if you have the Evil domain, you get +1 caster level).

So there's no alignment reason you couldn't have a Lawful Neutral cleric of Wee Jas raising undead. Of course, if you want to get really technical, the undead themselves are evil and so the paladin can't adventure with them, but hopefully your DM can be persuaded to stretch a point there.

Fluff-wise, I can think of a few arguments that might let the paladin and the favored soul get along. For instance, the favored soul could argue that by raising evil creatures as undead to fight on the side of good, he is allowing their souls to expiate their sins and be redeemed. Of course, that means he can't animate anything that wasn't demonstrably evil in life.

(Oh, and you might suggest to the favored soul's player that he look into Heroes of Horror and/or Libris Mortis. For raising undead, there's nothing like a Dread Necromancer with the Corpsecrafter feat line...)

[UglyPanda]

Has your favored soul pal focused his character around undead creation? If not, you could just ask him to tone down on it. Other than creepiness, animating the dead can be considered evil because it's desecration of a body. Also, is the favored soul neutral or evil? If he's evil, that character can not co-exist in the same party as a paladin. You should also consider whether or not his neutrality would hold the party back if you're supposedly golden crusaders of good.

Like Deathwatch right? Animate Dead is evil because some guy at WotC said, "Animate Dead should be evil because I think making undead is evil." And arguably, it should be about intent. Like say, Deathwatch, if a Cleric casts deathwatch so he can know when someone needs to be healed, is it still an evil spell? It has the evil descriptor, making the multiverse see it as such.

The following is a personal opinion:
I believe that deathwatch is evil because it tells you when your enemies get close enough to death that you can kill them easily. The spell wasn't originally intended to tell you when to heal your pals since learning your allies are hurt can be role-played "I'm badly hurt" or "I am gravely wounded", "I am at death's door" and my favorite "Are you freaking blind? Look at this gash! Heal me you freaking idiot!". I'm sure that if it were intended to be used by the forces of good as a health meter, it would have been called healthwatch. Also, it says "saving throw:none", not "saving throw (harmless)". This means it was meant to be used offensively, not defensively. Finally, the spell is far too weak and imprecise to actually tell you when someone needs to be healed when it isn't obvious.

[ghost_warlock]

I believe that deathwatch is evil because it tells you when your enemies get close enough to death that you can kill them easily. The spell wasn't originally intended to tell you when to heal your pals since learning your allies are hurt can be role-played "I'm badly hurt" or "I am gravely wounded", "I am at death's door" and my favorite "Are you freaking blind? Look at this gash! Heal me you freaking idiot!". I'm sure that if it were intended to be used by the forces of good as a health meter, it would have been called healthwatch. Also, it says "saving throw:none", not "saving throw (harmless)". This means it was meant to be used offensively, not defensively. Finally, the spell is far too weak and imprecise to actually tell you when someone needs to be healed when it isn't obvious.

I would just like to point out that naturewatch is a 0-level druid spell (1st-level ranger) in the Spell Compendium that functions almost exactly like deathwatch. For the record, naturewatch doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor.

[JellyPooga]

A couple of ways to make animate dead acceptable to a by and large goody-two-shoes group:

1)Only raise the corpses of those who have signed a contract saying that you can (all copy-rights of this idea owned by the Dustman faction of Sigil). More Lawful than Good though.

2)Don't raise Zombies, just Skeletons. They smell less, so you don't notice them so much. Also, you can dismantle them for easy storage (think of them as flat-pack minions). Out of sight (and smell), out of mind.

3)[In-Game]Persuade your companions that the Undead aren't evil/creating the living dead is an evil act. [Meta-game]Put lots of ranks in Bluff and/or Diplomacy.

[Serenity]

Zombies and Skeletons are Neutral, if I remember correctly, being completely mindless. If he was creating ghouls or vampires or something, yeah, that'd be evil, but so long as the spell doesn't interfere with the dead people's soul moving on, I see no reason why animating the bodies as mindless shells would be evil.

[Dhavaer]

Zombies and Skeletons are Neutral, if I remember correctly, being completely mindless. If he was creating ghouls or vampires or something, yeah, that'd be evil, but so long as the spell doesn't interfere with the dead people's soul moving on, I see no reason why animating the bodies as mindless shells would be evil.

They changed mindless undead to Evil in 3.5.

[Tor the Fallen]

The following is a personal opinion:
I believe that deathwatch is evil because it tells you when your enemies get close enough to death that you can kill them easily.

How, exactly, is that evil?
How different is it from, say, taking power attack? Or using sneak attack? How is making enemy killing easier any more evil than, say, casting invisibility on your rogue, or making a knowledge check to figure out a troll's weakness?

The spell wasn't originally intended to tell you when to heal your pals since learning your allies are hurt can be role-played "I'm badly hurt" or "I am gravely wounded", "I am at death's door" and my favorite "Are you freaking blind? Look at this gash! Heal me you freaking idiot!". I'm sure that if it were intended to be used by the forces of good as a health meter, it would have been called healthwatch. Also, it says "saving throw:none", not "saving throw (harmless)". This means it was meant to be used offensively, not defensively. Finally, the spell is far too weak and imprecise to actually tell you when someone needs to be healed when it isn't obvious.

...
So if the same sort of roleplaying was used against the enemy, ie, "I target the one that looks the most wounded," it's an evil act. By your reasoning.

[LoopyZebra]

Isn't creating undead an Evil act because it brings more negative energy into the world, slowly destroying the very life of the the Material Plane to create Evil creatures?

Of course, whether or not this applies in your Dm's world is another question entirely. If that does not apply, and mindless undead are not inherently evil, and the plane is not inherently damaged, then the only thing against raising dead is cultural concerns.

But, in most campaigns, undead are Evil, and their bodies are fueled by negative energy, which does it's Evil thing and slowly unworks the Material, ending life bit by bit. The end of all mortal life is generally considered Evil.

As for the game, assuming this negative energy thing applies, it will be hard, if not impossible, to come up with a good reason for the paladin to tolerate the necromancer once he knows the necromancer's true colors. See if the player wants to play something different (if similar, like a summoner or a Favored Soul with a different specialty).

[UglyPanda]

Let me rephrase my initial statement before I continue so I don't make the argument worse. I believe that the game creators designed deathwatch as evil because...etc.
I was justifying the intent and decisions of the designers concerning that spell. It is perfectly within their right to make deathwatch evil. It wasn't as if they gave "summon fluffy bunny" the evil descriptor, evil does fit in this circumstance. The designers came up with the idea of evil characters knowing when they can finish someone off, and only after that did players start saying that the spell could be used for good.

I do not consider the usage of that spell to be evil or not evil. I also consider that spell practically useless if there is a high amount of role-playing or metagaming and I don't think about its morality since I usually wouldn't use it.

[Drider]

I would talk to the person and the DM about, if you were all a bunch of good guys, and he knew this, and made a character who raised the dead. Maybe the character can eventually become a villain, but either the group would have to change, (the paladin would need to rebuild) or it becomes him against the other people and the person needs to reroll

[Tor the Fallen]

Don't forget the 50 gp of onyx/hd that animate dead costs.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Consider the classic assassin for a moment. He's not necessarily evil because he worships evil gods and works towards bringing about cataclysms and atrocities. He's evil because his morales are loose and he doesn't have that big of a problem with killing for money.

Just because you're evil via moralistic outlooks doesn't mean everything you do must be to serve the ressurection of some overlord monster god. Maybe he's perfectly good except for his willingness to abuse negative energy and the corpses of the dead for his own gain.

[Driderman]

Isn't creating undead an Evil act because it brings more negative energy into the world, slowly destroying the very life of the the Material Plane to create Evil creatures?

Of course, whether or not this applies in your Dm's world is another question entirely. If that does not apply, and mindless undead are not inherently evil, and the plane is not inherently damaged, then the only thing against raising dead is cultural concerns.

But, in most campaigns, undead are Evil, and their bodies are fueled by negative energy, which does it's Evil thing and slowly unworks the Material, ending life bit by bit. The end of all mortal life is generally considered Evil.

As for the game, assuming this negative energy thing applies, it will be hard, if not impossible, to come up with a good reason for the paladin to tolerate the necromancer once he knows the necromancer's true colors. See if the player wants to play something different (if similar, like a summoner or a Favored Soul with a different specialty).

I think this post pretty much sums up the predicament. Either the DM rules Negative energy and Undeath isn't necessarily evil in his campaign, or the player will most likely need to come up with a pretty good explanation for his presence in the party.
Most obvious solution would be a lead-sheet and not raising the dead while the paladin's around, but I guess he already blew that one...

[Galdor Miriel]

\

Fluff-wise, I can think of a few arguments that might let the paladin and the favored soul get along. For instance, the favored soul could argue that by raising evil creatures as undead to fight on the side of good, he is allowing their souls to expiate their sins and be redeemed. Of course, that means he can't animate anything that wasn't demonstrably evil in life.

Thats a great idea, I think I will be able to sell that to the players, thank you very much.

[Galdor Miriel]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback, it gave me some good ideas to take back to the table, which is where they belong after all. As far as the DM ruling on the issue, I think he could do that, but what he is doing is leaving it open for us to role play our way out of the dilemma. I think that these kinds of crises are what adds that level of believability to the game that lifts it above a simple game of strategy and optimisation.

Once more, my thanks.

[Galdor Miriel]

Has your favored soul pal focused his character around undead creation? If not, you could just ask him to tone down on it. Other than creepiness, animating the dead can be considered evil because it's desecration of a body. Also, is the favored soul neutral or evil? If he's evil, that character can not co-exist in the same party as a paladin. You should also consider whether or not his neutrality would hold the party back if you're supposedly golden crusaders of good.

He is lawful neutral I think, we do not table talk alignment, it comes out in exactly these situations.

He is focused around summoning undead creation in his build and demeanor.

[Starsinger]

Also.. Wee Jas is not evil, so theoretically her clerics (I'm unsure how favored souls are on alignment) can be good, but still necromancers, as Death is one of her domains.

[ArmorArmadillo]

A well roleplayed paladin should see this as a chance to gain a worthy ally for the side of good by convincing the favored soul (in a kindly way) to redirect his energies to better uses. Also, a paladin can adventure with someone who uses undead, as they are not intelligent, and therefore not evil. If the DM doesn't allow this, he's needlessly injecting friction into the game.

Also, Raise Dead is [Evil] because it uses Negative energy (inimical to life) but Dauruus was right in saying that casting [Evil] Spells is not evil (nongood, but not evil) and completely within the right of a Neutral character.

[Jothki]

Yeah, the idea that undead are universally Evil is contradicted by the very fact that Wee Jas exists.

[UglyPanda]

Also.. Wee Jas is not evil, so theoretically her clerics (I'm unsure how favored souls are on alignment) can be good, but still necromancers, as Death is one of her domains.

I'm fairly sure that Wee Jas does not grant lawful good clerics spells and St. Cuthbert does not grant lawful evil clerics spells. So technically, her clerics can be neutral and still necromancers, not good and necromancers. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

[Dausuul]

Also.. Wee Jas is not evil, so theoretically her clerics (I'm unsure how favored souls are on alignment) can be good, but still necromancers, as Death is one of her domains.

Clerics of good alignment don't get spells with the [Evil] descriptor, even if they worship a non-good deity. Not sure if the same stricture applies to favored souls.

[kpenguin]

Err... doesn't Wee Jas have the Repose domain? I might be wrong...

[Starsinger]

Amusingly, that doesn't stop Jozen from casting Symbol of Pain in the PHB... But true, I always forget that.

[Argent]

Maybe I'm just dense here, but what about just letting the players' roleplaying handle the situation? Without house-ruling, why not just let the two characters figure it out for themselves? If there's a conflict between players because of alignment or class or outlook, let the players handle it.

We had an analogous situation in our group some years ago. One of the players decided he wanted to play a kid character. Twelve years old. Now, the debate about the appropriateness of kid characters aside, it didn't fit the tone of our party at all. But the player was insistent -- he wanted to play the tagalong kid who followed the party around and shared in their adventures. It lasted exactly one session before it started driving everyone nuts, and at the end of that session, the party essentially told the kid to go home and stop bothering them. The player wasn't happy about it, but that's what happens: when you bring in a new character that's going to cause conflict, surprise, surprise, you get conflict. If you don't want conflict, don't bring in a dead-animating cleric into a good party -- if you still want to play that character, be prepared for the role-playing fallout.