Undead Paladins

[USS Sorceror]

I've been setting up an adventure involving undead, and I was planning on making the final boss an undead paladin, forced to work for a necromancer against his will. Naturally, I expect my players will call BS, so I came up with what I think is a reasonable explanation. I wanted to check how it sounds.

Spoiler

Show

When creating undead, the spell does not call forth the soul of the body from the afterlife, unless they worshipped an undead god in life. The gods are not wont to give up souls that are already theirs. Instead, the spell grabs onto spirits lingering on the material plane and forces them into the body. Since they often don't match, the results are more frequently ravenous mindless monsters.
Rarely, souls survive retaining some sentience/sapience. These souls are often still evil (evil spirits linger more to get vengeance, etc.). However, in this instance, the spirit of a paladin, seeking to continue righting wrongs, accidentally wound up in a skeleton. He had no memories of his past life, he just seeks to do good and find justice. The necromancer has kept him under her control with control undead.

How does that sound?

[Fable Wright]

It's passable. But I know you can do better.

Think about it like you would a plot hook. How could the players get involved? How might the players discover this history?

Maybe the Paladin fought the necromancer in life. Through traps and witchcraft, the necromancer was able to keep the Paladin alive and restrained for long enough to perform a ritual, binding his soul to his body in the moment of his death. Paladin's alive and deeply tortured by the acts he's forced to commit for his necromancer.

Perhaps the necromancer entered the tomb of a famous paladin, bound his skeleton in shackles, and used a scroll of True Resurrection on him to get the same effect as above.

Or, say, the Paladin took up his path to save his soul from a demon's pact. The demon, fearing the Paladin's ascension, traded the soul to a necromancer, so that the Paladin would have no reason to track it down and kill it. The necromancer was wise and clever, outlasting the Paladin, and now she reaps the reward.

You could say it happened by chance... but why not set up some history to make it all the more interesting?

[USS Sorceror]

The thing is, the paladin is not aware of who he was in life. It's amnesia plus the necromancy that makes him as he is. The fundamental tenants of his personality are there, but who he is, why he came to think that way, and how he got here are total mysteries.

I kind of viewed it as the necromancer making a mistake on her part that resulted in this, and trying to make due with what she has.

[Pyrous]

The thing is, the paladin is not aware of who he was in life. It's amnesia plus the necromancy that makes him as he is. The fundamental tenants of his personality are there, but who he is, why he came to think that way, and how he got here are total mysteries.

I kind of viewed it as the necromancer making a mistake on her part that resulted in this, and trying to make due with what she has.

Then why a paladin?

Think about it, if his spirit is strong enough to linger in the material to continue to right wrongs, one would expect the necromancer to lose control of him pretty fast.

[JeenLeen]

You could have the paladin be someone who fought the necromancer at times, and the party has heard of him (or, if in the midst of the campaign, drop some hints and introduce some clues. If in the beginning, maybe have him be a helpful NPC who provides advice or handles one enemy base while the PCs take out another one.) He dies in the fight, and his spirit goes fighting evil.

The necromancer performs a ritual, and the spirit tries to assault it in hopes of stopping it. The interference messes up the ritual, but has the 'fortunate' random event of binding the paladin's soul.

You can have any residual memories be wiped when appropriate for your metaphysics. But this would add a benefit of the PCs caring about the paladin and maybe wanting to free it.
In case the PCs don't get the hints, you could even have the necromancer have lab notes. If the PCs read it, they realize who they fought.

[Inevitability]

If this is 3.5, there's a simple RAW way this can work. Find a paladin, kill him, and animate him as a Bone Creature with Create Undead. As Bone Creature doesn't mention changing alignment in any way, you end up with a still LG paladin.

Next, the paladin is controlled by whatever plot-convenient way of undead control the necromancer possesses. Perhaps it's a spell, perhaps a class feature, perhaps an eldritch ritual, we don't care. The paladin's alignment does not change as he is being forced to perform the necromancer's commands against his will, and he keeps his paladin powers.

[Slipperychicken]

This sounds like the fluff for dnd death knights. Basically, something spooky happens and a dead paladin rises as a mean old undead knight. That could be something to work with, both in fluff and stats.

Assuming this is some edition of dnd: Regarding the use of the Paladin PC class, as a player I'd be leery of a wicked undead knight hitting people for holy or radiant damage. Darker energy would be more fitting. The main thing is fluff details like that.

[Sam113097]

If the undead paladin has no recollection of his life, discovering his history could be a major plot/questline for the heroes. Perhaps, by discovering his true history, the players could break the control of the necromancer over the paladin, temporarily or permanently.

[Red Fel]

Then why a paladin?

Think about it, if his spirit is strong enough to linger in the material to continue to right wrongs, one would expect the necromancer to lose control of him pretty fast.

This is a big part of it. Even if we assume that he doesn't lose his powers due to being compelled to do Evil against his will, he's a Paladin. His powers are generally anti-Evil. In other words, most of his class features will be completely useless to the Necromancer. He'll be pretty weak against heroes trying to stop his master. As a Necromancer, I would want to raise somebody whose class features will make him a more effective servant, not a whiny little useless bag of bones.

And while I can understand the Necromancer perhaps wanting to torment his adversary, there's an important point I feel needs to be addressed. If this is some iteration of D&D - which I think it is, given context - it's worth noting that Paladins can generally access spells like Protection from Evil and Magic Circle Against Evil. If this Paladin was high-level enough to matter, he can block out the Necromancer's mental control. Completely. Why exactly is he still sticking around being a slave? If he has enough free will to retain his personality, and resent the mental control imposed on him, why doesn't he use a RAW method of breaking it?

[Fable Wright]

This is a big part of it. Even if we assume that he doesn't lose his powers due to being compelled to do Evil against his will, he's a Paladin. His powers are generally anti-Evil. In other words, most of his class features will be completely useless to the Necromancer. He'll be pretty weak against heroes trying to stop his master. As a Necromancer, I would want to raise somebody whose class features will make him a more effective servant, not a whiny little useless bag of bones.

Wait what.

Back up a bit. Are you telling me that Evil is one big happy family? That an aspiring Necromancer with an undead Paladin servant wouldn't use it to pressgang free undead into their service with threat of holy annihilation? That you wouldn't want a Paladin as your meatshield when making a deal with a demon, or killing one for its corpse? That you'll never have to fight off rivals, usurpers, or have to wrest your domain out from the bigger bad? Sure, it's less tailored against PCs (unless it's 5th edition, in which case, it's an absurdly lethal bag of bones to anyone, good or evil), but a Paladin is never useless to a Necromancer. Granted, against PCs, I'd prefer to use the marilith skelezombies that the Paladin helped me acquire, but even then I'd prefer a sentient creature capable of good battlefield tactics directing it, and this being is absolutely not going to be me. The Paladin will do, because I can probably re-reanimate it if it does blow up, and he is a good commander. It's not ideal, because he is a very effective servant, even if he occasionally whines a bit, but desperate times and all that.

[Slipperychicken]

This is a big part of it. Even if we assume that he doesn't lose his powers due to being compelled to do Evil against his will, he's a Paladin. His powers are generally anti-Evil. In other words, most of his class features will be completely useless to the Necromancer. He'll be pretty weak against heroes trying to stop his master. As a Necromancer, I would want to raise somebody whose class features will make him a more effective servant, not a whiny little useless bag of bones.

If OP's using 5e, paladins don't have any alignment restriction, and their powers don't discriminate.

[USS Sorceror]

If this is 3.5, there's a simple RAW way this can work. Find a paladin, kill him, and animate him as a Bone Creature with Create Undead. As Bone Creature doesn't mention changing alignment in any way, you end up with a still LG paladin.

Next, the paladin is controlled by whatever plot-convenient way of undead control the necromancer possesses. Perhaps it's a spell, perhaps a class feature, perhaps an eldritch ritual, we don't care. The paladin's alignment does not change as he is being forced to perform the necromancer's commands against his will, and he keeps his paladin powers.

This is closest to the idea I have so far. That template's interesting, I'll look into it.

As for "why then a paladin if he has no memory?" I wanted to present the possibility that inherent good is a thing. Some people strive hard to follow the code, to others it comes more naturally. And it's a good contrast to undead being naturally evil.

[Red Fel]

Wait what.

Waiting.

Back up a bit. Are you telling me that Evil is one big happy family? That an aspiring Necromancer with an undead Paladin servant wouldn't use it to pressgang free undead into their service with threat of holy annihilation? That you wouldn't want a Paladin as your meatshield when making a deal with a demon, or killing one for its corpse? That you'll never have to fight off rivals, usurpers, or have to wrest your domain out from the bigger bad?

In order:

1. No.
2. If you can raise a Paladin as an undead, and keep him enslaved to your will, I don't think you need his help to enslave other free undead. You've clearly already succeeded once.
3. If you can raise a Paladin as an undead, and keep him enslaved to your will, I don't see why he should be your sole weapon against demons. Heck, bring an army of undead. Evil Outsiders will get the message.
4. Again, if you can raise one mighty soldier, why not more?

In short, I'm saying there is no reason to raise a Paladin when any other undead could suffice. It seems counterintuitive to raise as a loyal lieutenant somebody who will be ineffective against some enemies (read: heroes) and somewhat effective against others (read: fellow villains), when you could simply have a minion who is effective against anybody.

If OP's using 5e, paladins don't have any alignment restriction, and their powers don't discriminate.

This is something of which I was unaware. If this is 5e, my point is not relevant.

[USS Sorceror]

Furthermore this is at a lower level for right now, so the paladin is spell free at the moment. The spells command undead and charm person (necromancer can treat undead as humanoids) keep him in line, and the necromancer uses mindless undead to do the actual killing while the paladin directs them.

[AMFV]

This is a big part of it. Even if we assume that he doesn't lose his powers due to being compelled to do Evil against his will, he's a Paladin. His powers are generally anti-Evil. In other words, most of his class features will be completely useless to the Necromancer. He'll be pretty weak against heroes trying to stop his master. As a Necromancer, I would want to raise somebody whose class features will make him a more effective servant, not a whiny little useless bag of bones.

And while I can understand the Necromancer perhaps wanting to torment his adversary, there's an important point I feel needs to be addressed. If this is some iteration of D&D - which I think it is, given context - it's worth noting that Paladins can generally access spells like Protection from Evil and Magic Circle Against Evil. If this Paladin was high-level enough to matter, he can block out the Necromancer's mental control. Completely. Why exactly is he still sticking around being a slave? If he has enough free will to retain his personality, and resent the mental control imposed on him, why doesn't he use a RAW method of breaking it?

Well presumably if the Evil dude can compel him to do his will, that could pretty easily include "Don't case PoE or MCAE", I think torment is probably the best bet. Since there really isn't a reason to resurrect him otherwise.

Also one option is to have the Paladin be controlled through a one use item or artifact. Maybe the bad guy can only control one being so powerful and now he's stuck with the Paladin.

[Slipperychicken]

Furthermore this is at a lower level for right now, so the paladin is spell free at the moment. The spells command undead and charm person (necromancer can treat undead as humanoids) keep him in line, and the necromancer uses mindless undead to do the actual killing while the paladin directs them.

I don't imagine it's so important exactly what magic keeps the paladin in line. It's not like the players will ever see that side of things anyway. I think it's sufficient to say the necromancer has used magic to enthrall the paladin, then outline some conditions that may end it.

[Fable Wright]

In order:

1. No.
2. If you can raise a Paladin as an undead, and keep him enslaved to your will, I don't think you need his help to enslave other free undead. You've clearly already succeeded once.
3. If you can raise a Paladin as an undead, and keep him enslaved to your will, I don't see why he should be your sole weapon against demons. Heck, bring an army of undead. Evil Outsiders will get the message.
4. Again, if you can raise one mighty soldier, why not more?

In short, I'm saying there is no reason to raise a Paladin when any other undead could suffice. It seems counterintuitive to raise as a loyal lieutenant somebody who will be ineffective against some enemies (read: heroes) and somewhat effective against others (read: fellow villains), when you could simply have a minion who is effective against anybody.

It seems that we are operating under different premises going into this problem.

My assumptions:
* Paladins are effective combatants against most individual units, and more efficient per HD than nearly any other unit against powerful Evil enemies. (So, if we're talking about 3.PF, my argument is not relevant.)
* You can only have one Undead Lieutenant. For example, the D&D 5e Necromancer's or Oathbreaker's Command Undead feature limits you to one, the plot often enforces conservation of ninjutsu heavily, or the macguffin only binds one thing, whatever.

In this setup, there are four relevant types of enemies you might square off against.
*Weak units. You just send undead hordes at them and the problem clears up quickly.
*Powerful Neutral units. Sleeping Giant type scenario; usually, they can be avoided without conflict, or solved with diplomacy.
*Powerful Evil units. Some of the harder and more rewarding foes to square off against, you can usually extort or obtain valuable information, loot, corpses, or minions from defeating these. Usually the bread and butter of units you square off against.
*Powerful Good units. These are your adventuring parties. They are like superpowered cockroaches. You get the upper hand, they teleport out or keep a body part to resurrect their comrades before you can do anything fun with them. You trap them and kill them, you've got two bands chomping at the bit to kill you tomorrow. Best strategy is usually to meld into the background and come back later.

Now. Paladins are ineffective against lots of weak units, moderately to greatly effective at fighting against your neutral and good threats, and amazing at fighting your evil enemies. Weak units are why you have an army, so that's a nonfactor. The best long-term strategy against Good units is to disengage, so sacrificing combat ability there is fine. Neutral units can be avoided, but the Paladin stands decent odds there regardless in case you want to recover a powerful corpse. Against Evil units, the Paladin shines, and it's your primary theater of engagement. My argument is that the Paladin is, with these sets of assumptions, one of the higher-value lieutenants you can get your hands on. Sure, you could get something that was great against everything with a lot of effort and risk, but the Paladin might still outshine them against your primary targets, and is far more economical to get your hands on besides. I'd give it a 4.5/5 and a best in class title for your aspiring Necromancer, where you seem to be giving them a 2. Granted, I'd give 3.PF Paladins a 2, maybe 2.5 as well, but in a larger fantasy context they usually tend to be higher-priority targets.

[Alex12]

Alternately, approach things the other way around. Say the undead paladin was already there- mummies are a good choice for this, for a whole host of reasons- and focused on something sufficiently Good. Then the necromancer used [insert magic here] to take control/manipulate the Paladin for his own ends.
For example.

The necromancer found an ancient tomb of an ancient king. This king was so important to his people that guarding his remains for all eternity was seen as a sacred duty and honor. Their greatest champion, Bob the Paladin, was chosen for this task. But Bob was mortal, and this task was without end. Thus, Bob underwent a mystic ritual to grant him the ability to stand eternal vigil over his king, thus turning him into a mummy.

Fast-forward a few hundred years, and a wicked necromancer found the tomb of the ancient king. However, the sacred vows binding Bob to the tomb had a flaw that the necromancer exploited, and so, provided the necromancer strengthens the tomb's defenses, and takes no action to desecrate the remains of the ancient king, Bob must endure the necromancer's presence in silence.

In other words, the paladin isn't specifically the necromancer's minion, the necromancer is taking advantage of the situation and the typical adventurer smash-em-all tactics to force the paladin to defend his own home base because that's where the thing the paladin really cares about is.

[Coidzor]

Are the players supposed to find this out?

How?

What's going to keep them from destroying the skeleton man fighting them? If they don't encounter him in a combat setting to begin with, what are you doing to encourage a social encounter or otherwise have him show up on their mental radar as a point of interest instead of mook?

[Talakeal]

In 3.X a paladin forced to commit an evil act against their will still falls.

[AMFV]

Are the players supposed to find this out?

How?

What's going to keep them from destroying the skeleton man fighting them? If they don't encounter him in a combat setting to begin with, what are you doing to encourage a social encounter or otherwise have him show up on their mental radar as a point of interest instead of mook?

Hmmm, maybe the Paladin reaches out to them, he's got enough of his own free will that he can contact the adventurers and give them his side of the story, but not enough to actively free himself. So he lures others there, informs them (probably through intermediaries) of his plight. That way he's able to be saved.

In 3.X a paladin forced to commit an evil act against their will still falls.

So he'd have to atone, which is kind of his arc anyways.

[illyahr]

In 3.X a paladin forced to commit an evil act against their will still falls.

A paladin only loses his abilities if he willingly commits an evil act. Magical compulsion will make him feel bad, but won't make him fall.

[USS Sorceror]

Are the players supposed to find this out?

How?

What's going to keep them from destroying the skeleton man fighting them? If they don't encounter him in a combat setting to begin with, what are you doing to encourage a social encounter or otherwise have him show up on their mental radar as a point of interest instead of mook?

The party will encounter the paladin after fighting several other mindless undead. He'll be very forthcoming about his purpose

Spoiler

Show

gathering body parts from slain humans for the necromancer.

He has a genuine chipper personality, and will seem mortified if the party suggests what he's doing is morally reprehensible. His good is rather childlike and naive (remember that he has no memory, just an inner drive to be good). As is nothing is really keeping the party from slaying him save for trying to turn him away from his current actions. It's entirely possible (and acceptable) that the party will kill him without knowing he is a paladin.

[Talakeal]

A paladin only loses his abilities if he willingly commits an evil act. Magical compulsion will make him feel bad, but won't make him fall.

I apologize, my head is still stuck in AD&D.

In AD&D a paladin who commits an evil act loses powers regardless of why they did it. The difference is that if it was unintentional they can atone for it to get them back while if it was a willful violation the fall is permanent.

Apparently the game designers decided to give paladins a break in 3e by letting them ignore unwilling evil and atone from willing evil. They done gone soft.

[Deophaun]

Are the players supposed to find this out?

How?

He's a paladin. They can figure that out from the big holy symbol of some LG deity dangling from his neck that he needs to use his Turn Undead ability and to cast spells.

[goto124]

Wait... what does 'paladin' mean again?

The set of skills and abilities?

The alignment restrictions?

The restriction set out by the paladin's code?

Which type of paladin are we talking about? DnD 3.5e? 5e? DM's own variant?

[Inevitability]

Apparently the game designers decided to give paladins a break in 3e by letting them ignore unwilling evil and atone from willing evil. They done gone soft.

The various Vow feats still have that 'one strike and you're out, forever' mechanic, if that makes you feel better.

[Satinavian]

In short, I'm saying there is no reason to raise a Paladin when any other undead could suffice. It seems counterintuitive to raise as a loyal lieutenant somebody who will be ineffective against some enemies (read: heroes) and somewhat effective against others (read: fellow villains), when you could simply have a minion who is effective against anybody.

The most important reason might be : The necromancer stumbles over a perfectly fine paladin corpse, still equipped with paladin magical gear. And he doesn't have a better corpse ready and has no habit or intention to fight dangerous things just to get their corpses.

The question is not "why a paladin", it's "why not a paladin". Create Undead is not that expensive. And even the class abilities are not completely useless. Lay on hands is nice, turning can be useful, if he has divine feats and even remove disease might be useful when working with corpses all the time.
The Problem is how to control him. And that should be adressed somehow.


And if all that is not reason enough, how about the undead paladin was not made by the necromancer, only forced to obey hin ?

[USS Sorceror]

Wait... what does 'paladin' mean again?

The set of skills and abilities?

The alignment restrictions?

The restriction set out by the paladin's code?

Which type of paladin are we talking about? DnD 3.5e? 5e? DM's own variant?

For this purpose, the first one, with a bit of the second. A lawful good undead with a specific set of abilities designed to fight evil. He can't remember/is not aware of a specific code of conduct. If he was, he would probably have no trouble following it. But it's not a concern.

[Douche]

Undead paladins don't make any sense, dawg. That's just straight up crazay yo

You can have an anti-paladin.. like a death knight. They'd still have the same personality they had in life, only twisted to darkness by undeath/necromancy... and their holy powers would become necrotic dark powers.

Plus, like, what purpose would an undead paladin even have? He uses lay on hands on himself and ends up dealing himself more damage?!? No! You need necrotic powers so you can heal yourself and your undead minions.