The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[gizmo33]

Quite a few real life religions do not answer every possible question in a doctrinaire fashion

In DnD world, alignments are unambiguous, divination spells are a pretty good tool for determining alignment and the will of the deity, and cultures are relatively stable. I really think that the real world and DnD world in this case is comparing apples to oranges. The real-world schisms I can think of off of the top of my head have to do with:
1. holidays
2. leadership,
3. whether or not a certain character in the religion is human, deity, or aasimar
4. was Bob the last 20th level cleric of Wee Jas, or was Fred?

Hopefully you can read between the lines and recognize the real-world parallels. None of these things above IMO are alignment issues.

Basically, IMO IRL everyone thinks they're good and that the other guy is evil. That's not the case in DnD.

So a DM might want things to be like they are in the real world, but the rules are working against him in a number of ways. I only think this works at all because PC paladins spend their time in dungeons, the roleplaying aspect of the church is minimized, and the DM determines that the other clerics just "get along" without explanation. All of these elements seem incompatible to me - a Lawful organization, a Lawful deity who responds to divination spells or questions from divine servants, an active Lawful Evil cleric, an active Lawful Good paladin, and association between these elements.

 

[gizmo33]

if someone attempted to kill a criminal that my paladin had in his charge

The important thing to note here is that you've removed free-will from the criminal. The paladin is not associating with his captives in the same sense that a paladin associates with a free, and active Lawful Evil cleric. Similarly, a paladin and LE-cleric sitting in a featureless room doing nothing is not informative when discussing "association". Consider examples of two free-willed, active, discerning adherents to their respective alignments.

I think there is a certain element of ambiguity to the paladin's code that allows for these sort of situations.

People say this in theory but this is not what I observe in practice, and it's not really what the alignment rules say.

My view of paladin orders are similar to the knightly orders of Medieval Europe - they were affiiliated with the church, but they had their own codes, leadership, and hierarchy. Seeing as that is one of the strongest influences on the paladin class, it makes sense to me.

And the history of knightly order shows that their own "codes and leadership" could be called "worshipping Baphomet" by a resentful clergy. How does a group of paladins fail to defend itself against he charge of worshipping a CE demon? Some of the things that went on in the Middle Ages are very hard to imagine in DnD with player characters allowed to use the tools at their disposal.

To use another example: the paladin is general of the king's armies. The king's spymaster is attacked by an assassin. The paladin knows the spymaster is evil, but also knows that the spymaster serves the paladin's lord and is integral to the defense of the realm. If the paladin rescues the spymaster, is he then stripped of his powers? I think not.

The paladin's tacit approval of the spymaster's role in the kingdom is associating with evil IMO. In fact, I would say that an analagous situation exists with the king, spymaster, paladin, and realm being replaced with "party leader", "evil PC", "paladin PC", and "party of PCs". I think the paladin would be expected to leave the party, and by extension would be expected to leave the realm. I think it's *only* because realms, kings, and politics tend to be abstracted, background elements in the game and not direct concerns of the adventuring paladin that such situations are conceivable. A paladin and spymaster who were involved and as active in their kingdoms as they would be in an adventuring party would not exist in the same organization/realm. The paladin in your example is condoning evil methods to protect the realm.

saying that the designers overlooked a slight incompatibility when both of these rules were created specifically to address what you see as an incompatibility strikes me as a bit silly.

Why is it silly? (wrong is not the same as silly BTW) Is 3E the one true version? I think the designers were trying to introduce an interesting idea (variation of alignment across a particular "religion") into an existing game with other elements, not of their design, that were (a) sacred cows and (b) incompatible with their idea. And how do the rules you note "address the incompatibility"? I just see them ignoring the incompatibility.

As I said, AFAICT most people's paladins just stay in the dungeon and don't travel with evil characters. The DM handwaves most of the interaction occuring between the NPCs, and since he determines everything that goes on in the world he simply does as you have done in your examples above - engineers these interactions to avoid alignment conflicts.

 

[GwydapLlew]

And the history of knightly order shows that their own "codes and leadership" could be called "worshipping Baphomet" by a resentful clergy. How does a group of paladins fail to defend itself against he charge of worshipping a CE demon? Some of the things that went on in the Middle Ages are very hard to imagine in DnD with player characters allowed to use the tools at their disposal.

Read what I said, because I don't believe anywhere that I said that the paladins were direct equivalents of the Knights Templar. I said that IMC, paladins are knightly orders seperate from the general church hierachy, much as the knightly orders in Medieval Europe operated. Note that I also didn't say that paladins in D&D loaned money, built roads, or guarded hospitals.

The paladin's tacit approval of the spymaster's role in the kingdom is associating with evil IMO. In fact, I would say that an analagous situation exists with the king, spymaster, paladin, and realm being replaced with "party leader", "evil PC", "paladin PC", and "party of PCs". I think the paladin would be expected to leave the party, and by extension would be expected to leave the realm. I think it's *only* because realms, kings, and politics tend to be abstracted, background elements in the game and not direct concerns of the adventuring paladin that such situations are conceivable. A paladin and spymaster who were involved and as active in their kingdoms as they would be in an adventuring party would not exist in the same organization/realm. The paladin in your example is condoning evil methods to protect the realm.

I can see your point, although I believe you missed mine. If someone were attempting to murder an evil person, would a paladin allow the murder to occur? That is an evil act. By your logic, allowing an evil person to live is also an evil act.

Why is it silly? (wrong is not the same as silly BTW) Is 3E the one true version? I think the designers were trying to introduce an interesting idea (variation of alignment across a particular "religion") into an existing game with other elements, not of their design, that were (a) sacred cows and (b) incompatible with their idea. And how do the rules you note "address the incompatibility"? I just see them ignoring the incompatibility.

(Edit: Possibly inflammatory. My bad!)

I don't see the incompatability; I see certain areas being left vague so that individual DMs can determine how they handle the paladin's code and religion in general. IMC, it's not incompatible. It's obvious that in yours it is.

As I said, AFAICT most people's paladins just stay in the dungeon and don't travel with evil characters. The DM handwaves most of the interaction occuring between the NPCs, and since he determines everything that goes on in the world he simply does as you have done in your examples above - engineers these interactions to avoid alignment conflicts.

Paladins cannot knowingly associate with evil creatures. My definition of 'knowingly' and 'associate' are obviously different from yours. IMC, paladins don't drop detect evil whenever they meet someone - only when they are suspicious of that creature's intent. To each their own.

 

[gizmo33]

Read what I said, because I don't believe anywhere that I said that the paladins were direct equivalents of the Knights Templar.

You didn't - and what I was saying didn't rely on that. You were saying was that it was possible that knights would form a seperate heirarchy within the church. What I was trying to say was "look at what happens when an order of knights and their church believe that they have alignment differences". IRL people have gone to war over *far less* than the differences represented by alignments in DnD.

I can see your point, although I believe you missed mine. If someone were attempting to murder an evil person, would a paladin allow the murder to occur? That is an evil act. By your logic, allowing an evil person to live is also an evil act.

You'd have to define murder. If it's killing outside the law, then the most you could say (without other information) was that it was unlawful. Of course we'd run the risk of digressing into a debate about the alignment system - but I think many of the issues are shared in this case.

I'm not saying that allowing an evil person to live is an evil act (shades of my problem with alignments in general). But what exactly is a paladin supposed to do if he meets an evil person? IRL, in pretty much every case that I can think of - anytime anyone defines another person or group as evil that declaration is the justification for action (ie. killing/imprisonment) against that person or group. AFAICT it's ONLY the lack of ability to kill/imprison that prevents this.

I don't see the incompatability; I see certain areas being left vague so that individual DMs can determine how they handle the paladin's code and religion in general. IMC, it's not incompatible. It's obvious that in yours it is.

My reasoning doesn't depend on your particular definition of Lawful, Good, etc. My reasoning actually applies to ANY definition of Good and Evil that assumes that they are incompatible in significant ways dealing with morality. IME DMs who use alignment are not ambiguous about it's definitions within their own campaigns. One of the main points of the alignment system IMO seems to be to control PC behavior (ex. monks and paladins codes). If there are no significant differences between LG and LE that are defined and enforceable then you can't stop a paladin from being LE in your campaign.

Paladins cannot knowingly associate with evil creatures. My definition of 'knowingly' and 'associate' are obviously different from yours. IMC, paladins don't drop detect evil whenever they meet someone - only when they are suspicious of that creature's intent. To each their own.

Yea, certainly to each their own. Most DMs I know of won't allow for a paladin to "walk out of the room" while one of his fellow PCs poisons or tortures some captive. I would assume that a responsible member of a LG church heirarchy (ie. any paladin) would follow this same philosophy.

Why not detect evil when someone is met? This causes problems for the game, of course, when you try to simulate the real world, but isn't really against human nature? Is "privacy" chaotic or lawful? Does a person have a "right to privacy" when it comes to evil? Can I torture kender in my own home and the paladin just stays outside?

And on the topic of leadership within a church - would anyone with a recognizably human psychology vote for someone to be Pope of the Church of Wee Jas with a campaign poster that read "Vote for Rexor. He's Lawful Evil but so what?"

 

[Mistwell]

I see nothing wrong with the concept of Paladins of Wee Jas. Their philosophy would likely be that orderliness leads to goodness. Taken to a societal level, such a Paladin might value a strong central government that slaps down any "trouble" quickly, keeps the roads clear and in good repair, maintains a thriving burocracy, mans the borders with a strong defense, and mets out justice with regularity. People would be safe and secure in such a society, which is "good". People would be able to eat and have shelter and medicine in such a society, which is "good". People would be able to get justice in such a system, which is "good".

Of course, freedom might not be the highest priority for such a society. But I don't think all paladins have to value freedome above things like justice, oridliness, and safety.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Who says they even acknowledge the LE sects?

"Yes, the doctrine of the heretics who craft with bone and unholy soul is a popular one, but they are mislead, following earthly trappings instead of the divine will of the Lady. They are abusing her powers, using loopholes in the laws to accomplish vile things, and my brethren and I in the Order of the Just Ruby work every day to curtail their behaviour and amend the law to fight them. Certainly, many mock our schisms, claiming minor points of doctrine leads otherwise rational human beings to kill each other, but those who mock these difficulties take a narrow view. The battle is one of Good vs. Evil, of Truth vs. Manipulation, and it is one I will never stop fighting. You can be assured that none, to my knowledge, none in the temple in Berilyla here walk that dark path that those in foreign lands do. Most pursue the Law and the Authority dispassionately. But there is a strong contingent that feels a higher standard of justice and nobility can be maintained, and we make sure that here in Berilyla, the Church of Wee Jas remains untainted.

It is a constant battle. You may be surprised to hear how many wicked necromancers we must turn away. They all have the opportunity to accept our word, but few do, too enamored of their power to see justice. They seem to think that just because we wear the black-and-red, that we should be beholden to them. But the truth is that there are many divergent opinions on how to best arbitrate the souls of the dead, and we are not beholden to the Grand Temple in Ordalia like so many other villages are. Thankfully, with great study, the High Priest has come to agree with our interpretation of Jasian law, and is even now hoping to persuade the Grand Temple to issue an edict to their own holdings something like ours. As it sits today, however, we merely have some extra rules that must be obeyed. They are the true rules of Wee Jas, accounted for by great scholars, and they are of compassion and kindness, not twisted dark necromancy.

 

[GwydapLlew]

You make good points, even if we disagree on those points.

And on the topic of leadership within a church - would anyone with a recognizably human psychology vote for someone to be Pope of the Church of Wee Jas with a campaign poster that read "Vote for Rexor. He's Lawful Evil but so what?"

LE means that you use the existing laws (and shape new laws) to your advantage without concerning yourself with other people's misfortune. For example: a sleazy lawyer, a corrupt cop, a politician. This doesn't mean that they run around, Mr. Burns-style, cackling and kicking puppies. It also doesn't mean that all lawyers, cops, or politicians are LE.

I can be interact with people perfectly pleasantly and still use my position within an organization to achieve my own goals and desires. A paladin generally has two roads to walk with his detect evil class ability - he can either use it on everyone he encounters, regardless of how they act, or he can use it only when he believes someone to be evil. IMC, I encourage the latter - otherwise you end up with paladins acting like DeNiro in Meet The Parents.

 

[Seeten]

Well written, midget, well written.

 

[gizmo33]

Their philosophy would likely be that orderliness leads to goodness.

Which IRL perhaps is debateable. But in DnD, the alignment system pretty clearly states that this is not the case. Any paladin in a standard campaign is going to have to explain a hobgoblin's alignment and behavior if he tries to suggest that orderliness leads to goodness. If his priority is goodness, then the moral superiority that he feels over a Chaotic Good person has no justification because a Chaotic Good person could clearly demonstrate, by use of divination spells or equivalent (handling a magic item that causes damage to non-good) that he is as Good as the paladin.

On a more subtle level, if the paladin's faith confines itself only to opinions about building roads, then one has to ask exactly what a paladin of Wee Jas gets out of his membership in the organization. It's hard to imagine that the Doctrine of Wee Jas specifies that building roads is good but doesn't discuss the moral issues underlying that.

"Build roads, my children, for reasons that I refrain from discussing so as not to upset my Lawful Evil followers."

And if it does discuss those moral principles, then how are those principles not in conflict with Lawful Evil? Seems to me that putting a priority on "shelter and medicine" for a bunch of commoners is at odds with the definition of Lawful Evil.

People would be able to get justice in such a system, which is "good".

This is one of my issues with the DnD alignment system. There's no need to talk about "good" when you've got Good to work with. 'Good' isn't ambiguous in a DMs campaign - if it were then a paladins adherence to the alignment would be impossible to determine. 'Good' is detectable through magic - or observable by it's interaction with other alignment forces. In DnD, 'Good' is as tangible and unambiguous as gravity.

 

[gizmo33]

"Yes, the doctrine of the heretics who craft with bone and unholy soul is a popular one, but they are mislead, following earthly trappings instead of the divine will of the Lady."

And as the paladin starts speaking, a Lawful Evil cleric of Wee Jas steps out of the crowd.

"Hey, dude, let's settle this. Go find a Lawful Good priest of our faith and get him to cast Divination, or Commune or whatever. Get him to ask whether or not Lawful Evil people are allowed into the faith. Get him to ask if we are not defending the will of our Lady. And if he claims she won't answer, ask him why a Lawful deity would permit significant differences within her faith."