The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[GwydapLlew]

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."

Good point. The answer would be something along the following:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Because her faith cares only that the law is followed, not how it is followed. The fact that she allows some to follow it in a good manner and some to follow it in an evil manner should not dissuade those who wish to follow it in a good manner from doing so. Oh, and have some peanuts.

Do you think a religion as orderly as hers wouldn't consider this? If my job as paladin is to defend the faith and promote Law and Good, and my bosses know this, do you think they are going to pair me up with High Priest Skeletor ir'Necronomicon? Or do you think it's more wise to place those of such conviction in churches and areas where their faith benefits the church?

Heck, if I were a LE high priest of Wee Jas, I'd think the best way to resolve the issue would be to assign any paladins to a different church entirely. :shrug:

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You say that like it's a challenge.

Following order is better than unfettered chaos, but the order must be the *correct* order, or there is little difference. Obviously, Wee Jas has the correct order. All others are pale imitations of the real thing, fit only to be destroyed so that Wee Jas's own Law can take it's just hold.

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.

Again, this is a fairly simple argument to counter:

He does good deeds, but his methods concern me, for he lacks control. He may be doing good dees for now, but there is nothing saying that he will do so tomorrow. He is untrustworthy, flighty. He will allow evil to grow while he is distracted. Obeying the Order of Wee Jas is the only successful way to combat evil, as our temple here in Berilyla proves.

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.

I'm confused. What part of being a Paladin of Wee Jas means you have to tolerate Evil, again? Sure, it exists in the sect, but it won't exist within *your* sword's reach, that for sure. A paladin's job is never done, and struggling against the evil followers of your deity (a true jihad!, an inquisition!) is certainly a noble goal for the Lawful and 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.

Not quite. Gravity is felt by every human being. "Good," as a force, is only noticed and detected by the elitely trained and special. Maybe the only person in your farming community who is aware of it as a force at all is that weird old lady who makes potions (the village adept), and she's only aware of it when she goes into a trance.

Besides that, not everybody wants to be good. Not everybody should be good. Cranky Cleetus the racist big farm owner who "employs" uneducated immigrant half-orc slaves and breeds them like cattle (and amuses himself by hunting the young 'uns) might be a vile, evil human being, but his farm's the most prosperous one here in Podunk. Yeah, that wierd old potion lady could tell us he's evil, but as long as he keeps to himself and doesn't take any of MY children away, what do I care what he does on his own land with his own property? It might make me nervous to know he's there, but I'm just Farmer Bill, I can't do jack. The nearest cleric is three day's hike through the goblinwood, and I've got a harvest to attend to. No, Cranky Cleetus will be punished perhaps after death, perhaps by the gods. In fact, I pray to Wee Jas every month hoping that the wicked get their just punishment in the afterlife.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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."

I don't need hecklers giving me orders. Where's your badge, what is your rank, are you even FROM Berilyla? No? Then you, my guest, speak out of turn, and would be wise to watch your tongue. You must know we don't take kindly to your type here. Finish your business and begone, before you are judged and found wanting.

Sectarian violence is more than just on the daily news!

And just so I'm actually addressing the point:

There are many theories on those who call themselves faithful, who wield the Lady's magic, yet destroy the value of life. Some believe their power comes not from the Lady, but from a fiend masquerading in the guise of the Lady, perhaps sent by our rivals at the church of Hextor, perhaps working its own vile will. My divinations have been inconclusive on the veracity of this. However, I believe differently. I beleive our Lady allows the wicked to wield her power willingly. Don't look so shocked, young firebrand! Our Lady is not a person. She is a judge, an arbiter of what is right and correct, not what is good or helpful. You know full well her dispassionate hand. But the wicked walk the most dangerous of paths, you see. Because their wickedness is punished. Have you seen the hell-planes? I have not, though I have records of them. Expanses of ice and fire and jagged stone, turgid rivers of sludge, pitiable and dispicable creatures roaming, all subject to the dire whims of masters who care not for their charges.

Yes, this is the path that your heckler walks, this path of self-destruction. Though he wields the Lady's power, the Lady will turn against him. Even if he longs for eternal undeath, it is an existence of suffering, denying himself the very judgement of the Lady that he is said to enact. You and I, though, you and I would that people enjoy their afterlife. As dispicable as the hell-planes are, the heaven-planes are rewarding and pure. As people are judged kind, they will be rewarded in their afterlife.

This existence is suffering, you see. The wicked members of our sect prolong their own suffering, and seek to prolong other's. You and I, and all of Berilyla, seek to end it. And we both do it by adjudicating Wee Jas's eternal Law.

 

[gizmo33]

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

Thanks Perhaps the core of our differences stems from alignment. I think that the general feelings I have about alignment differences within a church apply to alignment differences within any organization of people. I don't believe that the alignment system, if it were allowed to operate in a "fantasy world simulation", would produce anything like the typical fantasy campaign world.

This doesn't mean that they run around, Mr. Burns-style, cackling and kicking puppies.

But with only a "you can be LE" statement from Wee Jas, Mr. Burns would be allowed into the faith. I guess it's possible to define LE in such a way (or say that there are multiple types of LE - same thing) so that it never comes into conflict with LG over significant moral issues. If you're not kicking puppies or doing something evil, then why are you evil? If there are significant moral disputes within an organization, wouldn't a Lawful organization be the most effective in addressing those.

IMC, I encourage the latter - otherwise you end up with paladins acting like DeNiro in Meet The Parents.

The problem with DeNiro's character is that he's using a lie detector test to test for alignment (in so many words), which it doesn't do. He, like most other people in the real world, are forced to work with secondary factors that they believe are a test for alignment - and in are of themselves debateable. That's part of the explanation for why DeNiro's behavior is considered antisocial (or supposed to be) by the audience.

If, in the real world, there actually was a test for Evil, though, that would settle the debate. I argue that in the face of such, almost scientific, certainty of what was Good and what wasn't, differences in sects and people would vanish. Show me two clerics who have ever gotten different results when they both cast Detect Good spells.

Unlike a lie detector, Detect Evil not only gives you a result, it tells you how to interpret that result. Other than the DM frowning at them, I can't imagine how you would stop a paladin PC from using it as much as he could.

 

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Paladin of Wee Jas:

I don't need hecklers giving me orders. Where's your badge, what is your rank, are you even FROM Berilyla? No? Then you, my guest, speak out of turn, and would be wise to watch your tongue. You must know we don't take kindly to your type here. Finish your business and begone, before you are judged and found wanting.

"You ask alot of questions for someone who claims to have access to divine magic. You resort a little too quickly to threats of violence for someone who claims to have the Law on their side. I have no fears of being judged by divinatory methods compatible with the faith of Wee Jas for I trust that she takes care of her own. You, Mr. Paladin, are not really in a position to debate this with me as an equal, for unlike you, I have the ability to actually commune with my deity. That's why I suggest that you consult with your betters, who who do have Divination magic to determine the truth of the situation."

Of course paladins are better fighters than clerics, so right after I say that I run.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hehe, I've edited the above to address the Direct Question to the Deity aspect of it.

 

[GwydapLlew]

But with only a "you can be LE" statement from Wee Jas, Mr. Burns would be allowed into the faith. I guess it's possible to define LE in such a way (or say that there are multiple types of LE - same thing) so that it never comes into conflict with LG over significant moral issues. If you're not kicking puppies or doing something evil, then why are you evil? If there are significant moral disputes within an organization, wouldn't a Lawful organization be the most effective in addressing those.

The clergy of Wee Jas receive their power from Wee Jas. Wee Jas only cares about a few things: Sueloise dead being treated properly, the souls of Oeridian mortals being sent to the appropriate place upon their death, not abusing magic, increasing the effectiveness and 'sexiness' of magic, and vanity.

She has a set of rules as to how to do these things. How these rules are applied are up to the individual clergyman - and that is where doctrinal differences occur. A LE cleric will follow those rules, but interpret them so as to grant the cleric the most benefit, and will not generally concern themself with the effect this has on other people. That's what LE is all about. A LN cleric will follow those rules without regard of how it benefits any particular person, because that's what LN is all about. A LG cleric will follow those rules and interpret them in such a way that it will benefit everyone as much as possible, because that's what LG is about.

A paladin could easily strive against the LE component of the Jasidan faith, showing how the LG interpretations benefit the faith more than the LE. A paladin could keep his eye open for any wrongdoing, so as to bring the brunt of Jasidan punishment upon the LE cleric. A paladin could request a transfer from a church ruled by a LE priest, thereby no longer associating with said priest. A paladin could be aware that a LE priest is in the church, and sermonize and constantly work to show the priest the 'true' way. A paladin could not kill said cleric merely for being evil - it would be a violation of the laws of his faith.

These are all ways, IMO, that a LG outlook could deal with a LE outlook within his own hierarchy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm bemused by the notion that gods will answer any fool question a priest with a commune spell wants to ask about religious doctrine. Even the High Priest (Pope?) of Wee Jas is a fruit fly in her immortal view.

Why would a lawful goddess not straighten out the faithful on what is and isn't doctrine? I don't know, why would a good god permit suffering? Gods' priorities aren't the same as mortals and the burning questions that keep mortals awake at night -- or lead to schisms or religious wars -- may not be worth the god or goddess spending any energy worrying about.

 

[gamecat]

The jasidian mock-RP in this thread is wonderful.

Cheers, midget!

 

[gizmo33]

I'm bemused by the notion that gods will answer any fool question a priest with a commune spell wants to ask about religious doctrine. Even the High Priest (Pope?) of Wee Jas is a fruit fly in her immortal view.

How can you explain the context of the Commune spell in light of what you're saying? Are you suggesting that only if I confine my questions to stuff about whether a troll lives on level 2 of a dungeon that I'll get good info, but somehow questions of central importance to the faith will be ignored?

If in your particular campaign Wee Jas is some sort of amoral Cthuloid that doesn't care about her worshippers, then that's fine. But there is a school of thought that says one or more of the following:
1. deities derive their power from their worshippers (ie. if worshippers kill each other their power goes down)
2. deities have an opinion (ie. alignment) on moral and ethical issues
3. deities have a recognizable thought process (ie. not insane) and are interested in giving clear instructions on what they want to their worshippers.

Otherwise though, I can't argue with what you're saying, it's just that it doesn't seem to me to be compatible with the core 3E rules.

Why would a lawful goddess not straighten out the faithful
on what is and isn't doctrine? I don't know, why would a good god permit suffering?

The default setting (ie. Greyhawk) for 3E is not monotheistic though. I didn't think that good gods permitted suffering. It also appears in the rules for deities that they always seem to have an alignment. They're somewhat anthropromorphic in the way they see problems and communicate. Saying that they have some sort of "alien intelligence" and taking them out of an alignment system entirely raises the question of why a paladin would really follow such a being - seeing as that it's not supporting their world view.

If a paladin worships a God of Flowers, and all that god cares about is flowers and moral issues are left to the paladin to decide, then how exactly does faith and doctrine really support the issues central to the paladin's mission? It's almost like the god becomes no more important than what kind of weapon the paladin uses.