The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

It's helpful to look at what the Commune spell actually says:

You contact your deity—or agents thereof —and ask questions that can be answered by a simple yes or no. (A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity.) You are allowed one such question per caster level. The answers given are correct within the limits of the entity’s knowledge. “Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity’s interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead.

The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes. If you lag, discuss the answers, or go off to do anything else, the spell ends.

The entities give you the answer they want to give you.

While you're certainly free to make up religions that don't function the way that they have in Earth history and myth, in our world, god figures have NEVER given full clarity as to what's on their omniscient minds, even when their representatives grab some, stick him in a cave and dictate The Truth to them. Even then, The Truth is open to further interpretation and those god-types never seem to swing back around for clarification. Whether you're talking about one of the Big Three Monotheistic Faiths or ancient polytheistic faiths we know from collections of myths, answering questions just isn't what gods do.

Now, it could be because they're capricious, it could be because they want to see that faith is guiding the followers to appropriate actions without being led by the hand, it might be that faith isn't qualitatively the same if the worshippers don't have to do any of the intellectual heavy lifting involved, it could be because the gods have other things to do.

What they don't do is have operators standing by to help detail everything. Mortals have to figure it out on their own.

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.

You lose me on #3. WHY would they be interested in behaving in a way that no gods have ever behaved, in modern religions or ancient myth?

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.

Any time the rules force the setting into a pretzel, it's time to bust out Rule Zero. Having gods be at the beck and call of mortal worshippers who can't figure out what fork to eat with without a Commune spell is just such a pretzel. In fact, a cleric breaking out a spell of serious power for such a trivial purpose instead of, you know, actually advancing the faith in a useful fashion, would be in danger of losing access to that spell IMC. Clerics are meant to be active agents in the mortal realm, not customer service representatives.

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.

So were the Greek and Norse deities. They didn't behave the way you'd have the gods of Greyhawk act.

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.

They're GODS. Yes, they are alien and different. They're not superheroes floating above the planet in a bitchin' orbiting headquarters. They have different things they're worried about than mortals are.

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?

I dunno, metaphor? Parable? The ways that polytheistic deities have always informed the way worshippers live their lives?

It's almost like the god becomes no more important than what kind of weapon the paladin uses.

What a strange contention.

 

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by LG High Priest of Wee Jas in Berilyla, who is about level 5:

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.

The evil priest changes his mind about running, seeing that the paladin has so far not drawn his sword. So he listens politely (while thinking evil thoughts), and responds:

"First - those that believe that a sword priest of Wee Jas commands powers granted by Hextor are just plainly ignorant - by definition of the word. Spellcraft and divination would clearly indicate the source of my power, and those who have opinions on the subject would be well-advised to heed those with ability to follow Lawful procedure and reasoning rather than Chaotic innuendo and rumor. A simple Commune would answer the question as to the source of my power.

If you wish to atone for your chaotic reasoning process, my door is always open.

Our Lady is indeed dispassionate regarding moral issues - so why do you blaspheme by not following her example in this matter? Why do you preach against the Lawful Evil of the faith, when clearly such company is good enough for the goddess? By fomenting a war within the faith you do nothing but limit her power on this plane, because clearly you diminish her servants abilities to enforce her will. The goddess has given you your guidance, and it contains none of this moralizing! So I am here to command you in the name of the Law of our faith to return to her path.

Find any stated doctrine of the Lawful Evil members of this faith. Subject them to any divinatory procedures that you wish and determine whether the goddess wishes you to act against them. All true followers of the goddess speak truthfully or risk her wrath, so I would subject myself with confidence to the judgement of a sworn cleric of this faith, regardless of his alignment, as long as it was in keeping with the ancient laws of the goddess. I would think that the fact that Wee Jas has allowed the ancient Lawful Evil order of Wee Jas to exist through all these centuries would be convincing enough to give you pause. "

 

[GwydapLlew]

Or perhaps it's simply that Wee Jas doesn't care how someone follows the rules - so long as they follow the rules.

 

[gizmo33]

The entities give you the answer they want to give you.

That's not what it says. It says "the answers are correct within the limits of the entities knowledge". Give me a little credit for speaking English.

While you're certainly free to make up religions that don't function the way that they have in Earth history and myth,

I think we can both agree that we have the right to design our games the way we want. I'm just saying that the core rules IMO are decidedly unhelpful in simulating what you're describing.

in our world, god figures have NEVER given full clarity as to what's on their omniscient minds, even when their representatives grab some, stick him in a cave and dictate The Truth to them.

According to who? There are times when the god himself is very clear. Gods show up and tell their worshippers exactly what they're supposed to do all of the time. "Build a boat", "stop worshipping golden cows", etc. In fact, the more "legendary" the time frame (and presumable the magic content of a typical 3E game places it within that milieu) the clearer the deity is about exactly what they want.

and those god-types never seem to swing back around for clarification.

Sure they do! That's exactly the contention of certain members of the big three.

answering questions just isn't what gods do.

There is so much evidence against this that I could write a book on it. The Oracle of Delphi is probably an interesting counter-example.

Now, it could be because they're capricious,

Ok, maybe they're all Chaotic Neutral. That's the not what the rules suggest though.

it could be because they want to see that faith is guiding the followers to appropriate actions without being led by the hand,

Why not? Suggest then, a legitimate, non-trivial use of the augury or commune spell. Sounds like the only thing you can use it for is for things irrelevant to the moral component (if any) of the faith.

You lose me on #3. WHY would they be interested in behaving in a way that no gods have ever behaved, in modern religions or ancient myth?

For what it's worth, I quote wiki (regarding the Oracle of Delphi): "It is a popular misconception that the oracle predicted the future, based on the lapping water and leaves rustling in the trees; the oracle of Delphi never predicted the future, but gave guarded advice on how impiety might be cleansed and incumbent disaster avoided." (the bold emphasis is mine)

Any time the rules force the setting into a pretzel, it's time to bust out Rule Zero.

I completely agree, but how do you explain to a player why they're out of line for wanting to ask a question of piety with a Commune spell? "I've got better things to do than tell you whether or not to wage a holy war on Lawful Evil people, but feel free to call back when you want to talk about which dungeon door to open."

In fact, a cleric breaking out a spell of serious power for such a trivial purpose instead of, you know, actually advancing the faith in a useful fashion, would be in danger of losing access to that spell IMC.

But trying to clarify questions of doctrine?! That seems to be exactly what you're arguing against! You're suggesting that the alignment issues I'm talking about are trivial when, in fact, for many characters - like the paladin in the OP - it's central to their ability to do their job.

In any milieu resembling that from which the idea of the paladin originates, it's hard to think of questions that are more important than those of morality. To say that the gods don't care about that, IMO, means that the gods don't care about the central point of the paladin.

Clerics are meant to be active agents in the mortal realm, not customer service representatives.

Anachronisms aside, I don't see the difference. They represent the gods will to mortals (via divination) and the mortals needs/wants to the gods (via sacrifice).

They're GODS. Yes, they are alien and different. They're not superheroes floating above the planet in a bitchin' orbiting headquarters. They have different things they're worried about than mortals are.

That completely contradicts your use of Greek and Norse gods as examples. Superheroes floating above the planet in a bitchin' orbiting headquarters is EXACTLY what they were - except that Valhalla didn't orbit.

I dunno, metaphor? Parable? The ways that polytheistic deities have always informed the way worshippers live their lives?

Let me say it this way: the real world is what you would call "grim and gritty". The world of the actual legends is less so, but the gods have come down and told worshippers exactly what they wanted, they've taken sides in wars and fought personally, etc. You seem to be taking a mix of real-life and legend, and it seems to contradict both.

What a strange contention.

My basic contention is that without guilt-tripping the players into avoiding certain actions, the core rules make your cosmological philosophy hard to understand. I'm not saying that your design couldn't be convincing in a novel - but how to actually make all those gray areas work in a game where the players abilities to get questions from gods I'm not clear on. And it's not just spells - there are devas/servants, and the gods actually have an address.

They seem so much more substantial in the game than they do in the picture you're painting. I could only see it working if you removed chunks of the core 3E game. I can't think of many (any) examples of a character in legend casting Detect Evil - and even if so this is a power that a 1st level cleric has - so demographics suggests a startling possibility IMO.

 

[Psion]

"I've got better things to do than tell you whether or not to wage a holy war on Lawful Evil people, but feel free to call back when you want to talk about which dungeon door to open."

gizmo33 FTW!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This post is entirely out of character, to kind of bring it back around to the point.

This in-character squabbling demonstrates amply, I think, how and why such an existence could occur. There's nothing unrealistic about these arguments from either side, and neither side would likely enjoy the existence of the other. Just like inter-faction squabblings in true religion, they would disagree, debate, and even come to swords on occasion over the issues of precise doctrine.

Just because LG and LE are in the same faith doesn't mean they get *along* in that faith, after all. They follow the same goddess in different ways. And if that LG minority insulates itself, or merely tries through peaceful reforms to fight the evil within their own church, it is entirely possible for them to be following the same god in different ways, each gaining power in their own right from it, and debating the finer points like any other sectarian demagouges.

Our Lady is indeed dispassionate regarding moral issues - so why do you blaspheme by not following her example in this matter? Why do you preach against the Lawful Evil of the faith, when clearly such company is good enough for the goddess? By fomenting a war within the faith you do nothing but limit her power on this plane, because clearly you diminish her servants abilities to enforce her will. The goddess has given you your guidance, and it contains none of this moralizing! So I am here to command you in the name of the Law of our faith to return to her path.

This argument works for either side, and even the LN side can say that. Conflict within the faith doesn't mean that such LG paladins couldn't rationally exist in the world.

Find any stated doctrine of the Lawful Evil members of this faith. Subject them to any divinatory procedures that you wish and determine whether the goddess wishes you to act against them. All true followers of the goddess speak truthfully or risk her wrath, so I would subject myself with confidence to the judgement of a sworn cleric of this faith, regardless of his alignment, as long as it was in keeping with the ancient laws of the goddess. I would think that the fact that Wee Jas has allowed the ancient Lawful Evil order of Wee Jas to exist through all these centuries would be convincing enough to give you pause. "

Again, this boils down to debate about the finer points of doctrine. This is the kind of stuff you'd be hearing all the time in the halls of any D&D church organization. Even Pelor has followers more interested in survial than in healing the sick.

I think it's fine to have debates between points of a religion, and could hang a whole campaign off of it if I were so inclined. Which proves, I believe, that the designers weren't off their rocker when they considered paladins of Wee Jas to be permissible -- there are plenty of scenarios where they wouldn't nessecarily have to deal with the LE side of the faith in a friendly way. D&D allows for inter-faith squabbles.

Holy war? Hardly. We're talking inquisitions weeding out the blasphemers and jihad against the apostates. This isn't "kill them all and let God sort 'em out!" this is church reform as a campaign plotline.

Nothing seems to indicate that the two could not exist in the same world and have this debate and both be getting spells and magic from the same goddess despite their differences...mostly because of their similarities (both agree that the doctrine is something that is inviolate, after all).

 

[gizmo33]

gizmo33 FTW!

I don't know what 'FTW' means.

 

[gizmo33]

This in-character squabbling demonstrates amply, I think, how and why such an existence could occur. There's nothing unrealistic about these arguments from either side, and neither side would likely enjoy the existence of the other. Just like inter-faction squabblings in true religion, they would disagree, debate, and even come to swords on occasion over the issues of precise doctrine.

I actually completely disagree which I suppose my participation in the Wee-Jas squabble didn't really demonstrate - but it was so much fun how could I resist.

I am essentially hampered by exactly the same thing that real world theologians are hampered by but DnD theologians are not. In DnD, for example:
1. I can actually prove the source of my magic
2. I can actually cast Commune
3. I don't have to just assert that your paladin is being chaotic - we can actually both observe your paladin losing his powers.
4. I can actually precisely define good and evil and measure it - detection spells being only one measurement technique
and so on.

Our debate resembled real-world theological arguments because we happen to not have recourse to actual paladins, spells, or divine servants.

Holy war? Hardly. We're talking inquisitions weeding out the blasphemers and jihad against the apostates. This isn't "kill them all and let God sort 'em out!" this is church reform as a campaign plotline.

"Inquisitions weeding out the blasphemers" IS holy war - nobody defines holy war as "kill them all" except for secular skeptics outside of the faith. Your statements of what we're talking are exactly the descriptions of every Crusade (internal and external) during the Middle Ages. They infallibly killed only evil people as far as they were concerned - and given Wee Jas's supposedly lack of interest in moral issues, I'm not sure why you'd caution restraint anyway.

Nothing seems to indicate that the two could not exist in the same world and have this debate and both be getting spells and magic from the same goddess despite their differences...

And so my LE cleric simply says "is it ok that I be Lawful Evil to serve Wee Jas" during a Commune spell. I argue that a reasonable interpretation of the spell would get me the answer "Yes". Importantly - I argue that a Lawful Good member of the faith asking the same question gets the same exact result. If your paladin has any loyalty to the priorities and laws of the faith then, that pretty much ends his crusade. A high level Lawful Good cleric walks outside, and tells the paladin to pipe down because the Lawful Evil cleric is right.

 

[delericho]

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.

Not true. Not only is Detect Evil ridiculously easy to fool (Undetectable Alignment on self, certain curses on others, possibly other means), but the reliability can only ever be as good as the person administering the test. Since there is no obvious way to tell apart an LG Cleric of the god of justice and a CN Cleric of the god of trickery pretending to be a cleric of the god of justice, this creates problems.

In addition, the interpretation is suspect as well, since certain creature types always radiate greater evil than others, regardless of how evil they are. A LE Cleric who is essentially the "Diet Coke of Evil" will radiate far more strongly than a mass-murdering CE fighter of the same hit dice. Likewise, the Paladin has no way to distinguish between that same mass-murderer and a tax farmer who consistently and cruelly extorts excessive taxes from the people, but never directly inflicts any physical harm to them.

What's more, a just society will never give the Paladin license to simply execute Evil beings, simply because they have no way to check the Paladin's credentials. And it is far from unreasonable to expect that a lawful society will have laws in place that make it illegal to make use of any spell or spell-like ability on another without their consent, except in formalised circumstances (essentially, the same circumstances under which we would use a lie detector).

And... it is entirely possible that the Paladin may be required by his oaths to not only not smite the evildoer, but he may also be called upon to uphold their place in society. Consider an otherwise Good and fine culture where the only blemish is the practice of tax farming, and where the tax collectors routinely claim more than they should. (This is not so hard to imagine - at some point in the past, an unwise king instituted the policy, and although the current noble monarch would prefer to reform the system, he is constantly at war with the orc on his borders, and desperately needs the funds to feed and pay his troops.) In this case, the tax collectors are Evil, but they also represent 'legitimate authority'. Therefore, not only can the Paladin not smite them, but he must also not permit others to prevent them in the course of their task. (What he must do is make sure that the tax collectors only ever take the appropriate sums where he can assure that, and should work to correct any breaches as best he can. Further, he needs to work to have the system reformed, and quickly. However, he cannot instigate violence against the tax farmers, and neither can he turn a blind eye to those who would do so.)

The net result is that while Detect Evil is a very useful tool, and one that the Paladin should be using judiciously, it is neither foolproof, nor is it a license to smite.

 

[Particle_Man]

I don't know what 'FTW' means.

For The Win. He likes your comment.