The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[Aaron L]

If that is the interpretation of "Detect Evil" then that would simply be a case where "Detect Evil" registers occasional "false positives" - beings that are neither evil in alignment nor [evil] in sub-type (in this case, the mummies and ghosts that are not evil in alignment). Since most undead are in fact evil in alignment (though not usually [evil] by sub-type) this doesn't come up too often, but clerics might realize that if the ghost of "Sir Lancelot, holiest of holy dudes" detects *both* as good with a detect good spell *and* as evil with a detect evil spell, then something is obviously wrong with at least one of those spells.

The alternative is that you have to invent a *third* type of evil (separate from both alignment and subtype) that is operationally defined as "whatever my detect evil spell says is evil". I can see why paladins would care about evil the alignment. But why would they care about a differing definition of evil, if it can be applied to good-aligned creatures? (Note: these definitions adjectival and thus are about nouns (creatures, objects); I leave discussion of evil actions for a different place).

My original point can be equally made with "Holy Smite", which affects evil creatures and neutral creatures, but not good creatures, so that the occasional good mummy and more common good ghost would be immune to holy smite. (Also, Holy Aura and Holy Word).

Detect Evil already does give false positives: it detects Negative Energy as Evil, whether its source is Evil or not.

The most Lawful Good Bealnorn in the Forgotten Realms would register as Evil to a Paladin.


It's one of the less than perfectly thought out things in D&D.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

To refer/respond back to the OP:

Interesting idea. However, I originally thought the RAW stated that there was a special modification regarding the one-step rule for St. Cuthbert & Wee Jas: only positive energy channeling/LG & LN for St. Cuthbert, & only negative energy channeling/LN & LE for Wee Jas.

Well, the bit with St. Cuthbert's on target, though the only thing about Wee Jas is that her neutral clerics can only channel negative energy (and can't choose to channel positive energy instead) (PHB, p. 53). Didn't see anything on AL restrictions for Wee Jas. However, with the stuff from the PHB, I get the feeling that any LG sect of Wee Jas is few & far between (while the more evil-inclined sect is dominating the faith).

Then again, I kinda get the feeling that the paladin of Wee Jas-related PrC is a way to have a FR Kelemvor-following paladin in a Greyhawk setting. Not sure if it works, IMHO.

Of course, there's always the Rule 0/IMC exception; I'd say it's just simpler to go that route rather than try to find canonical support (or OTOH, find a lack of canonical support against your choice).

 

[Vocenoctum]

However, with the stuff from the PHB, I get the feeling that any LG sect of Wee Jas is few & far between (while the more evil-inclined sect is dominating the faith).

Obviously the LN is the vast majority, with LE's then being more common than LG's, but the LN's are still the majority.

Wee Jas was Kelemvor like long before Kelemvor. Nerull is Myrkul like, Wee Jas is Kelemvorlike, but more. She took over the role of insuring the dead reached their afterlife after her people were nearly wiped out in a cataclysm.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

"Ridiculously easy" I think depends on the campaign - seems a little like internet hyperbole. Casting spells IMC is not "ridiculously easy", 99% of the population can't do what you're suggesting is ridiculously easy - and even if they can they're not likely to be doing it at the time the paladin detects evil on them.

Also - I was talking about a lie detector test vs. detect evil when I was saying that the spell tells you how to interpret the results. The example was a movie where one character wants to know if another character is a good match for marrying his daughter. Assuming that the lie detector is infallible, to use the lie detector test to tell if someone is "good" or not involves first having to define a set of questions that would define good/evil. Different people would conceivably come up with a different set of questions. This is not the case with Detect Evil. Detect Evil gives you an answer according to a universal definition.

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.

We could theoretically go back and forth - you cast some sort of "false alignment" spell, I would make you step through an anti-magic zone first, etc. In the end, I think it's easier to detect alignment than it is to mask it.

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.

Should he distinguish? Seems like the spell is pretty much saying that excessive taxes and mass-murdering are morally equivalent (which was my point with the "lie detector" situation above). Otherwise, the evil that the paladin is supposed to fight is somehow different from the evil that the spell detects? In the real world that could be the topic of a debate, but in a world with Detect Evil your example IMO says clearly what the answer is.

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.

That depends on the society. In the real world all socieities that have the death penalty give that power to one or more human beings without any magic power at all. They're just supposed to use their judgement on the matter. Outside of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, as I've said, the label "evil" is generally reserved for those things that the society feels are worthy of destruction.

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).

Yea, I would say that anything I've said about using spells on behalf of society would only apply to spell-users that were sanctioned by that society. I wouldn't expect a paladin to walk in out of the wilderness, start accusing various people of being evil, and get very far with that. However, consider the example of the use of radar for "detecting" people's speeds on the highway.

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.

IMO that's a campaign-specific decision - a paladin is expected to not associate with evil, that's pretty clearly violated as soon as you uphold an evil person's place in society.

In this case, the tax collectors are Evil, but they also represent 'legitimate authority'.

Yea, lawful evil. I find "associating with evil" far less ambiguous than "legitimate authority". IMO the reasonable interpretation here is that the paladin should leave said kingdom, find some good enemies of that kingdom and join them. In that way he's neither associating with evil, nor are the tax collectors a "legitimate authority" over the paladin.

IMO you're suggesting that in a Lawful Evil kingdom, a paladin would uphold Lawful pratices - like human sacrifice. Forget about tax farming, that's morally ambiguous. However, when it comes to human sacrifice we'd more readily agree that it's evil, and yet it seems to me that the same exact principles apply as in your tax farmer example - which means that in your imaginary kingdom the paladin, if charged with the task of going to the house of the person to be sacrificed this year, would have to do it. IMO that would be understandably distasteful to the majority of people that play paladins (and also violates the code in a key place).

 

[Wolfwood2]

I agree. I wouldn't allow this in my Greyhawk game. I would require a Paladin to worship a LG god myself. Worshiping a LN deity seems a bit dodgy for a LG holy warrior.

Well you see, the paladin is trying to bring the deity around to the "true path" of LG by way of his prayers and example.

 

[gizmo33]

Then read it:

They are NOT compelled to give full and complete answers about stuff that the god doesn't think is important.

I am reading the SRD and I don't see anything about "full and complete answers" under Commune, or even stuff about what the "god thinks is important". It says "correct within the limits of the entities knowledge". It also says that a deity won't give answers that are "contrary to the deity's interests" in the case of short answers - but I think it's really stretching it that somehow establishing who is and is not supposed to be a member of the faith is somehow against a Lawful deity's interest. However, it is, apparently, against the DMs interest.

IMO whether or not Lawful Evil people are allowed to be members of a given church would be a core issue to be settled by an organization. Not some trivial element only of interest to some "Oprah-like" god. The rest of your post is a long string of basically trivializing the importance of this question with a bunch of anachronistic mis-statements of what divination is really trying to accomplish. Being a DM, means, of course, that you're allowed to talk in circles and wave your hands and explain nothing with regards to the conduct of your NPCs, but I really can't see how a stable, Lawful deity would find this in her interest.

With regards to some of the rest of your post: The deities in the 3E D&DG are all human-like beings with finite powers, the Hebrew god certainly provided his followers with more direction than the 10 commandments, real world examples without divination magic are not useful analogies in understanding a DnD world that has divination magic.

The "Oracle of Delphi" example was not relevant to the question of metaphor (itself of questionable relevance when talking about the "Yes/No" answers of the Commune spell). What it is relevant to is the desire of the deity to answer "questions of piety", which the article asserts was it's central purpose.

All this while you're suggesting that a deity expects to make a few vague statements regarding what they want from their worshippers. If that were the case then the role of the Oracle of Delphi within Greece would be incomprehensible.

In any case, unless you can construct an example of how a "Yes" answer to a question can be constructed as a metaphor, I'm pretty sure we have little left to agree on here.

And speaking of metaphor (or analogy in this case), one of our main differences is the way we apply real world history, religion, and mythology to these problems. IMO one has to match concepts with their closest analogue. It doesn't make any sense to me to talk about how to interpret magical divination with examples from non-magical history. It doesn't make sense to talk about what Thor's expectations would be of a paladin. This is mixing and matching things from completely different environments. You can find equivalent technologies to magic in many instance, but IMO it serves no constructive purpose to belittle divination with anachronistic comparisons to Oprah and telephones when it really obscures the actual expectations that people had regarding divination (either historical or mythological examples would apply here).

 

[Endur]

Basically, a paladin of Wee Jas won't associate with a percentage of the clergy. Knowing some are evil, would he be CONSTANTLY be using his power to detect evil while at the temple?

If he finds an evil Jasidon cleric, would he smite her in the name of Wee Jas?

Sure. Some might call it an inquisation.

 

[Endur]

It is subject to interpretation.

Since religions are inherently subject to interpretation, it might be the case that:

Lawful Evil Wee Jas members are fine with undead.

Lawful Good Wee Jas members accuse the LE members of heresy and seek to destroy/rehabilitiate the LE members (inquisition).

Lawful Neutral members are neutral in the dispute. Or perhaps they favor one side over the other, anti-undead or pro-undead.

Thread on this in the rules forum too.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Detect Evil already does give false positives: it detects Negative Energy as Evil, whether its source is Evil or not.

The most Lawful Good Bealnorn in the Forgotten Realms would register as Evil to a Paladin.


It's one of the less than perfectly thought out things in D&D.

I find it more "awesome" than "less than perfectly thought out", though I acknowledge it could be both.

I think the potential for false positives adds for some nice uncertainty.

Example: In a pbp game, I'm running a paladin who has been dealing with a scholar who radiates as evil. Yet she's given every indication of being a perfectly nice person, and moreover her field of expertise is dealing with magical artifacts salvaged from a tainted area of the land. My paladin has been forced to consider the possibility that she's picked up the aura of evil from association with tainted artifacts rather than evil actions and so has been hesitant in condemning her.

There was just been an in-game breakthrough where she confessed to being a semi-professional (it's a side gig) spy who gains people's trust and then betrays them to get access to information and stuff. Being around my paladin made her rethink her actions (cause he's so nice) and being told she registered as evil made her realize how far she had allowed herself to fall.

Which by the way, answers the question of the evil tax farmer. Why shouldn't a paladin execute this guy? Because killing evil mortals is ultimately a failure for the cause of good. Sometimes it's a necessary failure. If a mass murderer is running around killing people or bandits are burning down villages, a paladin does what he has to in order to stop them.

But in the ideal, a good man wants to bring evil folk around, not kill them. He wants that evil tax farmer to change his ways and realize he done wrong. That's infinitely preferable to simply slaying the evil-doer.

I expect it's the same way with paladins of Wee Jas. They don't want to destroy the evil members of the church. They want to bring them around to the side of righteousness and make them realize that being evil is no way to live.

 

[Wolfwood2]

IMO whether or not Lawful Evil people are allowed to be members of a given church would be a core issue to be settled by an organization. Not some trivial element only of interest to some "Oprah-like" god. The rest of your post is a long string of basically trivializing the importance of this question with a bunch of anachronistic mis-statements of what divination is really trying to accomplish. Being a DM, means, of course, that you're allowed to talk in circles and wave your hands and explain nothing with regards to the conduct of your NPCs, but I really can't see how a stable, Lawful deity would find this in her interest.

Why would any church bar evil people from being members? Even for the good church of high holiness, surely those are the very people most in need of instruction.