The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[Wolfwood2]

It seems like the very act of paying homage to something non-good in exchange for power would be considered non-good by most DMs. It would be grounds for paladins losing their abilities.

You're confusing "non-good" with "evil". Paladins have no prohibition whatsoever against taking non-good (but not evil either) actions, as long as the sum total of their actions are good.

There are plenty of actions and ideals that are neither good nor evil in the D&D sense. Good and Evil, while vast cosmic forces, aren't a part of every aspect of life in D&D-land.

Wee Jas herself is neither good nor evil, and the way in which she interprets and acts upon her portfolio are neither good nor evil. She's a love goddess, she believes the dead should find their proper place, she believes magic should be explored, and she believes her chosen people should be uplifted.

None of these things are inherently good or evil. You can turn them any way you like and Wee Jas makes no comment on it, because that's not what she cares about. Good clerics presumably see how these things (which they venerate without reference to their alignment) can be turned towards good. Evil clerics see how they can be turned towards evil. Neutral clerics... admit that love justifies breaking the rules sometimes.

Wee Jas doesn't seem to value neutrality in and of itself. Rather, she lacks a coherent position on the matter. Questions about good or evil from the Commune spell are likely to get the "irrelevant" answer.

And yes, that kind of callousness may not be evil but it is disturbing. That's why there are fewer good clerics.

 

[gizmo33]

You're confusing "non-good" with "evil". Paladins have no prohibition whatsoever against taking non-good (but not evil either) actions, as long as the sum total of their actions are good.

I intentionally wrote "non-good" when it would have been shorter to type "evil".

The issue here is not that paladins can't take non-good actions. The issue here IMO is one of homage - which implies reciprocity of some kind. While I notice now that the paladin code in the 3.5 SRD allows paladins to adventure with neutral people, the old 1E paladin code allowed them only to interact with neutral on a limited basis. Homage for power is not "a limited basis".

And I think the 1E code makes more sense in this area because neutral creatures, by definition have no restriction against performing evil acts. Owing one homage in exchange for power is a recipe for disaster. IMO the 3E rule was crafted for the sake of party harmony but not for the paladin's sanity. A paladin is Lawful, and so takes his oaths very seriously, so I would consider swearing an oath to a creature that you know can perform an evil action without much thought is Chaotic at best.

 

[Victim]

I intentionally wrote "non-good" when it would have been shorter to type "evil".

The issue here is not that paladins can't take non-good actions. The issue here IMO is one of homage - which implies reciprocity of some kind. While I notice now that the paladin code in the 3.5 SRD allows paladins to adventure with neutral people, the old 1E paladin code allowed them only to interact with neutral on a limited basis. Homage for power is not "a limited basis".

And I think the 1E code makes more sense in this area because neutral creatures, by definition have no restriction against performing evil acts. Owing one homage in exchange for power is a recipe for disaster. IMO the 3E rule was crafted for the sake of party harmony but not for the paladin's sanity. A paladin is Lawful, and so takes his oaths very seriously, so I would consider swearing an oath to a creature that you know can perform an evil action without much thought is Chaotic at best.

Alignment definitions also changed. Before, most people were assumed to be some type of good and neutral alignments were kind of crazy. Now neutral alignments are the default for normal people. I don't think it's intended that paladins be too pure to interact with normal folk.

 

[gizmo33]

Alignment definitions also changed. Before, most people were assumed to be some type of good and neutral alignments were kind of crazy. Now neutral alignments are the default for normal people. I don't think it's intended that paladins be too pure to interact with normal folk.

"Interact" - perhaps, but again, the system of "homage" by most people's definition goes something beyond "interact". Strictly speaking, killing commoners for sport can be called "interacting". I think in many cases for the paladin being more precise than "interact" is helpful.

I'd take what you're saying about 3E's definition of neutral - and perhaps I need to do more reading. But one of my problems is that the monster alignments really haven't changed alot, if most people are neutral then why aren't most dwarves? Are dwarves some sort of half-celestial creature now? :\

(edit: BTW - my SRD says for Neutral: "Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way." This does not strike me as the default personality for people.)

 

[Aaron L]

So, no more Paladins of St Cuthbert, or Helm, or any of the other LN gods that traditionally have lots of Paladins?

 

[gizmo33]

So, no more Paladins of St Cuthbert, or Helm, or any of the other LN gods that traditionally have lots of Paladins?

St. Cuthbert traditionally has paladin followers? I don't remember his original write-up specifying that. Of course "traditionally" a cleric had to be the same alignment as their deity and now in 3E, with the three alignment system, Cuthbert can have Lawful Evil clerics, which I find to be much weirder.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cuthbert can have Lawful Evil clerics, which I find to be much weirder.

RTFM. The new one.

 

[Corsair]

St. Cuthbert traditionally has paladin followers? I don't remember his original write-up specifying that. Of course "traditionally" a cleric had to be the same alignment as their deity and now in 3E, with the three alignment system, Cuthbert can have Lawful Evil clerics, which I find to be much weirder.

overzealous Judge Dredd wannabes. Not only do they uphold the law and bring violators to justice, but they get some perverse glee from dragging the poor farmer away from his home in the middle of the night in chains because he was poaching on church property. Perhaps one sect re-writes the laws pertaining to certain transgressions, so graverobbers are executed and animated as undead to protect their former victims...


... and of course the paladin of Wee-Jas has to come smite these undead!

 

[Aaron L]

St. Cuthbert traditionally has paladin followers? I don't remember his original write-up specifying that. Of course "traditionally" a cleric had to be the same alignment as their deity and now in 3E, with the three alignment system, Cuthbert can have Lawful Evil clerics, which I find to be much weirder.

The 1 step rule has been in effect from at least early 2E, and I'm pretty sure I remember it in late 1E, too.

 

[Will]

Cuthbert is Neutral, but is anti-evil, in the new version.

As for people being neutral... neutrality in one mode communicates a lack of committment.

IE: I'd LIKE to help the homeless. What have I done? Well. I feel bad about them.

vs. 'I work at a soup kitchen once a month, donate money, etc.'

Sure, perhaps most people have good intentions. But most people fail to have enough attachment to those ideals to overcome self-interest.