The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[gizmo33]

RTFM. The new one.

What manual? Is there a new Greyhawk manual?

 

[Wolfwood2]

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.

Wee Jas won't perform an evil act without a thought. If she were willing to do that, she'd be evil. She won't go out and hurt people who have done her no wrong simply in order to get what she wants, because that is the definition of evil. (Or possibly she will, but only rarely and she will be hesitant to do so.)

So why doesn't she tell her employees (clerics) to follow her example and not be evil? Well, why do modern day business owners not issue commandments to their employees forcing them to live moral lives? Because that's not the business that they're in.

Of course, then you get into accountability issues. Evil clerics are presumably using 'company resources' to be evil. I admit, that one needs thinking on some more. Hmm, can we compare it to a neutral king who employs evil guards in his castle? Or an evil spymaster?

I will say that I envision evil Wee Jas priests as "everyday evil" not "supernatural evil".

 

[Will]

I think the king example is a good one.

'I don't care what you do, I just want X, Y, and Z done. And don't embarrass me.'

The king ignores the evil his henchmen does, unless it is excessive or negatively impacts his goals. Likewise, he'll pay lipservice and help out the good works of other henchmen... unless it has a significant cost.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

St Cuthbert specifically cannot have Evil clerics. Pg31 under alignment.