The funny thing about paladins of wee jas...

[delericho]

Do you have proof? Show me one magical realm that isn't abundand with underground flora and fauna!

I don't recall there being passages in any of the Drow novels for FR that ever mentioned abundant flora in the underdark. I do recall mention of herds of Rothe... but not there being anything for them to eat in the wild.

However, you are quite right - that was a rather silly thing for me to say.

A couple of low-level spells here and there? Doesn't seem like much of a problem. They don't have their favoured classes for nothing!

Yeah, low level cleric spells to feed the masses isn't that hard, especially in a powerfully theocratic society. (In fact, that might be a good hook for an Ecology of the Drow-type thing: The drow are theocratic because they have to be, in large part.)

Yeah, but they're an Evil theocracy. It seems excessively clunky to assume they have a load of low-level Clerics doing nothing all day but casting Create Food spells to prevent their armies of slaves from dying out.

It also doesn't address the Deurgar or Svirfneblin, neither of whom are theocracies as I recall.

And then there's the question of demographics. Unless Drow cities have an outrageously high percentage of Clerics living there (vastly far in excess of the numbers suggested by the DMG community generation tables) then feeding the size of populace they is being talked about in Menzoberranzan or other such cities is impractical.

The whole thing just strikes me as one of those elements that doesn't bear close scrutiny, because it will tear virsimilitude apart if examined too closely.

It's also way off topic for this thread, so I'm inclined to say no more here, unless someone posts something compelling.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, but they're an Evil theocracy. It seems excessively clunky to assume they have a load of low-level Clerics doing nothing all day but casting Create Food spells to prevent their armies of slaves from dying out.

Why would evil and pragmatism be mutually incompatible?

It also doesn't address the Deurgar or Svirfneblin, neither of whom are theocracies as I recall.

Hey, I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

 

[Kaodi]

A paladin of Wee Jas would probably make for one of the meanest, bad ass destroyers of undead around. Blunt weapons would probably be favoured by them, because they can be made into disruption weapons, and they probably don't feel hindered by honour in their quest to utterly annihilate those unnatural horrors. Nothing wrong with stabbing a zombie, a vampire or a shadow in the back, hehehe...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The idea of a holy warrior of law and good paying homage to a deity that grants power for others to do evil and wickedness makes no sense to me. I can see run of the mill followers being of different alignments, but one who channels the divine power of that deity not even having the same basic belief structure doesn't really do it for me. For me this is one of the areas that the RAW don't seem to make much sense.

The paladin doesn't channel the divine power of a deity, but rather the power of all Lawful Goodness. If there are those who worship Wee Jas who are Lawful Good, a Lawful Good paladin devoted to wee jas can draw on the power of those aspects of Wee Jas that are Lawful and Good.

By the RAW, the paladin isn't so much the tool of his deity's whim as he is a tool of LG's whim, who may pay homage to a deity with which he feels sympathy...which can include the LG parts of an LN deity like Wee Jas.

I don't think I am all that demanding. All I ask is that the meaning of the different types of magic be fairly straightforward, consistent, and distinctive from one another.

Considering that the Real World has no such delusions on magical hocus-pocus, I gotta say, your approach lacks the verisimilitude and variety I desire.

Because of the lack of consistency and lack of distinction in the morass so created.

If I can deal with Catholics who believe in reincarnation IRL, I think I can deal with overlapping dominions of magical hockum in D&D.

"I'm a sorcerer! I draw power from my deep ancestry and blood! It makes me cast fireball!"

"I'm a wizard! I draw power from theorms and patterns! It makes me cast fireball!"

"I'm a warmage! I draw power from regimented training! It makes me cast fireball!"

"I'm a wu jen! I draw power from not bathing and obeying taboos! It makes me cast fireball!"

"I'm a Balor! I draw power from millions of souls of vile wickedness! It makes me cast fireball!"

It still is rather boggling to me to demand consistency and distinction in a ficticious system of finger-wiggling make-believe.

In the real world, personal belief systems in magic and other supernatural phenomona are not required to be consistent with one another. Indeed, most presuppose that all others are incorrect.

But when building a campaign where magic actually operates, my standards are more stringent than just what anyone can happen to believe.

Any old commoner in my game world can believe that his morning rituals or scented candle burning or whatever impact his life, but the reality is that unless he utilizes one of the existing magic system in the milieu, his beliefs and practices have no meaning to the cosmos at large.

Again, this seems to remove a lot of verisimilitude and variety for my tastes. When building a campaign where magic actually operates, my standards are about as stringent as the real world's (where it is believed magic still operates...transubstantiation, self-help sections, and wiccans are three good examples of that). In other words, how it works is nowhere near as important as that it works. How is a matter for the scholars and philosophers, not for everyone.

I mean, no one IRL knows *how* socks get lost in the dryer. It just happens. It's our reality. There are plenty of theories, but no one really knows...

That's dumb, in your opinion? You can't see the possible value in it? Or why the Core Rules may be written more with this idea in mind than your own limited one?

You can play a psychic theurge if you like. Or if you want a person who derives power from personal philosophy, the Ardent class has your name on it. But you won't be a cleric in my campaign unless your draw power from alignment with (contemplating mysteries of/communig with) a given divine force or being.

And that's fine, but it's one thing to say that this doesn't work for your own campaign, and quite another just to say that this:

I do consider the idea of divine magic with no notion or connection to the divine to be self-contradictory and, well, stupid.

It surprises me that someone as intelligent and perceptive as you can't see a campaign scenario where divine magic without connection to a divine personality isn't self-contradictory or stupid. Surely you realize that such a campaign is built more in the tradition of the real-world experience of people, and less in the metaconcepts that truly underlay the universe?

 

[lukelightning]

If I can deal with Catholics who believe in reincarnation IRL, I think I can deal with overlapping dominions of magical hockum in D&D.

But the difference is that in D&D magic is 100% not hockum. It is a real thing and would be researched. If not worshipping a god and worshipping a god can both give the same power, people would know this.

In the real world people can mix and match their beliefs/spiritual and religious practices because such things are entirely unproven and a matter of faith.

 

[Psion]

And that's fine, but it's one thing to say that this doesn't work for your own campaign, and quite another just to say that this:
(snip)

Not really. When I say dumb, it should be fairly apparent that I mean that I have an intense distaste for the lack of rigor and consideration that the implications of the "godless divine caster" convention entails. "Stupid" is just shorthand.

Again, this seems to remove a lot of verisimilitude and variety for my tastes.

For me, a feeling of verisimilitude springs from self consistency within the setting more than representation of all real world belief systems as authentic sources within the setting.

It surprises me that someone as intelligent and perceptive as you can't see a campaign scenario where divine magic without connection to a divine personality isn't self-contradictory or stupid. Surely you realize that such a campaign is built more in the tradition of the real-world experience of people, and less in the metaconcepts that truly underlay the universe?

I deny your assertion that is the conclusion that an intelligent person would necessarily come to. AFAIAC (and repeating myself modestly), an intelligent person should realize that stirring in all real world belief systems into a fantasy milieu and assuming that they are all somehow true will result in a cosmology and theory of magic that is at the very least convoluted, and without care and filtering, fundamentally inconsistent as well.

An intelligent person also recognizes the false dichotomy attendant in the assumptions that all real world belief systems would be translated into true belief systems in the game world. Its perfectly possible, and much less messy, to assume that only a self-consistent subset of all belief models exist in a fantasy setting, and many or most belief systems remain false.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But the difference is that in D&D magic is 100% not hockum. It is a real thing and would be researched. If not worshipping a god and worshipping a god can both give the same power, people would know this.

Right, but I fail to see how that means that the power *is*, nessecarily, defined. Research doesn't equate to knowledge; in fact, if often doesn't. The famous line is something like "science raises more questions than it answers," right? Why should a fantasy world be any more coherently figured out by it's inhabitants than our real one?

In the real world people can mix and match their beliefs/spiritual and religious practices because such things are entirely unproven and a matter of faith.

Again, why would NPC's in a fantasy world have proof? Why wouldn't it be a matter of faith and opinion? Maybe all those above casters of fireball draw from the same place in the end, but all get to it through different methods, and all have their own ideas of how it's recieved, perhaps all of which are correct. As far as it matters for the world, having such things figured out seems entirely unrealistic to me.

Looking at Cure Light Wounds, we've got:

"I'm a bard! I summon power through playing my triangle! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a cleric of Kord! I recieve my power from my strong god! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a cleric of Hextor! I recieve power from my tyrannical lord! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a druid! I recieve power from eating berries and petting fuzzy squirrels! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a ranger! I recieve power from defeding the forest! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a paladin! I recieve power from adhering to principles of justice and right! I cast Cure Light Wounds!"

"I'm a cleric who worships himself! I am awesome, and destined to become a god! I can cast Cure Light Wounds!"

IMC, these would all have different visual effects, too. Different prayers or actions. Each caster would probably be able to argue that it's really a completely different effect ("I heal the sick with a touch because I'm going to be a god!" vs. "I can soothe you with my tunes and a touch.").

What are they all really doing? Who knows. Certainly my campaign, dealing with the necromancer king, doesn't need to deal with it. And if it comes up, I'll make an answer this time (maybe: it comes from completely different places, the rules just describe a similar effect), and next time it comes up in a new campaign the answer might be different (everyone walks their own path to the Positive Energy Plane!).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't recall there being passages in any of the Drow novels for FR that ever mentioned abundant flora in the underdark.

Those novels are fictional. I asked for proof of real magical realms without abundand underground life.

But (marginally more) seriously: I find it weird that you seem to have no problems of people turning into animals, or manipulating the elements with their personal abilities, or, using the same abilities, open a doorway between dimensions and calling a creature that is not made of flesh and blood, but literally of chaos and evil..... you don't bat an eye on that at all, but when it comes to plants that draw sustenance from the Underdark's radiations rather than the sun, you flat-out refuse the very idea.

Yeah, but they're an Evil theocracy. It seems excessively clunky to assume they have a load of low-level Clerics doing nothing all day but casting Create Food spells to prevent their armies of slaves from dying out.

The slaves eat each other, obviously

I wasn't at all serious about the magical food creation. I think they assume that there is edible stuff down there, and that that stuff gets its sustenance from somewhere.

No more unbelievable than said creatures of evil and chaos who don't even have to eat.



But back to the Paladins of Wee Jas. I like the idea. I don't use the GH stuff, especially not the gods (I allow PrCs and the like in my campaigns - which are mostly FR so far, and even in the past will probably never bee Greyhawk or Homebrew with much GH in it - but the Realms have their own pantheons), but the mix of Death and Magic is has something. The Stern Mistress of the Arcane Arts and Unbribable Guardian of the Final Veil. Now that's cool.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not really. When I say dumb, it should be fairly apparent that I mean that I have an intense distaste for the lack of rigor and consideration that the implications of the "godless divine caster" convention entails. "Stupid" is just shorthand.

Lacking rigor, perhaps, but not nessecariy lacking consideration.

For me, a feeling of verisimilitude springs from self consistency within the setting more than representation of all real world belief systems as authentic sources within the setting.

I'm not trying to claim that people should represent real-world belief systems, but I am claiming that approaching fantasy magic as real people have approached magic (e.g.: in many and contradictory ways) is something that carries much more weight with me, and makes the world more realistic to me than there being one overarching system of immutable magical laws.

I deny your assertion that is the conclusion that an intelligent person would necessarily come to. AFAIAC (and repeating myself modestly), an intelligent person should realize that stirring in all real world belief systems into a fantasy milieu and assuming that they are all somehow true will result in a cosmology and theory of magic that is at the very least convoluted, and without care and filtering, fundamentally inconsistent as well.

Right. Why shuoldn't it be as convoluted and inconsistent as our own real-world applications of it? Certainly the monstrous ecology is, why not the magical physics?

An intelligent person also recognizes the false dichotomy attendant in the assumptions that all real world belief systems would be translated into true belief systems in the game world. Its perfectly possible, and much less messy, to assume that only a self-consistent subset of all belief models exist in a fantasy setting, and many or most belief systems remain false

My argument is not that all real world belief systems should be translated, merely that approaching fantasy magic as real people have approached real magic is a valid, richly detailed, and amazingly satisfying way of approaching it.

Messy goes hand in hand with fantasy. Again, perhaps it's Planescape's influence, but I have no problem with all grand theories about magic being mutually exclusive and all correct because, in the end, I don't care, as a GM, where you think your ability to cast Cure Light Wounds comes from, and see no benefit in limiting it to only *really* coming from one place.

 

[Psion]

Messy goes hand in hand with fantasy. Again, perhaps it's Planescape's influence, but I have no problem with all grand theories about magic being mutually exclusive and all correct because, in the end, I don't care, as a GM, where you think your ability to cast Cure Light Wounds comes from, and see no benefit in limiting it to only *really* coming from one place.

I'm an old Planescape fanatic too, but have come to the opposite conclusion as you. It is important to me where the cure light wounds comes from. Not because it's especially important whether those recovered hp come from Thor or an intense personal conviction in the saving power of cute puppies. Rather, because the cosmology of the setting informs my campaign design decisions, and once crafted and set into motion, the rules by which the cosmology operate becomes a source for plentiful adventure ideas and background flavor.

Sort of like the role cosmology plays for me when running Planescape.