would a paladin hate a cleric of wee jas? vice-versa?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not findin' it in BoED. Anyone else?

Really? Darn... I coulda sworn ... Maybe BoVD?

 

[IcyCool]

I'm not findin' it in BoED. Anyone else?

I'm not seeing it either. Patryn, do you remember where in the book you saw it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No one...but that's beside the point.

Actually, Sejs did.

It always seems to come back to that quote, which I still say is ridiculous as it's essentially stating that if you're a neutral cleric, if you regularly and consistantly use your class feature you cannot remain neutral.

Also, I disagree that actions inform alignment.

A Paladin who willingly and knowingly commits an Evil act is a Fallen Paladin - but that doesn't mean he's no longer Lawful Good.

Certain actions have an inherent alignment - like casting an aligned spell.

However, it is the action, together with the intention of the actor, that truly determines alignment. Someone can be Good and commit horrible atrocities so long as they remain convinced that what they are doing is the best way to serve Good. Note, then, the difference between a Good character and a Neutral or Evil character in the above situation.

The Good character will regret his actions, and will attempt to find ways to ameliorate and minimize the unintended effects of his actions. The Neutral will pursue what is most rational, and the Evil one will revel in the bloodshed.

It is by this manner that Good can fall via temptation. Take, for instance, a fallen paladin from the FRCS (Scyulla Darkhope, of Zhentil Keep). She fell because she spared a devil's life. But that's not really the whole story. The devil pleaded for its life, promising to turn over its far-flung minions to her in exchange for a few more hours of existence on the mortal plane. It promised the availability of many [Good] actions for a relatively minor [Evil] one now.

And it did provide the paladin with targeting info, and Scyulla went merrily along, eradicating several devils and stymying their diabolic plots. [Good] actions, right? Wrong - because, eventually, Scyulla stopped fighting them for the right reasons. Eventually, she did her work for the thrill of victory and the glory it gained her, and no longer for the protection of others. She fell because she continued to perform [Good] actions for [Evil] reasons.

Oh - and, for the record, I disagree that channeling negative energy should be an [Evil] act. Some uses of it, yes, but not all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not seeing it either. Patryn, do you remember where in the book you saw it?

Man, I hope I'm not unconsciously quoting a Sage article, or somethin'.

 

[ElvishBard]

Man, I hope I'm not unconsciously quoting a Sage article, or somethin'.

Do you mean subconsciously, or are you asleep or passed out right now ?

Now for the helpful part: Maybe you could try choosing a different deity, or ask if your DM will let you ignore the part that says N clerics must rebuke undead? Maybe say that you hate undead and believe Wee jas does so you can turn them? Hope it works out, sounds like a fun game.

 

[billd91]

Also, I disagree that actions inform alignment.

A Paladin who willingly and knowingly commits an Evil act is a Fallen Paladin - but that doesn't mean he's no longer Lawful Good.

Certain actions have an inherent alignment - like casting an aligned spell.

However, it is the action, together with the intention of the actor, that truly determines alignment. Someone can be Good and commit horrible atrocities so long as they remain convinced that what they are doing is the best way to serve Good. Note, then, the difference between a Good character and a Neutral or Evil character in the above situation.

Now we're getting into alignment debating territory. Ever hear that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Actions, I believe, DO determine alignment but no single action is going to shift the character's alignment. It's a series of actions over time that define the character's morality even above and beyond their own internal justifications.
No matter your intentions, committing atrocity after atrocity will taint the actor and his rationalizations will become increasingly hollow. And from a Good viewpoint, there are simply some means that are too nasty to be redeemed by any Good ends. That's Good's way.

On the other hand, intentions do matter to a point and will help to excuse minor evil activities or occasional more serious breaches of general morality. In any event, I don't consider channeling negative energy to be a serious breach of general morality unless it's used to routinely injure people for no good reason.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No matter your intentions, committing atrocity after atrocity will taint the actor and his rationalizations will become increasingly hollow.

Assuming, of course, the rationalizations are hollow.

 

[werk]

Really? Darn... I coulda sworn ... Maybe BoVD?

Didn't FEADIN post it above? of course, he didn't include a source...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Didn't FEADIN post it above? of course, he didn't include a source...

Funnily enough, yeah, he did.

It's from the SRD, Combat section.

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/CombatII.rtf

 

[Hypersmurf]

Man, I hope I'm not unconsciously quoting a Sage article, or somethin'.

Defenders of the Faith.

Subsequently to appear in, as FEADIN posted, the 3.5 PHB.

-Hyp.