Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Core Beliefs: Wee Jas
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Core Beliefs: Wee Jas
    Author Message
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:49 pm  
    Core Beliefs: Wee Jas

    In a series of Canonfire articles, I was very critical of how the Suel goddess Wee Jas was handled, or mishandled, in the course of the various editions of the game. It came as quite a surprise then when I was approached to help with the Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas. I was pleased, and accepted, but was somewhat curious of the final result as my communications with the author of the article, Sean Reynolds, were very brief. The result in now published in Dragon 350.

    Not being the author, and having been critical of how Wee Jas has been handled, I feel free to comment on the article, even though I helped with the article either by communicating with the author or via the articles I had previously submitted to Canonfire.

    IMO, the Core Beliefs Wee Jas article is an above average entry into the series. I feel it is so for two principle reasons. First, it goes beyond established canon to provide substantial new information and to create then new canon. It does not simply summarize or regurgitate existing canon. Second, the article avoids pat characterizations of the faith that lead the reader nowhere but in circles. Some prior entries in the Core Beliefs series I found too bland and general to be really useful - empty words. The Wee Jas article is very hooky (as in plot or adventure hooks) - with lots of points where a DM or future canon author can take off in further, new directions.

    In terms of substance, I think SKR addressed almost all of the issues I had with Wee Jas. This is SKR's third go round with Wee Jas and IMO third time was the charm. I'd like to think I had some role in that but the credit is all SKR's. So saying, the article is not perfect. Being a professional and not, like myself, just a fan, SKR made some decisions I would not have made, but in every instance his work was sufficiently enough a compromise that I feel that my vision is not precluded, even if it is not endorsed in as full throated fashion as I would have written it. As much as I am a partisan, I recognize that SKR's decisions were the ones that had to be made as he was not writing for partisans but for a more general audience. Recognizing that even GH partisans don't agree with my approach in every detail. Shocked Wink Laughing

    To be clear that I am not damning the article with faint praise, I really like the vast majority of it and find it addresses all the Big Issues. Wee Jas a greater deity? Check. Wee Jas patron of necromancers? Check. Wee Jas not a second rate Boccob or Nerull? Check. And then there are the surprises! Wee Jas the . . . and the . . . and the . . . who can . . . and who might . . . and who likely . . . and who is . . . Go read the article! Wink There are a lot of great hooks to play with. Happy
    _________________
    GVD
    Forum Moderator

    Joined: Feb 26, 2004
    Posts: 2590
    From: Ullinois

    Send private message
    Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:22 pm  

    Great review GVD, and congrats on the input to Wee Jas lore. I am heartened to see an author like SKR have the gumption to reflect on the works in canonfire and even consult some of it's authors like he did in the last couple Core beliefs articles. We need more of that in everyday 'Core' publications.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:32 am  

    Patron of necromancers?! I hope Wee Jas has suddenly not done a 180 degree turn and pals around with her ol' buds the undead now. Of course, there is a whole lot more to necromancy than the animate dead, create undead, and create greater undead spells, so I will just have to wait a few more days to see what that means.

    Last edited by Cebrion on Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:15 am  

    Wee Jas was turned into a patron of necromancers in 3E Core.
    Some people are incapable of separating the two concepts of "death" and "magic" from "undead horrors that defile the soul" and like that change. Those of us who use the old Wee Jas and can conceive of those not being automatic synonyms obviously find it less satisfying.
    Overall, I didn't expect anything different. This is "Core Beliefs: Wee Jas" and not "Greyhawk Belief: Wee Jas." That was both good and bad when doing Vecna. I could casually ignore the cult ranks with their red-painted body parts from Vecna Lives! (a secret group with bright red highlights?) and blatantly add tons of Planescape stuff from Die Vecna Die (go Ely!)
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:32 am  

    1st edition Wee Jas permitted the creation of undead horrors with no qualms, but required that clerics ask before resurrecting the dead. 2nd edition Wee Jas sometimes permitted the creation of undead horrors that defile the soul, but required her clerics ask first. Mostly, I interpret that as a lawful undead vs. chaotic undead issue - she would normally grant permission to make wights, mummies, wraiths, and spectres, as long as they were kept under careful control, but she would forbid ghouls, ghasts, shadows, and vampires. Zombies and skeletons, being incapable of disobedience, are never a problem.

    That said, she is also a protector of the dead, and her clergy would destroy those undead not approved by Wee Jas as part of their religious duty. Some sects would see this as more important than others - there could easily be Jasidan paladins who spend all their time hunting the undead in order to protect the living (though leaving approved undead alone, of course). There could be darker necromancers who, while obeying the edicts of Wee Jas themselves, could care less about what non-Jasidan necromancers do with their free time.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:42 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Patron of necromancers?! I hope Wee Jas has suddenly not done a 180 degree turn and pals around with her ol' buds the undead now. Of course, there is a whole not more to necromancy than the animate dead, create undead, and create greater undead spells, so I will just have to wait a few more days to see what that means.


    Wee Jas has _always_ been involved with the undead - from the get go. It was the misguided desire to "distinguish" her from Nerull, and then Boccob, that saw her portfolio only later bowdlerized. That bowdlerization became part of Wee Jas' very convoluted and confused "canon." See my Wee Jas articles at CF generally for specific citations.

    SKR in the Dragon 350 Wee Jas article does not ignore the bowdlerized canon but works with it. The result is a solid compromise/harmonization. The article doesn't cleanly choose sides.

    The Wee Jas article should NOT, however, be taken to be the LAST WORD on Wee Jas and her canon for two reasons.

    First, the past canon remains and can still be used - so if you like bowlderized Wee Jas, who hikes up her dress and squeeks "Ewwwwww! Undead! Icky! Icky! Icky!" you can have that and even argue correctly that there is support for this in her complex canon. Laughing Wink

    Second, Wee Jas' canon continues to evolve at a rapid pace thanks to the numerous 3X references, some quite lengthy, to the goddess. Happy The Dragon 350 Wee Jas article does not incorporate any of the 3X canon as it is quite scattered.

    As a hobby within a hobby, I am collecting and collating 3X references to GH a la the esteemed Mr. Zavoda with the intent of eventually producing a 3X "Zavodex" of all such GH references once 4e, sans GH, arrives. Tops on my list of articles to produce out of the "3x GVDex" are a throughgoing look at Wee Jas' canon through 3X, followed by a similar treatment of Pelor, St Cuthbert, Boccob and Nerull.

    Wee Jas remains very much in play and, more than ever, can be what you want her to be and much more. A win/win situation IMO. Happy

    PS- Thanks, Mort! Happy
    _________________
    GVD
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:45 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Tops on my list of articles to produce out of the "3x GVDex" are a throughgoing look at Wee Jas' canon through 3X


    Are you going to include the d20 Modern Wee Jas "canon" as well? Her faith takes on a more sinister cast in the Earth of Urban Arcana.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:11 pm  

    rasgon wrote:
    1st edition Wee Jas permitted the creation of undead horrors with no qualms, but required that clerics ask before resurrecting the dead. 2nd edition Wee Jas sometimes permitted the creation of undead horrors that defile the soul, but required her clerics ask first.


    I'd say requiring clerics to ask first indicates some qualms.
    I would also note that until very late 2nd ed, creating undead meant just skeletons and zombies, not any sort of intelligent undead. It was only later on that spells expanded to allow the direct creation of such.

    Quote:
    There could be darker necromancers who, while obeying the edicts of Wee Jas themselves, could care less about what non-Jasidan necromancers do with their free time.


    Which still wouldn't make Wee Jas a patron of necromancers.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Wee Jas has _always_ been involved with the undead - from the get go. It was the misguided desire to "distinguish" her from Nerull, and then Boccob, that saw her portfolio only later bowdlerized. That bowdlerization became part of Wee Jas' very convoluted and confused "canon." See my Wee Jas articles at CF generally for specific citations.


    Prove it.
    Show a direct statement in the '83 set that Wee Jas is involved with undead.
    You can't, because Wee Jas doesn't have an enlarged entry in it. All it has is a listing with her as a greater deity, a Suel origin, areas of interest of Magic and Death, a LN alignment, and that she is female. That's it. Undead are never mentioned.
    Her first expanded appearance, in Dragon magazine, in an official article, says nothing about her followers creating undead with abandon.
    Her second expanded appearance, in From the Ashes, is consistent with the portrayal in Dragon.
    On in the Player's Guide to Greyhawk and Slavers does Wee Jas become associated with necromancers.
    So show this evidence.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001
    Posts: 465
    From: Ithaca, New York

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:33 pm  

    [quote=Samwise]Show a direct statement in the '83 set that Wee Jas is involved with undead.
    You can't, because Wee Jas doesn't have an enlarged entry in it. All it has is a listing with her as a greater deity, a Suel origin, areas of interest of Magic and Death, a LN alignment, and that she is female. That's it. Undead are never mentioned.
    Her first expanded appearance, in Dragon magazine, in an official article, says nothing about her followers creating undead with abandon.
    [/quote]

    I'm not going to hassle of pulling out the CD ROMs just to get a quote, but the Dragon article by LL ties Wee Jas to "lawful" undead. It wasn't "creating undead with abandon", but they were acceptable. And asking permission before resurrecting someone had nothing to do with undead and everything to do with covetiousness.

    I, alas, didn't get any emails from SKR.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:24 pm  

    Samwise wrote:
    I'd say requiring clerics to ask first indicates some qualms.


    As Nellisir noted, in 1e this requirement referred to resurrection rather than undead creation. So no, no qualms in 1e.

    Quote:
    I would also note that until very late 2nd ed


    Not that late. There was Create Crypt Thing in the Monstrous Compendium pretty much from the beginning of 2e. Crypt thing intelligence is "high." Transforming oneself into a lich also definitely counts as creating undead.

    The Complete Book of Necromancers, published in 1995, included a spell called ghoul gauntlet which transformed its victim into a ghoul.

    But I think your larger point is that there weren't official spells in 1e or early 2e that specifically allowed PCs to make vampires, shadows, or the like. That's true enough; I was speaking in terms of extrapolating what Wee Jas would likely allow if those spells had been available. Len Lakofka's article is very clear that Wee Jas has an affinity with lawful undead - as much of an affinity as Nerull had with demodands (ie, she summons them). The specific forms of undead she's associated with are wights, wraiths, spectres, mummies, and ghosts.

    Carl Sargent's version of Wee Jas isn't a true contradiction, as the Lakofka article was only talking about Wee Jas herself; it didn't describe how her worshippers interacted with the undead. And in this paragraph, I'm taking the other side of the argument, because I honestly don't care if Wee Jas is presented as liking necromancers or not.

    Quote:
    Which still wouldn't make Wee Jas a patron of necromancers.


    No more than she's a patron of illusionists, enchanters, invokers, or diviners, but all magic-user types fall under the auspices of her portfolio. Naturally, she's not the patron of all necromancers, everywhere, but I think it's fair to say that she's the patron of some necromancers, in some places.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:41 pm  

    Wee Jas' role regarding undead is widely open to interpretation.

    I've always been of the opinion that her role as a guardian of the dead precludes that she is not too keen on undead, mainly as it also describes her aura as being able to destroy undead too(as a sunburst effect). Looking at the overall descriptive effect of that aura though, Wee Jas appears as a beautiful woman surrounded by a divine radiance which she can cause to become nearly blinding. It is possible that Wee Jas’ aspect of being a foe of undead stems from how another “guardian of the dead” deity is known to be a foe of undead, which would be Anubis. As Anubis is a guardian of the dead and is a foe of undead, Wee Jas naturally must be so too is the probable (and most likely subconscious) assumption. Some people see it this way; some not.

    Intelligent undead flee Wee Jas’ presence, though due to fear of her aura when "it goes to 11". She can summon lawful undead (and lawful dragons too) to do her bidding. She can either turn or command undead- stay on your toes around her you undead types! Due to her "guardian of the dead" aspect, she doesn't like to give up too many raise dead or resurrection spells.

    There are some tendencies there regarding undead, but not really anything specific that says she is any sort of ultimate foe of undead, though it is obvious that she is not keen at all on chaotic undead, but then again that has to do with being known to “uphold law above all else" as well.

    With all of this in mind, it is not surprising that there are many interpretations of this goddess. I like the undead dominance feature of Wee Jas, though only as it particularly applies to lawful undead. Neutral undead are usually mindless, so are just there to be controlled; there is no conflict there. Chaotic undead are simply undesirable- not because they are undead but because they are chaotic. So, a follower of Wee Jas who is a necromancer is simply not going to create chaotic undead, but it doesn’t mean that they won’t create any at all. This interpretation certainly opens up a lot of interesting possibilities to be sure.

    I still like the idea of clerics of Wee Jas having full choice over turning or commanding undead however, similar to their goddess’ ability, but if I had to choose only one it would be rebuking undead, as I think the controlling aspect is more important. I just like the visual of the cleric either dominating the undead…or OBLITERATING them! Cool Still, as this ability is now tied to channeling positive or negative energy to heal or to harm as well, I can see the need to make a choice or define it more. One solution would be that Wee Jas’ clerics can both turn and rebuke undead, but can only channel either positive or negative energy according to their alignment. To counter this benefit somewhat, you could also require that followers of Wee Jas cannot create chaotic undead and must also destroy chaotic undead when they are encountered. That is just an example though. I could accept Wee Jas’ clerics not having her level of power over undead too however.

    In any event, each different interpretation might serve as a great way of describing sects of Wee Jas' religion, where different aspects take precedence over the more common doctrinal canon among the church of Wee Jas. By the way, my use of the term "canon" here does NOT refer to the supposed validity of authored material.Wink There is always room for sects of "fanatics" and "heretics", particularly among such a highly lawful religion.

    So, I could go with the "patron of necromancers" thing, but with some very obvious restrictions on what undead are created or consorted with(no chaotic undead basically).
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:03 pm  

    Nellisir wrote:
    I'm not going to hassle of pulling out the CD ROMs just to get a quote, but the Dragon article by LL ties Wee Jas to "lawful" undead. It wasn't "creating undead with abandon", but they were acceptable. And asking permission before resurrecting someone had nothing to do with undead and everything to do with covetiousness.

    I, alas, didn't get any emails from SKR.


    That's OK, I broke out my hardcopy.
    It says Wee Jas herself can summon lawful undead, it doesn't say anything about creating undead.
    It also says Wee Jas can summon lawful dragons. Why isn't Wee Jas the patron deity of dracomancers? Why isn't she the patron deity of the Neutral dragons?

    rasgon wrote:
    As Nellisir noted, in 1e this requirement referred to resurrection rather than undead creation. So no, no qualms in 1e.


    Which doesn't make the Sargent version a "bowlderization" or anything else.

    Quote:
    No more than she's a patron of illusionists, enchanters, invokers, or diviners, but all magic-user types fall under the auspices of her portfolio. Naturally, she's not the patron of all necromancers, everywhere, but I think it's fair to say that she's the patron of some necromancers, in some places.


    Which is still far from her being "involved" with undead to the point of necromancy being the primary expression of worshipping Wee Jas.

    Wee Jas being able to command and summon undead does not equal her faith focusing on creating undead.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 16, 2003
    Posts: 201
    From: Calgary, AB, Canada

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:51 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:

    In any event, each different interpretation might serve as a great way of describing sects of Wee Jas' religion, where different aspects take precedence over the more common doctrinal canon among the church of Wee Jas. By the way, my use of the term "canon" here does NOT refer to the supposed validity of authored material.Wink There is always room for sects of "fanatics" and "heretics", particularly among such a highly lawful religion.


    I like your approach, Cebrion. To often, we seem to think there is only one way to worship Greyhawk deity X or Y across the Flanaess. I'm all for conflicting churches, sects and schisms within the various religions of Greyhawk.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:46 pm  

    Samwise wrote:
    Why isn't Wee Jas the patron deity of dracomancers?


    If dracomancy is an arcane spellcasting class, presumedly she is.

    Quote:
    Why isn't she the patron deity of the Neutral dragons?


    Because she's a goddess of law, and because dragons are creations of neither magic nor death (except in the most indirect way). Undead are created by both. I don't think she's the patron deity of neutral undead, either. Nor do I think she's a patron of all or most lawful undead.

    rasgon wrote:
    Which doesn't make the Sargent version a "bowlderization" or anything else.


    You're right, and I wouldn't characterize (or spell) it that way, personally.

    Quote:
    Which is still far from her being "involved" with undead to the point of necromancy being the primary expression of worshipping Wee Jas.


    I would agree, but I didn't realize that was what was being debated. Does the new dragon article claim this? I think necromancy is one way of worshiping Wee Jas, but certainly not the primary way.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:53 pm  

    rasgon wrote:
    If dracomancy is an arcane spellcasting class, presumedly she is.


    As it happens, between the Draconomicon, Races of the Dragon, Dragon Magic, and the PHB II, there are 2 base classes and multiple prestige classes, plus feats.

    Quote:
    Because she's a goddess of law, and because dragons are creations of neither magic nor death (except in the most indirect way). Undead are created by both. I don't think she's the patron deity of neutral undead, either. Nor do I think she's a patron of all or most lawful undead.


    Ah, but she commands all lawful dragons.
    And indeed, that was supposed to be a rhetorical question to highlight the absurdity of making Wee Jas a deity of undead.

    [quote]You're right, and I wouldn't characterize (or spell) it that way, personally.[/quotes]

    Others however would, and do.

    Quote:
    I would agree, but I didn't realize that was what was being debated. Does the new dragon article claim this? I think necromancy is one way of worshiping Wee Jas, but certainly not the primary way.


    Well, we aren't debating it, as neither of us think that is how it should be. Others apparently don't agree, so you'd have to take it up with them.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:32 am  

    Samwise wrote:
    Ah, but she commands all lawful dragons.


    Potentially, anyway. Not all at once. But I don't see any reason not to assume that some dragons worship her. Dragons are as concerned with magic and death as anyone else, after all.

    I don't think considering her a deity of undead is absurd. Considering her to be the deity of undead is absurd. I feel the same way about Nerull - Nerull likes to destroy the undead as much as he likes to destroy the living, but undead beings still worship him, just as living beings do. He's not a god of the undead in the sense that undeath is a major portfolio concern of his (it isn't), but he could still be considered a deity of undead in a broader sense.

    Wee Jas is a deity of undead (and dragons) in the same sense that Nerull is a deity of demodands, Syrul is a deity of hags, and Trithereon is a deity of sea lizards. Wee Jas is a goddess of necromancy in the same sense that she's a goddess of dracomancy.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:36 am  

    rasgon wrote:
    Wee Jas is a deity of undead (and dragons) in the same sense that Nerull is a deity of demodands, Syrul is a deity of hags, and Trithereon is a deity of sea lizards. Wee Jas is a goddess of necromancy in the same sense that she's a goddess of dracomancy.


    Heretic!
    Bokrug is the deity of water lizards!

    DOOM shall come to you for that.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:12 am  

    I think its important to realize that its entirely possible to have a necromancer who does not create undead at all. Six of the forty-one mage spells of the necromancy school in the 3.5 PHB involve the creation or control of undead. Two more focus on destroying undead. The rest do other stuff entirely.

    The term itself originally referred to divination by means of contacting the dead and now generally refers to all manner of magic related to death. Not specifically to magic related to *undeath*.

    I happen to use Wee Jas as opposed to undead (because IMC the state of undeath is a creation of demonic magic...aka Orcus, Demogorgon, Ygorl, etc), but she is also the preferred patron of necromancers. There is no contradiction there.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:20 am  

    In theory that is true Vormaerin, in theory.
    The problem is, certain complaints focus exclusively on the undead creation aspect of necromancy, and how that has been redacted from Wee Jas. Look at some complaints elsewhere about Wee Jas getting the Repose Domain instead of the Death Domain in the LG Deities document.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:12 pm  

    Deleted post. Go on about your business. Confused
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:50 pm  

    Hmmm . . .

    Wee Jas represents a different aspect of magic than Boccob - she uses magic rather than embodying an abstract concept of it.
    Wee Jas represents a very different aspect of death than Nerull - she is a protector of the dead rather than a reaper of the dead.
    Wee Jas has a strong aspect of law.
    Wee Jas doesn't allow the enslaving of souls or defiling of bodies to make undead.
    Wee Jas will allow the use of volunteers, and won't comment on using non-Suel souls to make undead.
    Wee Jas grants the ability to summon dragons.

    Well, I guess I was wrong about one thing.
    This really isn't Core Beliefs: Wee Jas.
    It is very much Greyhawk Beliefs: Wee Jas.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:18 am  

    rasgon wrote:
    GVDammerung wrote:
    Tops on my list of articles to produce out of the "3x GVDex" are a throughgoing look at Wee Jas' canon through 3X


    Are you going to include the d20 Modern Wee Jas "canon" as well? Her faith takes on a more sinister cast in the Earth of Urban Arcana.


    I was not aware that Wee Jas appeared in d20 Modern. Thank you for pointing this out to me! I will have to pick up Urban Arcana.

    I would definitely look to include these 3X citations. Wee Jas is a "transcendent" deity and from what you briefly describe this would be an example of such transcendence - her worship outside a strictly Oerthly setting. This would also set up some sort of relationship between the "earth" of Urban Arcana and Oerth. I was not previously aware of such a connection and I will be interested in how the Urban Arcana Earth is described - is it our "Earth" (as in City Beyond the Gate) or is it some doppleganger?

    Thanks for the heads up! Happy
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:37 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Wee Jas' role regarding undead is widely open to interpretation. . . .

    In any event, each different interpretation might serve as a great way of describing sects of Wee Jas' religion, where different aspects take precedence over the more common doctrinal canon among the church of Wee Jas. . . .

    So, I could go with the "patron of necromancers" thing, but with some very obvious restrictions on what undead are created or consorted with(no chaotic undead basically).


    Exactly!

    There is a note in the article that even Wee Jas's followers do not completely comprehend all that she is as she is many things to many people - four powerful portfolios etc. as well as her transcendent aspects. The idea of divergent cults is right in line with this, IMO, and a great way to make Wee Jas' faith something other than the usual more monolithic treatment some gods receive. If one can analogize, and meaning no disrespect to anyone - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or Judiasm - all have degrees of divergent worship/sects etc. Wee Jas can even apply this principle within single elements of her portfolio - death as you note.

    Wee Jas' patronage of necromancy is well establiished in the article, no less than in the suggested PrCs that would be appropriate - True Necromancer etc. While there are restrictions - no Suel souls etc. - these restrictions are a great source of inspiration for developing variant Wee Jas cults, IMO, as well as a principled way to distinguish her from Nerull. I was very pleased that SKR took pains to keep Wee Jas a patron of necromancy but to, at the same, time kept Wee Jas distinct from cackling, killer Nerull. IMO, Nerull is a comic book villain. Wee Jas is far more sophisticated but no less deadly - note how Wee Jas' amorality is noted, how sacrificing sentients is okay if in accord with principles of law - slaves as property etc. - being condoned. I love complex figures like this - not easily pidgeon-holed as "white hat" or "black hat." Grey! I think that fits, somehow. Wink
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:52 am  

    Vormaerin wrote:
    I think its important to realize that its entirely possible to have a necromancer who does not create undead at all. Six of the forty-one mage spells of the necromancy school in the 3.5 PHB involve the creation or control of undead. Two more focus on destroying undead. The rest do other stuff entirely.

    The term itself originally referred to divination by means of contacting the dead and now generally refers to all manner of magic related to death. Not specifically to magic related to *undeath*.

    I happen to use Wee Jas as opposed to undead (because IMC the state of undeath is a creation of demonic magic...aka Orcus, Demogorgon, Ygorl, etc), but she is also the preferred patron of necromancers. There is no contradiction there.


    Very well said. Happy

    Necromancy is more than a one trick pony of raising up zombies and skeletons, although that sensational activity gets a lot of play. IMC, I tend to like to avoid necromancy in these grosser aspects as the "Zombie, enter that corridor! Skeleton, open that chest/door! Undead attack!" Gets old fast, IMO. The necromancer who is just about raising undead is like the computer user who only uses their computer to view internet porn - yeah, you can do that with a computer but you can do a bunch of other stuff with a computer too! I thought the 2E Complete Necromancer did a pretty good job of trying to make necromancy more interesting than just raising the dead as undead servants/warriors. In 3X, Jason Parent's Necromancer's Legacy does a comparable job, IMO. For these reasons, I have no issue with Wee Jas having preferences/restrictions for how she patronizes undead/necromancy. It is sophisticated, not gross/simple. Nerull is the simpleton - kill it and raise it!

    Nicely noted! Smile
    _________________
    GVD
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:07 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    I was not previously aware of such a connection and I will be interested in how the Urban Arcana Earth is described - is it our "Earth" (as in City Beyond the Gate) or is it some doppleganger?


    A parallel history, kind of. It's our contemporary Earth after magic "comes back" through an otherworldly place called the Shadow - presumedly, the Plane of Shadow, which connects Earth with Oerth. Magical races and monsters such as elves, gnolls, dragons, and ogres arrive in Earth, and "core D&D" faiths like Pelor and Wee Jas become popular. Their memory of their home world is vague; it might not be Oerth, though whatever world or worlds it is worships Oerthly gods.

    I'm not absolutely certain if the cult of Wee Jas is described fully in Urban Arcana or the Menace Manual.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:44 pm  

    Update: it's Urban Arcana.

    I actually liked the Dragon article a fair bit. Goddess of love is more interesting than goddess of vanity. They still made sure we knew she was slightly evil-leaning (though not malicious), and extremely lawful, and that the chaotic aspects of love were the "hole" in her otherwise utterly lawful nature represented by her fondness for Norebo. Nothing on Norebo's domains and favored weapon, so if you don't have the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (as most of us do) you're out of luck.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:09 am  

    Yup. Urban Arcana. Thank you for the direction. Smile

    The Wee Jas cult therein with its blood sacrifices could be easily retrofitted for a strait D&D game in Greyhawk. It also strikes me as a good example of portfolio mixing that is almost uniquely suited to Wee Jas.

    If we can uses the analogy, Wee Jas has four base "genes" - Death, Magic, Law and Love (Vanity/Beauty). These can be combined:

    1) singely;
    2) in pairs;
    3) triplets; or
    4) even quad groups with an emplasis on one of the four "genes"

    to create variant cults or "takes" on Wee Jas. Certainly, the same can be said for other deities but Wee Jas is particularly suited to this sort of development because of:

    a) her tangled and variant history that sees her apparently morph where other deites remain fairly stable in their definition or defining characteristics exposition; and

    b) her transcedent nature, which is arguably mirrored by only a handful
    of other GH deities (6?).

    The usually well considered desire to "know" a deity is in Wee Jas a sure path to frustration as Wee Jas is far more "unknowable" than most other deities because she is more morphic. While there is a "mainline" faith,

    a) it is "mainline" to a far lesser degree than that of other deities in terms of total population of worshippers adhering to the "mainline" faith (maybe 75-60%, maybe 50/50, maybe only a plurality - 40%); and

    b) the remainder of worshippers are conglomerated in a number of minority sub-faiths or cults, some of which may be locally dominant.

    Wee Jas otherwise appears schizophrenic or it is necessary to "ignore" or "explain away" demonstrations of her faith that don't "fit" with what is percieved or desired to the a definitive exposition of her faith. Not a good definition if one must ignore or explain away inconvenient facts.

    IMO, Wee Jas is among the most interesting GH deity because she is so grey, not black and white. I think Pelor, particularly in consideration of his 3X canon, is right up there, albeit in a different sort of way. It is then no surprise that when it came time to add some GH/core deities to Urban Arcana that Wee Jas and Pelor topped the list.

    Thank you for referring me to these citations. They will definitely be added! Happy
    _________________
    GVD
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001
    Posts: 465
    From: Ithaca, New York

    Send private message
    Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:53 pm  

    Samwise wrote:
    Ah, but she commands all lawful dragons.
    And indeed, that was supposed to be a rhetorical question to highlight the absurdity of making Wee Jas a deity of undead.


    I don't really want to get involved in this, but I think quite a few deities could summon dragons. They seemed to have been used as generic powerful allies; a role now filled by outsiders.

    Or maybe she is the patron of dracomancers.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:11 am  

    I finally got hold of the new Dragon and pretty much the whole thing. I very much like the relevant class summary info in the final few pages and hope this becomes a regular thing, but I digress...

    As to the Wee Jas article, it has some good points, and some not so good points. The idea of necromancers is handled fairly well. Allowing for necromancy(raising undead specifically), I do like the idea of it only being applied to non-Suel(if it has to be applied at all in the first place). The one thing that I do not like about this is that Wee Jas' laws should apply *across the board*, meaning that what she wouldn't allow to happen to Suel she shouldn't espouse happen to non-Suel, which to me would have a lot to do with why she gets along with all lawful deities, even those outside of the Suel pantheon. This feature is changed in the article though so that Wee Jas only gets on well with lawful deities with in the Suel pantheon, and if one goes under this assumption then the whole raising non-Suel undead thing is more palatable. While I don’t like this change at all, other aspects of the article as written fit better with it, particularly not respecting the dead souls belonging to other gods of other pantheons. As to there being laws, or at the very least an “understanding” among the various gods, this particular features seems very much to be at odds with a goddess who holds law above all else. Overall I have to give a thumbs down on the interpretation as it is very wishy-washy for a goddess who holds law above all else. With this in mind, it seems very unrealistic to think that other gods would even remotely take Wee Jas seriously. She says she’s a goddess of law above all else, but…

    Wee Jas: “Excuse me, but your followers cannot poach my Suel souls.”
    Other non-Suel Gods: “How about your Suel poaching our followers’ souls, oh goddess of Law? How about that? Yeah, that’s what I thought. No, the pouty look won’t work this time. Go back to primping yourself for Norebo now.”

    The goddess of love aspect I can even slightly accept, at least regarding the origins of it which are relatively strictly defined along societal laws/arrangements. How it is put into practice I have as much issue with as the whole issue of how necromancy, creating undead specifically, is handled. The Love aspect starts out as arranged marriages and other things that fall within a lawful, structured society, but it all just breaks down in the end into trysts, elopement, etc. All is chaos, and law just doesn’t matter here at all. Well, sometimes it does.

    The worst aspect of the article in my opinion is the pervading tone of "having my cake and eating it too" found throughout most of the article. For example, Wee Jas the supposedly utterly LAWFUL goddess lets love fly in the face of all laws which surely demeans the seriousness of the Stern Lady. Later on we have the instance of a converted succubus who Wee Jas transformed through the use of a loophole in her own ethical laws. This goes to show that if you can get around the Law, then by all means do so. Wee Jas does it, and so should you! Only Wee Jas’ aspect as a goddess of magic is not pervaded by the “having your cake and eating it” tone. The worst thing about Wee Jas’ aspects as presented is that the features of each don’t present so much as a dichotomy of the aspect, but as a contradiction of the aspect.

    In summary:

    Wee Jas is a goddess of Law, but more accurately a goddess of Law(s) of convenience. By all means follow the law and use it to your advantage, but if you can find a loophole and thereby circumvent the law totally, then by all means do so. Follow the letter of the law; the intent of the law is not really that important- just be sure to have a good lawyer skilled in obfuscation/interpretation on hand and all will be well.

    Wee Jas guards souls and really does frown on the raising of undead, unless the souls are non-Suel in which case raise all the undead you want to. She’s totally against theft of souls from her, but everyone else should feel free to steal souls from all of the other non-Suel deities. I bet that really goes over well. When it comes to Death, Wee Jas is nothing like Nerull to be sure, and is totally against the raising of undead unless the soul to be raised is non-Suel, in which case by all means knock yourself out and raise an unholy horde to do your bidding! I fail to see how in the end this is any different than Nerull. It might very well lead to clerics & mages of Wee Jas and Nerull having contests to see who can raise the most undead, but when a Nerullite makes the mistake or raising a Suel as undead the Jasidins' gloves come off and its a war.

    Wee Jas is the goddess of magic. The discussion of this area is very good, although the reference to Boccob needing to refer to books to look up all the known spells is a bit daft. Boccob doesn’t need to reference any book; it just so happens that a hard copy of every known spell and of every known magic item of less than artifact power is present in his tower at the center of the Gray Waste. Boccob is no doddering sage who needs to go get a copy of something to remember what it does. Laying a false insult upon Boccob is no way to elevate Wee Jas’ magical knowledge. They both just know these things. Boccob is also a god of knowledge, so has copies of everything on hand. I like to think of this magical repository as Boccob’s library/museum of magic and he is the caretaker; not a visiting scholar who needs to look things up. So, other than the Boccob slight, it’s not only a good section, it’s the best section of the article.

    There are only three spells, but they are decent enough. The artifacts are decent, other than the Ouija board which is kind of hack-ish. I particularly like the customized summon monster list(I really don’t like the basic lists for the summon monster spells in the first place), particularly as it follows the old skool fluff of what Wee Jas herself can summon- nice touch that. The succubus servant, in particular the reasoning for it, is horrible.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:59 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    The worst aspect of the article in my opinion is the pervading tone of "having my cake and eating it too" found throughout most of the article. For example, Wee Jas the supposedly utterly LAWFUL goddess lets love fly in the face of all laws which surely demeans the seriousness of the Stern Lady. Later on we have the instance of a converted succubus who Wee Jas transformed through the use of a loophole in her own ethical laws. This goes to show that if you can get around the Law, then by all means do so. Wee Jas does it, and so should you! Only Wee Jas’ aspect as a goddess of magic is not pervaded by the “having your cake and eating it” tone. The worst thing about Wee Jas’ aspects as presented is that the features of each don’t present so much as a dichotomy of the aspect, but as a contradiction of the aspect. .


    I think a lot of this will depend on what you want in your deities. If you want _answers_. If you want to _know_. If you want it clear cut. If you want it black or white. If you want absolutes, one way or the other way but not something of both ways. You will be disappointed. Wee Jas is messy. She is not easily pidgeon-holed. She is a transcendent deity, not a static one and she is depicted accordingly. There are enough static deities, IMO; there is room for some where the deity is not easily defined and where the deities definition does not immediately resolve all questions about the deity. I think the article provides more than enough information to go on in handling Wee Jas but it definitely leaves lots of open questions and room for interpretation. Part of this is unavoidable given Wee Jas' tortured history in canon. Part of it is intentional and is certainly informed by her messy canon history. By some measure, you play the ball where it lies, even if that means digging out the sand wedge or driving for the green from the rough. You can still make par, nonetheless, and continue to play and win the round.

    This article attempts to harmonize Wee Jas' inharmonious canon history and in that I think it succeeds more than it fails, although it is certainly not perfect. The article cannot be faulted for Wee Jas' canon history. Neither can it be faulted for attempting to work with that history. Nor can it be faulted for failing to just "ignore" one set of inconvenient fascets that would have allowed for a more consistently black and white presentation.
    The desire for absolutetly consistent certainty is, IMO, misplaced when speaking of religion and religious figures. Inconsistency in religious interpretation of any number of actual religions and religious figures is legion, particularly when the religion or religious figure is not controlled by a monolithic "papacy" that can enforce a single orthodoxy. All GH deities do not have monolithic "papacies" to enforce ONE TRUE READING. One of the strengths of the Wee Jas article IMO is that is allows for the possibility of multiple Jasadian faiths all with the common touchstone of Wee Jas but then diverging.

    I hear you saying you would prefer but one presentation that would then be entirely internally consistent. That is fine except nowhere in canon does it say Wee Jas' faith is controled by a Supreme Religious Authority of Wee Jas on Oerth that says what is TRUTH and what is NOT TRUTH. If we imagine that there is no single authority, presenting a deity with divergent fascets makes sense.

    Of course, one might argue, Wee Jas knows Wee Jas and will reveal the ONE TRUTH to her faithful. That assumes much. That assumes Wee Jas, or any deity, can only benefit from a single, focused form of worship, everything else being useless to the deity and thus to be avoided. Nowhere is that written. This assumes the god or goddess is concerned for any reason with promoting a single absolute TRUTH about themselves or their worship. Nowhere is that written. This assumes that the god or goddess sees themselves as a single consistent embodiment of principles, rather than one that has multiple, even inconsistent, embodiments just depending upon the principles the deity represents. Nowhere is that written.

    I read you as most concerned with Wee Jas relationship to her law portfolio as it contrasts with her presentation. For every rule, there are exceptions, but such exceptions do not viciate the rule. Lawfulness is not a monolithic concept as there is no single LAW. Rather, there are laws - plural. Laws may conflict, requiring a judgment to be made as to which law prevails, when and how. The result is not derogatory of the law that was not followed or which was not followed absolutely because the _rule of law_ was maintained. It is over simplistic to imagine a single governing principle that applies to all situations, everywhere, forever, without exception. It is IMO over simplistic to expect any deity, even a lawful one, to always be so circumscribed. Such would also, IMO, be boring.

    You want what you want in a deity, apparently a simple, consistant presentation of universal applicability. That's fine. It is not, however, a fault of the presentation that it does not follow such a model, where such model is nowhere mandated, nor even suggestable as being necessary.

    I prefer complexity, however messy and inconvenient. I can work with it and, in fact, enjoy working with it. By this measure, look upon Wee Jas as an alternative for those looking for more play in their fantasy religions. Mileage will vary.
    _________________
    GVD
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:02 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:

    I think a lot of this will depend on what you want in your deities. If you want _answers_. If you want to _know_. If you want it clear cut. If you want it black or white. If you want absolutes, one way or the other way but not something of both ways.


    You partially misunderstand my view I think, though with regards to my deities, the faiths of those deities described as utterly lawful will certainly be(and should be) more succinctly laid out than those who are less so, or completely the opposite- chaotic in the extreme. I expect the ultimately chaotic deity to be full of contradictory interests, but not the utterly lawful one. I prefer a more defined religious canon for an utterly lawful deity, and to be honest I don’t see why that would seem odd to anyone.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    This article attempts to harmonize Wee Jas' inharmonious canon history and in that I think it succeeds more than it fails, although it is certainly not perfect. The article cannot be faulted for Wee Jas' canon history. Neither can it be faulted for attempting to work with that history. Nor can it be faulted for failing to just "ignore" one set of inconvenient fascets that would have allowed for a more consistently black and white presentation.


    The harmonization in this article is contradictory, not inclusive, and there is a good amount of new material that does nothing to harmonize past versions of Wee Jas. My main criticism is not that there are multiple versions of each aspect of her portfolio, but that instead of the variance being complimentary and only slightly divergent, it is blatantly contradictory. The old articles are not so much inharmonious as varied. The overall message in previous articles certainly did not contradict anything, other than Wee Jas’ divine rank. None of the previous articles contradict each other with regards to her portfolio, but rather expand upon oddball aspects of the Lakofka article. For instance, a goddess can be vain without being a goddess of vanity, yet the mere mention of it has snowballed gloriously into what it is now- Beauty/Love/Vanity/Arranged Marriage/Trysts/Unrequited love/etc. I imagine many deities have a bit of an ego and more than just a touch vanity, so perhaps we’ll see about 2/3 of the other deities adopt the Vanity portfolio as well. Perhaps Kelanen will become Vain about his unsurpassed sword skill, or Incabulos about how much more evil he is than the other evil deities. The possibilities are endless.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    The desire for absolutely consistent certainty is, IMO, misplaced when speaking of religion and religious figures. Inconsistency in religious interpretation of any number of actual religions and religious figures is legion, particularly when the religion or religious figure is not controlled by a monolithic "papacy" that can enforce a single orthodoxy. All GH deities do not have monolithic "papacies" to enforce ONE TRUE READING. One of the strengths of the Wee Jas article IMO is that is allows for the possibility of multiple Jasadian faiths all with the common touchstone of Wee Jas but then diverging.


    With such an utterly lawful deity you will have very organized and strictly laid out church laws. As the article says, Wee Jas is pretty much the Suel deity of not only magical law but of secular law. As presented, Wee Jas sure likes to fudge the laws as it suits her. Not the best of examples to be giving your faithful now is it. Even still, interpretations will vary(but not to the point of contradiction which is a defining aspect of Chaos), as will what aspects of Wee Jas a particular church or region will favor, thus I refer you once again to my previous post mentioning sects. Variance is fine, contradiction is not.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    I hear you saying you would prefer but one presentation that would then be entirely internally consistent. That is fine except nowhere in canon does it say Wee Jas' faith is controled by a Supreme Religious Authority of Wee Jas on Oerth that says what is TRUTH and what is NOT TRUTH. If we imagine that there is no single authority, presenting a deity with divergent fascets makes sense.


    This is not quite accurate. I don’t prefer one specific presentation that would be internally consistent regarding the faith as a whole. I prefer that each aspect of Wee Jas be consistent, but with *room for variance*. “Variance” is the key word here; note that I do not use the term “room for contradiction”. This still leaves plenty or from for varying churches to favor one aspect of Wee Jas over another, according it more importance based on the history of that particular church or region. If the area has been greatly helped by magic, then a church might favor the magic aspect over the law aspect, or if an area has been plagued by foreign necromancers intent upon raising Suel souls to form undead hordes to conquer them, and the church has helped in stopping this, then the Death and magic aspects might be held in the highest regard. That is my view. Sects of a highly structured and, at its base, utterly lawful religion, derive from which aspect is held in the highest regard, and not from diverging from the defined aspect to the point of contradiction. Contradiction = chaos, which Wee Jas has nothing to do with.

    With such an utterly lawful religion, a fact which is stated over and over again throughout canon more so than any other facet of the religion of Wee Jas, and always unequivocally presented as THE main aspect of Wee Jas, it goes to reason that the religion will be codified. Whether it is stated in canon or not in any version, the latest article has the faith of Wee Jas not only laying down the Laws of magic, but the Secular Law of the Suel as well. It would be foolish to think that the religion itself is not codified as well. Even still, with such codification, each church or regional church might still favor one aspect of Wee Jas over another, thus sects are a viable option.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Of Course, one might argue, Wee Jas knows Wee Jas and will reveal the ONE TRUTH to her faithful. That assumes much. That assumes Wee Jas, or any deity, can only benefit from a single, focused form of worship, everything else being useless to the deity and thus to be avoided. Nowhere is that written. This assumes the god or goddess is concerned for any reason with promoting a single absolute TRUTH about themselves or their worship. Nowhere is that written. This assumes that the god or goddess sees themselves as a single consistent embodiment of principles, rather than one that has multiple, even inconsistent, embodiments just depending upon the principles the deity represents. Nowhere is that written.


    Wee Jas and/or her church, as currently written, has codified the laws of magic and the laws of the Suel, but not their own religion? Doubtful.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    I read you as most concerned with Wee Jas relationship to her law portfolio as it contrasts with her presentation. For every rule, there are exceptions, but such exceptions do not viciate the rule. Lawfulness is not a monolithic concept as there is no single LAW. Rather, there are laws - plural. Laws may conflict, requiring a judgment to be made as to which law prevails, when and how. The result is not derogatory of the law that was not followed or which was not followed absolutely because the _rule of law_ was maintained. It is over simplistic to imagine a single governing principle that applies to all situations, everywhere, forever, without exception. It is IMO over simplistic to expect any deity, even a lawful one, to always be so circumscribed. Such would also, IMO, be boring.


    Not quite true. What I am most concerned with is the contradiction within three of the four aspects of her portfolio as presented. Contradiction is representative of Chaos, which is quite the opposite of what Wee Jas primarily stands for as presented in all past and present articles- Wee Jas “holds law above all else”. Exceptions to the law imply variance, not contradiction. As an example, we have Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter 1, Manslaughter 2, and Involuntary Manslaughter. These are all variances, basically regarding killing people with either a degree of intent, non-intent, and/or level or responsibility. You’ll note that these exceptions do not go to the extreme of contradicting the basic principle of the law at any point. There are variances; not contradictions. There is no “Ah, you killed them with a hammer. Well, hammers are ok, so you are free to go.” Everything is kind of covered there, variances allowed for and all, and without contradiction. This of course exemplifies Law and its variances, but the other aspects of Wee Jas could have been similarly presented with variance, but without contradiction.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    You want what you want in a deity, apparently a simple, consistant presentation of universal applicability. That's fine. It is not, however, a fault of the presentation that it does not follow such a model, where such model is nowhere mandated, nor even suggestable as being necessary.


    Either you misunderstand, or seek to belittle. A defined explanation need not be by necessity simple, and can very much be complex. I need only point to both of our expansive posts on various simple themes as an example of this fact. An idea can be very complexly explained as to what it regards while still being exclusionary and well thought out. Contradiction is by definition chaotic, which is my main objection to the presentation of three of the four aspects of Wee Jas in the article. The aspects in the article start out well defined, but when it comes to the variance, it isn’t variance at all but contradiction. I think Wee Jas now has an admirer in Erythnul, yet he might be worried that he is not the one who has the most faces now.

    Overall, I think the article presents the basic tenets of Wee Jas well at the start, but it is in the contradictory variances that the article falls flat on its face. I do not think it is odd to expect that the faiths of lawful deities(in this case one of the two most lawful deities of any pantheon- the other being Pholtus) be well defined in terms that are not contradictory. Likewise, I expect the faiths of chaotic deities to be full of contradictions or at the least great variances, particularly those of Ralishaz(random chaos), the EEG(malevolent chaos), Erythnul, Norebo, etc.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:38 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:
    . . . I expect the ultimately chaotic deity to be full of contradictory interests, but not the utterly lawful one. I prefer a more defined religious canon for an utterly lawful deity, and to be honest I don’t see why that would seem odd to anyone.

    The harmonization in this article is contradictory, not inclusive, and there is a good amount of new material that does nothing to harmonize past versions of Wee Jas. My main criticism is not that there are multiple versions of each aspect of her portfolio, but that instead of the variance being complimentary and only slightly divergent, it is blatantly contradictory. . . . Variance is fine, contradiction is not. . . . What I am most concerned with is the contradiction within three of the four aspects of her portfolio as presented. Contradiction is representative of Chaos, which is quite the opposite of what Wee Jas primarily stands for as presented in all past and present articles- Wee Jas “holds law above all else”. Exceptions to the law imply variance, not contradiction. . . .
    Overall, I think the article presents the basic tenets of Wee Jas well at the start, but it is in the contradictory variances that the article falls flat on its face.


    Contradictions. Got it. Smile

    1) The quick answer, I suppose, is that one man's contradiction is another man's variance. Smile Maybe, that is the best answer. Cool

    2) A less quick answer might be that contradiction can be codified or accounted as law without undoing the law.

    Contradiction is certainly not unknown within the law, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which is why mechanisms exist to sort out divergent understanding of the same laws. By way of notorious example, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are technically the law and read the same in San Francisco as in St. Louis or Philadelphia. However, the courts in each of these locales, reading the same law will find in that law passages that yield starkly different outcomes in criminal sentencing. Some of this is interpretation, not really contradiction, but the Guidelines are so convoluted that some parts, under the proper circumstances, have been found to contradict other parts, allowing for differing results based upon which section of the Guidelines one wishes to give primacy. In such cases, superior courts have either had to try to come to a decision on primacy or refer the matter back to the US Sentencing Commission and Congress because the resolution of the matter is ultimately legislative in nature and not really judicial.

    Some sections of the Guidelines have also been found to contradict the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution. This latter kind of contradiction in the law is far from unknown. Laws of one sort or another found to contradict or violate the Constitution are fairly numerous in absolute, though not in relative, terms.

    Yet, the United States is famously known as a nation of laws, not of men. This goes to a distinction I tried to pull out earlier. Lawfulness need not mean one uncontradicted or immutable truth but can mean the rule of law. The rule of law is not threatened by contradiction when that contradiction is accounted for under the rule of law. Only when the contradiction runs outside the law and is arbitrary or capricious is the more general rule of law called into questoin - as in the case of the dictator who violates the otherwise applicable law to suit himself.

    Wee Jas notably applies her contradition as law, as in the Love portfolio becoming goddess of arranged marriage and elopement. She is not the arbitrary and capricious dictator setting her own behavior above her law. Her example rather informs her law, incorporating the contradiction within the ambit of the law.

    Ecclesiastically, the law takes two forms (if not more) there is the "Word of God" as related in one holy scripture or another, as well as canon-type law. In theory, neither should be self-contradictory nor should one contradict the other.

    I want to be very careful here because I do not want to tread upon anyone's religious sensibilities.

    I will note then in general terms religious dietary laws may, for example, prohibit intoxication but because specific prohibitions are spoken of in terms of "wine," intoxication by other means are deemed by some to be, if not acceptible, then at least not prohibited. Arguably, this is a spirit versus letter of the law matter wherein there is a contradiction. Arguably, however, the general principle is not limited by a single specific prohibition and the contradiction is more within either the spirit or the letter of the law, depending on one's viewpoint (I'm not going there). In either case, there is a contradiction of one degree or another, which one finds illustrated in doctrinal commentary.

    By way of other example, religious laws related to polygamy may state that a man may have only X number of wives. However, religious practice of the highest sanctity may allow a man X+ wives, despite the express limit of X. And such contradition may be found codified within "scripture."

    It may also be possible with less sanctity to circumvent the limit of X by the simple expedient of defining the woman as a concubine, rather than a wife, even while the law treats the women equally, up to and including the legitimacy of offspring, which in earlier periods was of immense dynastic importance.

    My point is only that even ecclestiastical laws are not without contradiction, not to debate one religious practice or another, and while trying not to offend anybody.

    I can go on but the point is I hope sufficiently illustrated, that being that law admits of exceptions, even contradictions, without the basic law being imperiled thereby. Particularly if one considers the rule of law. It all depends on how matters are handled.

    3) Yet another response would be to note Wee Jas' transcendent nature. Of note, multifaceted gods in actual religions may also have contradictory aspects -creators and destroyers being one and the same, devourers and nurturing mothers being one and the same. In such cases, the god embodies contradiction in its very and varied nature. This is an element of the transcendent nature of the divinity of which I spoke earlier. Transcedence easily accepts contradiction. Wee Jas's portfolio has transcended its initial definition. Wee Jas is also noted as being among a handful of deities capable of transcending the confines of Oerth. That Wee Jas transcends the strictest confines of her Law portfolio and may be seen to have contradiction in her nature and faith is to me part of what makes the deity fascinating and in no way suggests to me that she is any less acceptable or legitimate for having contradictions, even as one of the portfolios transcended is Law.

    In sum,

    You noted you "prefer a more defined religious canon for an utterly lawful deity, and to be honest I don’t see why that would seem odd to anyone." It does not seem odd to me but I would say that is one option, certainly not the only one. I find in the first instance, Wee Jas' lawfulness not imperiled by contradictions in her nature, as the rule of law is as viable an understanding as any theoretic absolute or immutable law. I find this so as a general matter. I also find Wee Jas' contradictions well accounted for by her transcendent nature. She is a god very much in flux rather than a static entity. Either or both will IMO support her presentation to the degree it is seen as, in part, contradictory.

    I suggest she is a transcendent deity who embodies the rule of law, not some immutable law that admits of no exception or contradiction within itself, which I think fits her role in human, Suel society. Contrast Lendor as being concerned with more cosmic LAW.

    If these ideas do not resonate with you, Wee Jas' enjoys a sufficiently contradictory nature to allow for you to see her then as goddess of the law and its contradictions! Happy Wee Jas - the Alpha and the Omega - the Law and The Exception to the Law. Would that give her a claim to being goddess of Just Results or Mercy (as from inflexible law that admits of but one truth in all cases)? You're only making matters worse. Wink Or more interesting! Happy
    _________________
    GVD
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:55 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Wee Jas guards souls and really does frown on the raising of undead, unless the souls are non-Suel in which case raise all the undead you want to. She’s totally against theft of souls from her, but everyone else should feel free to steal souls from all of the other non-Suel deities. I bet that really goes over well. When it comes to Death, Wee Jas is nothing like Nerull to be sure, and is totally against the raising of undead unless the soul to be raised is non-Suel, in which case by all means knock yourself out and raise an unholy horde to do your bidding! I fail to see how in the end this is any different than Nerull. It might very well lead to clerics & mages of Wee Jas and Nerull having contests to see who can raise the most undead, but when a Nerullite makes the mistake or raising a Suel as undead the Jasidins' gloves come off and its a war.


    Oddly, with other references in the article, this isn't contradictory.

    Wee Jas is the guardian of Suel souls. She is not the guardian of Baklunish, Flan, Oeridian, or other souls. It is the responsibility of the deities of those races to protect the souls of their people, not hers. If they don't do their job, it is completely on them. If those people and deities don't like it, then they should actually do something about it other than whining.
    Now if it indicated that Wee Jas threw hissy fits because other Lawful deities put the smackdown on her followers for abusing the bodies and souls of the dead of their races, then you'd have a direct contradiction there. Instead what you have is more of an extreme Lawful position, tinged with Evil.
    And of course, it is strongly based on having the races be that relevant in Greyhawk, which they shouldn't be.
    But on the basic point, there is no contradiction.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:08 am  

    I think as the Suel race interbred with the other races of the Flanaess, Wee Jas' definition of what "Suel" means should have also expanded.

    Basically, it should mean anyone who still worships Wee Jas.

    As the article itself doesn't define "Suel," I think that's a valid interpretation.

    At the least, it should include anyone with any Suel blood at all, who worships Wee Jas.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001
    Posts: 465
    From: Ithaca, New York

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:50 pm  

    I have to say that, on the whole, I found this article mind-numbingly boring. Oh la. Wee Jas is the goddess of whatever she wants to be. She's too wise to fight with any god. Everyone loves her. All her portfolios are wise and noble and true, but slightly evil-naughty, in a slinky-red-dress kind of way. It's Wee Jas sanitized, sanctified, and sterilized for Politically Correct consumption by the "every woman is a goddess" crowd.

    Blech.
    Forum Moderator

    Joined: Feb 26, 2004
    Posts: 2590
    From: Ullinois

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:29 pm  

    Nellisir wrote:
    I have to say that, on the whole, I found this article mind-numbingly boring. ..It's Wee Jas sanitized, sanctified, and sterilized for Politically Correct consumption by the "every woman is a goddess" crowd.

    Blech.
    I tend to fall somewhere in the middle of all the opinions on this thread. Looking ahead on the 'Core' list to be done in Dragon it looks like female deities are rather short on supply so doing Wee Jas up this way is essential from a Core-only perspective. Who else will be the role-model and champion of female characters? Yondalla and Ehlonna. It's not like we will ever see Lydia, Istus, Myhriss, Joramy or Xan Yae in the pages of this series. Also looking ahead I'm eager to see what they (SKR) do with Hextor and Heironeous. I have a hundred questions that need answering.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:27 pm  

    Samwise wrote:
    Oddly, with other references in the article, this isn't contradictory.


    You are correct, somewhat. Still is is more than slightly contradictory to be saying "Rasing undead is bad bad bad!!! Oh, its a non-Suel soul? Oh, go right ahead then." The one thing that allows for this being that where once Wee Jas was on good terms with ALL lawful deities(regardless of pantheon) she is now only on decent terms with all lawful Suel deities. So, allowing the raising of non-Suel undead is reinforced by altering the previous relationship Wee Jas has with deities outside of the Suel pantheon, though this is a feature of only the original article on Wee Jas by Len Lakofka. In "The Scarlet Brotherhood", Wee Jas' attitude towards other non-Suel gods is first altered.

    Lakofka version 1: “She is on favorable terms with all lawful deities because she is known to uphold law above all else.”

    Scarlet Brotherhood Version: “…she is loosely allied with all lawful Suel gods and hostile to the chaotic ones. She largely ignores gods from the Oeridian and Flan pantheons…”

    LGG Version: “Her allies are the lawful Suel gods while the chaotic ones are her enemies…and ignores most other deities.”

    The trend to downplay her Lawfulness with regard to her relationships with other lawful non-Suel deities is obvious. Still, the two articles that have done so are all written by the same person- the same person who wrote this latest version. So, there really aren’t more than two versions of this relationship- Len Lakofka’s and SKR’s. This change in relationship directly applies to the whole raising undead issue with regards to what is allowable and what is not. The application of raising as undead any non-Suel is more in tune with a more insular, ethnocentric, racist, Scarlet Brotherhood view. For a Core deity, this seems very odd, as Core deities are usually more universal regarding their worshipper base. The message here is that only the Suel–blooded are important to Wee Jas. What is more odd to me is that SKR himself is the one who first blatantly puts forth the complete idea that Wee Jas is a guardian of souls and completely against the raising of undead.

    “Note that she is a protector of the departing soul, not the body; therefore she does not allow the use of spells such as animate dead.” ---The Scarlet Brotherhood

    For a deity that does not allow the use of the animate dead spell(and therefore create undead and create greater undead as well), it seems to me that if your followers(cleric or mage alike) are not allowed to use these spells in the fist place, you aren’t going to be raising any undead, Suel or non-Suel, and certainly won’t be the patron of necromancers(this term being understood to mean those who raise undead). So, rather than serve to blend previous renditions of Wee Jas together into a homogeneous whole, this aspect of the goddess is turned on its head pretty much. And then there is the all important ‘, but…”, which of course exempts all but non-Suel souls, which coincides with Wee Jas’ newer Suel pantheon-centric relations. So now you have your necromancer angle. It’s not a blending of previous angles; it’s a completely new angle. This new necromancy angle is very suitable to the warped minds of the Scarlet Brotherhood to be sure, but not very well suited to combining all previous views of how Wee Jas not only gets on with other gods, but also with regards to how she views the creation of undead.

    “…the Scarlet Brotherhood venerates her for her magical power, her death aspect, and her belief in a strict order in all things.”

    Wee Jas’ “belief in a strict order in all things” and “holding law above all else” is very much lacking in this article. This latest article is not so much a conglomeration of past articles as it is a whole new one. It combines very little of the past, and introduces mostly new, very loose, and often all inclusive and/or contradictory interpretations to most of Wee Jas’ aspects. The article fits with Core but not much with what has come before. It seems that was the goal however, so in that regard the article succeeds, but the end result is more Core than anything else. I just don’t really care for the drastic changes in the overall description of Wee Jas’ doctrine.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:25 pm  

    Yes, there is a disconnect with the relations to non-Suel deities, one that can be traced rather directly to SKR. I think that is part of a general disconnect with the racial composition of the Flanaess, an ignoring of the statements regarding mixing, particularly with regards to Urnst, and an excessive focus on the statements about what the races were like before mixing.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:06 pm  

    Oddly, I disagree with most here, in that I really, really liked this article. I liked it because it reconciled Wee Jas, which is a goddess I never cared for, into an entity I will enterwine with my campaign.

    I liked her for all her flaws and how the past inconsistencies were reconciled. It is the first time she is useful to me. I know that many of you have found her intriging before, and therefore have deeply rooted opinons, but I did not.

    I think though, that with this fairly neutral past opinion that I can say with some authority that this is the best Core Beliefs article yet. I am a huge fan of Oldimarra, for many reasons. However, I found the article mediocre and poorly thought out.

    I liked this article, and hope they continue in this vein. However, I have to say that the portions of the articles on the churches and priesthoods are far more interesting to me than anything else.

    IMC, only when a character reaches epic, would a god begin to care about an indavidual. Before that they are doomed to speak with uncertain voice and deal with intermediaries.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 16, 2003
    Posts: 201
    From: Calgary, AB, Canada

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:08 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:
    So, there really aren’t more than two versions of this relationship- Len Lakofka’s and SKR’s. This change in relationship directly applies to the whole raising undead issue with regards to what is allowable and what is not. The application of raising as undead any non-Suel is more in tune with a more insular, ethnocentric, racist, Scarlet Brotherhood view. For a Core deity, this seems very odd, as Core deities are usually more universal regarding their worshipper base. The message here is that only the Suel–blooded are important to Wee Jas. What is more odd to me is that SKR himself is the one who first blatantly puts forth the complete idea that Wee Jas is a guardian of souls and completely against the raising of undead.



    I haven't read the article yet, but I might suggest the following:

    a) I would take each article, (the Lakofka article, the SB write-up, and the latest Core Beliefs article) as offering three different mortals' respective takes on the deity and what she expects of her followers. But who are these mere mortals to claim they know a goddess' mind? Different persons, different sects, different "truths"... all or none of which may be true.

    b) The goddess herself has changed her own beliefs and stances on various issues over time. If humans can do it, why can't deities? In Greek mythology, the deities are basically immortal and ultra powerful humans... and the deities are famous for their blunders (of cosmic proportions, as befits their divine status) and comically human-like flaws. So Wee Jas isn't sure of her relationship with the lawful gods of various pantheons (she liked them until they accused her of being vain, now she thinks they're mostly pr*cks... but they might make amends in the future), nor is she entirely comfortable with her own policies toward raising undead... I know alot of people who are indecisive, inconsistent, and petty, and think the same characteristics could apply to imperfect gods whom mortals only know indirectly (if at all). Of course, if you consider gods to be the epitome of perfection where their respective spheres are concerned, then this perspective will mean little to you...

    IMC, the gods are prone to error... and there are hundreds of interpretations of the "laws" dictated by the gods, as many interpretations as there are churches, schisms, and sects across the Flanaess. And if gods are known primarily through faith and mystical texts and revelations, and if they don't come to Sunday sermon to deliver their message in person (they certainly don't IMC), then why would it be surprising that there would be so many inconsistent versions of a (flawed) deity's supposed commandments?

    Where this discussion is concerned (and where most canon conflicts are concerned), I'm with GVD... messy is good... if anything, it forces me to become creative and makes it easier to throw unexpected surprises at the players. Smile

    I've come to accept that inconsistencies are the heart of Greyhawk, and while I use to hate those inconsistencies, I now embrace them... which makes it that much easier to accept some of the Core D&D stuff...

    I look forward to finding the mag in my mailbox... Paizo subscription delivery to Canada is a bit slow!
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001
    Posts: 465
    From: Ithaca, New York

    Send private message
    Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:36 pm  

    TwiceBorn wrote:
    b) The goddess herself has changed her own beliefs and stances on various issues over time. If humans can do it, why can't deities? In Greek mythology, the deities are basically immortal and ultra powerful humans... and the deities are famous for their blunders (of cosmic proportions, as befits their divine status) and comically human-like flaws. ...Of course, if you consider gods to be the epitome of perfection where their respective spheres are concerned, then this perspective will mean little to you...


    That latter perspective is more or less exactly the one the article aims for. Wee Jas is perfect in her domains. As a greater goddess (who apparently sometimes "pretends" to be a lesser goddess to other gods and goddesses), she's on par with Lendor, Istus, Boccob, and that crowd. She doesn't make mistakes, she makes long-term plans...except where Norebo is concerned, 'cause he's a dashing daring rogue and, gosh o' golly, she just gets all tongue-tied and giddy 'round him.

    Ironically, I think this is the shallowest and least interesting portrayal of Wee Jas yet. Her flaws have become mere foibles, or cute quirks in the straitlaced schoolmarm of the Suel, or misunderstandings by mortals. Conflicts with other deities? None. She's too "wise" for that.

    She's gone from a shadowed, driven, conflicted deity to a cliche, the ultimate in sexy librarians.

    I think it comes down to a ascended vs transcendent viewpoint on deities. I like them as ascended mortals (in manner if not actual) with human characteristics, albeit on a greater, grander scale. Greco-Roman. This was the old Wee Jas. The new Wee Jas, to use GVD's term, is transcendent. Transcendent deities have none of the trappings of mortals. They are all, know all, see all, do all as it suits their fancy. Nice idea in philosophy, boring as hell in play IMO.

    The whole "this is just a mortal interpretation" doesn't have a place in this sort of article, except under "Myths" or "What the Players Know". Handwaving things away in that manner is, IMO, the laziest sort of design (and the ecology of the clockwork horror article in the same issue does exactly the same thing.)
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 487
    From: Cooke City, MT, USA

    Send private message
    Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:40 am  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Yup. Urban Arcana. Thank you for the direction. Smile


    Let's keep something in mind here.

    Urbana Arcana is set on "shadowy earth", not Oerth.
    Urban Arcana doesn't bear a D&D logo, much less a Greyhawk logo.

    What's next? Insisting that Oerth's St Cuthbert must adhere completely to the real world personage of the same name? That the demihuman deities must perfectly match their Forgotten Realms counterparts, just because they are mentioned by name in material from that setting?

    Nonsense.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 487
    From: Cooke City, MT, USA

    Send private message
    Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:41 am  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Yup. Urban Arcana. Thank you for the direction. Smile


    Let's keep something in mind here.

    Urbana Arcana is set on "shadowy earth", not Oerth.
    Urban Arcana doesn't bear a D&D logo, much less a Greyhawk logo.

    What's next? Insisting that Oerth's St Cuthbert must adhere completely to the real world personage of the same name? That the demihuman deities must perfectly match their Forgotten Realms counterparts, just because they are mentioned by name in material from that setting?

    Nonsense.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 18, 2006
    Posts: 101


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:36 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    For a Core deity, this seems very odd, as Core deities are usually more universal regarding their worshipper base. The message here is that only the Suel–blooded are important to Wee Jas. What is more odd to me is that SKR himself is the one who first blatantly puts forth the complete idea that Wee Jas is a guardian of souls and completely against the raising of undead. .


    Actually if you think about it in the perspective that this entire article has to go through the censors at WotC before it sees print in Dragon then it makes perfect sense.

    Whoever reads this is going to completely skip over and ignore the words "Flan" "Suel" etc. If they come to the part where the Core deity Wee Jas completely proscribes the use of necromantic spells for the purpose of creating undead...well I think that might set off some alarm bells. Then you have to come up with new guidelines for play in the LG and you are changing what most DM's probably are doing with Wee Jas in their campaigns.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:46 am  

    chatdemon wrote:
    GVDammerung wrote:
    Yup. Urban Arcana. Thank you for the direction. Smile


    Let's keep something in mind here.

    Urbana Arcana is set on "shadowy earth", not Oerth.
    Urban Arcana doesn't bear a D&D logo, much less a Greyhawk logo.

    What's next? Insisting that Oerth's St Cuthbert must adhere completely to the real world personage of the same name? That the demihuman deities must perfectly match their Forgotten Realms counterparts, just because they are mentioned by name in material from that setting?

    Nonsense.


    I'm just collecting references and its a reference. Smile I'm not passing any judgments on the quality or utility of a reference or how it might be interpreted; I'm just trying to be complete within the 3X/d20 set of materials. What I want is a reference document like the Zavodex. How the 'dex might be utilizied is another matter, IMO.
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:48 am  

    Nellisir wrote:
    I have to say that, on the whole, I found this article mind-numbingly boring. Oh la. Wee Jas is the goddess of whatever she wants to be. She's too wise to fight with any god. Everyone loves her. All her portfolios are wise and noble and true, but slightly evil-naughty, in a slinky-red-dress kind of way. It's Wee Jas sanitized, sanctified, and sterilized for Politically Correct consumption by the "every woman is a goddess" crowd.

    Blech.


    Nellisir wrote:
    Wee Jas is perfect in her domains. As a greater goddess (who apparently sometimes "pretends" to be a lesser goddess to other gods and goddesses), she's on par with Lendor, Istus, Boccob, and that crowd. She doesn't make mistakes, she makes long-term plans...except where Norebo is concerned, 'cause he's a dashing daring rogue and, gosh o' golly, she just gets all tongue-tied and giddy 'round him.

    Ironically, I think this is the shallowest and least interesting portrayal of Wee Jas yet. Her flaws have become mere foibles, or cute quirks in the straitlaced schoolmarm of the Suel, or misunderstandings by mortals. Conflicts with other deities? None. She's too "wise" for that.

    She's gone from a shadowed, driven, conflicted deity to a cliche, the ultimate in sexy librarians.

    I think it comes down to a ascended vs transcendent viewpoint on deities. I like them as ascended mortals (in manner if not actual) with human characteristics, albeit on a greater, grander scale. Greco-Roman. This was the old Wee Jas. The new Wee Jas, to use GVD's term, is transcendent. Transcendent deities have none of the trappings of mortals. They are all, know all, see all, do all as it suits their fancy. Nice idea in philosophy, boring as hell in play IMO.


    Hmmm. A few notes.

    Whenever the word - ::sssh:: "sex" ::sssh:: - or its intimation is broached in official D&D, the IP holder has gotten historically and notoriously censorious. This means SEX, but is also slops over to love, beauty etc. To expect anything less than a PC dominant approach is naive.

    Wee Jas, for better or ill YMMV, has always had a sexual component in her makeup. At first, it was just T&A art (oddly the censors have no trouble with T&A art; they just get squimish if you try to pay that off in the text) and Norebo. Later, it morphed to references to "beauty" and comliness, then we hit "vanity" etc. The Dragon Wee Jas article follows this evolution to the next level. But, of course, there is a PCness that prevents going much beyond "slap and tickle" or even that.

    Decry it? Sure. Accept it? Absolutely. It is a necessity, for good or ill. The IP holder will not have it any other way and a HUGE component of D&D gamers believe that is EXACTLY the way it should be.

    All this said, I think the article in this context is a jumping off point, not an end. It pays off Wee Jas' "sexual evolution" and it gets it out on the table, however PC one may regard it. Where things go from there is up for grabs.

    Beyond the sex/love/beauty/vanity aspect, what you are seeing is a reaction, I prefer correction, that arises directly out of Wee Jas' tortured history. Like any reaction or correction arising out of a strong stimulus (and Wee Jas' prior history in its complexity is that), the reaction or correction has a tendency to over correct or react. There is something of this but, IMO, it is necessary to try to get back to equilibrium.

    IMO - D&D has been a "boys club" and Greyhawk particularly so. Boccob who doesn't care what anyone thinks, is smarter than everyone else and spends his time closeted with his books is a caricature of the male Otaku D&D gamer and that impulse has, IMO, informed too much of GH's deities specifically. Wee Jas as presented in the article more than bucks that trend and IMO it is about darn time. She doesn't have some "earth/mother/nurturing goddess" portfolio. She has a "boys" portfolio - something of Boccob's _AND_ Nerull's plus her own - and the article pays that off, much to some little Boccob boys dismay, I imagine. Too bad. So sad. For the Otaku boys for who "girls" need to keep there place in the game, lest they by their assertiveness emasculate the insecure Otaku. IMO. YMMV. Please note I am NOT calling you Otaku etc. but am explaining where _I_ am coming from in percieving D&D's fear of the femine not carefully couched, which is _NOT_ to be attributed to SKR, btw.

    So. What you are seeing is a strong female goddess who does not stick to the "girl goddess" portfolio. There is, however, also a "female" aspect to Wee Jas but it is again presented without a "by your leave." Is Wee Jas' presentation overplayed in some respect? Perhaps. The general presentation is, however, dead on target. Given what there was to work with going in.

    With respect to Wee Jas' being universally loved and wise etc. I think your reading is superficial in the extreme. What you say is there, yes. However, there is more than an undercurrent/intimation of manipulation/calculation, even viciousness, in Wee Jas's manner and relations that belies claims of univesal acceptance or wisdom. If you want nice/clean, you got it, but the article IMO, does a nice job of also giving you a look at a "darker" Wee Jas. This has been called "cake and eat it too-ing" but it is rather a refusal to be simple or black and white. Again, this fits Wee Jas tortured history.

    And "mere foibles?" Human sacrifice, slavery etc. being okay? "Cute?" I think not. Again, the reading is superfical.

    Lastly, transcendent need not mean divorced from the mortal, as much as more than mortal or surpassing mortality. The fully transcendent deity may well be divorced from the mortal but Wee Jas is not fully transcendent. Her history will not allow for that reading. She is very much still evolving.

    You are entitled to your opinion but I don't see as supportable save by a highly selective and superficial reading of the article.
    _________________
    GVD
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:00 am  

    Isis - Ishtar - Inanna - Hecate - the Morrigan - Hel
    Plus all the dozens of variations I'd have to go digging up to remember.
    Magic and Death have been "girl" deity spheres if influence from the dawn of mythology.
    Whether or not game designers know about that, bother to use, or happen to want to use it for a particular pantheon is completely their decision.
    The Wee Jas of the article is an archetype I've know, and used, for years. I'm not saying the article sucked because of that, just that it didn't break any new ground.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 487
    From: Cooke City, MT, USA

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:40 pm  

    Wee Jas was NEVER a goddess of love or sex, period. Trying to make that claim just because your buddy gave you a credit in the article is assinine.

    If Sean wants to repaint wee jas in the lame, lazy and ludicrous broad strokes of psuedo-wiccan feminist BS, let him. It's no lazier or less creative than anything else he's written and tried to pass off as greyhawk. Don't expect everyone to accept it as undisputable canon.

    And regardless of intent, material from d20 modern is plain and simply irrelevant. It's not GH, it's not even D&D.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 487
    From: Cooke City, MT, USA

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:43 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:

    You are entitled to your opinion but I don't see as supportable save by a highly selective and superficial reading of the article.


    Highly Selective!?!?!

    Sean made the goddess of law, death and magic the freakin goddess of LOVE for god's sake! How is questioning that selective? How is that superficial?
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001
    Posts: 465
    From: Ithaca, New York

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:19 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    You are entitled to your opinion

    Yes, yes I am.

    Quote:
    but I don't see as supportable save by a highly selective and superficial reading of the article.

    That's OK; that's more or less how I've felt about your "interpretation" all along. You've spun this great myth of repression and oppression and sexism; that a FICTIONAL character has been "denied" her proper place by the Otaku masses (who I guess are all co-authoring these articles or something) in the interests of male elitism.

    Sheesh.
    CF Admin

    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 178
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:01 pm  

    Allright time out folks.

    While various strong opinions about Wee Jas's roles and aspects are good for debate this thread is taking a turn for the worse. While you might disagree with the article or someones opinion about the article you should try and be constructive if your going to post anything further on this topic.
    _________________
    Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:48 am  

    DELETED AND EDITED BY DETHAND 30-11-06 14:49 EST
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:57 am  

    EDITED AND DELETED BY DETHAND 30-11-06 14:50 EST
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:15 am  

    EDITED AND DELETED BY DETHAND 30-11-06 14:51 EST
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 23, 2004
    Posts: 1212


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:45 am  

    Just wanted to toss in my two bits. I have only made it to the fist two pages of the article. For the first, kudos to both SKR and GVD. I was very impressed by the acknowledgement.

    For the second page, it appears to sum up most of what I have read in this forum. I intend to accept the article selectively and superficially. The former because it is a DM’s prerogative, IMC and all that, the latter because I just don’t need that much info on Wee Jas at this point and have not been overly impressed by SKR, even while I recognize he has done some good work.

    The one issue that jumps out at me from the short page two is, of course, the goddess of love. I am not an expert on the Suel and I have to admit that I have not read much of the first half of tSB, but from what I understand about the tSB, and by extension the Suel (not quite the same), Wee Jas as a goddess of love is entirely appropriate. Just not as penned on page two by SKR.

    I don’t have the exact quote but he described that domain as something like “lawless.” For her, and the Suel, IMO that should be lawful. Perhaps there are some experts out there that could delve into the different notions of love throughout history, but in addition to sex, procreations, the heart’s desire, and numerous other variants, love has also meant familial duty. Some might call that loveless, but that is just because there are different notions of love. Romantic love is not the only one.

    Wee Jas as the goddess of marriage as a legal institution with associated responsibilities sounds right. I think that concept is a good opportunity to help define the nature of the Suel, as well as historical development of Wee Jas, as once that concept is accepted, it is natural to extent it to things more lawless. IMO, that is distasteful when contradictory, but IMO, different presentations of her that men might come to blows over, as in different factions or traditions, is very cool.

    Without having read it, it sounds like SKR just threw everything together. Maybe it might be a good idea to consider a different Wee Jas for different regions of the Flanaess with the idea that no one would consider Wee Jas to be all the things described by SKR, but different people would incorporate them into their beliefs in different ways.

    I hope the article is not boring.
    CF Admin

    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 178
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:43 am  

    Thread re-opened 17-12-06

    Keep it freindly please.
    _________________
    Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 19, 2005
    Posts: 17


    Send private message
    Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:47 pm  

    I gave up on trying to reconcile the different versions of Greyhawk deities about the time that From the Ashes came out. I went to the trouble of digging up the old Dragon issues and mostly stuck with those descriptions, with a few ideas swiped from 2E.

    Of course the idea that individual gods and goddesses can be very different to different people has a basis in real world mythology. Some take on different images and personalities. For example, Artemis is typically shown as a young girl, but her worship also revolved around wild rites involving bears and caves. Hecate appears as a maiden, wife and old woman, depending on where and when she's worshipped. The Anglo-Saxon goddess Rhedam starts as an old hag as winter comes to a close, but becomes a beautiful young maiden when spring begins. The Germanic Nerthus even went through a sex change to become Njord. Odin, Woden and Wotan may be based on the same deity, but are often quite different. In some cases a grandfatherly figure (Santa Claus is in part based on Wotan), in others a sinister being who uses witchcraft and black magic, and is extremely cruel.

    Another thing to consider is that almost any goddess would consider herself a "love" goddess. Remember that in Greek mythology there were three goddesses who tried to get Paris to call them the prettiest deity of all. And of course there are different kinds of love from the romantic (represented by Aphrodite) to the wifely devotion to her husband and family (Hera) to a daughter's love for her father (Artemis). Real life gods can't be pidgeonholed into neat categories and there's no reason fictional ones have to be, either.

    So just pick the one you think fits best and if there's a conflict, just chalk it up to regional or sectarian differences in what the followers think of their deities. It's easier that way.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 09, 2005
    Posts: 34


    Send private message
    Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:05 am  

    Elfdart wrote:

    Of course the idea that individual gods and goddesses can be very different to different people has a basis in real world mythology.


    Different to various in game cultures and people, maybe, but not to different designers. That's just a cop out used when a designer gets something wrong. I haven't read the Wee Jas article myself, but I wouldn't accept that argument to explain any inconsistencies that may exist.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2004
    Posts: 252
    From: Nyrond

    Send private message
    Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:36 am  

    Hi Everyone,

    I'd like to take a practical stab at this (because all my other post have been the model of practical approaches Laughing Laughing ). Wee Jas can easily be in charge of carrying folks to across to the Other Side. She can be in charge of magic. No one is disputing these things. Can she be in charge of Love? Of course, she's a Babe! We got safe return of souls to the underworld or wherever they are meant to go and we got magic (as we all know, love is the greatest magic of all Wink ). The issue that seems to cause problems with everyone is that whole undead thing.

    I believe Wee Jas can be in charge of necromancy, as not all forms of necromancy bring about the Vampires, Wight's, etc. Perhaps she believes necromancy helps petty mortals understand the value of magic, the value of death and how it should *not* be used by mortals. I'm thinking that her elder priests would strickly forbid such blasphemies. Using Zombies and Skeletons? That's only reanimating the body with magic, but not disturbing the soul. So priests are good there, but would keep a close eye on it. Otherwise, dealing in undead matters is a big No-No. Wee Jas priests being able to rebuke undead and whatnot shouldn't be a problem either. A priest walks in, starts to command a spectre. That soul should be used (according to the priest's teachings) to do good and then it must be cleansed so it can go where it needs to go. Using undead and tormenting souls in Wee Jas' name to do harm and pull souls from the other planes? Mad Yeaaaaaah, I'm thinking Wee Jas might send somebody to put a stop to that. Let's take a common sense (ha, we're talking about a world of make-believe) approach of the situation and not read too much into it. Let's face it, this isn't nearly as important as...say...how peasants would respond to skeletons and zombies. Wink Laughing Laughing

    You humans got too many gods is your problem,
    Dwarf from Nyrond
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:56 pm  

    I think the problem with most of this (the article, previous reinterpretations, inconsistencies, etc.) boils down to one simple problem: The conceit that the Gods are knowable. I understand that D&D and it's gods do not wish to be as complex as the history of Earthly deities. However, boiling down the entirety of life/death and afterlife into a few pages, even for game purposes, has intrinsic problems.

    Therefore, I avoid it altogeather in my games. I deal with churches, and their beliefs and ideas of the Gods. Each church, sect, offshoot may have a slightly different take on Wee Jas, Oldimarra, or Hextor/Hieroneous. There may be rivals within a church or rival churches. The gods grant or do not grant spells. In my churches many of the alcolytes and laity are not granted spells or are adepts.

    Though I like the detailing of gods, even in our high powered epic games the stats for a god are useless to me, and knowing exactly how things occured before the ROCF is a game conceit my characters may pursue. But for the vast majority of near 30 years of gaming, it is not important.

    Merry X-mas.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 19, 2005
    Posts: 17


    Send private message
    Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:22 pm  

    chibirias wrote:

    Different to various in game cultures and people, maybe, but not to different designers. That's just a cop out used when a designer gets something wrong.


    Which is why I said I just stick to how the gods were written up in Dragon in the early 80s, with maybe a few things nicked from elsewhere. It's easier that way. But the only way to reconcile the different versions of the various gods is:

    (a) picking one version and ignoring the rest

    (b) the different versions are different aspects of a deity worshipped in different ways by different people

    (c) re-writing them every few years (TSR/WotC's solution, unfortunately)

    (d) some combination of a, b and/ or c

    chibirias wrote:
    I haven't read the Wee Jas article myself, but I wouldn't accept that argument to explain any inconsistencies that may exist.


    With Wee Jas there are many inconsistencies, mainly because Carl Sargent did such a poor job on Greyhawk, and later efforts to recocile FTA with true Greyhawk. There are so many foul ups that solutions a and b are IMO the only ones that don't insult people's intelligence.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:43 pm  

    Finally got around to reading the Dragon 350 article and it wasn't what I expected but overall I liked it alot, even the unexpected bits.
    My only beef is with the art-work as it has been with most artwork showing Suloise. When? When o Lendor will we see depictions of Suloise with "curly or kinky" hair instead of perfectly straight locks straight out of a Michael Whelan painting of Elric?
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.75 Seconds