strangeness in the Az'atta page

[ycleption]

Not to mention that the submission requirements say absolutely nothing about the world, the goddess, the race, or anything else. Limiting starting character requirements doesn't mean that non-cleric CG dark elf az'attans don't exist any more than putting an age requirement for PCs means that children don't exist.

[darkstorme]

Though it's been said several times in various ways in this thread, I thought I'd just emphasize something I've often said in character submissions:
You don't have to have your deity field filled to pray to a deity every so often.  As Dorg said, having the field filled represents true and pious devotion to the deity.  But there are plenty of crafters who will offer up prayers to Dorand, Goran, or Beryl in the craft hall without attending services or tithing to those deities.  Many thieves will offer a quick word to Branderback as they jimmy a lock.  

But true devotion to Az'atta's dogma would mean, by definition, that the character would have to be of a Good alignment - though, as above, this is not the case mechanically until Ed weighs in.

[Pseudonym]

But true devotion to Az'atta's dogma would mean, by definition, that the character would have to be of a Good alignment - though, as above, this is not the case mechanically until Ed weighs in.

Not sure I entirely agree. I would think the honest intent and endeavor of the neutrally aligned would-be-worshipper (but whom does not always succeed) should still be a factor in determining viability for having their deity field filled.

[Dorganath]

Not sure I entirely agree. I would think the honest intent and endeavor of the neutrally aligned would-be-worshipper (but whom does not always succeed) should still be a factor in determining viability for having their deity field filled.

Well no, the "would-be-worshiper" is not what qualifies for populating the deity field, for any deity.  That sort of implies that the choice has not been fully made and that their "failures" at truly living the dogma is evidence that they have not yet fully embraced the deity.

It's one thing to put occasional faith into one deity or another ("Az'atta forgive me", "Dorand, guide my hammer", "Vorax, give me strength", "Toran, guide me", "Prunilla, bless our harvest", etc.), but it is fully another to be a "card-carrying" member of a faith, to live one's life by that deity's dogma and no others...to put all one's faith into that deity, etc.

That is the intent behind the deity field, not just to show "well, I'm trying."

That's not to say a worshiper (one with the deity field properly populated) is always going to perfect in their observance, but for the most part, they are at least extremely devout.

Steering back to Az'atta, she's a special case due to her dogma. I think that sums it up.  As I said above, there are some real basic conflicts between Az'atta's dogma and the general guidelines for TN and CN alignments.

Think about the nature of redemption for a moment.  Az'atta says all are worthy of redemption, but in the end, the redeemed need to want it and by wanting it, they make a conscious and life-changing choice.

All creatures of Layonara are worthy of My mercy if they choose to accept it.
...
Do not, however, take up weapons or dress yourself in armor unless it is to prevent harm from coming to yourself or others.

(emphasis mine)

Other bits from the page:

Governs:

• Love
• Penance
• Redemption

Mantras:

• Forgiving
• Idealistic
• Peaceful
• Selfless

[/LIST]Now, reconcile that with (excerpted):

Chaotic Neutral

• Lies and cheats if he feels it necessary.
• Never kill an innocent but may harm or kidnap.
  
• Will use torture to extract information but not for pleasure.
  
• Seldom kills for pleasure.

True Neutral

• May or May not attack and kill an unarmed foe.
  
• May or May not Use, hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought or for pleasure.
  
• May or May not Use torture for pleasure and information.

(again, emphasis mine)

[Link092]

And say that the worshiper actually worships the deity, but has a twisted perspective of their dogma?

(just curious)

[Hellblazer]

Well no, the "would-be-worshiper" is not what qualifies for populating the deity field, for any deity.  That sort of implies that the choice has not been fully made and that their "failures" at truly living the dogma is evidence that they have not yet fully embraced the deity.

If we take RL worshiping of any God in todays life. There is a lot of faithful who tries their best to follow every edict but who sometimes fail by their human nature. That is why it's called sin and that they tried their best to repent of that sin afterwards.

That's not to say a worshiper (one with the deity field properly populated) is always going to perfect in their observance, but for the most part, they are at least extremely devout.

On that point we are on agreement as I truly don't think you can say that any one that has the deity filed populated in their field, are expected never to stray from their tenants, by the very nature they are.

If we take our own history in the past, to be redeemed of a failure to follow the edict of ones codes, there would be the pious ways of fasting or making an animal sacrifice to purify ones self. Others faith would be more harsh and would have the sinner lapidated or killed (depending on their sins) etc.  That is one aspect of a faith I have never seen talked about here, but that would surely apply. Further more, no one not even a cleric or a paladin, would always 100% be able to follow their faith. Sure it's what's expected, but they also have to fight their very nature 100% of the time.

So by this for az'atta, you might have the cn or tn DE trying their best to follow her codes, but by their very nature some times they might fall. And now as I know it, in the long run, from a deep want to change their ways, they slowly become better and better (cdq to NG) and succeed in changing their ways.

But should they be prevented to follow az'atta and wear her signs, go to her temple to pray with the clerics there, and attend the services if there is one, because they are failing from time to time because of their very nature? When they do want and make a conscious choice to show that they follow her and try to follow her edict.

[miltonyorkcastle]

But should they be prevented to follow az'atta and wear her sings, go to her temple to pray with the clerics there, and attend the services if there is one, because they are failing from time to time because of their very nature? When they do want and make a conscious choice to show that they follow her and try to follow her edict.

Your PC can wear the deity symbols and pray at her temples, talk incessantly about how much he/she adores the deity, convince other character she is devout, and even believe himself/herself to be truly following the deity all without having the deity field populated. The deity field is as much a representation of fulfilled OOC requirements as it is a representation of IC actions.

[darkstorme]

And say that the worshiper actually worships the deity, but has a twisted perspective of their dogma?

(just curious)

Then they aren't worshiping the deity in any way the deity would recognize, and therefore wouldn't receive Their favour, so the field should not be filled.

If we take RL worshiping of any God in todays life. There is a lot of faithful who tries their best to follow every edict but who sometimes fail by their human nature. That is why it's called sin and that they tried their best to repent of that sin afterwards.

You have to remember, though, Hellblazer, that unlike real life, faith has a tangible and immediate return in Layonara.  If your deity field is filled, that means that clerics of that deity have a significant advantage when their powers are used on you.  The deity themselves, in this small way, approves of your worship.  Trying isn't good enough, not if you're still routinely violating their precepts (as a TN or CN Az'attan would regularly do if they weren't in the middle of an alignment shift to Good.)

Bear in mind also (dealing with your second point) that if clerics or Paladins "sin" against their deity, they lose their abilities.  In D&D, there's an entire spell called Atonement to deal with occasions where clerics and Paladins (and Druids) slipped in their faith.

So, for Layonara's pantheon, "trying your best" isn't good enough (particularly for clergy, but for the layman too).  You either follow the dogma of your deity, or you aren't a worshiper.  If a TN or CN alignment is being played properly, it's very hard to imagine that they are adhering to Az'attan dogma.  She believes in redemption, but She's not an idiot.  Barring starting an approved alignment shift, I don't think any TN/CN character could readily claim to be following Az'atta's dogma.

[Dorganath]

And say that the worshiper actually worships the deity, but has a twisted perspective of their dogma?

(just curious)

Well the mechanical benefit of having the deity field populated is a reflection of that deity showing favor upon the individual for his/her devotion.  So then the answer to your question might be answered by another:

Would Az'atta (or any other deity, especially the Good ones) show favor upon someone who twisted the dogma?

In Az'atta's case, would she show favor on someone who, for example, thought to "redeem" others through pain and/or death?

I personally do not think she would.

Your PC can wear the deity symbols and pray at her temples, talk incessantly about how much he/she adores the deity, convince other character she is devout, and even believe himself/herself to be truly following the deity all without having the deity field populated. The deity field is as much a representation of fulfilled OOC requirements as it is a representation of IC actions.

Exactly!

A character is not limited from worshiping or following a given deity.  That's not what the deity field represents.

And using RL religious worship as an example here will skew the issue, as (so far as we've seen) the RL God(s) do not grant spells that smite one's enemies with a rain of acid or that raise the dead.

[Link092]

ywah, was just curious. thanks!

[Hellblazer]

Good points to you both dorg and DS. But to what DS said, I totally agree that the cleric or paladin that would blatantly brok his vow continuously there would be severe reprimend made by the deity, there would be less for those that worship her but are not devout enough to recieve her gift. That what brings me to my original questions. The worshiper and devout are obviously two different things, and although both follow the godess only the devout (the truly pious) would receive her gifts. So this is why I understand that the clerical alignment should change, but the normal worshiper, those that are not pious enough to be clerics or palandins (if she had any, which i think she don't) shouldn't change. Even if there is some clashing between the dogma and their alignment, if you change the worshipers alignment then you take all the chances for one that doesn't fit that alignment from benifiting the system that is inplace before they are of the right alignment pending a cdq to shift it.
 
 If we take an other example then of Rofirein. By the logic you give, Thos that are LE and TN should not even concider putting rofirein in their deity fields as their alignment would be in conflicting nature to the alignment of the god.
 
 This in fact would pause a big problem to all that have been approved previous to the change with a deity field included in their bio's

[willhoff]

And using RL religious worship as an example here will skew the issue, as (so far as we've seen) the RL God(s) do not grant spells that smite one's enemies with a rain of acid or that raise the dead.

I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin':

ACTS 9:40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up.

ACTS 20:9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate.

[Dorganath]

Even if there is some clashing between the dogma and their alignment, if you change the worshipers alignment then you take all the chances for one that doesn't fit that alignment from benifiting the system that is inplace before they are of the right alignment pending a cdq to shift it.

Yes! But again it's been stated many times now:

1) Az'atta is a special case, as she has been defined, and
2) If your alignment and professed faith are at odds, then yes, there's going to be a conflict

Alignment, unlike faith, is not a conscious choice.  A character does not go, "Oh, I wish to worship Az'atta, but drat...I'm True Neutral."  Alignment is more at the core of a character's behavior than faith. Shifting to a new alignment is a fundamental change in a character and something that governs their behavior on a subconscious level.  Faith, on the other hand, is a matter of belief.  It is not automatic but a conscious thing involving not one but many choices over the course of one's life.  Even if those choices are largely easy, they are still choices.

And really, is it too much to wait to get through 10 levels before working toward an alignment shift?  How much time is that really? Isn't the journey worth a little extra time?

If we take an other example then of Rofirein. By the logic you give, Thos that are LE and TN should not even concider putting rofirein in their deity fields as their alignment would be in conflicting nature to the alignment of the god.

Huh?  Rofirein is Lawful Neutral. LE and TN are not that far away, and furthermore, there's no stipulation regarding the alignment of Rofirein's followers.  Az'atta does. Again, she's a special case.  

A TN Rofireinite might be something of a vigilante in pursuit of justice.  A NE Rofireinite is a planner and someone who works within the system, even being a "man of honor" who keeps his (carefully given) word at all costs but does so for his own gains.  

Let's take an absurd example...while there's nothing preventing it, why not have a NE worshiper of Toran?  Yes...it's possible, but really...it doesn't make a bit of sense.

In the same way, a personal, fundamental predisposition toward such things as torture, kidnapping, violence as a means to an end and so forth is quite opposed to a dogma of redemption, peace and love. Give all the examples you want, but until you can really reconcile those from the perspective of the deity itself, you're not going to convince me that Az'atta would shower her favors upon someone who could be brutal, cruel, manipulative, violent and other things that simply conflict with all she stands for.  This person could stand on every street corner calling out the virtues of Az'atta with passion and strength, but if that same person then went and shook down people for coins and goods, then...well...he might well be worthy of Az'atta's redemption, but he has to come to her, not the other way around....and in coming to her, there's a fundamental, subconscious shift toward a Good alignment.

 

This in fact would pause a big problem to all that have been approved previous to the change with a deity field included in their bio's

No, it doesn't, because we grandfather any such pre-existing characters when we change rules like this.  They take effect from that point in time forward.

But really...this is fun, but circular, and all the "what if" situations in the world won't change the fact that Ed has final say on this, and he's on vacation.

[Dorganath]

I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin':

ACTS 9:40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up.

ACTS 20:9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate.

Yeah...first...

I'd like to request not going any further down this line of reasoning, simply because I will lock this thread before I allow a real-world religious debate to destroy the constructive discussion here.  This is another, albeit unspoken reason why I don't believe that RL religious comparisons are valid when talking about a fantasy deity.

And yes, I've seen far too many perfectly good discussions on the Internet derailed by the rather strong opinions people have of religion.

Second...

Show me a member of the clergy of any religion, Christian or otherwise, who is able to cast a spell, more than once, to produce anything even remotely like what is granted by Layonara deities. I'd even settle for a cantrip. That was my point.  RL and fantasy worlds and how faith plays into them is vastly different in some very fundamental ways.

Anyway, please keep the discussion rooted in the game world.

[Hellblazer]

Thanks I do love the explications you give.

[lonnarin]

Given her Dogma, hers should be the only faith that doesn't have xp penalties for raising the wrong faith member.  Turn the other cheek and absolute forgiveness just doesn't work if there are exceptions.  How are you going to save somebody by shunning them?  This is the goddess of forgiveness, mind you.  The one that says any vile murderer, baby eater or disgusting piece of moral filth can change their ways and be a better person.  I really don't see herr denying neutral members of the faith or denying her blassing because somebody is a Dorandite.  "bless?  why should I help save this man... he CRAFTS!"  Save the murderer, spurn the blacksmith.  There could be a NG Dorandite who crafts specifically for the benefit of others, founds orphanages, makes granaries to feed the poor, makes masterwork crutches and prosthetic legs for the crippled.  No prayers for you!

No matter what explanation, justification or lore reasoning behind her not accepting neutral folk into the flock or granting blessings may be, I do not nor will ever understand it.  Of course, I don't play any Azattans.

Considering Bjorn can never be blessed by Azatta while he has never poisoned his weapon, slit a baby's throat, performed an assassination or any of the other despicable things she did in life, he would just suggest that she is a ragin hypocrite who only has her own forgiveness, and that he is the better person.

[willhoff]

Anyway, please keep the discussion rooted in the game world.

My apologies for my post if  it derailed the thread, is was not my intention to start a religious debate about RL God(s).  Just adding a little history.

Anyways, I would think that your alignment basically states the acts you are willing or not willing to commit.  A true change of heart means an alignment change.  Only until you have that change of heart/alignment change will Az'atta bestow here favor on you along with her powers.  Which would then allow you to enter her in your Diety field.

my two cents.

[lonnarin]

Also... from the Azattan page.

Cleric Alignments:

    * Neutral Good
    * Chaotic Good
    * Chaotic Neutral

and from the Dark elf page...

All PC Dark Elves must be submitted as one of the following alignments: True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil. The lone exception to this rule is if a Dark Elf is submitted as a cleric of Az'atta, in which case they may submit with a Good alignment.

Note that there is nothing stated specifically that there cannot be any neutral Azattans.  In fact, Azatta having chaotic neutral clerics is explicitly allowed.  So yes, there should be people who follow Azatta who are neutral or chaotic neutral.   The only persons who MUST be good Azattans are dark elves and other monster races.  If you want to be a CN Azattan dark elf who's not a cleric, I see no reason supported by the rules or lore why one shouldn't be.  Not ALL chaotic neutral people torture.  Not ALL True Neutral people attack unarmed foes.  Note the usage of the word "may".

If one is truly an Azattan follower however, I would fully expect them NOT to use weapons, or poison, or kidnap, murder, torture.  Otherwise they really aren't Azattans.

[Dorganath]

Given her Dogma, hers should be the only faith that doesn't have xp penalties for raising the wrong faith member.  Turn the other cheek and absolute forgiveness just doesn't work if there are exceptions.  How are you going to save somebody by shunning them?  This is the goddess of forgiveness, mind you.  The one that says any vile murderer, baby eater or disgusting piece of moral filth can change their ways and be a better person.  I really don't see herr denying neutral members of the faith or denying her blassing because somebody is a Dorandite.  "bless?  why should I help save this man... he CRAFTS!"  Save the murderer, spurn the blacksmith.

Yeah, well there's a point to be had there, and it's true the mechanics aren't coded that way.

Oversight?  Maybe.

But then consider also then that by raising a follower of an enemy deity would indirectly bring harm to Az'atta, or perhaps just "aid and comfort to the enemy." While I cannot see Az'atta "penalizing" her clergy for such acts of kindness, it could be that there are other forces at work that exact a toll on the cleric.

Real interesting point there...makes me think a bit about how the system is implemented.  But then, it also makes me wonder if we did this if we'd see a whole lot more clerics of Az'atta.

[Hellblazer]

That is what I was saying Lon, but if you check the worshipers section, you will see all races that are good. That is the thing that is in contention right now. As only NG DE that can be created are clerics. SO all other DE classes have to be TN or CN at minimum, but then wouldn't be allowed by the worshipers restriction. I'm not in contention against the clerical alignment aspect, but the simple worshipers.

And in truth, its a lot rp yes, but also because if you disallow future bios from having a az'attan deity field for tn and cn DE, then you should simply scrap the whole raising aspect and deity spell effect all together. As a lot of spells will apply per deity/allied/friendly. It's a stretch (yes I know), but if you change this aspect of the lore, you will have to adjust the spells (in the best of world). This will truly give a lot less luster to anyone who would want to play a cleric of az'atta in the future. And this gave an other options to those who wanted to play a DE but didn't like the other two deities, beside the choice of putting no deity at all, which would take a lot of the RP away of playing a DE as their faith is something that seems to be entrenched deeply in that race, unless I'm mistaking.