strangeness in the Az'atta page

[Dorganath]

Well said.  That was really more like a note to Dorg.  If it's possible to give Az'attans the Monk AC Bonus, it would model what Az'attans are supposed to be like in the current engine.

Not easily. It would take an extension of the subrace system, and of course it opens the question as to why other faiths would not get bonuses as well (i.e. Spellcraft bonus for Lucindites, Attack Bonus boost for Voraxites, etc.). It would be cool, but NWN makes it more difficult than it should be.

So to translate into my own terms, when you ask a Corathite why he doesn't kill the Az'attan, he says "Not till the Ca'Duzites pay for it."   And when you ask the Ca'Duzite why he doesn't go or pay, he says, "I need to maintain the strength of my house".

Honestly I think this misses the point as much as the mafia/terrorist example.  Corathites and Ca'Duzites aren't necessarily going to collaborate to wipe out a few Az'attans, or for any purpose for that matter.

It's not that Corathites or Ca'Duzites won't kill Az'attans, but it's more like "Oh well if a few Az'attan's get killed on our way to spreading death/chaos/corruption and/or subjugating the surface world, then so be it."

This is an elegant response that seems quite self-consistent.   But by giving it, you're also strongly implying that worshipers of these religions aren't all that devout.   Baeron Ca'Duz may be in a permanent snit over Az'atta, but his clergy kind of ignore his tirades because it's, well, personally inconvenient.   (What, me pay?)   And that does make sense for a Neutral Evil people.

I really think it's a stretch to say Corathites and Ca'Duzites aren't very devout just because they don't specifically go out hunting Az'attans. And for that matter, why are Az'attans special in that regard? Arent Toranites just as big of a target, what with their shiny armor and big, fancy shields? Sure, they're not as soft of a target, but they're even more diametrically opposed.

Corathites and Ca'Duzites have greater plans, as Ed says, and while killing/corrupting an Az'attan or two along the way might be "fun" and "rewarding", it is not a statement of their level of devotion if they do not actively hunt down followers of their deity's enemies.

Actually, my assumption is that any city or town with an armed guard has law.   Maybe not enough to prevent assassination, but still.   If Az'atta is a "city religion only", then it makes more sense.

It's not.  Az'atta has a traveling clergy, with permanent temples being rare, though there are numerous shrines.

Insofar as your assertion that Mistone and Dregar are "pretty civilized" because they have a judicial system, all I can say is, So does Iraq.   Heck, even Somalia kind of has some form of judicial system, depending on where you are in the country.   That doesn't make them safe.

Perhaps true, but also an area without "law" (i.e. wilderness) doesn't mean that such a place is unsafe, as though some roving Mad Max-esque bands of thugs and highwaymen are just going to leap out at any given moment.

One could easily argue that traveling out away from cities and civilization is actually safer, since there's some security in staying away from people.  But this line of logic could circle around ad infinitum.  Point is, they do travel more often than sitting behind safe walls waiting for someone seeking redemption to come to them.  Sometimes they're escorted (i.e. safety in numbers) and sometimes not. It depends.  And yes, sometimes I'm sure they die, but that's the path of a martyr, is it not?

But yes, I do see that with a combination of there not being so much of a threat from Corathites, protection from their own lay member guards, and staying largely in safe, walled, cities, they do make sense as a largely NPC religion.

Again, they're transitory, going where redemption is needed, not waiting for it to come to them.

Venture forth into the world and use the gifts that I grant you to aid others wherever possible.

But we've been all over this ground already at least once.

To paraphrase Ed, why does it seem that people are wanting to play Az'attans who aren't Az'attan? Is it a matter of a broader interpretation of dogma or a desire to have the dogma shifted to fit a more action- and combat-centric model that some seem to prefer?

We have had the same sort of questions come up with Aeridin too, incidentally. He's quite the pacifist as well. And yes, we've had people move away from Aeridin because, to put it simply, they wanted to bash (paraphrasing their words).

What is inherently wrong with having a faith or a class that is less conducive to gaining XP through combat?

[SteveMaurer]

Not easily. It would take an extension of the subrace system, and of course it opens the question as to why other faiths would not get bonuses as well (i.e. Spellcraft bonus for Lucindites, Attack Bonus boost for Voraxites, etc.). It would be cool, but NWN makes it more difficult than it should be.

I thought it would be as simple to implement as giving people an undroppable "religious icon of faith" with the specified properties.   And yes, you could have the Lucinda icon have a +X to Spellcraft, the Az'atta icon have a "Gives Monk AC Bonus Feat", etc, etc.   Although, for balance purposes, such icons shouldn't give much of a bonus except to clerics of Gods who are nerfed into near unplayability, like Az'atta.

Honestly I think this misses the point as much as the mafia/terrorist example.  Corathites and Ca'Duzites aren't necessarily going to collaborate to wipe out a few Az'attans, or for any purpose for that matter.

It's not that Corathites or Ca'Duzites won't kill Az'attans, but it's more like "Oh well if a few Az'attan's get killed on our way to spreading death/chaos/corruption and/or subjugating the surface world, then so be it."

I really think it's a stretch to say Corathites and Ca'Duzites aren't very devout just because they don't specifically go out hunting Az'attans. And for that matter, why are Az'attans special in that regard? Arent Toranites just as big of a target, what with their shiny armor and big, fancy shields? Sure, they're not as soft of a target, but they're even more diametrically opposed.

Honestly, this is again like one of those Mom/Dad things, because what you're saying here is definitely not what I'm getting out of the LORE, and so I don't know whether it is: A] My misinterpretation, B] Ed not updating LORE, or C] You not being clear on Ed's descriptions, or D] Ed not being clear in his own mind about the implications of what he wrote.

Here is what I see: when Baeron Ca'Duz decides which enemies he wants to send his worshipers to go kill, he has to prioritize.  So who is he going to pick?   A traditional, pedestrian, enemy like Toran?   Or worshipers of a goddess who:[LIST=1]

• Was originally his favorite high priestess
• Betrayed him to the fullest extend it is possible to betray anyone (and Ca'Duz, through the test, places a high value on loyalty)
• Did so successfully, without his ability to detect it, which showed him to be weak before the other Gods of evil.
• Repeatedly dodged his vengeance.   He finally had to be bailed out by Corath (a shame that will plague him for the rest of his own immortal life).
• Ascended to become a full fledged Goddess herself, thus permanently cementing this treachery, and his inability to do anything about it, front and center for all of eternity.

Az'atta's betrayal of Baeron Ca'Duz so unhinged him that he drove out a huge number of his own clerics (and dramatically reduced the power of his own church) simply because they were female.  We're talking frothing at the mouth, irrational, self-destructive, hatred here.   About the only thing comparable in the pantheon is Grand's hatred of Dorand, because when Grand worshiped Dorand and presented his axe (which was better than all the other dwarves made), Dorand maimed him with it simply because he was an Orc.

Now Corath doesn't seem as unhinged about Az'atta.   Still, from a rational point of view, she's damned dangerous to him.   Not everybody is going to follow the paladin, but Az'atta keeps peeling away evil worshipers and turning them good.   And Corath can't afford that.

Besides, if you're going to spread death/chaos/destruction, there is little more effective an act than killing the healer.

I really think it's a stretch to say Corathites and Ca'Duzites aren't very devout just because they don't specifically go out hunting Az'attans.

For Ca'Duzites?  My interpretation of what Ed has written is that it would be akin to a Jehovah's Witness refusing to proselytize.   Corathites would do it to spread misery and destruction, and also for the cash - to finance even larger schemes to spread misery and destruction.

But most importantly, if it's easy to kill the healer, which Ed seems to be finally backing off of a little (thank goodness), then there really is no excuse.  I mean look, killing an armor clad sword wielding paladin is hard.  You might actually die trying.   Right now, the religion of Az'atta is still too much easy pickings, but oh well.

Perhaps true, but also an area without "law" (i.e. wilderness) doesn't mean that such a place is unsafe, as though some roving Mad Max-esque bands of thugs and highwaymen are just going to leap out at any given moment.

O.o      Ummmm.....   Have you played Layonara?

Although, that does remind me.. I never did finish Darthirâe's treatise on how to travel Mistone without being killed (too often).


 

To paraphrase Ed, why does it seem that people are wanting to play Az'attans who aren't Az'attan? Is it a matter of a broader interpretation of dogma or a desire to have the dogma shifted to fit a more action- and combat-centric model that some seem to prefer?

I can't speak for others, but my own motivations largely comes from trying to maintain my own suspension of disbelief.   Some people don't mind watching movies with a plot hole big enough to drive a Mac Truck through.  I do.    Similarly, when Az'attans are described as being so faithful that they leave themselves defenseless, even in the face of an entire religion dedicated to their (and other innocent's deaths), it's kind of hard to swallow.

We have had the same sort of questions come up with Aeridin too, incidentally. He's quite the pacifist as well. And yes, we've had people move away from Aeridin because, to put it simply, they wanted to bash (paraphrasing their words).

What they wanted was a viable character who could participate in many of the gaming aspects of the world.

What is inherently wrong with having a faith or a class that is less conducive to gaining XP through combat?

Absolutely nothing.  So long as the expectations are made crystal clear in advance.

But you're not doing that.  You're not even acknowledging it now.  This faith is not merely "less conducive to gaining XP through combat", it is a faith is essentially forbidden to engage in any activity that might result in combat, including participating in most GM run quests since they have combat too.   And even non-combat-only roleplaying opportunities are limited, because the only thing they can do - healing - is usually not needed.

Further, there is absolutely no reason any PC would want to have one, except as a charity case.   There are really no plot hooks for them, except with exceptional GM intervention.

Again, some people like roleplaying challenges.  (I do.) But you need to explicitly state up front what people can't do, so they know what they're signing up for.  But when I suggested that be put in the text,  Ed got mildly offended, and called my suggestion derogatory.

[Dorganath]

I thought it would be as simple to implement as giving people an undroppable "religious icon of faith" with the specified properties.   And yes, you could have the Lucinda icon have a +X to Spellcraft, the Az'atta icon have a "Gives Monk AC Bonus Feat", etc, etc.

That's essentially what the subrace system does, is equip a "skin" to a slot that is hidden on the character (i.e. you can't remove it, unequip it, drop it, etc.) which applies the bonuses and penalties.  Simply having such an item in your inventory won't do it.

Honestly, this is again like one of those Mom/Dad things, because what you're saying here is definitely not what I'm getting out of the LORE, and so I don't know whether it is: A] My misinterpretation, B] Ed not updating LORE, or C] You not being clear on Ed's descriptions, or D] Ed not being clear in his own mind about the implications of what he wrote.

Here is what I see: when Baeron Ca'Duz decides which enemies he wants to send his worshipers to go kill, he has to prioritize.  So who is he going to pick?   A traditional, pedestrian, enemy like Toran?   Or worshipers of a goddess who:[LIST=1]

• Was originally his favorite high priestess
• Betrayed him to the fullest extend it is possible to betray anyone (and Ca'Duz, through the test, places a high value on loyalty)
• Did so successfully, without his ability to detect it, which showed him to be weak before the other Gods of evil.
• Repeatedly dodged his vengeance.   He finally had to be bailed out by Corath (a shame that will plague him for the rest of his own immortal life).
• Ascended to become a full fledged Goddess herself, thus permanently cementing this treachery, and his inability to do anything about it, front and center for all of eternity.

Az'atta's betrayal of Baeron Ca'Duz so unhinged him that he drove out a huge number of his own clerics (and dramatically reduced the power of his own church) simply because they were female.  We're talking frothing at the mouth, irrational, self-destructive, hatred here.   About the only thing comparable in the pantheon is Grand's hatred of Dorand, because when Grand worshiped Dorand and presented his axe (which was better than all the other dwarves made), Dorand maimed him with it simply because he was an Orc.

Now Corath doesn't seem as unhinged about Az'atta.   Still, from a rational point of view, she's damned dangerous to him.   Not everybody is going to follow the paladin, but Az'atta keeps peeling away evil worshipers and turning them good.   And Corath can't afford that.

Besides, if you're going to spread death/chaos/destruction, there is little more effective an act than killing the healer.

You are welcome to this interpretation

Regardless, the way deities interact with one another, their own personal motivations and really...their mindsets...is not something that will be disclosed.  If it matters, I don't even know their motives or why one deity considers another an ally but the other is just neutral to the first.  


 

For Ca'Duzites?  My interpretation of what Ed has written is that it would be akin to a Jehovah's Witness refusing to proselytize.   Corathites would do it to spread misery and destruction, and also for the cash - to finance even larger schemes to spread misery and destruction.

But most importantly, if it's easy to kill the healer, which Ed seems to be finally backing off of a little (thank goodness), then there really is no excuse.  I mean look, killing an armor clad sword wielding paladin is hard.  You might actually die trying.   Right now, the religion of Az'atta is still too much easy pickings, but oh well.

So Corathites and Ca'Duzites are wimps?

Again, you're welcome to the interpretation. I'm not going to debate it's right-or-wrongness.

O.o      Ummmm.....   Have you played Layonara?

Sarcasm!  Fun...

I can't speak for others, but my own motivations largely comes from trying to maintain my own suspension of disbelief.   Some people don't mind watching movies with a plot hole big enough to drive a Mac Truck through.  I do.    Similarly, when Az'attans are described as being so faithful that they leave themselves defenseless, even in the face of an entire religion dedicated to their (and other innocent's deaths), it's kind of hard to swallow.

That must be what you're missing then.  They are not defenseless. They simply prefer other methods to violence, killing and bringing harm to others.

What they wanted was a viable character who could participate in many of the gaming aspects of the world.

"Viable" is subject to interpretation.  I have a perfectly viable character who has gained most of her XP through quests and XP wand hits.  I think the key issue seems to be that Az'atta and Aeridin somewhat enforce a style of RP and playing that is not necessarily preferred by everyone.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's just not for you, and that's perfectly fine.

Absolutely nothing.  So long as the expectations are made crystal clear in advance.

But you're not doing that.  You're not even acknowledging it now.  This faith is not merely "less conducive to gaining XP through combat", it is a faith is essentially forbidden to engage in any activity that might result in combat, including participating in most GM run quests since they have combat too.   And even non-combat-only roleplaying opportunities are limited, because the only thing they can do - healing - is usually not needed.

Further, there is absolutely no reason any PC would want to have one, except as a charity case.   There are really no plot hooks for them, except with exceptional GM intervention.

Again, some people like roleplaying challenges.  (I do.) But you need to explicitly state up front what people can't do, so they know what they're signing up for.  But when I suggested that be put in the text,  Ed got mildly offended, and called my suggestion derogatory.

Well, your commentary in that case was biting and rather negative against Az'atta, but that's my interpretation and I don't expect anyone to agree with it except for me.

My only other comment here is that every single time we spend hours and hours making absolutely everything as explicit as possible, we end up with two things:  

• Excessively long and complex documentation that, frankly, most will not read because it's too long, and frankly, people want to play, not absorb an encyclopedia.
• Creative and even more detail-minded players who find the one or two or twenty "what-ifs" that we did not consider.

I personally think the dogma is pretty clear on what's expected of Az'attans, and in my opinion, there is no One Right Way to worship any deity, though there are plenty of wrong ways.

[SteveMaurer]

My only other comment here is that every single time we spend hours and hours making absolutely everything as explicit as possible, we end up with two things:

• Excessively long and complex documentation that, frankly, most will not read because it's too long, and frankly, people want to play, not absorb an encyclopedia.
• Creative and even more detail-minded players who find the one or two or twenty "what-ifs" that we did not consider.

I personally think the dogma is pretty clear on what's expected of Az'attans, and in my opinion, there is no One Right Way to worship any deity, though there are plenty of wrong ways.

Well, I'm going to drop the subject after this, because it's obvious you are getting defensive, which is a perfectly natural reaction when someone takes a real critical eye to your baby.   I've sometimes had that feeling too, so I know how you feel.

Still, I think it's not an issue of trivial minutia that the cult of Az'atta, which the Lore says it trains their priests in the style of unarmed defense, does not allow:[LIST=1]

• Its clerics to become Sacred Fists,
• Its clerics to become Undead Slayers,
• Its clerics to participate in situations where violence is likely to occur, even if they are not directly involved (i.e. they should not even be the healer of an expeditionary party).

All of these are major deviations from the default expectations, not trivial minutia, and none are obvious from reading the cult description.    So you should add it.


Oh, and sorry for the sarcasm, but Layonara is a damned violent place, with mad-max style bandits/mercenaries scattered nearly everywhere.   So your assertion otherwise made me laugh.

Maybe you really have to be a new player to appreciate it, but many maps close to many of the starter cities are packed with such ambushes, that you're going to step on until you learn about them.   I'm just glad the first PC I decided to play in Layo had invisibility because otherwise, she would have twice as many deaths just from walking around.

[Lance Stargazer]

It kind of sounds like I need to run a quest involving the Az'attan clergy. Perhaps seeing the church in action would clear up some confusion, and questions could be asked by PCs in-character.

If you do, I totally going to attend to that one, Az'atta called my attention since ever, i was affected by the changes, yes, but as I have chatted with the team about the tennets , they simply are as they should be, I mean, Az'attans are not like alone or on thieir own.

They have real good allies and friendly gods, which lends help to their cause, Az'atta has rallied to her cause to deities that usually would not work together by any other cause Like Beryl and Toran.

They have who look for them, that is what friends are for no?

I can explain by scarce experience palying divine characters, I totally understand under Lance and Argos point of view why Toran is friendly to Az'zatta, Empower the weak, and also well  Az'atta is at least trying to change her ways, Toran would consider that worthy.  

But as was stated, The gods have their own Agendas, and their reasons to be the way they are.

So Lets us get this straight, Since the Az'attan church operates on her own to thedevelopment of their own faith, I totally see that from time to time the friendly and allied churches sent help to them when they learn of hard missions of peace,  I am not saying that Az'attans are useles and unable to do their biddings on their own, But If we take the point that there are gods plotting against them onto regular basis, I am totally sure her friends are looking for ways to help her as well.

If we don't this on consideration we are not being fair with her friends, And they will end not really as friends.  Less even the term "Ally"

On a final note, I understand why Az'atta has been changed , she relies on salvation, and redemption, A deity as that would obviously go against violence, And would have to prefer to die than remove another life, As diference with Toran that also believes on the importance of the life, Toran feels that sometimes one has to get the hands dirty to save the most. To make them live, Az'atta goes for saving their souls, ( in a figurative way of  speaking, to make people go better, and live in a peaceful world ) and in this very example Toran goes for saving the life of the person .

Just my two coppers.

[Dorganath]

Well, I'm going to drop the subject after this, because it's obvious you are getting defensive, which is a perfectly natural reaction when someone takes a real critical eye to your baby. I've sometimes had that feeling too, so I know how you feel.

Am I?  I have no personal stake in Az'atta. I did not write her. I don't currently have any characters who follow her (though I have a good idea for one), so I'm really rather unconcerned with anyone's personal opinion of Az'atta. My only purpose in responding in this thread was to offer an alternate perspective than your own, with the hope of bringing some clarity to you and everyone, even if you ultimately don't agree with the premise.  

I do believe, however,  we've reached the point of diminishing returns, however, so yes, perhaps it is best to let the discussion rest as it is, but I leave that choice to you.

Still, I think it's not an issue of trivial minutia that the cult of Az'atta, which the Lore says it trains their priests in the style of unarmed defense, does not allow:[LIST=1]

• Its clerics to become Sacred Fists,
• Its clerics to become Undead Slayers,
• Its clerics to participate in situations where violence is likely to occur, even if they are not directly involved (i.e. they should not even be the healer of an expeditionary party).

All of these are major deviations from the default expectations, not trivial minutia, and none are obvious from reading the cult description. So you should add it.

Noted, but again, I'll point out that engaging in combat is not expressly forbidden by Az'atta.  It is, however, discouraged unless there is no other avenue.  The assumption that they are not trained in combat is false. They know these things so that they may, in situations where necessary, defend themselves and those in need of defense.  They do not go out looking for combat. They never strike first.

Sacred Fist is not a passive but a rather martial class. They believe their bodies are gifts from their deities and will develop them to their greatest potential.  Undead Slayers are not a passive occupation but one that actively seeks out undead and destroys them. While I truly understand your assertion that these should be available to Az'attan clerics, it is in the nuances of each (class and faith) that makes them an ill-fitting combination.

It seems you are confusing "discouraged" behavior with "prohibited" behavior but that's been said in several ways already.

I any case, your comments have been noted, and if Ed wishes these addenda to be made to the LORE info for Az'atta, I have absolute confidence that he will see that they are done.

Oh, and sorry for the sarcasm, but Layonara is a damned violent place, with mad-max style bandits/mercenaries scattered nearly everywhere. I'm just glad the first PC I decided to play in Layo had invisibility because otherwise, she would have a hell of a lot more deaths just from walking around.

One could argue that a character without Invisibility would be able to wear better armor and use more effective weapons, thus increasing their chances of survival. In any case, my own Invisibility-bearing first character has plenty of deaths (more than I'd like to admit), with most of them being from doing something stupid while running around solo.  

Regardless, I'm very familiar with the nature of Layonara, as a player, as a GM and as a developer, though apparently someone snuck in the Thunderdome when I wasn't looking.

[EdTheKet]

Still, I think it's not an issue of trivial minutia that the cult of Az'atta, which the Lore says it trains their priests in the style of unarmed defense, does not allow:

   1. Its clerics to become Sacred Fists,
   2. Its clerics to become Undead Slayers,
   3. Its clerics to participate in situations where violence is likely to occur, even if they are not directly involved (i.e. they should not even be the healer of an expeditionary party).

All of these are major deviations from the default expectations, not trivial minutia, and none are obvious from reading the cult description. So you should add it.

I don't think they've been qualified as minutia.
As for your points:

1) Sacred Fist

They consider their bodies and minds gifts from their deity, and they believe that not developing those gifts to their fullest potential is a sin.

Yes Az'attans are trained in unarmed combat, however, they do not believe that not developing their bodies would be a sin. That's not what Az'atta wants, she wants her people out there and help people, not spend hours and hours on developing their bodies.
So, no Sacred Fist.

2)Undead Slayer

Undead Slayers are the hated enemy of all undead. They spend each restless night tracking undead to their lairs and cleansing the land of their foul presence forever.

Spending each restless night tracking undead and cleansing the land of their presence forever? That does not sound Az'attan. As I mentioned, non-sentient undead is none of her concern as they no longer have a soul so cannot be redeemed, the only undead they would be concerned with is sentient undead like vampires, liches, blood seraphs and the like. That hardly makes them "spend each restless night tracking undead to their lairs and cleansing the land of their foul presence forever" as that implies that if the sentient undead creature doesn't want to be redeemed, the Undead Slayer would destroy it (like a Toranite or a Aeridinite would do). It's not what an Az'attan would do.


3) does not allow sending clerics into situations where violence is likely to occur.
That's correct. You're a pacifist or you're not, and if you are, you're not going to look for a fight.


I feel everything we discussed is sufficiently clear in the excerpt.

None of the deity excerpts have RP instructions or hints put in them (not the intent), so I will not be adding those.

[twidget658]

Bottom line, should a person, other than a cleric or paladin, that follows Az'atta be using any weapons? Should that person be out running the land slaying creatures for days on end?

[Hellblazer]

I don't think Az'atta is the kind to have paladin, but that is a good question nonetheless.

[EdTheKet]

Bottom line, should a person, other than a cleric or paladin, that follows Az'atta be using any weapons?

Very reluctantly and sparsely. You cannot claim to follow Az'atta and go on a killing spree killing sentient creatures. You cannot reconcile everyone needing a chance at redemption with killing sprees.

Should that person be out running the land slaying creatures for days on end?

No, they shouldn't. You cannot in a believable way say you believe that everyone is worthy of redemption and on the other hand kill all bandits, orcs, giants, goblins, dark elves, Deep dwarves, etc you encounter. Nobody'd buy that this person would be an Az'attan.

And yes, that means it's almost impossible to play if your prime goal is level advancement. If your goal is to play a character filled with idealism who takes the moral high ground, then playing an Az'attan is for you.