strangeness in the Az'atta page

[EdTheKet]

Allright, I have a question to everyone out there.

Why are so many people wanting an Az'attan that wields weapons and tries to find ways, loopholes or going through every written word with a fine comb in order to find a way to make that happen?

She's a pacifist. If you want to play a militant character, don't play an Az'attan.

I'll requote myself

The pantheon with its 28 deities is not aimed at ensuring each deity gets the same number of player characters, that's not the intent.

The intent is to have a diverse pantheon that covers many views and thoughts, something which it does now.

Pacifistic deities will inherently have less player characters than militant deities. This is because of the nature of the game NWN/D&D, where character advancement is through XP gained by combat for the most part.

Now, on to Stevemaurer's questions.

1) They're far more strict for clergy, but if a worshipper is aspiring to get into the clergy, they'd do well not to use weapons.
And next to that, if you follow Az'atta's teachings as a worshipper, you're still a lot more devout then somebody who doesn't pay homage to a particular deity and just prays to whichever god he needs at the time.
E.g. a commoner that will invoke Deliar before buying something, and that some commoner that will call upon Ilsare on the day of his daughter's wedding. That's not a worshipper in my book, a worshipper is somebody who's really focused on a specific deity, but a bit less than a cleric.

So your Rottie, being a worshipper and using my own definition, should be extremely hesitant in using weapons.

2) If you read the dogma, it states you shouldn't take up arms or armor. She is a pacifist. Trying to circumvent it by using your fists or items that are technically not considered arms per se is not going to work.

3) Most undead are not sentient. Therefore, the Az'attans wouldn't care about them too much. There are too many people and creatures out there that do need redeeming to waste time on finding and killing mindless skeletons, zombies or other non-sentient undead.

Undead that are sentient deserve a chance at redemption, vampires are a good example of that. You will notice a specific mention of Az'attans in the LORE: Vampires section.
However, keep in mind that redemption at the tip of a sword is not redemption at all.
So, as non-sentient undead aren't their concern, and they aren't out to slay sentient undead but are out to redeem them, the Undead Slayer PRC would not make sense.

4) They will only defend, so rescue missions are out of the question. Also, anyone who has violent tendencies will be removed from the volunteer group.

[SteveMaurer]

Allright, I have a question to everyone out there.

Why are so many people wanting an Az'attan that wields weapons and tries to find ways, loopholes or going through every written word with a fine comb in order to find a way to make that happen?

 I am not trying to find a loophole.  I'm trying to find clarification.   And, frankly, clarification is needed.     Look at the LORE under "favored weapons and clothing" (which is really her dogmatic restrictions).

Az'atta forbids weapons for her clergy because she prefers her clergy not to kill or harm anyone. That is not to say they are not trained to defend themselves or those whom they have promised to protect from the violent and aggressive nature of others.   Each hopeful is trained in the way of unarmed combat, usually in the style of the locality the temple exists in. Az'atta's clergy are never permitted to strike first. They may not, under any circumstances, use poison.

These lines are in seeming opposition to what you are saying here.  Line one says she prefers her clergy not to kill or harm anyone.  The second says (taking away the double negative), that they still are "trained to defend themselves" and those whom they have promised to protect.  Line three says explicitly that they're trained in "unarmed combat".

The truth is that the dogma, as written, is nearly indistinguishable from that of Toran (who also sees himself as defending the innocent).  Do you understand why someone reading that might think you were effectively telling people that Az'attans are all Sacred Fists?      

Of course, from what you've written here, I thought that might not be what you intended, which is why I asked the question in the first place.   Don't beat me up for asking questions, OK?

If you read the dogma, it states you shouldn't take up arms or armor.

Actually, if you read the dogma, it says: "Do not, however, take up weapons or dress yourself in armor unless it is to prevent harm from coming to yourself or others."    Since the only purpose of armor is to prevent harm from coming to yourself, there seems to be no effective prohibition from wearing armor at all times.   I don't know, but would venture a guess, that Az'attan priests who venture to Arnax would pretty much do exactly that.

Being allowed to take up a weapon to prevent harm from coming to others is one of those slippery slope things subject to abuse through overly broad interpretation, so my assumption was to interpret it as "clear and present danger", not some theoretical abstract danger.   But I also figured that undead, or rather more specifically, undead without a Soul, were fair game.  (Hey, you got to get your XP from somewhere.)

(Az'attans working under the Sight) will only defend, so rescue missions are out of the question. Also, anyone who has violent tendencies will be removed from the volunteer group.

Again, a rescue mission seems to be a perfect scenario for "preventing harm from coming to others", which is what the statement seems to imply, and why I was asking for the clarification.     Also, I'm having a hard time resolving the "no violent tendencies" directive you just gave here from the description that Az'atta's Sight works with a team derived from "mercenary and adventurer stock".   Unhesitating willingness to use violence (when necessary) is a hallmark of adventurers.   Violence for money is the job description of mercenaries.

Thanks for clearing all these things up, Ed.   I just think that the Az'atta page needs a bit more work to bring the goddess more in line with your vision of her.   But as you do, please consider the following questions:[LIST=1]

• Given that Az'atta priests have big fat targets on their backs from every disguised Corathite thug out there, how are they protected?  (Think especially of the low level ones.)   Who protects them?
• When a rescue mission does have to be done, are Az'attans allowed along on it?
• From a mechanical perspective, it will be very hard for PCs who are never allowed XP from combat.  Are you willing to give a directive to GMs/World Leaders to be especially generous to Az'atta Clerics with their wands of RP XP?

[Hellblazer]

Az'atta's Sight is a guardian of sorts who works with a volunteer group of devout Az'zattans, typically of adventurer or mercenary stock.

Ed, not to be the nit pickle picker here, but you don't become an adventurer or a mercenary if you haven't trained and seen your fair share of battles. I really don't see how a flower weilding pro peace man would have become a mercenary in the first place or afterwards.

IF one is not aspiring to become part of the clergy (ie becoming a cleric) they would fit perfectly into this type of person that would work as part of the people guarding and defending the church, but never to become clerics.

Also if your adventurer or mercenaries, were unarmed.. well they wouldn't last long against a dark elf raiding party prone to exterminate every living being seen in and near the temple of az'atta.

Just my two cents there.

[Dorganath]

I am not trying to find a loophole. I'm trying to find clarification. And, frankly, clarification is needed. Look at the LORE under "favored weapons and clothing" (which is really her dogmatic restrictions).

These lines are in seeming opposition to what you are saying here. Line one says she prefers her clergy not to kill or harm anyone. The second says (taking away the double negative), that they still are "trained to defend themselves" and those whom they have promised to protect. Line three says explicitly that they're trained in "unarmed combat".

You understand that there's a difference between being trained to defend, which is a non-aggressive art, and being trained in more martial combat, right?  The key factor in this is not the mechanics of what it takes to defend oneself or others but the intent. A true Az'attan would rather not harm and especially would prefer not to kill, but will only if that is the last resort available.  A true Az'attan would not run up to hostile creatures, dance around to get their attention then beat the life out of them in "self-defense".

What you're reading there is not in conflict. It's a matter of simply reading what is there and not reading what is not there...heh.

The operative word there is "prefers," which is not to say the clergy or faithful cannot harm or kill, but in the same vein, Az'atta would not just turn a blind eye to one of her clerics or devout who made a habit of doing so.

The truth is that the dogma, as written, is nearly indistinguishable from that of Toran (who also sees himself as defending the innocent). Do you understand why someone reading that might think you were effectively telling people that Az'attans are all Sacred Fists?

No, not really. Toranism is a much more rules-oriented and active "go out and smite evil where it lies" sort of practice rather than a far more...gentle (for lack of a better word) system of beliefs and practices for Az'attans.  As Ed said above, redemption at the point of a sword (literally and figuratively) is not really redemption, is it?

Protect the realms and rout evil wherever you find it. Raise up the weak and empower them so that they might see the strength and compassion of Toran. Seek out the servants of evil, most notably those who follow Corath and Pyrtechon, and rid the world of them. Be mindful of the Conducts of Virtue (Valor, Empathy, Conviction, Humility, Sacrifice, Honorable Combat, Restraint). The path away from our Leader can begin from a position of good as well as evil. Be a shining example of goodness and righteousness. Your word is your bond.

All creatures of Layonara are worthy of My mercy if they choose to accept it. Offer all creatures, regardless of past acts, a chance to accept My mercy, My redemption and My love. Venture forth into the world and use the gifts that I grant you to aid others wherever possible. Enjoy times of peace and try to uphold it, but do not be passive. Bring peace and redemption to all of Layonara in an active way. Do not, however, take up weapons or dress yourself in armor unless it is to prevent harm from coming to yourself or others.

Boiling down both faiths to simply "defend the innocent" really does a disservice to both.

Of course, from what you've written here, I thought that might not be what you intended, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Don't beat me up for asking questions, OK?

There's one thing that you should keep in mind in your consideration of this topic, and that is what is posted for all the deities are excerpts from a much larger write-up.  

Actually, if you read the dogma, it says: "Do not, however, take up weapons or dress yourself in armor unless it is to prevent harm from coming to yourself or others." Since the only purpose of armor is to prevent harm from coming to yourself, there seems to be no effective prohibition from wearing armor at all times. I don't know, but would venture a guess, that Az'attan priests who venture to Arnax would pretty much do exactly that.

Isn't this more or less "finding a loophole" by your logic?
 
 I'd say you really don't quite understand the mindset of the Az'attan faithful.  Just roaming the world, and Az'attans tend to be migratory, going where they're needed, they would most likely travel unarmored, counting on faith and general good sense to keep themselves away from situations where they might be harmed or have to harm another.  However, if there was such a situation, for example, if someone sought them out seeking redemption and escape from Evil Organization A, but that someone was pursued by agents of Evill Organization A to prevent this someone from "getting out", then yes, they quite possibly may arm and armor themselves.
 

(Hey, you got to get your XP from somewhere.)

Like quests?  RP?

Again, a rescue mission seems to be a perfect scenario for "preventing harm from coming to others", which is what the statement seems to imply, and why I was asking for the clarification. Also, I'm having a hard time resolving the "no violent tendencies" directive you just gave here from the description that Az'atta's Sight works with a team derived from "mercenary and adventurer stock". Unhesitating willingness to use violence (when necessary) is a hallmark of adventurers. Violence for money is the job description of mercenaries.

An Az'attan faithful would not purposefully put himself in a situation, no matter what you call it, whereby he would stand a chance of bringing harm to someone else.  A "rescue mission", in the typical sense, is at its core a rather aggressive effort. Even if one tries to avoid violence, if the mission was detected and it came to fighting their way out, it's likely an Az'attan would surrender, rather than harm people who may just be "doing their jobs" (i.e. guards).

An Az'attan "rescue mission" might be more in line with months (or more) of infiltration and seeking a way "in" so to speak, or perhaps talks and negotiation rather than a covert and aggressive effort under the cover of darkness one night.

Az'atta's Sight is a guardian of sorts who works with a volunteer group of devout Az'zattans, typically of adventurer or mercenary stock.                      

Ed, not to be the nit pickle picker here, but you don't become an adventurer or a mercenary if you haven't trained and seen your fair share of battles. I really don't see how a flower weilding pro peace man would have become a mercenary in the first place or afterwards.

IF one is not aspiring to become part of the clergy (ie becoming a cleric) they would fit perfectly into this type of person that would work as part of the people guarding and defending the church, but never to become clerics.

Also if your adventurer or mercenaries, were unarmed.. well they wouldn't last long against a dark elf raiding party prone to exterminate every living being seen in and near the temple of az'atta.

Just my two cents there.

I think (and Ed can correct me) that what's being missed here is that the "adventurer or mercenary stock" might likely be redeemed and converted to Az'atta.  Not all mercenaries are necessarily cut-throats or swords for hire. Your assumption seems to be that they became mercenaries and adventurers after finding Az'atta, where I say it could just as well be the other way around. They might be more "active" in their pursuits, but there are ways of serving Az'atta without just waking around with flowers in your hand and doves on your shoulders...which I think is also an unfortunately narrow and cartoon-like interpretation of Az'atta.

[Nehetsrev]

Playing "Ed's Advocate" here just for the fun of it!
 
 I can think of at least one fictional but famous adventurer/mercenary from television who was against violence and especially guns.  Angus MacGuyver!  In the first season ol' Mac does freelance 'propblem solving' and espionage type missions for the U.S. government, it's not untill later as the series evolves that he begins working for the Phoenix Foundation.
 
 Oh wait!  There's another fictional hero who's been around even longer (though admittedly not a mercenary, he is an adventurer for sure)!  Get out your jelly-babies and sonic screw-drivers folks!  It's The Doctor from Doctor Who!
 
 Heh... I'm in a mood.. must be from lack of sleep.

[Pseudonym]

Also, Jeff Speakman in Perfect Weapon.

Don't blame me, Nehetsrev started it.

[Hellblazer]

which I think is also an unfortunately narrow and cartoon-like interpretation of Az'atta.

well yes it was intended to be viewed that way .

[SteveMaurer]

You understand that there's a difference between being trained to defend, which is a non-aggressive art, and being trained in more martial combat, right?  The key factor in this is not the mechanics of what it takes to defend oneself or others but the intent. A true Az'attan would rather not harm and especially would prefer not to kill, but will only if that is the last resort available.  A true Az'attan would not run up to hostile creatures, dance around to get their attention then beat the life out of them in "self-defense".

Well, Dorg,  I'm trying to get Ed to clarify his thoughts so that I fully understand them, so responding to you here is much like (as my daughter might say) "talking to both mom and dad at the same time".   Still, I must point out that if your interpretation of Ed's meaning is correct, then there is a much simpler description you could use that would remove all doubt as to what he wants.  It's this:

"Az'attan Clerics may know combat skills from their lives prior to their redemption, but they are not adventurers and will never voluntarily enter any situation in which violence might be reasonably anticipated, even to save someone else's life.  This even includes going with adventuring parties merely as a healer.    As such, they cannot act like "normal" PC, must decline any standard game quest that involves killing something, and are not allowed on any GM quest in which violence might be reasonably expected to occur.

While they can act in self-defense, at least in theory, even when subject to attack by surprise, an Az'attan Cleric's first instinct is not to fight, but rather, to run away.

Therefore, we advise you not to play an Az'attan Cleric, unless you are an exceedingly dedicated roleplayer who likes playing permanently low level healers in entirely non-combat situations.

Az'attan faithful who are not Clerics have a little more leeway to be adventurers, but should still be roleplayed as people who never act violently unless they think it absolutely necessary to help save others from violence."

 

There's one thing that you should keep in mind in your consideration of this topic, and that is what is posted for all the deities are excerpts from a much larger write-up.

My assumption at the moment is that the excerpts are reasonably representative of the entire text.

Isn't this more or less "finding a loophole" by your logic?

No.  A finding (and using) a loophole is taking advantage of an aspect of a set of rules which allow for unreasonable exploitation.   What I am doing here is pointing out that the rules, as written, are not self consistent, and requesting clarification one way or the other.  What bothers me most is that there is currently no reason given for why Az'attans do not use armor.   Use of armor harms no one.

 

I'd say you really don't quite understand the mindset of the Az'attan faithful.  Just roaming the world, and Az'attans tend to be migratory, going where they're needed, they would most likely travel unarmored, counting on faith and general good sense to keep themselves away from situations where they might be harmed or have to harm another.

However, if there was such a situation, for example, if someone sought them out seeking redemption and escape from Evil Organization A, but that someone was pursued by agents of Evill Organization A to prevent this someone from "getting out", then yes, they quite possibly may arm and armor themselves.

I don't understand what the mindset of the Az'attan faithful are supposed to be.  As a world builder myself, what has been described doesn't seem to add up, so clearly I'm missing something.

Let me first start out with an organizational maxim:[LIST=1]

• Unthreatened
• Unrecognizable
• Unreachable
• Defended
• Armed
• Alive

Pick up to  five.   You can't have all six.   If someone wants to kill you, you'd better be either hard to see, hard to get to, hard to kill, or be capable of enough violence that you make people scared to attack you.   If you can't manage one of those, you're dead.

Az'attans don't merely have Baeron Ca'Duz cultists out to get them, they have Corathites as well.  They wear their Az'attan cloaks like great big targets on their back, wander in places where they're easy to ambush, seemingly have no effective defenders, and go unarmed (and maybe unarmored).   This all is done in an exceedingly violent world, not a corner of which seems safe.

 A modern day equivalent would be a group of Israeli doctors who decided to go waltzing around Iraq trying to heal the sick and feed the homeless with large Stars of David sewn to their backs.   Even if everyone agreed they were doing good deeds, nobody would be exactly shocked when the inevitable occurred.

But in the game world, they're alive.   So I'm missing something.   Tell me what.

[Eorendil]

Quai Chang Caine

Playing "Ed's Advocate" here just for the fun of it!
 
 I can think of at least one fictional but famous adventurer/mercenary from television who was against violence and especially guns.  Angus MacGuyver!  In the first season ol' Mac does freelance 'propblem solving' and espionage type missions for the U.S. government, it's not untill later as the series evolves that he begins working for the Phoenix Foundation.
 
 Oh wait!  There's another fictional hero who's been around even longer (though admittedly not a mercenary, he is an adventurer for sure)!  Get out your jelly-babies and sonic screw-drivers folks!  It's The Doctor from Doctor Who!
 
 Heh... I'm in a mood.. must be from lack of sleep.

[Dorganath]

Well, Dorg,  I'm trying to get Ed to clarify his thoughts so that I fully understand them, so responding to you here is much like (as my daughter might say) "talking to both mom and dad at the same time".

I suddenly wonder which of us you think of as "mom". O.o

What bothers me most is that there is currently no reason given for why Az'attans do not use armor.   Use of armor harms no one.

Because Az'atta says so, perhaps?



 

I don't understand what the mindset of the Az'attan faithful are supposed to be.  As a world builder myself, what has been described doesn't seem to add up, so clearly I'm missing something.

Let me first start out with an organizational maxim:[LIST=1]

• Unthreatened
• Unrecognizable
• Unreachable
• Defended
• Armed
• Alive

Pick up to  five.   You can't have all six.   If someone wants to kill you, you'd better be either hard to see, hard to get to, hard to kill, or be capable of enough violence that you make people scared to attack you.   If you can't manage one of those, you're dead.

That's not inconsistent with Az'attans.   They simply shy away from #5 whenever they can, but if #1 is no longer true, then #5 becomes an option.  They're not unable to learn the ways of combat or self-defense. It's more a matter of seeking other options.

 A modern day equivalent would be a group of Israeli doctors who decided to go waltzing around Iraq trying to heal the sick and feed the homeless with large Stars of David sewn to their backs.   Even if everyone agreed they were doing good deeds, nobody would be exactly shocked when the inevitable occurred.

Not really.  It would be more true in the Deep or on Firesteep than in the world at large. Corathites are a secretive and cloaked group, seeing as how Corath worship is illegal in some places and there's a ton of cleansing-happy Toranites out to smite their special brand of evil.  Ca'Duz and Vierdri'ira worshipers are even rarer on the surface of the world among PCs and NPCs alike.

That's not to say that Az'attans would not go into such places dominated by Az'atta's enemies, but give them some credit as well.  Were they to go into truly enemy territory, they wouldn't go in advertising themselves that overtly.

[Pseudonym]

I suddenly wonder which of us you think of as "mom". O.o

Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies.

[EdTheKet]

I`d say you really don`t quite understand the mindset of the Az`attan faithful. Just roaming the world, and Az`attans tend to be migratory, going where they`re needed, they would most likely travel unarmored, counting on faith and general good sense to keep themselves away from situations where they might be harmed or have to harm another. However, if there was such a situation, for example, if someone sought them out seeking redemption and escape from Evil Organization A, but that someone was pursued by agents of Evill Organization A to prevent this someone from "getting out", then yes, they quite possibly may arm and armor themselves.

Absolutely right. They wouldn`t walk into Arnax and knock on the door of the temple of Corath and say they`re there to redeem them. They may be pacifists but they`re not stupid.
Also, on that note of them (and Az`atta) not being stupid, that`s why they are trained to defend themselves. They walk around clearly marking themselves as Az`attans, but that doesn`t mean they`ll just let themselves be killed or that Az`atta would just let her followers be killed. Her church would only have been short lived if that had been the case.
Consider their unarmed combat training to be a form of aikido, let me quote its founder: To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace.
This was already accurately pointed out by miltonyorkcastle here http://forums.layonara.com/1322292-post13.html by the way
In the view of Az`atta, violence is a last resort means, and only to prevent harm to come to yourself and/or others. There is a school of thought that only those capable of doing violence and choosing not to can be called pacifists. Keep that in the back of your mind with all things Az`attan. Sure, you can argue against this definition of pacifism, but won`t get you anywhere 

Again, a rescue mission seems to be a perfect scenario for "preventing harm from coming to others", which is what the statement seems to imply, and why I was asking for the clarification. Also, I`m having a hard time resolving the "no violent tendencies" directive you just gave here from the description that Az`atta`s Sight works with a team derived from "mercenary and adventurer stock". Unhesitating willingness to use violence (when necessary) is a hallmark of adventurers. Violence for money is the job description of mercenaries.

An Az`attan faithful would not purposefully put himself in a situation, no matter what you call it, whereby he would stand a chance of bringing harm to someone else. A "rescue mission", in the typical sense, is at its core a rather aggressive effort. Even if one tries to avoid violence, if the mission was detected and it came to fighting their way out, it`s likely an Az`attan would surrender, rather than harm people who may just be "doing their jobs" (i.e. guards).

An Az`attan "rescue mission" might be more in line with months (or more) of infiltration and seeking a way "in" so to speak, or perhaps talks and negotiation rather than a covert and aggressive effort under the cover of darkness one night.

I again agree with Dorganath. They wouldn`t intentionally bring about a situation where harm could come to others.
The words chosen "rescue mission" indeed imply a sense of violence, but storming into a stronghold to forcefully free somebody, or sneaking into the same stronghold to secretly free somebody is not something they would do. They wouldn`t do the storming one because of the harming of others (guards, servants, etc.) by them directly, and the sneaky one could lead to repercussions of the bad guy in charge of the stronghold against innocents.

Az`atta`s Sight is a guardian of sorts who works with a volunteer group of devout Az`zattans, typically of adventurer or mercenary stock.

Ed, not to be the nit pickle picker here, but you don`t become an adventurer or a mercenary if you haven`t trained and seen your fair share of battles. I really don`t see how a flower weilding pro peace man would have become a mercenary in the first place or afterwards.

IF one is not aspiring to become part of the clergy (ie becoming a cleric) they would fit perfectly into this type of person that would work as part of the people guarding and defending the church, but never to become clerics.

Also if your adventurer or mercenaries, were unarmed.. well they wouldn`t last long against a dark elf raiding party prone to exterminate every living being seen in and near the temple of az`atta.

Just my two cents there.

think (and Ed can correct me) that what`s being missed here is that the "adventurer or mercenary stock" might likely be redeemed and converted to Az`atta. Not all mercenaries are necessarily cut-throats or swords for hire. Your assumption seems to be that they became mercenaries and adventurers after finding Az`atta, where I say it could just as well be the other way around. They might be more "active" in their pursuits, but there are ways of serving Az`atta without just waking around with flowers in your hand and doves on your shoulders...which I think is also an unfortunately narrow and cartoon-like interpretation of Az`atta.

It would indeed be that they were adventurers/mercenaries before coming to Az`atta. I`m not saying it would be a large group, but those that have been redeemed and not aspiring to join the clergy could definitely find themselves in this group.

You understand that there`s a difference between being trained to defend, which is a non-aggressive art, and being trained in more martial combat, right? The key factor in this is not the mechanics of what it takes to defend oneself or others but the intent. A true Az`attan would rather not harm and especially would prefer not to kill, but will only if that is the last resort available. A true Az`attan would not run up to hostile creatures, dance around to get their attention then beat the life out of them in "self-defense".

Well, Dorg, I`m trying to get Ed to clarify his thoughts so that I fully understand them, so responding to you here is much like (as my daughter might say) "talking to both mom and dad at the same time". Still, I must point out that if your interpretation of Ed`s meaning is correct, then there is a much simpler description you could use that would remove all doubt as to what he wants. It`s this:

"Az`attan Clerics may know combat skills from their lives prior to their redemption, but they are not adventurers and will never voluntarily enter any situation in which violence might be reasonably anticipated, even to save someone else`s life. This even includes going with adventuring parties merely as a healer. As such, they cannot act like "normal" PC, must decline any standard game quest that involves killing something, and are not allowed on any GM quest in which violence might be reasonably expected to occur.

While they can act in self-defense, at least in theory, even when subject to attack by surprise, an Az`attan Cleric`s first instinct is not to fight, but rather, to run away.

Therefore, we advise you not to play an Az`attan Cleric, unless you are an exceedingly dedicated roleplayer who likes playing permanently low level healers in entirely non-combat situations.

Az`attan faithful who are not Clerics have a little more leeway to be adventurers, but should still be roleplayed as people who never act violently unless they think it absolutely necessary to help save others from violence."

Dorg`s interpretation is correct there, please also refer to my aikido comment above. I don`t entirely agree with your "much simpler description" as its tone seems to be derogatory.

Isn`t this more or less "finding a loophole" by your logic?
 

No. A finding (and using) a loophole is taking advantage of an aspect of a set of rules which allow for unreasonable exploitation. What I am doing here is pointing out that the rules, as written, are not self consistent, and requesting clarification one way or the other. What bothers me most is that there is currently no reason given for why Az`attans do not use armor. Use of armor harms no one.

It still looks like to many readers as:

find ways, loopholes or going through every written word with a fine comb

Consider everything you have read about Az`atta and the image she wants her clergy to have. It`s an image of openness, honesty, peace, non-violence and redemption for all. Wearing armor for all to see makes you look like you are willing to do violence, accept violence or come across as aggressive. This would not fit in the image that Az`atta want to spread so therefore she has mandated that they shouldn`t be wearing armor unless needed to prevent harm to come to themselves or others.

If someone wants to kill you, you`d better be either hard to see, hard to get to, hard to kill, or be capable of enough violence that you make people scared to attack you. If you can`t manage one of those, you`re dead.

They are capable of defending themselves, they`re also capable of running if that`s needed. Pacifist =/= passive after all.

Az`attans don`t merely have Baeron Ca`Duz cultists out to get them, they have Corathites as well. They wear their Az`attan cloaks like great big targets on their back, wander in places where they`re easy to ambush, seemingly have no effective defenders, and go unarmed (and maybe unarmored). This all is done in an exceedingly violent world, not a corner of which seems safe.

As I mentioned, they aren`t stupid either, so they wouldn`t walk up to the temple of Corath in Arnax and knock on its door or put themselves in other circumstances that will ensure certain death. So your real life example isn`t really a good one in this case.
The only near-certain death situation I can see them put themselves in is when it might actually redeem somebody. They know ambushing a random Coratithe and shouting "I come to bring redemption" isn`t going to work by the way

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

[Hellblazer]

That makes me think more and more of the blue helmet of the U.N. Although for them, when they go in a country they go fully armed and armored, but they will not shoot first.

[lonnarin]

I suddenly wonder which of us you think of as "mom". O.o

Definitely you Dorg.  You fixed our gobbos when we were sick with the reflective skin bug, kissing our warty booboos green and making them feel better.  

[SteveMaurer]

Absolutely right. They wouldn`t walk into Arnax and knock on the door of the temple of Corath and say they`re there to redeem them. They may be pacifists but they`re not stupid.
Also, on that note of them (and Az`atta) not being stupid, that`s why they are trained to defend themselves. They walk around clearly marking themselves as Az`attans, but that doesn`t mean they`ll just let themselves be killed or that Az`atta would just let her followers be killed. Her church would only have been short lived if that had been the case.
Consider their unarmed combat training to be a form of aikido, let me quote its founder: To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace.

I kind of thought you were hinting at an Aikido equivalent.   But D&D does not (unlike more modern game systems), allow someone to specialize in defense only.   About the only way to model this (and compensate for the restrictions you put on them), is to give Clerics of Az'atta the "Monk AC Bonus" (Wisdom modifer to DC so long as you are unarmored).

Dorg`s interpretation is correct there, please also refer to my aikido comment above. I don`t entirely agree with your "much simpler description" as its tone seems to be derogatory.

I fail to see where the description that I wrote is derogatory.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an NPC-only, or near NPC-only, class or religion.  A "save the healer" quest always makes a good MacGuffin.

It merely is explicit about what your expectations are.  And it is important to be explicit in this case - because it is so different from the expectations of nearly every other class in the world.

Consider everything you have read about Az`atta and the image she wants her clergy to have. It`s an image of openness, honesty, peace, non-violence and redemption for all. Wearing armor for all to see makes you look like you are willing to do violence, accept violence or come across as aggressive. This would not fit in the image that Az`atta want to spread so therefore she has mandated that they shouldn`t be wearing armor unless needed to prevent harm to come to themselves or others.

OK, to get your attention, now I will be a little pointed in my critique.

You've written them up as flower children - who are being stalked by the Mafia (Corathites), and Al Qaeda (Ca'Duzites), in a world that has little or no law to it.    And while you keep saying they're not stupid, you have explicitly forbidden them from doing things that are remotely smart.

 The only thing you've come up with to allow them to still be alive is anticipation and avoidance: they don't go knocking on the Corath temple door in Arnax.   But Corathites are hard to anticipate, because they don't wave a skull and crossbones from a mile away.  Instead, members of Cortath's church are all disguised.   They'll fake an injury and then plant the poison dagger in the Cleric who tries to heal them (or use any one of hundreds of other methods of killing the undefended Az'attan).

Medicines sans Fronteers does a lot of the same work that you say Az'attans do, but they're not so stupid as to go traipsing around a war zone without a whole bunch of local armed bodyguards and flak jackets.   And the people they help get it, but only after they leave their guns at the door.

Now there is one other possibility, which is pure GM fiat.  Az'attans are not killed - because, well, you say so.   That's OK too, even though it makes them a little more cartoony.    And most will accept that because cartoons are fun.  ( Don't mind me.   I'm the guy asking how the cartoon villain built his secret organization when he keeps killing off his own lieutenants - not exactly the best recruitment tool. )

By the way, given the strict rules she has, and the emphasis on "openness" "honesty", and an expressed unwillingness to rescue people even through sneakiness,  it seems like she really should be "Lawful" (or perhaps "Neutral").

[lonnarin]

Corathites are less like the Mafia and more like the Son of Sam, John Wayne Gacey, the Manson Family and Richard Ramirez all acting independently of one another.  Mafias typically have rigid structure, loyalty, code of conduct, and logical goals in their pursuit of wealth.  Corathites just... kill, murder, maim, lie, butcher, sacrifice because the voices in their head won't stop screaming.  Caduzites are less like a terrorist organization and more like, hmmm... the Thugees from Temple of Doom.  Terrorist organizations have political motives, while Caduzites are more of the vengeance for its own sake and eat Indiana Jone's heart while dropping him into a lava pit, secret hidden cult eating monkey brains and eyeball soup kind of evil, mixed with League of Shadows ninja training.

Azatta's alternative methods seem rather Gandhi/Martin Luther King like.  Stage sit-ins, protest, preach tolerance, love thy neighbor, boycott nefarious companies, don't take up arms, become a martyr kind of "fighting".  I think they should not only be focused with redemption and goodness, but also civil rights and interspecies diplomacy.  I really wish more of them spoke up about the current racial laws in Hempstead for instance, or did diplomatic quests to bring peace between warring factions.  I have no doubt that they get killed often, but they probably forgive the person who did it as they're doing it.  The path of the Martyr might not get you much combat xp, but it's sure inspirational in the long run.

On that note, I'd still like to see them neutral or friendly to people of all faiths, despite what She the Goddess feels about other people's Gods or Goddesses.  Somebody who once followed Caduz and now forgives anyone of any crime is not going to stop showing kindness to other Caduz followers; her very doctrine is that showing kindness and forgiveness to ALL is a must.  Especially ones enemies.  if anything, they should GAIN xp for raising followers of evil religions and showing them kindness when most other faiths would not.

[EdTheKet]

I kind of thought you were hinting at an Aikido equivalent. But D&D does not (unlike more modern game systems), allow someone to specialize in defense only. About the only way to model this (and compensate for the restrictions you put on them), is to give Clerics of Az'atta the "Monk AC Bonus" (Wisdom modifer to DC so long as you are unarmored).

I am not concerned with D&D at all. The handbook is written with the new MMO in mind, not with compatibility with D&D.
If that limits the playability of Az'attan clerics in NWN, so be it. And as a side note, it didn't change much from what it was like for the past 5 years.

You've written them up as flower children - who are being stalked by the Mafia (Corathites), and Al Qaeda (Ca'Duzites), in a world that has little or no law to it.

If you compare Corath and Baraeon Ca'duz to those two real life examples, then your understanding of both these deities is incorrect.
The Corathites are far more concerned with molding the world to their desired shapes than seeking out every Az'attan and killing them.
As for the Ca'Duzites, they're occupied far more with their power plays in The Deep than with chasing Az'attans on the surface (although that is considered a sport amongst them).
Their time of hunting Az'attans will come as soon as the subjugation of the surface will begin.
Also, the world has plenty of law, the more lawless places are Belinara, the Dragon/Serpent Isles, the Northern Isles. Mistone, Dregar, Alindor, Voltrex, Tilmar, Corsain, Vanavar are all pretty civilized and have judicial systems.

 

And while you keep saying they're not stupid, you have explicitly forbidden them from doing things that are remotely smart.

I disagree.
- They know how to defend themselves.
- They don't go into situations they can't handle if they can avoid it
- The clergy can be accompanied by protectors from Az'atta's Sight.
-

The only thing you've come up with to allow them to still be alive is anticipation and avoidance: they don't go knocking on the Corath temple door in Arnax. But Corathites are hard to anticipate, because they don't wave a skull and crossbones from a mile away. Instead, members of Cortath's church are all disguised. They'll fake an injury and then plant the poison dagger in the Cleric who tries to heal them (or use any one of hundreds of other methods of killing the undefended Az'attan).

Sure, they are hard to anticipate, but an Az'attan wouldn't be as naive to just heal anyone without attempting to check the divine relation.

Medicines sans Fronteers does a lot of the same work that you say Az'attans do, but they're not so stupid as to go traipsing around a war zone without a whole bunch of local armed bodyguards and flak jackets. And the people they help get it, but only after they leave their guns at the door.

Medecins sans Frontieres would be more like Aeridinites, MSF doesn't go and try to convince despots or warlords to repent and see the errors of their ways.

Now there is one other possibility, which is pure GM fiat. Az'attans are not killed - because, well, you say so.

I like everything to make sense, people may not agree with how things fit together, but still they fit together.

By the way, given the strict rules she has, and the emphasis on "openness" "honesty", and an expressed unwillingness to rescue people even through sneakiness, it seems like she really should be "Lawful" (or perhaps "Neutral").

As mentioned, it's written with the new MMO in mind, we will not have a restricting alignment system but go by the mantras that have been added to each deity. For Az'atta these are Forgiving, Idealistic, Peaceful and Selfless. You will see that everything I have said so far is in line with these mantras.

[Hellblazer]

- The clergy can be accompanied by protectors from Az'atta's Sight.

Okay i just want a bit of precision here because all I see is talks about clerics, while there is only one cleric in game, so lets talk of none cleric that have no desires to become one.

by that statement, any non cleric chars that has no desire to become a cleric may be able to accompany one if they were part of the az'atta's sight?

Does this mean that a char that has no desire to be a cleric can become part of the az'atta's sights* group in game through cdq and whatnot?

* I think they need a name cause it's a bit confusing with dealing with the actual az'atta's sights, that is the person (cleric) that heads the group, and the workers of that group it self, but that might just be me.

[SteveMaurer]

I am not concerned with D&D at all. The handbook is written with the new MMO in mind, not with compatibility with D&D.

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.

If that limits the playability of Az'attan clerics in NWN, so be it. And as a side note, it didn't change much from what it was like for the past 5 years.

Most of the limits on playing Az'attan clerics are not mechanical, but rather plot centric. Even as a GM, it's difficult to get them involved.   Pacifists just aren't adventurers, and most of the typical sorts of motivations a GM uses as plot hooks just don't work for them.  (This is why I always found Chalana Arroy cultists hard to work with in my old Runequest campaign - there just aren't that many morally unambiguous situations.   It's also why they generally work best as NPCs.)

Insofar as your side note is concerned, it maybe your vision of them has not really changed much.   But the general understanding of what Az'attan clerics  can and cannot be and do has achieved a whole lot of clarity from this discussion.   Entire professions have been blocked off from consideration, including ones that surprised me.   So this has been very useful, I think.

If you compare Corath and Baraeon Ca'duz to those two real life examples, then your understanding of both these deities is incorrect.  The Corathites are far more concerned with molding the world to their desired shapes than seeking out every Az'attan and killing them.  As for the Ca'Duzites, they're occupied far more with their power plays in The Deep

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".

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.

Also, the world has plenty of law, the more lawless places are Belinara, the Dragon/Serpent Isles, the Northern Isles. Mistone, Dregar, Alindor, Voltrex, Tilmar, Corsain, Vanavar are all pretty civilized and have judicial systems.

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.

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.

An Az'attan wouldn't be as naive to just heal anyone without attempting to check the divine relation.

If they're healers, they have a lot more healing spells than Divine Relation cantrips, and likely would end up having to use them.

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.


 

Medecins sans Frontieres would be more like Aeridinites, MSF doesn't go and try to convince despots or warlords to repent and see the errors of their ways.

And Az'attans do?   I thought it was more like they waited for people to have a crisis of faith on their own, and then took them in with the church.  (p.s. thanks for improving my spelling - my spell checker seems to have gone a bit bonkers over it.)

As mentioned, it's written with the new MMO in mind, we will not have a restricting alignment system but go by the mantras that have been added to each deity. For Az'atta these are Forgiving, Idealistic, Peaceful and Selfless. You will see that everything I have said so far is in line with these mantras.

I agree.  And I support you in getting away from D&Disms.    The precise rules you spelled out in these posts aren't the only interpretation of these mantras, but they are at least one.   Just don't think that putting out four mantras is the equivalent to answering the question "Can an Az'attan Cleric be a Sacred Fist who doesn't attack anybody"?  The answer could have legitimately gone either way.