The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Ask A Gamemaster => Topic started by: Hellblazer on August 04, 2009, 10:30:29 PM
-
LORE: Az'atta (http://lore.layonara.com/Az%27atta)
According to the az'atta page, all races can follow her as long as they are good aligned
Worshipers: Any race as long they are good aligned.
But when you start a DE that is not a cleric, then you have to either start it as TN, CN, NE, CE (well if you are masochist enough to have it approved to be automatically given to the gms :p )
if we take a look at that, any DE that is not a cleric has to be one of the racial alignment, but then would not fall into the worshipers status that is written on Az'atta's page.
I'd like to know more about this one as it is puzzling me.
-
From [lore]Dark Elf[/lore]:
All PC Dark Elves must be submitted as one of the following alignments: True Neutral (http://lore.layonara.com/True%20Neutral), Chaotic Neutral (http://lore.layonara.com/Chaotic%20Neutral), Lawful Evil (http://lore.layonara.com/Lawful%20Evil), Neutral Evil (http://lore.layonara.com/Neutral%20Evil). The lone exception to this rule is if a Dark Elf is submitted as a cleric of Az'atta (http://lore.layonara.com/Az%27atta), in which case they may submit with a Good alignment.
Emphasis mine.
-
yes that I knew, but in their natural state. DE are not a good aligned race no? as DE az'attan clerics being the lone exception.
-
I think the intent should be clear from context, but it could be phrased better... I think it should read something like "Any race, so long as the worshipper is good aligned" (which I think is HB's objection)
Which of course raises the question, should CN clerics of Az'atta be allowed?
-
yes that is what I mean. By how it's phrased now, no TN, CN, would be allowed to follow her. So by that no dark elf that is not a cleric would be allowed to follow az'atta.
-
Except for clerics of Az'atta, dark elves can no longer be submitted in any but TN, CN, LE and NE.
That's not to say they can't progress that way (i.e. from CN to CG), but they can't start out that way.
As for the apparent contradiction between "any Good" and the "one step rule" also shown on the Az'atta page, that's unfortunately something that Ed will have to clarify, and he's on vacation.
As things stand now, new Dark Elf must be submitted in one of the four alignments given, and if you want to add Az'atta worship on top of that, then the only path for new characters is as a member of the clergy. These are the guidelines, and that's what sets the limits. Any variance will have to come from Ed directly.
-
well not for me got my de approved as tn but i was scratching my head when it was pointed out to me tonight.
-
I think Hellblazers issue is not with the 4 alignments that the darkelves are allowed (with clerics being allowed to be submited as good) it's with the "worshipers of Az'atta are only allowed to be submitted as good", which means that the only DE's that can be submitted as followers of Az'atta must be clerics, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest
-
Bingo! My suggestion to this would be to expand the worshipers alignment to TN and CN but keep the restriction of the clerics to the existing alignment.
-
Personally, I think it ought to be left as it is. Az'atta is a Good goddess, and beyond just that, she a goddess of Redemption. Anyone who really follows her closely enough to fill their diety field with her name ought to have undergone a redemptive, total change of the heart toward good involving sincere repentance, otherwise they fall into the 'just paying lip-service and going through the motions' category in my own opinion.
-
@Nehetsrev - Not sure if I agree. I would think, as the Goddess of Redemption, she would love her name to fill the deity field as soon as the Dark Elf took the first and tiniest little step towards 'good', not just when they arrived at their destination (both spiritually and mechanically speaking).
-
Perhaps then it's more the 'one step at a time rule' I have more issues with in regards to alignment changes. As I see it, it's entirely possible for a person to have a complete turn around in their theological beliefs and personal nature if they've experienced a sincere and true repentance. Scrooge the miser comes to mind from A Christmas Carol, as does the redemptive action of Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples both in fiction and real life of such dramatic redemptive change, as well as the reverse change from good to evil (which is likely far more common). The point being, anyone who's experienced true redemption, with the convictions that come with it, continues a sustained and vigorously pursued effort at remaining so redeemed. The very idea of the evil acts once done routinely at that point become a source of repulsion themselves, aiding the truly repentant in remaining righteous, and spurning them further in some cases to attempt the redemption of those whose lives they touch.
Maybe I'm also dissappointed that there just don't seem to be enough in the way of real zealots in Layonara, but that's a topic for another thread.
-
I think Hellblazers issue is not with the 4 alignments that the darkelves are allowed (with clerics being allowed to be submited as good) it's with the "worshipers of Az'atta are only allowed to be submitted as good", which means that the only DE's that can be submitted as followers of Az'atta must be clerics, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest
Yeah, I understand that, and that's why I said that one apparent contradiction is something that Ed will have to clarify when he returns from vacation, one way or the other. He may just as well say "whoops, CN was a mistake" and further cement the "Only Good" limitation. Or he may change that to "any non-Evil". I honestly don't know, but until he gets back, it's not going anywhere.
My gut suspicion is that it's going to stay as "any Good" and the LORE listing of CN being available to clerics will be dropped as an error.
Bingo! My suggestion to this would be to expand the worshipers alignment to TN and CN but keep the restriction of the clerics to the existing alignment.
*points at Ed*
This is his call solely.
-
My gut suspicion is that it's going to stay as "any Good" and the LORE listing of CN being available to clerics will be dropped as an error.
This is his call solely.
If that happens though, it will definitely put a last nail in the coffin of any none cleric dark elf that would want to follow her, as they would not be of the right alignment to worship her. Which in turns makes no sense as az'atta was a dark elf who turned away from the ways of her people. She would primordially be aimed to redeem her people first. But if TN and CN are not viable alignment to be a worshiper, then it beats the purpose of that deity.
But as you said, waiting for ed to come back.
-
Perhaps then it's ...
... for another thread.
Not want to derail the thread ... I can't say I disagree with you. I have always had issue with the idea of allowable 'gradual' change and disallowed 'revelation' changes of alignment. As you say, another thread and another time.
I have always drawn parallels from Az'atta to author David Gemmell's 'The Source'. A common theme in his books is the evil ne'er-do-well who has a change of heart at some point in the book and performs an act of selfless heroism, then promptly dies ... but only after he questions the novel's more obvious hero if this one deed can erase a lifetime of evil acts. The hero always tells the up-to-the-end villain that he thinks the 'Source' must find it so.
I think we're saying something close to the same thing?
Anyways, I agree with Hellblazer's proposition that Az'attan worshipper's allowed alignments should be broadened.
-
But if TN and CN are not viable alignment to be a worshiper, then it beats the purpose of that deity.
But as you said, waiting for ed to come back.
No, I disagree, especially with the "last nail in the coffin" comment.
While I understand and am not really arguing with your stated point, the deity field is supposed to be there to show a very high level of devotion, not just "Hey, Az'atta sounds pretty nice and I agree with what She stands for. I think I'll pay observance to Her."...in other words, it's not for "casual worship". So it can be argued that given her dogma, those who truly worship her and have taken her dogma into their hearts and have embraced it fully would be of Good alignment.
Check out the definitions for True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. They involve, lying, cheating, taking advantage of people and lots of other unsavory things that really don't mesh well with the concept of redemption.
Sure, Az'atta would see the potential in such individuals and Az'attans would try and bring them into the fold. Does this conflict between alignment and dogma mean that someone of TN or CN alignment cannot begin to see the "light" in Az'atta? Heck no!
I can surely see a TN or CN character being observant of Az'atta, but until such a character's whole mindset changes away from the (arguably) self-serving and/or apathetic and/or and truly embrace her dogma of redemption, then there's no reason why a mechanical benefit of worshiping Az'atta should be bestowed on anyone.
So I can see a very viable character concept being a dark elf of TN or CN alignment, who has left the Deep and who is trying to be better, trying to come to Az'atta fully, but who simply can't quite (yet) break all the old habits of his/her former life even though he/she may very much wish to do so. Along the path of character development, this character could eventually shift to Good (NG or CG) and that would be the last step on the path toward truly embracng Az'atta.
Anyway, that's just another perspective, not the "final word".
Point is that just because it's not permitted to have a dark elf character start with an alignment compatible with Az'atta unless he/she is a cleric does not mean that there's no viable means of having that character believe in Az'atta and eventually become a follower and then a true worshiper, the latter step gaining the mechanical population of the character's deity field.
-
hmm... are you saying that A starting TN DE could eventually become NG? I never thought of that as a possibility with the racial alignment settings.
-
hmm... are you saying that A starting TN DE could eventually become NG? I never thought of that as a possibility with the racial alignment settings.
Again, there is a difference between submission alignment and progression of said alignment. Submissions are restricted, progressions generally not.
-
hmm... are you saying that A starting TN DE could eventually become NG? I never thought of that as a possibility with the racial alignment settings.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying (well among other things). Dark Elves must be submitted as one of those four alignments, but there are no special restrictions on subsequent alignment shifts for dark elf characters. Of course, the character would have to be played as TN, in your example, for a time before the shift would be approved, but that's no different than any other character of any race.
-
V3 was filled with amazing things that helped better the world of Layo in so many ways. One of my personal favorites was restricting the required alignment of starting monstrous races, such as dark elves, to a non good alignment.
Prior to this well thought out decision, the scale of good aligned dark elves and good aligned monstrous races was so skewed that it hurt the world over all IMO. The LORE told tales of how dark and evil these races were, yet everyone (i can say this with the old 5% error curve) in play were of good alignment.
Of course prior to V3 you were not allowed to start a PC at CC with an evil alignment and it had to be earned in game. Either way, I have always loved the new alignment requirements that V3 brought. Back before V3 so many were upset with how everyone treated dark elves with open arms and love. IMO some of underlining causes were that so many were of good alignment. It has taken some time, but you no longer see the open doors and loving hand outs being given to Dark Elf and monstrous races these days. At least not at the broad spectrum as before.
This doesn't mean that I am saying that the Az'atta requirements make perfect sense, but I understand the importance of why those changes came. Sometimes a few irregulars are left in order to make everything else make sense.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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)
-
And say that the worshiper actually worships the deity, but has a twisted perspective of their dogma?
(just curious)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) 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.
-
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. ;)
-
ywah, was just curious. :D thanks!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks I do love the explications you give. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
From [LORE]Az'atta[/LORE]:
Alignment: Chaotic Good (http://lore.layonara.com/Chaotic%20Good)
Worshippers: Any race as long they are good aligned.
Cleric Alignments:
- Neutral Good (http://lore.layonara.com/Neutral%20Good)
- Chaotic Good (http://lore.layonara.com/Chaotic%20Good)
- Chaotic Neutral (http://lore.layonara.com/Chaotic%20Neutral)
[/quote]
So yes, it states that followers are only of Good alignment.
In fact, Azatta having chaotic neutral clerics is explicitly allowed.
And again, above I stated that this is quite possibly an oversight. It's also possibly one of those non-fitting compromises because of the core NWN system we work with. Only Ed can answer this question.
Not ALL chaotic neutral people torture. Not ALL True Neutral people attack unarmed foes. Note the usage of the word "may".
No, of course not. But as a generality of the alignment, such individuals carry the predisposition for such acts, but more generically for acts of cruelty against others. That is fundamentally what's at odd's with Az'atta's dogma, in my opinion.
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.
Ah, but the question is why don't they do these things? Because they claim to be Az'attan or because they just don't because they feel it's wrong and secondarily because it goes against Az'atta. Perhaps a subtle difference but there's where alignment and dogma sort of collide.
-
People could be less than good in other ways that didn't totally spit int he face of her faith. They could be stingy witht heir gold; tell that wino beggar to go get a job to pay for his habit rather than buy his bottle for him. They could be pacifists that oppose even just and righteous wars that help the weak and prevent suffering. Take for example Rael's Lordship, they could be against an armed uprising of CG and NG rebels and prefer the "peace and order" of his tyrannical rule. (ala: Jennera Creekskipper's arguments to Farros) It doesn't make them evil to have such an idealistic position, but it doesn't make them all that good either to play devil's advocate for such a wicked devil. Perhaps their pacifism could stem from some logical conclusion of violence's absurdity; Vulcans are pacifist vegetarians, but they are hardly "good" aligned, mostly LN or TN. They could also be persons who are seriously trying to change themselves but still are given to violent tempers as some people have chemical imbalances which make them that way. Many serial killers or violent offenders are mild mannered to a point, then some trigger event sends them into doing the things that they do. Or they could be aberrational rebels to their own culture, like a daughter of a family of dwarven Voraxians who adopts this contrary philosophy out of rebellion and dates dark elves. You never know. The totality of a character's moral and mental make-up is not cookie-cutter specific to the examples listed in the alignment guidelines.
Anyhow, if there is a creed and philosophy or redemption, omitting the steps towards it seems a fallacy. Conversion just doesn't happen overnight like Darth Vader, it's more like Wolverine, a constant struggle against ones past and slowly nurturing the goodness within in order to become a better person. If she wants to show these people that she loves and forgives them, then why wouldn't she SHOW them that love through prayer?
-
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. ;)
I don't know if it would or not, but I think one of the reasons why there are less players playing a cleric of certain faith is probably due to the very nature of the game. There is a few deities that shuns violence all together (unless of a last resort) others that are far less if not prone violence. Go and rout out evil and right the injustices, comes to mind. Almost a green card to go and point evil.. kill kill kill ;)
like a daughter of a family of dwarven Voraxians who adopts this contrary philosophy out of rebellion and dates dark elves. You never know.
*dies of laughing*
-
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.
I'm sorry...how does one of our twenty-eight deities having an alignment restriction throw the entire deity-based spell effect system into disarray? You're taking this to an extreme that is really quite a stretch, per your admission. How does it take the "luster" off Az'atta? With 5 allied deities, 9 friendly and 2 neutral...that's 16 out of 28 that can be considered to benefit from spells from an Az'attan, not to mention all the non-devout characters.
And on limiting options...how? Why can't a TN or CN Dark Elf character be submitted with no deity, struggle with its dark past (as given by a non-good alignment) and grow toward a Good alignment and embrace Az'atta? And why would a Dark Elf need to limit himself/herself to only one of the three Dark Elf deities?
Really, I understand the confusion, and I even understand the logic behind the original intent of this thread, but we're just beating a dead horse until Ed gets back. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, and even if you did, I can't change it.
-
Maybe if she was Neutral Good. Then ALL good people could follow her. Poor clerics, they pay their taxes on time, obey the law, yield the right of way of their oxen to pedestrians, attend the home owner's association meetings, respect law enforcement, try to change the unjust laws by the legal means available, go to church on Azatta-days, never lie, cheat or steal, and Azatta shuns them. What did Hank Hill ever do to deserve such treatment? Does she tell such people that they are fuddy duddies and tell them to get drunk and rowdy once in awhile?
On a serious note though, why are Azatta and Aeridin only friendly and not perfect allies? They're the two gods that respect life beyond race, offer redemption and disallow weapons other than the bare hands or quarterstaff and dissuade their followers from striking first or even entering combat at all. Sounds like they'd be very close allies.
-
At this point, it just seems to me that someone wants to have their cake and pie too.
It's been stated repeatedly that though Dark Elf characters who are not clerics of Az'atta may still be submitted as True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil they may still progress toward good through Role-play and character growth over time, thus at some point eventually earning the right/ability to populate their diety field and step into receiving Az'atta's blessings.
But I have to agree that Dorganath in my opinion has the right of it. The diety is not going to go out of the way to show her sustained blessings on someone who hasn't shown themselves to be reformed and ready to receive those blessings with wisdom. In special (DM supervised) instances, such as a CDQ, it may happen that Az'atta may show her blessing on someone that under normal game mechanics wouldn't be able to receive such a miracle, but the circumstances would have to be pretty special, I'd think, and the character in question would have had to have made a conscious decision to call directly upon Az'atta for that help. A vessel has to be open, and ready to receive, before a blessing can be poured into it. If you think of your character as a cup, and evil as mud in the cup, that cup's going to have to be cleaned out and the evil mud removed before anyone's going to want to pour their very expensive wine into it for serving.
Put another way, if a gambler loses at the casinos, and someone gives that gambler money, a gambler who's learned their lesson and become reformed, repentant, and redeemed will have learned the wisdom to find a more worthwhile use for the money they are given, while the un-reformed, un-repentant, and un-redeemed gambler will just take the money and gamble it away almost as soon as it's in their possession.
-
Not trying to convince you Dorg, just exploring the different aspects.
To answer your question. Basically because of the recent changes to the dogma, where you have a deity that now shuns any weapons of their clerics (and obviously their followers, unless to defend themselves or others, without of course running toward trouble and then state oh it was to defend them), now there is the sight of seeing even more restrictions coming along. At one point there can be so much taken out that the people looks at the deity pages and just decides to look elsewhere, and what you have spent a lot of time creating you see hardly used to almost not used at all. Beside Marcus who still plays regularly, I don't see many more active character that follows Az'atta beside the one I created recently.
You were wondering if taking out the death penalty of raising a dead char for the cleric of az'attan would have more people playing them. But at the same time if you put even more restriction on the other side, then it doesn't balance it out. I understand that to have a diversity in the deities, you need to put some restriction on certain aspect of Role playing to a deity and not to an other. But putting too much can also just right away kill of the use of that deity.
While yes they are a lot of friendlies and allies that can be helped with the system, it comes back down to, would a cleric of Az'atta willingly go with people who are about to kill hundreds of trolls to get to the sapphire, or would they even go on a call where she/he thinks that there could be possible violence?
Now that I know that even a race that has a restriction on alignment can go and change their alignment with game play and cdq and the whole lot of things that are available to attain that, that does actually put a lot possibilities. Well to be more specific, going upward toward good instead of the possible down in the alignment diagram. It gives a lot more flexibility in my mind, which is undoubtedly good. But it just seems that at the present, there has been a lot of work for this deity (and probably not the only one) that doesn't see the full usage* that it could offer, Rp and otherwise, because of the recent changes, and the possible future one.
*(Within the present stage of the game, as we know there will be sometime before we see the mmo up and running.)
-
I think being able to raise anyone regardless of deity would be a small boon compared to running around naked and weaponless in a game which largely rewards killing killing killing. If that means there would be a lot more Azattan clerics, that's great. Haven't met one yet. :P
Edit: OH WAIT! ROTTIE! Yeah, we have one. Haven't grouped with him yet, he had an interesting bio.
-
Right so that's three :P
-
Not trying to convince you Dorg, just exploring the different aspects.
To answer your question. Basically because of the recent changes to the dogma, where you have a deity that now shuns any weapons of their clerics (and obviously their followers, unless to defend themselves or others, without of course running toward trouble and then state oh it was to defend them), now there is the sight of seeing even more restrictions coming along. At one point there can be so much taken out that the people looks at the deity pages and just decides to look elsewhere, and what you have spent a lot of time creating you see hardly used to almost not used at all. Beside Marcus who still plays regularly, I don't see many more active character that follows Az'atta beside the one I created recently.
And what about Aeridin? They, played correctly, are even more pacifistic than Az'atta.
You were wondering if taking out the death penalty of raising a dead char for the cleric of az'attan would have more people playing them. But at the same time if you put even more restriction on the other side, then it doesn't balance it out. I understand that to have a diversity in the deities, you need to put some restriction on certain aspect of Role playing to a deity and not to an other. But putting too much can also just right away kill of the use of that deity.
This seems to be more of a focus on mechanical benefits and less on the RP behind the choice.
While yes they are a lot of friendlies and allies that can be helped with the system, it comes back down to, would a cleric of Az'atta willingly go with people who are about to kill hundreds of trolls to get to the sapphire?
Why not? Couldn't an Az'attan use primarily protective and healing spells to help keep the others from harm?
-
Why not? Couldn't an Az'attan use primarily protective and healing spells to help keep the others from harm?
Well technically yes, though if they were running around killing things for being "evil", it would be a lot like a militant vegan selling mink coats and burgers.
And on Aeridin being more pacifistic... I don't know. Aeridinites at least get a beating stick or a cudgel. Of course that's supposed to be for the undead and not making death. I wonder if Azatta would have similar exceptions. One really can't "forgive" a zombie or a rampant golem bent on destroying everything in sight. They're totally mindless an amoral. So why pull punches in those cases? (or throw punches, as it were, instead of swinging a weapon)
-
Well technically yes, though if they were running around killing things for being "evil", it would be a lot like a militant vegan selling mink coats and burgers.
Note I didn't mention killing. And while Az'attans avoid killing, they will do so to protect others.
-
And what about Aeridin? They, played correctly, are even more pacifistic than Az'atta.
Well Aeridin has a whole other aspect of going against deaders, that I don't really see in Az'atta's ways at all. I don't know if her redeemness* would even extend to the lich's and vampires and all.
*is that even a word???
This seems to be more of a focus on mechanical benefits and less on the RP behind the choice.
Well in all reality, when someone creates a char, they don't only look at the RP aspect, they also look at the mechanical benefits and all. it goes hand in hand I think.
I personally created Tyillaan because of the possible rp of her racial tendencies vs her dogma (which I have had a good one with Lance Stargazer lately kudos there mate!). But also because it's a deity I had never played and from what I had seen, is rarely played.
Why not? Couldn't an Az'attan use primarily protective and healing spells to help keep the others from harm?
yes but that would also go with the "well she knew that there was going to be mass killing, how did it show Az'atta's willful nature to redeem all, if one of her clerics went on a genocide?" That would go against her peaceful mantra. It's well and all to say, well you go the first time because you don't know, but then you shouldn't go for a second third and forth servings. But in this game setting, that is impossible to do as your char would stagnate, you'd then have the RP which I will admit is a lot of why I play here, but personally I will freely admit it, I'm no Storold. I can't just stand sitting around for 8 hours on the same bench. I need diversity. And I think it's safe to bet that most of the people playing here are the same.
-
I could see a vampire being redeemed. He could run a butcher shop or only feed on cattle. Remember eating rats in Vampire: Bloodlines? And some people might become liches to protect their nation, family or magical knowledge rather than an act of evil. I think I heard that some Lucindite liches exist in the order, it was one of the big reasons Logan couldn't be an Undead Hunter.
Azattans don't HAVE to go around killing sentient beings. They could very well do like Athus and solely kill the undead and go on quests to lecture everybody. ;)
No weapons vs. zombies though... hmmm. "I forgive you brother! I--- AAAUUURRGGGHH!!!" "mmmmm, braaaaaaainsss!" yeah, that wouldn't work too well. May as well be jumping off of cliffs and forgiving gravity.
-
Well in all reality, when someone creates a char, they don't only look at the RP aspect, they also look at the mechanical benefits and all. it goes hand in hand I think.
Some do, some don't. My first character has some rather inconvenient choices I'd undo for mechanical reasons, but he's flawed, so it's all good. My second character was only partially built for mechanics...a front-line melee druid. My third character is a complete RP build in both skill and feat choices.
That's me, but I know there are others like me.
And then there are (no offense milty) characters like Steel who are pretty much (or seem to be) purpose-built from the ground up to fit their conceived mechanical role very well.
So looking at Az'atta from an RP standpoint, I think there's a world of possibilities. From a mechanical standpoint, yes, it's restrictive. But I think that was the point.
yes but that would also go with the "well she knew that there was going to be mass killing, how did it show Az'atta's willful nature to redeem all, if one of her clerics went on a genocide?" That would go against her peaceful mantra. It's well and all to say, well you go the first time because you don't know, but then you shouldn't go for a second third and forth servings.
Again..."what if". Every situation is different and there's ways to go about things. It's situational and particular to the person.
But in this game setting, that is impossible to do as your char would stagnate, you'd then have the RP which I will admit is a lot of why I play here, but personally I will freely admit it, I'm no Storold. I can't just stand sitting around for 8 hours on the same bench. I need diversity. And I think it's safe to bet that most of the people playing here are the same.
It's not impossible and your character does not have to stagnate. It's all a matter of perspective. Somewhere in the last 5 levels gained by my main character (I forget which, but it's in the 25+ range), one of those levels was almost completely RP taps by roving GMs, except for 3 quests and maybe 4,000 XP from gathering-related bashing.
And ouch on the Storold thing. ;) But since you brought him up...we now have 4 characters who are level 40...who by your apparently XP-centric view of stagnation are...well...stagnant. And yet they still play.
-
Yes well I knew storold do go on trips, but I also saw him mainly just sitting at his bench for weeks at a time, about a year ago. :P
I know it's possible but it's all relating on your gaming type. Some will be more suited for it others wont. I, i think..., fall in between. There will be days where I would just sit around and rp, others where I would just bash the engine out. And then there is the "most" days where I would rp while doing something at the same time. For those who find me falling silent on a trip.. well its that bash the engine day like thingy you know? lol.
Although I do wonder, how long did it take for you to level your chars just by the gm taps? also if you were in the 20;th level+ a 5 hour quest is 100000xp;) Hehe. Kidding asside though, I guess it all depends on the personality of the player behind it and his gaming time also.
-
Although I do wonder, how long did it take for you to level your chars just by the gm taps? also if you were in the 20;th level+ a 5 hour quest is 100000xp;) Hehe. Kidding asside though, I guess it all depends on the personality of the player behind it and his gaming time also.
Months! hehe...especially since I might only get online once a week.
-
Speaking for myself, my bard got nearly ten thousand XP over the course of a day from RP taps and one impromptu. (And she's level 7.)
-
Thanks to rowana for pointing out this thread, I had gone through the forums quickly when I returned and then marked them all as "read" so I missed this one (could be I missed more, if I did, it's not intentional so let me know).
I have removed CN as possible alignment for cleric characters following Az'atta.
The reason for this is that if CN is properly played, it cannot be reconciled with Az'atta's dogma.
Yes, this will make it more restrictive. And no, I am not concerned about that. 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.
-
Thanks to rowana for pointing out this thread, I had gone through the forums quickly when I returned and then marked them all as "read" so I missed this one (could be I missed more, if I did, it's not intentional so let me know).
I have removed CN as possible alignment for cleric characters following Az'atta.
The reason for this is that if CN is properly played, it cannot be reconciled with Az'atta's dogma.
Yes, this will make it more restrictive. And no, I am not concerned about that. 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.
Well, this certainly helps me clarify my situation with Rottie, who is chaotic neutral because all PC Half-Ogres have to be. Since you're hopefully paying attention Ed, let me ask a few more questions:
[LIST=1]
- Are the restrictions against using weapons supposed to be followed by just the clergy of Az'atta, or all its worshipers?
- Can Az'attan clerics be Sacred Fists, or is that considered just an artful dodge around the reason why Az'atta prohibits her clerics from using them in the first place?
- Are Undead Slayers allowed? If so, can an Az'attan Undead Slayer use weapons against undead? (Or are Vampires to be "saved" instead?)
- Do Az'attans, through the auspices of Az'atta's Sight, do rescue missions? Protection for priests in dangerous areas?
Let me leave it at that for now.
-
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 (http://lore.layonara.com/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.
-
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?
-
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 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 (http://lore.layonara.com/Corath) and Pyrtechon (http://lore.layonara.com/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.
-
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.
-
Also, Jeff Speakman in Perfect Weapon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102655/taglines).
Don't blame me, Nehetsrev started it.
-
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 :D.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suddenly wonder which of us you think of as "mom". O.o
Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
(http://forums.layonara.com/photopost/data/500/medium/dorgdermatology.jpg)
-
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").
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
- 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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://lore.layonara.com/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?
-
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 (http://lore.layonara.com/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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?
-
I don't think Az'atta is the kind to have paladin, but that is a good question nonetheless.
-
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.