Deity bindstones are not tied to any particular deity. They are just placed within temples for the devout of those deities. Deities don't have any control over that bindstone, nor any say who binds to it or anything of the sort, nor is anyone restricted (mechanically or otherwise) from binding to one, nor does it affect the person's mechanical deity choice in the slightest.
They're there as an RP choice for characters who wish to return to the "house" of their deity (or one allied/friendly) after being pulled back from death.
One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.
I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.
** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **
One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.
I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.
One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.Dude, I think you are missing the point of the Pantheon.
I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.
** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **
Dude, I think you are missing the point of the Pantheon.
While yes this is a game, the Gods are to fill specific and needed roles in the World of Layonara to make it viable and diverse. Unfortunately, NWN makes some of these Gods hard to play considering the nature of NWN, but the MMO is supposed to make certain things possible to allow these Gods more accessible, but to think that certain Gods should get axed just because they don't gel into the current incarnation is silly... Disagree with the team all want, but things make sense, regardless of the issues...
Well I agree with the post of Honora. I personally think that even if all the changes that has happened are in the mindset of the MMO, we still live in the present and it could be years before we get into the mmo. These changes affects the player base now. So if there is to be changes, like there has been with the deity and I am happy that they have been made public. The others things that could affect the players gaming enjoyment should be made known up front, like for Honora, What deity will accept what classes. I have myself been caught twice now of having to make a choice of what part of my characters I will sacrifice due to the changes that were made known too late, or not made clear enough. Beside there is also a lot of other things that has made the submissions process a lot more strenuous for some people who were not making "traditional" submissions, because the information that is pertinent for them to know is know on lore and known only by a few.
One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.
I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.
** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **
.... good, but it should be made very clear the limitation a deity like az'atta, aeridin, shindy, and of course all the others...
And upon further thought, this whole sentiment is horribly disrespectful to those people who actually spent their free time fleshing out these deities, the dogmas and how everything fits together and why, only to be trivialized by calling them "worthless".
Perhaps they are not your preference or they do not fit your play style, but they are anything but "redundant and worthless."
...
What do people want from Layonara? Do you want the quests? Do you want the GM involvement? Do you want the enhancements to RP and mechanics that come from having a quirky and diverse Pantheon? Or do you just want us to let you do your thing, put whatever you want on, in and near your character without consequence or requirement and just beat things up all day long, however little sense it makes to do so? Do you want the living, breathing world or do you want a gladiatorial arena where you are the champion....Aeridin's slayer of the wicked...Az'atta's redemption by steel?
I am really and truly interested in your answers, and please do not insult me by just telling me what you think I want to hear.
...
It all begs the question (and this is not directed at Honora or Hellblazer in specific but anyone reading this):
What do people want from Layonara? Do you want the quests? Do you want the GM involvement? Do you want the enhancements to RP and mechanics that come from having a quirky and diverse Pantheon? Or do you just want us to let you do your thing, put whatever you want on, in and near your character without consequence or requirement and just beat things up all day long, however little sense it makes to do so? Do you want the living, breathing world or do you want a gladiatorial arena where you are the champion....Aeridin's slayer of the wicked...Az'atta's redemption by steel?
I am really and truly interested in your answers, and please do not insult me by just telling me what you think I want to hear.
After the Sacred Fist discussion, it became apparent that this is not the first time by a long shot that a class has been denied to a specific deity. While I am not a fan of that, in the spirit of someone else not being stuck with a character they can't progress as they had wished, I suggest a simple "Deity/Class" chart along the same lines of the deity relations chart.
Use the Deity Relation template and replace the deities on the X axis with the classes, denoting which can have what. This chart could then be posted ahead of the classes section of LORE and would prevent any further unhappiness by spelling out the restrictions.
For example: Az'atta: No classes with more than X% "fighting" feats (fighter, barbarian, battlerager, duelist, assassin, dwarven defender, spellsword, arcane archer, weapon master, monk, sacred fist)
Vorax: No classes with more than X% "casting" feats with bard, cleric and sacred fist the exceptions (sorcerer, driud, wizard, spellsword).
Etc.
Layonara is a mature game, with a population who have been with it for years. With alts being important to keeping things fresh, this won't be the last time there will be a class/deity conflict.
I am happy to make up the chart if requested.
Not every deity sponsors an order of paladins, only Aeridin, Lucinda, Rofirein Toran, and Vorax require holy warriors beyond their normal clergy. All Paladin characters must follow one of these deities.
If not in a chart (which I felt was something that could be done quickly since it already exists for another reason), then in the class descriptions as a separate line item.
(I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at with the "exists for other reasons")
If not in a chart (which I felt was something that could be done quickly since it already exists for another reason), then in the class descriptions as a separate line item.
Use the Deity Relation template and replace the deities on the X axis with the classes, denoting which can have what. This chart could then be posted ahead of the classes section of LORE and would prevent any further unhappiness by spelling out the restrictions.
Will lore explode if there is a Priest(ess) of Shindaleria who thinks the ebb and flow of Shindaleria is an OK fit for a martial artist? I'd have thought such a concept to be a nice fit for some of the softer impact and deflection based martial arts?
Dorg, for example, makes the comparison of a "bashy" Az'atta to a Toranite "eating babies". But when you look at the history of the Az'atta page, the documentation tells a very different story.
At revision 16, the text reads:QuoteAz'atta has no favored weapons for her clergy, as she prefers her clergy not to kill or harm anyone. She does place one restriction upon the weapon choices of her clerics: They absolutely may not, under any circumstances, poison their weapons. Given the acts she performed while in the service of Baraeon, she does understand the need to take up arms on occasion, and does not restrict her clerics from doing so with good cause. It would also be appropriate for a cleric of Az'atta to take up arms to defeat any evils that are menacing the people or area they are currently assisting.
At revision 17, the text then reads:QuoteAz'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.While the text from revision 17 has remained the same, Ed has, on the website, added huge additional devotional restrictions by, what are, frankly, overwhelmingly strained interpretations. So that effectively, the real (unwritten) rules are as follows:QuoteAz'atta forbids [strike]weapons[/strike]any activity that might possibility lead to violence for [strike]her clergy[/strike]all of her worshipers [strike]because she prefers absolutely her clergy not to kill or harm anyone[/strike]. That is not to say they are not trained to [strike]defend themselves or those whom they have promised to protect from the violent and aggressive nature of others[/strike] in artful ways of running away. As an alternative to wielding weapons and armor, which are forbidden her clerics, each hopeful is trained in the way of unarmed combat, usually in the style of the locality the temple exists in, but this training is never meant to be used. [strike]Az'atta's clergy[/strike] Worshipers of Az'atta, who find themselves being assaulted and unable to flee, may attempt to disable their opponent, but are never permitted to strike first at anything, and must flee at the first available opportunity. They may not, under any circumstances, use poison. They must not kill, ever.Originally, the clergy, and clergy alone, has specific instructions to never use poison, and to avoid instigating violence, except in defense of people they had pledged to protect. And this was flat out changed into every single Az'attan, clerics down the lowliest initiates, being forbidden to go on quests in which there is the slightest chance of violence erupting.
The above prohibitions mean that anyone who wishes to have Az'atta in their deity field must be one of the following classes: Cleric, Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard. All other classes are too steeped in combat to be acceptable to Az'atta. Despite the training in "unarmed combat", Az'atta will not allow her worshipers to become Sacred Fists, Undead Slayers, or any other class that has any significant combat ability, whether or not it is used only against soul-less menaces like undead or constructs.
The extent of the prohibition against potential violence is so absolute, that Az'atta worshipers may not even participate in rescue operations of their own clergy, even as an unarmed medic who only heals people.
Now please do not say this is not a change. And please do not compare it to Toranites not "eating babies". Earlier versions of Toran in the Lore do not say "Toran prefers his most devoted paladins not to eat babies, unless they're really hungry and there's just nothing else in the icebox, or it's a dinner invitation they simply can't get out of. They absolutely may not, under any circumstances, do so without the proper silverware."It is a change, but it isn't monolithic. It's part of a whole and focusing on just this one thing misses the bigger picture. And for all the talk of "changes", the last two Az'attans (yours and Hellblazers) that have come into conflict with the dogma of Az'atta were submitted after the changes were posted publicly.
The Az'atta of just a half a real-world year ago, and today, are entirely different deities.Actually, they're not. There's actually little change between the prior and now. The prime shift is in the dictates on combat.
While it is true that Az'attans (faithful and clergy) are to avoid violence as much as possible, it is not true that they are never to use the skills they have learned. They are allowed to defend themselves and others. If there is another course of action that will serve just as well, they will take that. But to say they are never to use these skills, never to actively defend themselves is just not true.
Consider Audira. Az'atta has one real, main temple, probably one of her most important sites in all of Layonara. If the interpretation that it is some small, unguarded commune for pacifists, then why is it still standing? We have no need for a mechanical artifact in a temple that would be easily overrun by a Ca'Duzite raiding party. Some people seem to think that they'd just roll over and offer cookies. That's just not true.
I think the main contention here Dorg is the fact that two back a back cdqs were made quite clear that any ''action'' to save someone or one selves would not be tolerated. Where in fact on one of those occasions, the cleric let herself and the others with her be killed, instead of defending herself and the others she was with, in a situation that there was no other choice possible. This is not a slight at the persons who did the cdq's, but what is told here and what is shown IG are two different things.
So just like with paladins? LORE: Paladin (http://lore.layonara.com/Paladin)
Respectfully, this is a somewhat inaccurate depiction, and while this has been well-covered in another thread, it's clear you continue to disagree with the offered interpretation. However, if that is how you or one of your characters wishes to interpret it, please feel free.
While it is true that Az'attans (faithful and clergy) are to avoid violence as much as possible, it is not true that they are never to use the skills they have learned. They are allowed to defend themselves and others. If there is another course of action that will serve just as well, they will take that. But to say they are never to use these skills, never to actively defend themselves is just not true.
Consider Audira. Az'atta has one real, main temple, probably one of her most important sites in all of Layonara. If the interpretation that it is some small, unguarded commune for pacifists, then why is it still standing? We have no need for a mechanical artifact in a temple that would be easily overrun by a Ca'Duzite raiding party. Some people seem to think that they'd just roll over and offer cookies. That's just not true.
Do not, however, take up weapons or dress yourself in armor unless it is to prevent harm from coming to yourself or others.
I think this is another part of the "Why can't martial prowess be used EXCLUSIVELY for defense" argument. So this calls into question Weapon Master, Sacred Fist, Dwarven Defender, etc when talked about in conjunction with our controversial Gods/Deities
A line of Dwarven Defenders is a far better defense than a 10-foot-thick wall of stone and much more dangerous.
Taken from LORE:
So can I make a Deep Dwarf Dwarven Defender of Az'atta? *grins*