Azwan, God of War and Nobility

[Bront]

Azwan, God of War and Nobility
Liberator of the Gods

Enworldian Intermediate Deity
Symbol: A shield with four part crest split, with the colors Red, Purple, Yellow, and Blue.
Home Plane: ???
Alignment: Lawful Good
Portfolio: Nobility, Leadership, War, Freedom from Tyrany
Worshippers: Nobility, Warriors, Freedom Fighters
Cleric Alignments: LG, NG, LN
Domains: War, Nobility, Liberation, Law
Favored Weapon: Warhammer

Azwan is the god of war, particularly war conducted honorably, as well as a the rule by righteous nobility. Many nobles of all beliefs worship Azwan, though those of tyrannical rule often fear his true believes. Generals and knights often follow Azwan as well, or at least pay him service. Azwan is also a common deity for Paladins.

Azwan is believed to have fought to maintain proper order among the gods, and has even defended the evil gods when it was deemed honorable and correct to do so. His worshipers tell a story of a time of where the gods had seemed to abandon Enworld, where Azwan arose to liberate the gods from a confinement to allow them to return to influence the world. The exact nature or gods defined in confinement seem to vary from story to story, but no other church disputes this. Azwan is also said to have played a part in the confining of Taurusk to the Labyrinth, though again, his part in that is unclear.

Azwan followers believe that honor in war is just as important as the war itself. Azwan followers are rarely those seeking power for selfish and vile reasons, as much as they are those seeking to maintain a rightful power, or to overthrow an abusive or tyrannical one.

Dedications to Azwan often including accepting or offering an honorable surrender in his name, swearing fealty to a proper lord in his name, or simply defending those who can not defend themselves. It is customary for warriors to receive a blessing from a priest of Azwan before heading into battle, and to give some small donation at such time.

One of the more confusing aspects of Azwan is his stance on freedom. It is generaly accepted that he supports those who stand up agains false rulers as well as tyranical rule. There has been some interpretation of this as followers fighting for personal freedom, and as a result, many worshipers are more aware of personal freedoms than they might otherwise be, though it is not a direct aspect of the deity.

 

[Velmont]

Where can we find the nobility and liberation domain?

 

[Bront]

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/divineMinionsDomainsSpells.htm

It's part of the Divine expansion to the SRD.

 

[Endovior]

A few thoughts.

He sounds interesting, but he comes up against a basic problem... it's a societal one, rather then a game-mechanical one. It is this: Freedom is a Chaotic concept, not a Lawful one. Law implies rules and regulations, which limit, or even eliminate freedom. As such, the Liberation domain is intended for Chaotic gods. It's possible, yes... like it's possible for a Good god to have a domain like Madness or Tyranny... ie: needs a good story.

I could see an insane Chaotic Good barbarian god, or a tyrannical Lawful Good inquisitor god... but a Lawful Good liberator would have to have a specific moral-ethical spin... personally I'd suggest a Libertarian philosophy, with a few simple rules:

Rule 1: Never initiate the use of force against an intelligent being.
Rule 2: Never exchange goods or services with any other intelligent being except with mutual agreement. (Note: this prohibits theft, as the other party did not agree to your taking of his property, as well as taxation... donations to the state must be voluntary)
Rule 3: Never break your freely-given word, unless the other party has broken their part of the agreement.
Rule 4: Any law or ruler which violates any of the above rules is not to be considered a legitimate authority, and should be ignored.

Of course, there are clarifications and exceptions... for example, it's fair game to attack someone who is attacking others, and if a hostile mage is casting an attack spell in a potential combat situation (and you've won initiative), he is to be considered to have initiated force. Also, the incapacitated are always considered to be willing to receive aid, unless they have previously stated otherwise.

If these rules are followed, then 'nobles' are those who uphold and enforce these beneficial rules... and it makes sense to follow their dictates, as you agree with them yourself.

(Incidentally, if Azwan did indeed follow such laws, then he becomes a God that I would very much like to follow... my Wizard will certainly be converting, and I'll probably generate a Cleric...)

 

[Bront]

Freedom is less personal freedom to do anything, as much as being freed from being an unlawful captive or ruled under a tyrany. He is a defender of freedom in that way, which is actualy quite lawful. It's odd, but that is part of his being different than your normal war gods In many ways, he's the defender of truth, justice, and the American Orussian way.

Enfocring that code of conduct in every way is a little harsh, though a specific character could choose to use that code, as it would follow the way of the deity.

Remember, Freedom does not mean freedom to do whatever, just as chaotic does not mean does not follow laws or a code of ethics, it just will tend to be a bit different. A lawful good paladin can break laws when he feels it is just to do so, where a chaotic good fighter may choose not to for some other reason.

Also, look at the Liberation domain, it is liberating from debilitating conditions and effects, which honestly seems rather fitting.

 

[Endovior]

Well, seeing as how Azwan is a Lawful Good deity, I'm thinking of it in Paladin's terms... a Paladin whose goal is to liberate the populace from unfair laws needs an objective definition on which laws are fair, and which are not.

 

[Bront]

Well, seeing as how Azwan is a Lawful Good deity, I'm thinking of it in Paladin's terms... a Paladin whose goal is to liberate the populace from unfair laws needs an objective definition on which laws are fair, and which are not.

You'd like to think so, but often such moral vaguries like this are left in the hands of those who serve the god, and that is part of what they must seek to answer in order to show their devotion to their gods.

For example, is slavery in all forms wrong (in LEW?)? How about if it was volunteered for? How about as a criminal punishment? Does it depend on how they're treated?

I'm not expecting you to answer these questions, but for a Paladin (or cleric) of Azwan, he would have to determine if they were, and if not, figure out how he could enact the change.

Of course, when the rightful nobility is involved, it clouds the waters even more, for that is another aspect. And if such laws are fairly peaceful, to wage a war might be dishonorable.

Muhaha! Moral quandries about!

But seriously, the idea is not to say "You must worship this god this way", as there needs to be some room for interpretation. Lawful Good is not as strict as it is often made out to be.

 

[Endovior]

*Shrugs*

"Room for Interpretation" in religious matters translates best to "Schisms and Heresies". But perhaps that's what you're aiming for?

 

[orsal]

personally I'd suggest a Libertarian philosophy, with a few simple rules:

...

(Note: this prohibits theft, as the other party did not agree to your taking of his property, as well as taxation... donations to the state must be voluntary)

Doesn't sound to me like any god who is a favourite of the nobility.

I do think you raise a good point about "personal freedom"; it has many interpretations, and the broadest of them are inconsistent with a Lawful alignment. Bront may not have had such an interpretation in mind, but his text then could use a clarification. How about "freedom from tyranny" instead of "personal freedom"?

 

[Bront]

*Shrugs*

"Room for Interpretation" in religious matters translates best to "Schisms and Heresies". But perhaps that's what you're aiming for?

In older polytheistic religions, the gods were open for interpretation because often they were interpretations of natural phenomina, so allowing for some variety among worshipers I don't think is too bad.

Doesn't sound to me like any god who is a favourite of the nobility.

I do think you raise a good point about "personal freedom"; it has many interpretations, and the broadest of them are inconsistent with a Lawful alignment. Bront may not have had such an interpretation in mind, but his text then could use a clarification. How about "freedom from tyranny" instead of "personal freedom"?

Yes, i think that might be better. I'll adjust appropriately