Alison Place
>> Someone attacking while on a riding animal could certainly have both be
>> armoured against magical attack, while their mounts
>> could attack also. I would then rule that it is reasonable for her to bring
>> down the mount, if that is possible, and not be penalised.
Unfortunately sleeping the animal, could cause a sapient rider to fall and be injured and causing injury to intelligent life is not permitted to a Chalana Arroy healer. Attempting to sleep the rider could also cause the rider to be injured in a fall. While I agree with you in principle it would generally result in less damage by having either slept (thereby delaying or putting off the aggressor), in practice I believe it is one of those horrible (especially to a Chalana Arroy being attacked by mounted Dragonewts) Catch-22 situations you mooted. OTOH, a riderless attacking animal is fair game for a sleep spell.
>> Since it seems that animals are meant to be eaten, it would thus be
ungrateful for CA
>> cultists to refuse Ernalda's bounty. After all, plants are also alive and
also Ernalda's.
However, Chalana Arroy healers have a precedence on the value of life. Peoples
are more
important than animals, and animals in turn are more important than plants.
Either
plants or animals could be used to sustain a `persons' life. Since all that is
needed to
sustain life for CA is vegetables, this is all they take from Ernalda's' bounty
without being
the cause for injury (DEATH - however merciful) to a higher form of life.
I concur, however, that CA serve REAL food to the inpatients at their hospitals.
IMHO, dairy products are an animal by-product (not classed as animals for food
purposes ) and are a needed part of the Chalana Arroy diet. I would, OTOH,
class eggs as young animals. Also, don't forget some Trollish food fungi (not
magic mushrooms) if
available from your local Argan Argar merchant. These keep fairly well, and
have some
desirable properties. They smell like meat, quite tasty like meat, but aren't
meat.
>> I would support wholeheartedly the assumption that CA's believe that farmed,
>>trapped and hunted animals should be treated and killed humanely, and that
only
>>what one needs (a very slippery definition) should be taken.
Me too.
Ian Gorlick
>>I don't see that CAs would stand and allow themselves to be killed
>>or tortured if they could pick up a weapon and try to do something
>>about it. Especially, I can see that they could do so to save lives
>>other than their own.
Sandy Peterson
>> While a CA driven wild by terror may well pick up a weapon
>> and try to fight, I think that this would be regarded as a
>> transgression by all temples
David Cake
[ in relation to Chaos Spawn]
>> I am afraid that I think most CAs definitely follow the standard
>>hypocritical 'well I won't kill them, but I won't stop you' line on this
>>one. I do not know if it is official cult doctrine, though. Certainly I
>>think that even if it was cult doctrine to stop people harming them, you
>>would not get in any trouble from spirits of reprisal or temple authorities
>>if you didn't.
I believe a Chalana Arroy would do anything that they could do short of breaking ( or bending) their oath. If fighting wild dogs (non-sentient animals) away from a fallen comrade I believe they would try to scare them off peacefully (perhaps by waving a one handed battleaxe or flaming torch) , but using force if necessary as the protection of a persons life is more important to a CA healer than the welfare of an animal. Against attacking peoples, if sleep or befuddle fail the healer could try to parry (defensively only) but apart from fleeing, that's all.
In relation to chaos I'm in agreement with David. The - let CA protection extend to chaos philosophy - gets a little too close to a tolerance for chaos for my liking.
>> The intent of the rules are to make the cult of CA seem extremely harsh
I agree with you here. For players, the letter and intent of the oath is important as if it is broken, you can not become a priest (from Roc).
I also see explanation and reinforcing of the oath being part of the priestly duties of CA. Upon inquiries by prospective CA cultists, I envisage a priest (or priests) forming an ethics committee explaining in detail the restrictions of the cult (as interpreted by that temple). Before acceptance as an initiate (before the divination) it is made clear the restrictions are understood and known by the applicant. Occasional revision should be necessary for newer initiates, and formal revision after extended periods for old hands.
For the record: I am a member of the ASCPA (Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants) and currently receive their mailers on ethical conduct.
In respect of my job, I'm also one of those computer types.
Brian.B.D.Pinch_at_msm.bhp.com.au <SPACE RESERVED FOR RENT>
Powered by hypermail