If you're acting on your irrational fears/impulses and hurting people, that's going to count against you. If you have those irrational fears/impulses and manage to overcome them, it's not.
This. If someone is truly homophobic (in a medical sense) and shakes a homosexual's hand, treats them politely, then they're not the same as the "homophobe" who yells insults at or campaigns against the rights of that same person.
While the feelings of the former are regrettable, they don't exactly stop that person being a good person (in fact more likely the opposite as they're fighting their internal nature, in my view.) The actions of the latter are evil, no exception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a man who deals with chronic pain every day. Doctors say they can relieve my pain with pain killing injections. I however have a PHOBIA of needles. My logical knowledgeable educated brain knows that the medicine will help. However, my irrational psyche will not let you get near me with a needle.
Phobias are weird things. Trust me I know.
Okay. However, your phobia of needles affects no one but yourself, and does not influence your opinion or treatment of other people.
Add into this what Mikaze said:
Good people should strive to overcome those fears though, and not let them rule them or spill over to hurt others. That, and the expectations of a god of Good are much higher.
You could apply that to irrational fears that negatively impact other people as well. So, homophobia's a different sort of thing than your phobia of needles, at least insofar as this discussion is concerned.
(Also, you have my sympathies if you're dealing with chronic pain.)
I simply wanted to point out the irrational things that people's brains can do.
KSF, come at me with a needle and my opinion and treatment of you will be influenced.
It's also interesting to me that you both disagreed with me and doubted that I'm dealing with chronic pain. Have no doubt, I do deal with pain every day of my life due to degenerative discs in my back. Someday's are better than others. Every day I wake up wondering if I will be able to stand up. Today is a bad day and maybe that's why I'm grouchy. See, I've taken all the pain pills my liver can handle right now, and the agony is still there. It affects my wife, my children, and my other family.
I tell you this not for your sympathy but just hoping that you will realize that your comments about "if you dealing with chronic pain" are quite insulting to me.
I will let this topic die to me now, and will not respond anymore as I see my opinions are in the minority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand its usage in contemporary American society. The point I was evidently not making effectively is that it is in part irrational. It is hard to categorize someone as not good based on their irrational fears.
As others have pointed out, it's not always irrational.
Also, the fact that the fear is irrational doesn't mean that the behavior can't be controlled, especially the more severe it is. I am pretty irrationally afraid of spiders. If I jump when I see a spider, that I probably can't control and shouldn't be blamed for. If I burn down someone's house or beat them up because they own a tarantula, however, I have done something evil and absolutely should be blamed for it.
And essentially, to get back to the original point, you're arguing that if a deity is homophobic, we should treat that as insane rather than evil, and therefore allow her to be good. That's not really the way the alignment system works, however. While real life is a lot more nuanced, the alignment system is fairly black and white. There are entire races that default to evil (kobolds, outsiders, etc.), psychosis and some other forms of insanity change your alignment to CE, Lamashtu (the main deity with madness as part of her portfolio) is evil, etc. The alignment system doesn't really care if you're a murderous cannibal because you made a rational decision to be, or whether you're a murderous cannibal because you're insane and can't really help it. Either way, if you're murdering people and eating them, you're likely evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. (It's worth 2 cents.)
The dwarven race has a notoriously low birth rate. So it may be sort of like in ancient Sparta: Even if a man obviously and openly preferred the "company" of other men, he was still expected to take a wife and have kids. Their society completely accepted gay men, and completely expected the gay men to have wives. Also, the straight men of ancient Sparta were very likely to have had gay relationships when they were younger. So the idea that people were exclusively "straight" or "gay" was an idea that didn't even exist for them.
The problem seems to be that all of you are applying modern, Western standards of "gay" and "straight" (and "marriage") to this Dwarven society that might not even have these as concepts at all.
So Bolka could very well expect men to marry women without any agenda against homosexuality. She wants the dwarves to get married and establish a line of "legitimate" children. Who else the dwarves have sex with outside of the marriage, is of no concern to her.
I simply wanted to point out the irrational things that people's brains can do.
KSF, come at me with a needle and my opinion and treatment of you will be influenced.
It's also interesting to me that you both disagreed with me and doubted that I'm dealing with chronic pain. Have no doubt, I do deal with pain every day of my life due to degenerative discs in my back. Someday's are better than others. Every day I wake up wondering if I will be able to stand up. Today is a bad day and maybe that's why I'm grouchy. See, I've taken all the pain pills my liver can handle right now, and the agony is still there. It affects my wife, my children, and my other family.
I tell you this not for your sympathy but just hoping that you will realize that your comments about "if you dealing with chronic pain" are quite insulting to me.
I will let this topic die to me now, and will not respond anymore as I see my opinions are in the minority.
Where did I say I doubted you?
This was the last part of my post:
(Also, you have my sympathies if you're dealing with chronic pain.)
I was offering my genuine sympathy to you as someone who is dealing with constant pain. Nothing more.
You're misreading what I said. Seriously.
It's also interesting to me that you both disagreed with me and doubted that I'm dealing with chronic pain.
...
I tell you this not for your sympathy but just hoping that you will realize that your comments about "if you dealing with chronic pain" are quite insulting to me.
Mulgar, I think you read the comment in a way it wasn't intended. KSF was expressing sympathy.
"If" doesn't always mean "it's in doubt whether this is true." It can also mean "in a case where." I deal with chronic pain as well, and often say things about myself like "it's hard enough to be polite to people who are in your personal space anyway; if you're dealing with chronic pain it makes it even harder."
Only KSF can say for sure, obviously, but I'm 99% certain that was a sincere expression of sympathy.
I understand its usage in contemporary American society. The point I was evidently not making effectively is that it is in part irrational. It is hard to categorize someone as not good based on their irrational fears.
Sorry to drag you back on this but an interjection - I don't quite think you're working in the same definition of homophobia as Ms. Price was in the original response. Given the latter referred to said "phobia" as a discriminatory action as opposed to the irrational fear to which you refer. Ergo, it's a bit of a straw-man (though not a deliberate or malign one) to be arguing that a statement to the effect of saying "homophobia [in contemporary Western usage] is disingenuous with good alignments" implies "Good people cannot have irrational fears."
Either party may feel free to beat me with rakes if I've assumed or presumed wrongly (in interpretation or action) here.As to good Gods with flaws - I think the answers already been tossed out but well, I can't help but think it needs reiterating: THEY'RE GODS. Beings whom, in the setting, are meant to embody an ideal. Beings who rather have the necessity to be a bit more black and white to be what they are. Arguments of "nuanced Gods are better!" regardless. A good deity to not have flaws that would fall under the alignment system's purview of "evil" makes sense. A (N)PC? Can be as complex and Multi-Dimensional as anyone likes. If they weren't, all stories in the setting would be boring by predictability.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe good people don't want to prevent other people from being in loving relationships because of their gender. And I'm pretty sure our developers likewise would not make a good deity of marriage homophobic.
I think making no one ever have a problem with homosexuality in Golarion is unrealistic and lame.
"No one good could ever have a problem with it" is as ignorant a statement as "No one good could ever condone it."
One of the things I like about Golarion is its diversity of opinion. And all the same problems from our world are there in some form too. Good and evil Ustalavs don't like orcs. Good and evil Sarkorians don't like Ustalavs. Various religions believe various kinds of behavior are good and some believe they're bad (from prostitution to whatever). There are many different faiths and philosophies and cultures and races. Sanding the edges off to suit one's personal real life opinions... Ew!
In how I run Golarion, Erastil is super conservative and a bit sexist, like he was previously stated. I know the devs tried to "roll that back" to look good, that's a mistake IMO. Does that make him "evil?" No. You see, it's an unfortunaly common fallacy that opinions differign from one's own must be "evil." It's much more dramatically interesting to have a Bolka's portfolio seems to be advocating marriage in a race that has a low birth rate. That's probably straight marriage. Is that "homophobic?" Only by a mistaken definition of that word. Certainly, including characters with that opinion in a fictional world isn't (any more than including Kuthites is pro-torture). Meanwhile, clerics of Gozreh have to be celibate...
I don't know how other people play their games, but we like story and drama. "I want to be a half-orc in Carrion Crown because the locals will totally discriminate against me!" is something we do (are doing currently). Roleplaying isn't just for power fantasy and it also isn't jsut for wish fulfillment fantasy, it can be for other things.
I personally believe good people don't want to prevent other people from being in loving relationships because of their gender. And I'm pretty sure our developers likewise would not make a good deity of marriage homophobic.I think making no one ever have a problem with homosexuality in Golarion is unrealistic and lame.
"No one good could ever have a problem with it" is as ignorant a statement as "No one good could ever condone it."
This seems like a pretty big straw man to me, as I don't recall anyone here saying anything to the effect of "no one can ever have a problem with homosexuality in Golarion."
I think making no one ever have a problem with homosexuality in Golarion is unrealistic and lame.
I think making it less common, which is what I think is the official line (rather than non-existent), is hopeful rather than lame. Your mileage varies. And given that some of the major real world sources of homophobia are religions that do not exist in Golarion, I'm not sure how it's unrealistic.
"No one good could ever have a problem with it" is as ignorant a statement as "No one good could ever condone it."
You're kind of making a false equivalency there. Also, keep in mind we're discussing a deity here, not your average jane on the street. It's different for deities. (Hm, that could be the title of Cayden Cailean's autobiography. "It's Different for Deities: A Drinking Man's Journey to the Great Beyond." Subtitled: "There And On My Back Again.")
One of the things I like about Golarion is its diversity of opinion. And all the same problems from our world are there in some form too. Good and evil Ustalavs don't like orcs. Good and evil Sarkorians don't like Ustalavs. Various religions believe various kinds of behavior are good and some believe they're bad (from prostitution to whatever). There are many different faiths and philosophies and cultures and races. Sanding the edges off to suit one's personal real life opinions... Ew!
Using one's imagination to speculate what a world would be like in which the real world religions that are the primary sources of homophobia are non-existent... Yay!
In how I run Golarion, Erastil is super conservative and a bit sexist, like he was previously stated. I know the devs tried to "roll that back" to look good, that's a mistake IMO.
Are you saying the devs did it to make Erastil look good, or to make themselves look good? I honestly can't tell your intent. Either way, I'd disagree. If you're saying they did it to simply make Erastil "look good," I'd suggest that the devs are instead correcting a mistake which left them with a good deity who expressed something they saw as fundamentally not good, or at least, not good as good is defined in Golarion (about which they, being the creators of the setting, would know best.)
If you're saying the devs did it to make themselves look good, I'd suggest that you're being unfair to them, and that they did it because they felt a mistake had been made, and Erastil was not functioning as they, the world-builders, intended. And sure, the devs have probably brought their own views of what good and evil are into this. That's a not uncommon thing to do in writing, or in any act of creation.
(And keep in mind that none of this says anything about whether a mortal character who is a bit sexist could or could not be good. Again, as discussed earlier in the thread, it's different for deities.)
Does that make him "evil?" No. You see, it's an unfortunaly common fallacy that opinions differign from one's own must be "evil."
You're assuming that the thing that is driving this topic (or the devs' decision) is whether or not someone disagrees with something (in this case, homosexuality). I'm pretty sure that you're incorrect. That it's not a matter of people thinking, "That opinion is different than my own. Therefore it is evil." Or, "You hold an opinion different than mine. Therefore, you are evil." That's not what's going on here.
I'm pretty sure people (including the devs) are thinking something more like, "If a deity is preventing people from being in loving same-sex relationships with each other, that deity is harming those people and interfering in their lives in a negative way, which is not something you'd expect a good deity to do." And I'm pretty sure that's what Jessica was getting at.
Not all opinions are equivalent. And not everything is about disagreeing with someone else's opinion. Sometimes, the content of the opinion, what is being said by the opinion, is more important, in an evaluative sense, than whether one agrees or disagrees with that opinion.
It's much more dramatically interesting to have a Bolka's portfolio seems to be advocating marriage in a race that has a low birth rate. That's probably straight marriage. Is that "homophobic?" Only by a mistaken definition of that word.
I'd argue that preventing gays and lesbians from getting together is effectively homophobic - it's removing from them self-determination, withholding from them the possibility of love and happiness, and preventing them from leading authentic lives.
Setting that aside, if I've read this thread correctly, the consensus (to the extent that there is one) seems to be that she's not homophobic, since there's nothing in her entry that says she is favoring heterosexual marriage over gay marriage, or forcing gay dwarves to get married. There is an old phrase used in her description, "confirmed bachelor," which has been deemed not to carry its outdated connotations in this particular case. (Note that this was the original source of the thread.)
And remember that same-sex relationships and marriage do not prevent reproduction. Straight marriage does not guarantee reproduction. Getting to the business of reproduction guarantees reproduction (to put it gently).
Certainly, including characters with that opinion in a fictional world isn't (any more than including Kuthites is pro-torture). Meanwhile, clerics of Gozreh have to be celibate...
I don't think anyone suggested the inclusion of such characters in one's RPG setting was in and of itself homophobic.
I don't know how other people play their games, but we like story and drama. "I want to be a half-orc in Carrion Crown because the locals will totally discriminate against me!" is something we do (are doing currently). Roleplaying isn't just for power fantasy and it also isn't jsut for wish fulfillment fantasy, it can be for other...
The way you're formulating this statement, you seem to be saying that those who disagree with you don't like story and drama. Or, you seem to be saying that the best (or only?) way to achieve story and drama is by including stories about racism or homophobia. Both are nonsensical statements. (If that's not what you meant, I apologize. I'll listen to any clarification you have.)
If someone in your group wants to go through a game where their character experiences discrimination, which could be a source of story or drama, and the rest of your group agrees, that's fine, particularly because consent is involved. Same with homophobia, if one chooses to have their character deal with that in game, again if consent is involved.
However, some people may feel they deal with enough discrimination (about race or sexuality) in their real lives, and may not be in the mood for such in their gaming. It may interfere with their enjoyment of the game. And for those people, there are plenty of other opportunities for story and drama in the game which do not involved discrimination. I wouldn't tell those people they're engaged in a "power fantasy" or a "wish fulfillment fantasy," because there's nothing in their position that says they would be, beyond the usual degrees of power fantasy and wish fulfillment inherent in many RPGs (Pathfinder included).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread prompted me to look up the original description of Bolka.
Bolka (The Golden Gift): Daughter of Torag and Folgrit, this happy goddess has long blonde hair and a figure that would make even the most reserved dwarf catch his breath. She makes arranged marriages blossom into love and inspires confirmed bachelors to decide to seek a wife.
Just from these two sentences, I don't think it's clear whether the author of this intended Bolka to be a goddess who tries to coerce gay dwarves into marriage with someone of the other gender. Just "bachelor" would have been better word choice, as it would avoid the unfortunate implication. That could just be a detail that was missed in editing. Nevertheless, there are certainly some regressive views towards women, marriage, and sexuality underlying her depiction and the depiction of the dwarven pantheon at large.
21 of the 47 words in her description are about how this goddess is physically attractive to men. The point here is clear: the value of women---even if they are deities!---is in how pleasing they are to men. Her title is "the Golden Gift". A gift for whom? A man, of course. The idea obviously being referenced in this title is the idea that marriage is a woman being given by a man (her father) to another man (her new husband). Women are property (or gifts) to be passed between men. For reference, some of the other titles for the dwarven deities are "the Forge-Fire", "the Dark Smith", "the Peacemaker", and "the Mighty". These are much more active than the passive state of being a gift.
Bolka apparently inspires unmarried men (I'll be charitable and set aside the issue with the phrasing) to seek a wife. What does she do with unmarried women? Does she inspire them to action? Or does she inspire them to be like her, passive and a gift, waiting for a man to claim them?
Let's look at one of the other two female dwarven goddesses mentioned in Gods and Magic (not including Torag, who's given a longer write-up elsewhere in the book, nine dwarven deities are listed).
Folgrit (The Watchful Mother): Torag’s wife is a patient goddess used to her husband planning and worrying too much. She is the goddess of motherhood, wives, and children, especially those whose husbands and fathers are at war. She is also the goddess of widows and orphans and does her best to keep Torag’s mind fresh so he can minimize dwarven casualties.
Folgrit is another female deity defined by her focus on passive roles. Her husband (a full-fledged male major deity) takes an active role while she "does her best to keep [his] mind fresh" and worries. She is especially concerned with women who are taking a passive role, women who stay home while their husbands and fathers take an active role in the world. The men go off to war while the women stay behind to care for the children.
Clear gender roles are being drawn here: women are to be passive mothers and wives while men are active participants in the world. The concept of marriage presented here is one that fundamentally relies on this constructed difference between the gender. Marriage is the union of two essentially different beings to fulfill these different roles. Of course, such a conception of marriage is heterosexist. Some common real-world arguments against rights for non-straight people are based on this sort of conception of gender roles. Take, for example, the argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman due to their complimentary (i.e. different) natures. Or consider the question commonly posed to same-gender couples: which one of you is the man (or woman, if directed towards men)?
As such, it's not believable that dwarven society as depicted in this book would be welcoming of gay or bisexual dwarves. Just by their very existence, they would challenge the narratives of gender that are dominant in dwarven society. A society that accepted that two women can be in a relationship together without somehow being incomplete could not also believe that women are gifts which exist to be exchanged between men. It would be incoherent.
On a side note, this depiction of dwarves is very similar to the depiction of Erastil and his faithful in e.g. Rivers Run Red. They have a patriarchal society with strictly-defined gender roles which place women in the subservient position. As the author of that chapter in Rivers Run Red and the author credited on the cover of Gods and Magic are the same, I don't think it's a stretch to see connections between the two.
I don't know whether the usage of the phrase "confirmed bachelor" was meant to say that this dwarven goddess is trying to force gay men into heterosexuality. However, looking at what is presented, there is much to be criticized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A whole lot of stuff
Can I just say that, as a devout heterosexual, I am glad that the game company that I give my monies to is openly supportive of gay relationships? I think we (especially gamers, who have lived with "alignment" as a fact of life, just about) have grown beyond (ok, well..mostly) hating homosexuality.
That all said, If there was a Golarianic culture that would openly oppose homosexuality, Dwarves would work pretty well for that.
All in all, though, it is your world and it should be played how the table overall feels it should be played.
While I don't necessarily think it's as strict as far as gender roles are concerned (we have plenty of examples of female dwarven warriors and heroes), LaFlamme pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I certainly agree with your parenthetical. I remember reading somewhere (though I don't remember who wrote it) an argument that gender roles like seen in this depiction of dwarves are incongruous with the setting/rules. Golarion doesn't have the history of sexism that earth does so it's out of place. There's no mechanical difference between characters of different genders. As you point out, the proscriptions implied by this depiction just isn't followed. Accordingly, it's out of place to say that dwarven society has these kinds of gender roles because it simply isn't what's being shown elsewhere.
However, I do think that just the page or so talking about the dwarven pantheon in Gods and Magic has problematic elements. It's not quite that it presents dwarves as strict patriarchal gender roles. I don't think it's bad to have groups in the setting with regressive viewpoints. But, this depiction of dwarves doesn't do a good job distinguishing between what dwarves in the setting believe and what is presented. For example, Bolka's title identifies her as property (of a man). It's not clear whether this is solely an in-universe idea or whether real-world sexist views are just showing up. It doesn't display any self-awareness that the society being described is incredibly oppressive of women and queer people. Granted, it's only about a page. But I think there's room enough to acknowledge the problems with the society depicted.
@Vivianne Laflamme,
Thanks, that was an interesting analysis. Thanks for taking the time to do that. It does seem to indicate some sort of disconnect with how dwarves usually are depicted in the setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't necessarily think it's as strict as far as gender roles are concerned (we have plenty of examples of female dwarven warriors and heroes), LaFlamme pretty much hit the nail on the head.However, I do think that just the page or so talking about the dwarven pantheon in Gods and Magic has problematic elements. It's not quite that it presents dwarves as strict patriarchal gender roles. I don't think it's bad to have groups in the setting with regressive viewpoints. But, this depiction of dwarves doesn't do a good job distinguishing between what dwarves in the setting believe and what is presented.
I agree with this -- I think there were some heteronormative word choices, as well as some that assume the reader/adventurer is male, that are a bit problematic and are definitely something we've been trying to fix over the past few years.
For example, Bolka's title identifies her as property (of a man).
Property, yes, or at least a passive object rather than an active agent. Of a man, I'm not sure I agree with -- I took it as the idea that she's a gift to the dwarven people. That is, I took the "gift" to be a reference to the part about love blossoming in arranged marriages.
In any case, the language is getting reexamined in Inner Sea Gods.
|
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.
So if a gay dwarf is put into an arranged marriage with a dwarf of the other gender, and Bolka then tries to make "love blossom" in that marriage, how is that not Bolka pushing gay conversion therapy?
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.
If this is the case, than this supports the contention that the dwarven goddess is heterosexist. If all dwarves, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, are influenced by this goddess to find "love" in their heterosexual arranged marriage, then homosexual and bisexual dwarves will be marginalized by this goddess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much concur with Vivianne's examination of this issue. I think there is a clear indication of heterosexism in the language and organization of gender among dwarven deities. Other than the two mentioned by Vivianne, there is also one more woman dwarf god. Dranngvit, The Debt Minder, who is bitter because she is the spurned ex-lover of Torag. This exhausts the women dwarven deities in Gods and Magic, all of which are defined by their relations to men (deity or not). This is indicative of the general heterosexist treatment of gender in fantasy literature, where women are subject to subordination to men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to toss this out here, take with as much (or as little) salt as you wish.
James Jacobs has, on multiple occasions, indicated that Dwarves are the Core PC Race he likes the least, is it then any surprise that they (including their deities) have the least support in terms of information & inclusiveness of the Core races/cultures of Golarion?
With Player's Guide books like Blood of Angels & Blood of Fiends I suspect there may actually be more information for players wanting to play certain non-Core races than there is for players wanting to play Dwarves. Torag even wound up being the last of the Core 20 Deities to receive an AP article write-up.
Now to a certain degree, I don't entirely care, but I will also admit to being completely outside the spectrum of individuals for whom this is a matter of personal importance (I'm straight, I'm male & I can't recall ever having intentionally played a Dwarf, certainly not in Golarion).
I realize my point might not be clear, ( am having a bit of trouble now that I review this post), but it is this; as Jessica pointed out in her post, they acknowledge the unintended hetero-normative language in the write-up & will be addressing it next year when they publish Inner Sea Gods. I will add that the setting as a whole has evolved noticeably, even since the Inner Sea World Guide came out. I suspect that while Vivianne Laflamme's point that the language used definitely unintentionally supports the view that Bolka is overtly or covertly Homophobic, that is not the developer's intent.
Now it falls to us to assist them in realizing their intent.
Hopefully this post has thrown more sand than gasoline on this particular fire.
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.
I may be reaching here, but arranged marriage doesn't have to equal opposite-sex marriage, does it?
Reproduction isn't limited to opposite-sex marriage. And I'd guess same-sex marriage can be just as useful for cementing alliances as opposite-sex marriage. (Off the top of my head, I can't think of other reasons for arranged marriages, outside of someone exerting power across a power differential or something.)
Edit to add: I'm not disagreeing with anyone's analysis of this, just looking for wiggle room that could be applied in interpretation of the text.
I think it's because the devs at Paizo took the easy path with dwarves, where the gnomes, halflings, and the elves got wonderful new backgrounds and cultures. When comes to the Dwarves we are stuck with are pseudo Tolkien (All the problems of Tolkien's dwarves with none of the connections to middle earth) and the stupid Scottish Viking stereotypes.
The feedback from the devs ranged from " I don't like dwarves" to players of dwarves are a particular type of person who likes to play Scottish Viking Dwarves and we don't want to upset them by changing the dwarves too much...
I like to play dwarves a lot, hence my forum name, I was looking for something different and new, Paizo failed to apply its edginess to the dwarves we got a good story but a bland culture.
I hope that with the new AP set in "not Egypt" that the devs can apply some of the cool Egyptian cultural themes to the dwarves and give us something other than the norm.
Second off, oddly, most the actual characters we see the term used for in literature and such of the period would later be known as "playboys" and such; womanizers that were "confirmed bachelors" simply because they would never dream of only one booty for the rest of their lives.
Well, I agree it's now an outdated term, but I remember in the late 70s, early 80s, my father, talking to my mother, referring to my 3rd grade teacher as a "bachelor" in a way that clearly was supposed to have additional meaning I didn't get. I think the teacher was himself gay (that's my impression as an adult thinking back on him), so I think this is what the "bachelor" term meant in that case.
I'd guess there was a period (late 60s through early 80s?) where "confirmed bachelor" lost it's womanizer meaning and assumed a more ironic meaning, which eventually faded in turn. (Language is not a constant, after all.)
As Bill Engvall so wisely put it, without the sex, being gay is just hanging out with your buds.
I'm not gay myself, so I can't speak from experience, but that statement, I'd disagree with. There's more to love than just sex, and more to a loving partnership than just sex. That goes for gay love as much as straight love.
Edit to add:
Procreation: biology makes the negative an absolute
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?
as a straight "confirmed bachelor" I have pretty much only heard the term used for
Womanizers,
or the socially awkward who are just not good at the whole relationship thing
(I am admittedly am the latter)
I don't think I ever really think of "code for guy who is gay", but then again I was born in 1980 and am of the generation where it's assumed that a gay person can pursue healthy relationships without widespread condemnation (although in some parts of the country and in some subcultures the latter is still an issue).
With the dwarven goddesses, I don't really see an issue with some gods/goddesses being rather passive. If anything, the main issue is that those passive goddesses seem to be concentrated in one set of racial gods. There should be gods that watch out for the "soccer moms" of life. Not every good god should be about kicking a demon's teeth in. Of course, those more passive gods are probably not going to show up as clerics in adventures.
I also didn't read Bolka's description as being indicative that she was owned by someone. I think if she was a dude, they would have just used "son of". Unfortunately, Golarion's dieties really are not heavily tied together with few exceptions in the familial sense, unlike say what you get with Greek or Norse gods. It again makes the dwarven pantheon stand out more from the other dieties, for good or ill.
I tend to think that of the above, a lot of it is due to Dwarves being sort of the race which most got shafted in Pathfinder. Dwarves are pretty much default fantasy dwarves, whereas other races got unique takes. I think that...disinterest merely crept into the the gods as well (Torag is pretty much one of the more boring gods in Golarion, and lends credence to my hypothesis).
First off, using urban dictionary as a source?
Troll baiting much, are we?
I've referenced urban dictionary before to determine the usage of some terms, I don't think it's without merit.
Second off, oddly, most the actual characters we see the term used for in literature and such of the period would later be known as "playboys" and such; womanizers that were "confirmed bachelors" simply because they would never dream of only one booty for the rest of their lives.
My experience with the term in literature does not support this interpretation. Like, here is another instance explaining the "implication is that the "confirmed bachelor" might be homosexual."
So, why is marriage encouraged? As Bill Engvall so wisely put it, without the sex, being gay is just hanging out with your buds.
I don't really think that is "wise" at all. In fact, it's pretty ignorant. And it's predicated on the idea that men and women are inherently different. Why is being gay no different than any other "bud" relationship (sans sex), and heterosexual relationships privileged as some more complex level of intimacy.
as a straight "confirmed bachelor" I have pretty much only heard the term used for Womanizers, or the socially awkward who are just not good at the whole relationship thing (I am admittedly am the latter)
I don't think I ever really think of "code for guy who is gay",
You may not have heard the other usage of the term, but it's a common euphemism, though it has certainly become less common with time. Euphemisms for gay men are less necessary when you can just say "gay". Your experience certainly is not universal.
With the dwarven goddesses, I don't really see an issue with some gods/goddesses being rather passive.
As I explained in my first post in this thread, the issue is not that there are some passive deities per se. Rather, the issue is the regressive gender roles on display, where women are passive homemakers while men actively participate in the world. These real-world ideas about the subservience of women to men are being imported to Golarion and applied to the dwarven pantheon.
There should be gods that watch out for the "soccer moms" of life.
But not the soccer dads? You support my point by linking passivity with being a woman.
I also didn't read Bolka's description as being indicative that she was owned by someone. I think if she was a dude, they would have just used "son of".
She is referred to as the daughter of Torag and Folgrit. Her title is the Golden Gift. Some of the male dwarven deities have their familial relations mentioned in their descriptions as well.
As for why she's being described as property, it's more than her being literally called a gift. There's the fact that about half of her description is devoted to explaining how (mortal) men find her physically attractive. There's the real-world ideas about women and marriage I mentioned earlier:
The idea obviously being referenced in this title is the idea that marriage is a woman being given by a man (her father) to another man (her new husband).
She's clearly not a gift to the dwarven people in general, as she is focused entirely upon marriage. Marriage is of course only one aspect of dwarven life. With the real-world idea of women as property being referenced and half her description explaining what men think about her, she's not being portrayed as a gift to dwarven women.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.So if a gay dwarf is put into an arranged marriage with a dwarf of the other gender, and Bolka then tries to make "love blossom" in that marriage, how is that not Bolka pushing gay conversion therapy?
Why does the love have to be erotic?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I kinda get it, but nowhere does it say "erotic love", and most married couples who've been married longer than just a few years will tell you that love isn't about eroticism, it's about your attitude towards each other; what you do for each other. The latter may be erotic on occasion, but it doesn't have to be.
I also think it's interesting how much the Dwarven goddesses are criticized, when there are also strong, independent female goddesses as well: Iomedae, Sarenrae, and Shelyn are all strong, independent bastions of virtue. Why does it matter if the Dwarven goddesses represent a different facet of what we had typically associated with femininity? Because they're good aligned? Remember, good aligned beings are good not because of their beliefs, but because of what they do. Does it say anywhere that these passive deities enforce their ideals on the Dwarven population? Does it say anywhere that Bolka straightens out the gays and forces women to be peaceful burden-bearing property? All it says is that she strengthens and blesses people in their relationships, typically those relationships that adhere with more traditional Dwarven culture. I don't really see the evil in that.
... accidentally offending people is something we try really hard to avoid, as we want the hobby to be fun and inclusive to everyone.
I am glad Pathfinder was made, fundamentally, to be open and inclusive. As has always been the case, if the world setting is too "open and inclusive", it is a happy thing for a GM to tailor the game for the people at the table. I would be horribly uncomfortable to the point of walking from a table where one's sexual orientation was a central issue going in EITHER direction. If other people want their game to have all that out on parade, I'm happy for them, and may they please buy more Paizo products. But I don't gravitate towards that form of entertainment, especially on a night out with my wife. Eroticism isn't so much a focus in our age group.
I'm glad Paizo recognizes this and strives for balance as part of being fun and inclusive of everyone.
Contributor
|
Remember, Dwraves seem to be rather bit on the whole arranged marriage thing. Love doesn't really count into that, nor does sexuality. So, a straight or homosexual dwarf would be in the same boat, they're lucky if they get to marry someone they love. Hence why she works on helping love blossom in arranged marriages.I may be reaching here, but arranged marriage doesn't have to equal opposite-sex marriage, does it?
Reproduction isn't limited to opposite-sex marriage. And I'd guess same-sex marriage can be just as useful for cementing alliances as opposite-sex marriage. (Off the top of my head, I can't think of other reasons for arranged marriages, outside of someone exerting power across a power differential or something.)
Edit to add: I'm not disagreeing with anyone's analysis of this, just looking for wiggle room that could be applied in interpretation of the text.
Re: other reasons for arranged marriages...
Arranged marriages exist in India because its a religious prerequisite to being a realized man or woman in mainstream (non-yogic or Tantric) Hinduism. The other reasons are elaborate exo or endogamic marriage rules people are trying to follow, and dowry customs. And it's generally a female-dominated affair - one's mother is heavily involved. However, in practice, it means that a lot of non-straight and even straight people are unhappy. But not as many straight people as Westerners might believe. There are about five other kinds of marriage, based on either love or coercion, that also are listed traditionally. So a highly lawful society could allow for love-matches or same sex marriages, as long as there are rules...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand its usage in contemporary American society. The point I was evidently not making effectively is that it is in part irrational. It is hard to categorize someone as not good based on their irrational fears.As others have pointed out, it's not always irrational.
Also, the fact that the fear is irrational doesn't mean that the behavior can't be controlled, especially the more severe it is. I am pretty irrationally afraid of spiders. If I jump when I see a spider, that I probably can't control and shouldn't be blamed for. If I burn down someone's house or beat them up because they own a tarantula, however, I have done something evil and absolutely should be blamed for it.
And essentially, to get back to the original point, you're arguing that if a deity is homophobic, we should treat that as insane rather than evil, and therefore allow her to be good. That's not really the way the alignment system works, however. While real life is a lot more nuanced, the alignment system is fairly black and white. There are entire races that default to evil (kobolds, outsiders, etc.), psychosis and some other forms of insanity change your alignment to CE, Lamashtu (the main deity with madness as part of her portfolio) is evil, etc. The alignment system doesn't really care if you're a murderous cannibal because you made a rational decision to be, or whether you're a murderous cannibal because you're insane and can't really help it. Either way, if you're murdering people and eating them, you're likely evil.
I have to side with Jessica here.
*Big confession on my part*I have an aversion to trans folks. But it is a visceral reaction inside of me. But guess what I don't actually dislike them or anything. I in fact stand up for their rights and all. I found the aversion unacceptable and forced myself to get to know some folks from that community and to fight it. I never want to be that way and even though I don't really know where the ingrained reaction came from in the first place, I decided I wasn't going to let it rule my actions. Because that is not who I am and what I want to be. Does that make me transphobic? Maybe not sure but I am certainly not going to let it stay that way.
To wrap it up actions do speak louder than internal feelings.
I admit I've skimmed a lot of the posts so forgive me if I'm repeating a notion that someone else has shared (and if they have shared it, take this as a '+1').
I could totally see that Bolka having a specialty in opposite-sex marriage isn't necessarily a matter of homophobia but simply a matter of skill set. There aren't a lot of fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but there are some -- usually cultural -- differences in the dynamics (what with men being from Akiton and women being from Castrovel and all). There's no reason to assume she wouldn't help a gay dwarf find a mate but it's simply possible she's not as good at it. It could be like how some LGBT people have relatives who are fully supportive but keep trying to set them up with every other appropriate LGBT person they know without regards to compatibility. They mean well, and they do sincerely want to help, but they don't get that you might not want to be with the only other gay person in your town.
Gods tend to have a handful of specialties, 'lesser' deities even moreso, and part of being specialized means that you can't be good at everything. Similarly, she's described as focused on bringing love to arranged marriages but also helping bachelors find wives. One could argue she's not as good (or as focused) at helping non-arranged marriages work out in the long run. Does that make her ineligible to be a 'good' deity?
And if that is the case regarding Bolka, it doesn't mean she's evil. It just means that some worshipers aren't going to get the full spiritual bang for their buck out of her temples. There might be less dwarf-centric deities that would be more helpful, but I don't think that necessarily makes her a bad person or affects her alignment in any way.
Now, that said, this could completely be clarified/adjusted in Inner Sea Gods and I'd support any efforts there. I'm just arguing that Bolka not being the best god ever at every individual aspect of marriage between dwarves doesn't make her evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe good people don't want to prevent other people from being in loving relationships because of their gender. And I'm pretty sure our developers likewise would not make a good deity of marriage homophobic.
But no one seems to have a problem with good characters, or even deities, exhibit racism (and true racism, unlike IRL, since there are actually different races). Even genocidal intent is accepted among good deities.
Not really -- historically, the economic and alliance aspects have been just as, if not more, important. And Bolka is a goddess of marriage, not of childbirth. Golarion's history and culture isn't Earth's, and things that are "traditionally" associated on Earth aren't always on Golarion.
But the majority of the economic aspect is also in regards to children. Knowing that you are passing down the economic benefits to your own offspring, combining the economic resources of two families, etc.
And while political alliances based on marriage often didn't last long regardless of the presence or absence of children, the same could be said of any basis political alliances. And with marriage, the children would have legitimate claim to the hereditary political power of both families.
Personally, if the goddess of marriage preferred hetero- to homosexual couples, that makes senses. But if she is good she should probably accept homosexual couples and allow her priests to still preform marriages for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe good people don't want to prevent other people from being in loving relationships because of their gender. And I'm pretty sure our developers likewise would not make a good deity of marriage homophobic.But no one seems to have a problem with good characters, or even deities, exhibit racism (and true racism, unlike IRL, since there are actually different races). Even genocidal intent is accepted among good deities.
This is a very good point. I wonder why that is? I understand why it is that other character flaws do not necessarily disqualify a deity from being of a good alignment, but you would think that racism would at least be on par with homophobia when it comes to such things. Why would one be acceptable for a good deity, and the other be an automatic disqualification?
|
|
I personally believe good people don't want to prevent other people from being in loving relationships because of their gender. And I'm pretty sure our developers likewise would not make a good deity of marriage homophobic.But no one seems to have a problem with good characters, or even deities, exhibit racism (and true racism, unlike IRL, since there are actually different races).
Ahem.
Even genocidal intent is accepted among good deities.
The only good god that even vaguely approaches this is Torag, and only through a common misreading of his paladin code. ("scatter families", not "slay them to the last child")
Coincidentally Torag is also probably the god that has his goodness cred questioned the most.
I think because when it manifests in characters, it's a character flaw. However characters are mortal fallible beings. Gods are uber powerful outsiders who are the embodiments of their alignment. I think if you want morally complex "good gods", it's not really possible in a game wedded to Alignment like pathfinder
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only good god that even vaguely approaches this is Torag, and only through a common misreading of his paladin code. ("scatter families", not "slay them to the last child")
Coincidentally Torag is also probably the god that has his goodness cred questioned the most.
Well, I don't think it is a misreading (no quarter means no surrender; scatter families isn't explicitly slay children, but results in the same thing since children can't fend for themselves without adults).
I think because when it manifests in characters, it's a character flaw. However characters are mortal fallible beings. Gods are uber powerful outsiders who are the embodiments of their alignment. I think if you want morally complex "good gods", it's not really possible in a game wedded to Alignment like pathfinder
I don't think its an issue for gods. Gods in Pathfinder are still closer to Greek/Roman/Norse gods in that they are not omnipotent/omniscient and exhibit flaws. Jealousy, vanity, wrath, and favoritism are normal for pantheistic deities. I don't see why Pathfinder would be different. Even with PF alignment, deities are not perfect. The god embodies their portfolio (war, nature, magic, etc), so unless alignment is specifically part of their portfolio I don't see why they wouldn't have character flaws as much as any other pantheon of gods.
We all know and love Bolka, the Dwarven Goddess of Marriage (mostly arranged marriages). But in one of the Faiths and Religions books, it is mentioned that her clergy assist 'confirmed bachelors find a wife'.
This seems pretty innocent to me, but the good olden days definition of 'confirmed bachelor' is taken to mean homosexual male. As Golarion is a setting closer to the Victorian age than present day and typically in fantasy Dwarves are very conservative, should we read into this that Bolka has a religious agenda versus homosexuality in Dwarven society?
Personally my theory is that Bolka loves all marriage, and just as long as the consenting same sex partners put on a proper do for the rest of the clan and there's plenty of Dwarven oaths and vows and all that good stuff, your wedding is blessed. But what if...?
Would love to get some developer feedback - Does Bolka have an anti-gay belief structure? How are homosexual dwarves dealing with Bolkan Inquisitors? Is there going to be an Inquisitor archetype with a gaydar ability? Are there underground gay camps?
MY DWARVEN STONEMOTHER OF BOLKA NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!
I see no anti-gay belief structure there. Taken literally, it seems she probably views marriage and procreation as a clan duty, quite apart from personal romances. If you wanted to soften the reading, presumably she is just looking to marry off what dwarves she can; gay dwarves might be part of a different agenda, or maybe she wants them to get married, too, and adopt orphaned relatives. Given the Lawful bent of the dwarves, like the idea of a Wedding Banquet situation (as in the movie), where the dwarven goddess is just really concerned that her worshippers are going to produce little dwarven grandchildren for her and carry on the clan names.
It is of course entirely possible she has a (non-coerceive, non-violent) anti-gay agenda, in which case I imagine gay dwarves turn to other deities for patronage and in order to find culturally acceptable roles.
But as gay identity is largely the result of modern humanism, the civil rights movement, and a liberalization of attitudes toward romance away from being marriage-centric, I don't think it's given there's a dwarven gay identity. I imagine dwarves who love dwarves of the same sex probably have to navigate a culture in which it is assumed they will marry and further the clan. There are cultures who manage this badly, by outlawing gays, trying to "reform" permanent traits through treatment, punishment, and/or prayer, and so forth. Then there are other cultures that manage just fine, by enrolling "bachelors" into culturally approved pro-social groups, by recognizing gay marriage, by releasing people with homosexual feelings from the expectation of formal marriage, or by providing rituals or roles whereby someone changes cultural "gender" and then marries into whatever role is typical. Many Native American groups and some traditional African groups seem to have made it fairly straightforward for a man or woman to change "official" sex, irrespective of whether that person would be someone you or I might consider transgender.
I don't think its an issue for gods. Gods in Pathfinder are still closer to Greek/Roman/Norse gods in that they are not omnipotent/omniscient and exhibit flaws. Jealousy, vanity, wrath, and favoritism are normal for pantheistic deities. I don't see why Pathfinder would be different. Even with PF alignment, deities are not perfect. The god embodies their portfolio (war, nature, magic, etc), so unless alignment is specifically part of their portfolio I don't see why they wouldn't have character flaws as much as any other pantheon of gods.
I think because when it manifests in characters, it's a character flaw. However characters are mortal fallible beings. Gods are uber powerful outsiders who are the embodiments of their alignment. I think if you want morally complex "good gods", it's not really possible in a game wedded to Alignment like pathfinder
The exception would be a character flaw which would interfere with the alignment of a character.
A god might be prone to vanity, or be OCD, or perhaps partake a bit too much in alcohol. If the god is neutral, there likely would be no issue. If a god is good, those flaws can not be so large as to interfere with the "greater good". Being "good" means putting others ahead of yourself, and if you have a flaw that actively hurts other people, than you are no longer good.
Frankly I find little in common with Pathfinder dieties and real life pantheism. There are no head gods...they differ in power but even within specific alignments no one has greater authority. Most of the gods, other than Shelyn-Zon Kuthon and some of the racial dieties, have no real familial relationship. In addition, clerics call on a single god, not all of them or a large subset of them (For the most part). In general I would also argue that fairly few of the gods are nearly as petty or power mad as Greek or Norse Gods. Iomedae isn't smiting worshipers because they are better at sewing, Nor are most gods involved in sordid affair with legions of mortals.
Gods are so immensely powerful that I would say that smiting a few thousand people because they had a bad day does not automatically cause an alignment change. Whatever it is they normally do, it's probably on a scale of goodness or evilness way beyond even the lifetime of an entire nation. Further, since they are outsiders with alignment subtypes in many writeups, I tend to say they can't accidentally change alignment; at least in my mind, an alignment subtype means that only a conscious, willful decision to resist their basic nature can allow them to change alignments. I think Good deities are good because they foster goodness and further good things through their followers, but gods of this sort are not infallible and may not be alignment exemplars in the least. I don't think Good deities have any more problems using and killing mortals than a farmer has slaughtering pigs for meat and milking cows; a Good person simply avoids being cruel to animals, and a Good deity avoid being cruel to mortals. But they still have a divine agenda.
The Greeks generally considered Zeus to be Lawful Good in Pathfinder terms. Okay, he was not always thoughtful about acquiring concubines, and he could be petty and even violent, but he was the deity of Kings, and so he embodies all that is kingly, even things that individually might not seem so Lawful or Good. A LG deity might be a god of war or a good of pacifism. You can't guess their personality, the specifics of their ethics, or the fullness of their commitment to a philosophical ideal just by knowing their alignment.
So, a LG deity might force some mortals into sexless marriages, not because she wants them to suffer, but because she sees it as ultimately furthering the good of all. That is not, by far, the worst of the kinds of things deities get mortals to do. I have a hard time imagining a mainstream dwarf deity being so rigid, simply because the dwarves themselves are so spirited and full of life, but it is a possible interpretation. You might so, "Oh, that's mean," but a mortal might just as easily take issue with a deity who is pacifistic refusing to let their followers take up arms, even to defend children from orc raiders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no anti-gay belief structure there. Taken literally, it seems she probably views marriage and procreation as a clan duty, quite apart from personal romances.
Quite agree.
Her domain is not love, it is Marriage, and therein lay the motives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the majority of the economic aspect is also in regards to children. Knowing that you are passing down the economic benefits to your own offspring, combining the economic resources of two families, etc.
Dwarven society, I think, is clan-based. The economic aspect also benefits children in the clan or an extended family. And I expect most clan members have a strong emotional attachment to children of their clan, not just their own (especially if if they don't have offspring themselves).