"Some of the succubi defer all night long too. And yes she did say that, we keep trying to get Erastil to come over for BBQ, even promised not to grill him the succubi just love his rack, gives them such naughty ideas." Sighs and shakes his head "But nooooooooooo, that be unseemly!, Unseemly me!//silly elk headed gods"
Either way, Erastil continues to empower the patriarchalists and the fledgling matriarchalist in Seeker of Secrets, suggesting that he really doesn't care that much about this issue.
If I had to make this decision in my game right now, I would probably have the following to say on the matter for my version of the world.
That this was an event limited to the Ulfen communities in that area. Although other Erastil communities in the world might have had a female-dominated clerical hierarchy in the past or in the present, that Erastil didn't give a command for all of his followers to exchange places.
I would say that during some point in the history an event (increased war, orc invasions, etc.) causing a shift in power occurred (maybe clerics were more necessary on the battlefield, so warriors received clerical training just because warrior was more a male role in their culture) and then later on, to avoid power slipping away from their sons they obscured the history of their previous traditions.
Erastil is fine with male-dominant, female-dominant, or clergy with no gender dominant. It doesn't change his view on gender roles, but a motherly cleric is just as beneficial to a community as a fatherly cleric. He might even prefer male/female dominant just because it fits better as a tradition (or helps better define the role of the temple) than just letting all who wish to serving there. Despite how a switch was set up before, he doesn't want there to be an upheaval in his temples just change it back to the way it was before.
Those clerics are "right" to protect the traditions their community has had for generations when the resulting change would create suffering for the community. But the "heretic" is also within her bounds to explore the history of her people and reveal it. Just because knowledge is revealed doesn't mean the fabric of the community is too weak to support that knowledge. As his servant, he trusts her to handle the matter.
Or this is a matter that he expects his clergy to solve without his intervention. Or some godly reason that mortals can't understand.
|
Just a questioin: What god (fictional or "real") have you ever encountered that WOULD meet your definition of being good?2nd try: For an example, I would submit the hippie version of Jesus. That does not mean that all versions of Jesus qualify - there are many interpretations of Jesus and some of them are not good.
But Jesus is just an avatar of Yahweh, a good that is at best Lawful Neutral, and has shown some very evil tendencies at times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am just happy that Paizo = HBO and not Disney as nothing puts me off like bland PC puritanical crud.
Erastil is the god of rural and 1950's suburban America.
Except that in 1950's suburban America (and most other "modern, civilised" nations at that time), spousal rape was not a crime, while in the eyes of Erastil, it is, and has been for centuries - if not forever.
So, in some very important issues, he's way ahead of the lauded modern civilisation.
|
I have lurked in this thread for most of the night (thank goodness for wi-fi and the PSP) while at work. And in all of the posts that have been written, I think the most important questions have yet to be asked. I'll start with this one:
Of those that have such strong objections to the write up, how many of you are actually married?
|
I have a friend that is deathly afraid of spiders - as in, if she hears the word she freezes or runs from the room. We cater to this by removing occasional spider encounters from the games she participates in. She also has bowed out of drow games because she doesn't want to deny us our fun, and realizes repurposing so many spider based themes and encounters would detract from the experience of a drow game. We're friends - we talk about issues and what we find fun in games, and work to make it as enjoyable as possible for everyone.I'm just a bastard! I listen carefully to what players say creeps them out, and am sure to INCLUDE that in games.
Like... plants.
Heh.
And did you see the critter in the newest volume of Pathfinder AP that likes fingernails and eyes? He's the one I think I mentioned from one of the WotC Monster Manuals.
Watch out!
Done in small doses, it's fine, if you're wanting players to be a little squeemish. Spiderphobia like above serves no practice to bring up. Uncomfortable players, ok, dysfunctional ones, not so much.
Yeah, pretty much. I was with her on a vacation this week, hangin' out with friends at a lake, and she pulled down the visor on the car I was driving to block the sun - and a spider was there. She literally screamed, opened the car door and jumped out of a moving vehicle to get away. I was mostly stopped, so she didn't hurt herself - but I won't introduce spiders to her with that kind of phobia.
My fear of large leaves, whole green peppers and things near my eyes are all irrational phobias, but I have enough control over them that they're mostly silly and funny, not dangerous. :)
|
I have a friend that is deathly afraid of spiders - as in, if she hears the word she freezes or runs from the room. We cater to this by removing occasional spider encounters from the games she participates in. She also has bowed out of drow games because she doesn't want to deny us our fun, and realizes repurposing so many spider based themes and encounters would detract from the experience of a drow game. We're friends - we talk about issues and what we find fun in games, and work to make it as enjoyable as possible for everyone.I'm just a bastard! I listen carefully to what players say creeps them out, and am sure to INCLUDE that in games.
Like... plants.
Heh.
And did you see the critter in the newest volume of Pathfinder AP that likes fingernails and eyes? He's the one I think I mentioned from one of the WotC Monster Manuals.
Watch out!
Done in small doses, it's fine, if you're wanting players to be a little squeemish. Spiderphobia like above serves no practice to bring up. Uncomfortable players, ok, dysfunctional ones, not so much.
Yeah, pretty much. I was with her on a vacation this week, hangin' out with friends at a lake, and she pulled down the visor on the car I was driving to block the sun - and a spider was there. She literally screamed, opened the car door and jumped out of a moving vehicle to get away. I was mkostly stopped, so she didn't hurt herself - but I won't introduce spiders to her with that kind of phobia.
My fear of large leaves, whole green peppers and things near my eyes are all irrational phobias, but not I have enough control over them that they're mostly silly and funny, not dangerous. :)
Man, I'm glad I never brought any leaf wrapped poblano poppers to the game. You need to tell people these things!!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I'm glad I never brought any leaf wrapped poblano poppers to the game. You need to tell people these things!!My fear of large leaves, whole green peppers and things near my eyes are all irrational phobias, but I have enough control over them that they're mostly silly and funny, not dangerous. :)
Lol. I hate whole peppers because they feel hollow - and that freaks me out for some reason. I *think* it's because I fear what I'll find when I cut them open - for example, flesh eating scarabs will boil out of them like some random scene from The Mummy or something. Chopped, they're fine. Eating them is no problem once they're cut up. It's totally irrational - and I can and have cut up green peppers. I just hate doing it.
And I hate big leaves - especially when they're big with bug eaten holes in them or really pale (brocolli leaves....::shudder::). Like they're half eaten undead plants...ick.
I was literally chased, screaming, across my grandmother's back yard by my cousin with a green pepper in her hands when I was little. Stupid. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1I am just happy that Paizo = HBO and not Disney as nothing puts me off like bland PC puritanical crud.
You guys realize that Puritan beliefs were pretty much exactly opposite of what we call PC, right?
Yeah, pretty much. I was with her on a vacation this week, hangin' out with friends at a lake, and she pulled down the visor on the car I was driving to block the sun - and a spider was there. She literally screamed, opened the car door and jumped out of a moving vehicle to get away. I was mostly stopped, so she didn't hurt herself
Mmmm, poor girl. I can't wait to see her... hahaha.
Hey, Jess. Check the SD threads. I just posted something you will want to know. (And welcome back)
Yeah, pretty much. I was with her on a vacation this week, hangin' out with friends at a lake, and she pulled down the visor on the car I was driving to block the sun - and a spider was there. She literally screamed, opened the car door and jumped out of a moving vehicle to get away.
I guess I wouldn't quite jump out of the car. I hope I never find out...
As 90% of the time it would be the male who knew more it makes sense. It's just the way it is, men are stronger. On a farm the boys do the field work, they heard the animals, some girls do as well, but they are nomrly kept around the house to help with the other stuff, repairing clothing, canning food, taking care of the youngin, making clothing , cleaning house.
All stuff that must be done, so most time it is the male who learns more the running of the whole farm.
I am still not seeing anything that would convince anyone they were wrong. And remember he has been around a very long time and his ideas have worked and still work.
Why should he change?
For your first point, if 90% of the time it would be the male who knew more, I see a quick way to improve farm and family survivability by 10%. Change "wives should defer to their husbands" to "the person who knows less should defer to the person who knows more".
For your second point, remember that in Pathfinder there is no such thing as women being physically weaker than men - their stats are identical. Thus the physical strength argument doesn't work. Also, phsyical labour does not always mean expertise. A woman that sees a better way of farming might do so precisely because she can see how it all fits together, from a distance, or she might hear her husband grumble about X and say "so why not do it this way instead?" and be correct.
To your third point, you seem to be asking me to prove a negative. In one sense, Erastil's methods have worked in that his people have not been completely wiped off the face of Golaron. In another sense, his methods have not worked because they could have been improved, giving his people a greater chance of surviving than they previously had (and resulting in more survivors to worship him).
As to the second point, there aren't any rules for it, doesn't mean it isn't true women are in general less strong. We can't really expect female characters to be an inferior player choice by giving them a penalty to physical scores, the bigger problem is balancing it, giving male characters a -1 penalty to mental stats perhaps ?
For your first point, if 90% of the time it would be the male who knew more, I see a quick way to improve farm and family survivability by 10%. Change "wives should defer to their husbands" to "the person who knows less should defer to the person who knows more".
Why? You have yet to show how this benefits when folks do it any way? You have yet to make a good reason why this should change other then "I disagree with it"
For your second point, remember that in Pathfinder there is no such thing as women being physically weaker than men - their stats are identical. Thus the physical strength argument doesn't work. Also, phsyical labour does not always mean expertise. A woman that sees a better way of farming might do so precisely because she can see how it all fits together, from a distance, or she might hear her husband grumble about X and say "so why not do it this way instead?" and be correct.
and your point? Game rules and game world do not always see eye to eye. The argument works 100% along with the fact while the women are pregnant and raising kids your not seeing to the day to day running of the farm. In modern views you could without breast pumps, day care and household help your back to men doing most of the farm stuff and women doing most of the home stuff.
It's not sexist it's effective and practical.
And you still act as if they have no say, like they can not share ideas and input. Something that simply is not true.
To your third point, you seem to be asking me to prove a negative. In one sense, Erastil's methods have worked in that his people have not been completely wiped off the face of Golaron. In another sense, his methods have not worked because they could have been improved, giving his people a greater chance of surviving than they previously had (and resulting in more survivors to worship him).
No, his people did not just survive they thrived and spread across the land. Over time some have moved on to other gods but many stayed as his ideas worked and still work. What your talking about honestly worsens survivability not improves it.
Your still viewing defer as "You are cattle and have no say, shut up woman" which the article and everything written simply does not support.
Your coloring a simple idea with negativity it does not present.
Everyone defers, everyone.
If Erastil acted even half the way you seem to think he would be LE and have no female clergy and his community would treat them as objects or slaves.
Sure, anyone could just change the details they don't like. I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.
First: With all due respect, take a deep breath. At first it is a game, if one does not like it, one does not have to play it.
Second: Such things are making the World more realistic. Did you notice that in Sargava the Colonist use people from the Mwangi as a cheap labor force? Does that ring a bell? Once upon a time there was a country called the USA if I remember correctly, where especially the southern states used cheap labor (slaves) form Africa to tend to their cotton plantations.
I don't know which ethnicity you guys belong to, but may be people of afro-american ancestry don't like this ether? So the authors of paizo are not only sexist but also racist for incorporating such similarities into the game world?
I don't think so, a fantasy world with similarities to the real world is much easier to identify with, not because one likes the circumstances described above, but because one knows them. For those of you who haven't noticed Golarion is very much like the real world. So if the argument of your player is, that sexism and so on are things she experiences in real life, tell her to get a lawyer, for as far as I know their are very strict laws against such things especially at the working place and if you don't like a world with similarities to earth, well there are a lot of other settings and no one forces you to use this particular one, so I really don't see the problem.
Greetz
Ganzir
what alignment would you apply to the late Pope John Paul II ?
LE, LN at best.
|
|
But Jesus is just an avatar of Yahweh, a good that is at best Lawful Neutral, and has shown some very evil tendencies at times.Some version of Jesus and Yahweh, yes. My hippie friends' version of Jesus and Yahweh, likely not. They would simply say that parts of the bible never happened. And without Yahweh or Jesus appearing in a definitive and public way to set the record straight about how much and which parts of the scripture is accurate, there is no one able to prove my hippie Jesus worshiping friends wrong.
And we're back to one of the major reasons that I'm an atheist. The simple fact that almost all religions cherry pick from their holy books, while simultaneous holding them up to be the "Literal Word of God" (TM). I find it rather disgusting, and every religion / denomination that I know beyond a superficial level practices it to some degree.
If you have to do that much cherry-picking (and in the example I outlined, your hippie friends will have to exclude the vast majority of the Old Testament), then I question whether you're really even using the base religion as anything more than a template to apply to your own beliefs.
Not that I don't appreciate people taking shots at my religion and calling into question my deepest held beliefs and all of that, but rather than defend myself and my faith, I'd rather stop for a second and realize that we're actually talking about Erastil . . . in the Pathfinder setting.
I try not to talk about religion or politics on the forums, especially in the parts of the forums designated for discussing the RPG, because, honestly, most people don't come here to read my political and religious views.
That having been said, I also, with all due respect, don't come hear to read about how people wish to portray my religion and the people that are important to that religion.
I get that discussions like this sometimes tangentially touch on real world religion of various types, but there really isn't any reason to get as specific as has been done in this thread.
|
|
But Jesus is just an avatar of Yahweh, a good that is at best Lawful Neutral, and has shown some very evil tendencies at times.Some version of Jesus and Yahweh, yes. My hippie friends' version of Jesus and Yahweh, likely not. They would simply say that parts of the bible never happened. And without Yahweh or Jesus appearing in a definitive and public way to set the record straight about how much and which parts of the scripture is accurate, there is no one able to prove my hippie Jesus worshiping friends wrong.And we're back to one of the major reasons that I'm an atheist. The simple fact that almost all religions cherry pick from their holy books, while simultaneous holding them up to be the "Literal Word of God" (TM). I find it rather disgusting, and every religion / denomination that I know beyond a superficial level practices it to some degree.
If you have to do that much cherry-picking (and in the example I outlined, your hippie friends will have to exclude the vast majority of the Old Testament), then I question whether you're really even using the base religion as anything more than a template to apply to your own beliefs.
Yes because you'll never find an athiest cherry picking what science they accept as fact and what science they consider chicanery. "I don't care what they say, Pluto is a planet." Is something no athiest would ever say.
I thought Pluto was a dog?
I thought Goofy was the dog...
Yes because you'll never find an athiest cherry picking what science they accept as fact and what science they consider chicanery. "I don't care what they say, Pluto is a planet." Is something no athiest would ever say.
Oh yes they would. Of course, the dispute would be over whether the definition of planet should return to a state in which Pluto would be a full-blown planet instead of a dwarf planet. But that's not a case of determining what Pluto's characteristics are as much as how to classify them. It's a definitional dispute.
That said, you still see people cherry picking their science based on their pet theories, particularly when the evidence is relatively minor, hard to measure, the differences in observations are hard to interpret, yadda yadda. It's just a lot harder to rationally do so when the evidence becomes more clear, the track record of the controversial theories becomes more convincing, etc. That can take many years, even decades, with some particular aspects of science.
Since we are on the topic of sexism, how come no one has mentioned the smoking hot Cleric of Erastil on page 70 of Pathfinder #32 (Rivers Run Red)?
I thought Pluto was a dog?I thought Goofy was the dog...
Goofy is an anthropomorphic dog. Pluto is a regular dog (belonging to an anthropomorphic mouse).
Yes because you'll never find an athiest cherry picking what science they accept as fact and what science they consider chicanery. "I don't care what they say, Pluto is a planet." Is something no athiest would ever say.Oh yes they would.
Sarcasm detection FAIL!
|
|
Sarcasm detection FAIL!Yes because you'll never find an athiest cherry picking what science they accept as fact and what science they consider chicanery. "I don't care what they say, Pluto is a planet." Is something no athiest would ever say.Oh yes they would.
I didn't want to be the one to say it, so thanks Kae. But, then again, he may not be as familiar with my posting style as you are Kae, after all, I think you were around for my, I'm leaving the Paizo boards thread during the playtest.
Goofy is an anthropomorphic dog. Pluto is a regular dog (belonging to an anthropomorphic mouse).
Kinky.
It's worth noting that Erastil doesn't really like adventures of either gender. Any DM or player is going to have to work out how their adventuring priest of Erastil continues to get spells when Erastil sees most adventures as a blight upon communities.
|
Sure, anyone could just change the details they don't like. I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.First: With all due respect, take a deep breath. At first it is a game, if one does not like it, one does not have to play it.
Second: Such things are making the World more realistic.
I agree that I don't have to play the adventure path that has the Erastil the god be both lawful good and sexist. And note that I am not arguing against the *existence* of a sexist god. I am arguing against his being classified as lawful good while simultaneously being sexist and a god. I can accept a non-god that is lawful good and sexist, a lawful good god that is non-sexist, or a sexist god that is not good-aligned. It is the combination of LG, God and Sexist that I have trouble with. The closest I could come was earlier in the thread with the idea of "god" being replaced by "semi-sentient computer program with bugs to be worked around to access their power", although that certainly takes a lot of oomph out of the god's awe and majesty.
My noticing this thread actually saved me a bit of money, since I see that, while I like the core rules, the setting would not be something I would enjoy.
Ah, well, there you have it. The reason you have trouble with gods being fallible is because you believe they should be infallible. And you'd be wrong, with a whole ton of myths to back me up. The mythological deity is the kind of deity Paizo went with-they all have their flaws, even the lawful good ones.
Might I remind you the author himself and Paizo have come on this board to defend his work. This is because a Lawful Good god with mild sexist tendencies is A-Ok with them. If this is the sticking point for you, fine. Just don't flail around in anger on the messageboard for 9 pages.
I think this thread has run its course. It is now locked.
If you'd like to discuss perfect vs. imperfect gods, grittiness of settings, feminism (or chauvanism) in gaming, real world religions, or any of the other topics that have come up in this thread, please make a new thread in the relevant section of the messageboards.