I think the OP and his/her players need to read Sean's posts carefully.
If Erastil doesn't fit your player's needs, change it for the AP.
If the subject it too 'offensive' or you somehow can not twist the fluff in your favor....don't play the game. Somethings are gonna ruffle people's feathers at some point.
"You mean to tell me Half-Orcs are the product of rape?! Paizo/Wizards/etc. YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR!"
that is totaly not the point
if a LG god has a dogma like this:
"Should a cleric of Erastil, either male or female, who advocates that a wife leave her abusive husband loose his divine powers because it conflicts with the god's tenet that women "should defer to and support their husbands"
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world. It is not about "we can change it" it is about no longer be willing to support a company who wrote this as LG
NOT my oppinion, but the way of thinking of some of my players
one of my 3 female players will be very pissed if she reads this.
She is very very sensitive about sexism and absolutly hates it if things like that turn up in RPG, she says she has enough of this crap in real live (she works in a male dominated job)
That's entirely the wrong way to go about this!
Like it says in the back of some of my Discworld paperbacks (it's about Discworld, but the general message applies here, too):
"[...] isn't it high time you got away from it all by visiting Discworld? Don't bother to leave your troubles behind. Bring them with you, because on the Discworld they'll look different and a whole lot easier to cure."
While there is much said about escaping into fantasy worlds to leave your troubles behind, another possibility is to take them with you. They're still the same problems, but you're not the same you in those fantasy worlds. You can be whoever you want to be (something the real world will often prevent).
Don't like sexism? The game still has it, but now you can mount a crusade against it! As a powerful Pathfinder character, you can change the world - so in addition to rescuing it from insane genies, power-hungry wizards, vengeful priestesses, or vindictive fairies, you can kick chauvinist butt!
|
Golarion is not a Disney campaign setting. It never will be. It does not pander to the lowest common denominator, striving to upset no one. Some people might not like it, and that's to bad for them. Because others wouldn't bother with it if it was whitewashed.
Agree one hundred percent with all of the above. The more I learned about Golarion, the more I want to explore the world. It's not sanitized for simpler roleplay. If anything, it's complexity makes it more inclusive because you can have feudal knights battling robots in Numeria or you can just not set your campaign near Numeria. You can run an adventure in a place where the regime changes constantly and the heads of today's rulers could be lining tomorrow's baskets...or you could smuggle firearms to a small group of rebels who want to shake off Cheliax's imperial rule. There is something here for every kind of game and still room to drop in your own continent if you want.
Personally, I've never liked the half-orcs are all the product of rape stereotype but Golarion, but it's not an essential prerequisite for playing one. Just like we have a certain segment of fandom who idolize Klingons and their brutal society(as well as actual historical examples of colonial Americans who abandoned their colonies to join the local "savages," and be part of a tribe instead of their Eurocentric culture...no commonality between Indian and Klingon intended), I like to think that there have been human men and women who abandoned their societies to become as Orcs and that half-orcs are just as often the product of such unions as forced couplings.
But I would not, for all the world, prefer a setting where such characters were whitewashed out of existence.
I think if we were to make a utopian game setting in which there was nothing with which we vehemently disagreed, it'd be a pretty boring place to adventure.
Adventure? What for?
if a LG god has a dogma like this:
"Should a cleric of Erastil, either male or female, who advocates that a wife leave her abusive husband loose his divine powers because it conflicts with the god's tenet that women "should defer to and support their husbands"
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world. It is not about "we can change it" it is about no longer be willing to support a company who wrote this as LG
NOT my oppinion, but the way of thinking of some of my players
Well, there you're quoting another poster in this thread and not anything that I'm aware of in Erastil's description. A search of the PDF isn't turning up the term "abuse". Equating priests losing their powers if they're not forcing wives to stay with abusive husbands is an extreme reading of "they should defer to their husbands".
Under "A Priest's Role" you can find that Erastil's priests step in with a firm hand to deal with a disruptive member of the community. Repeatedly breaking the community's trust leads to branding and exile.
Erastil's got conservative views of gender roles, but he's not cruel and unmerciful. He's stern and gentle as needed. He's generous and practical. This isn't the profile of a god who tolerates abuse simply because he has traditional views of the family. That's not a decent and strong family bond, which is what he promotes.
You know, I have read 5/6 of the AP and I don't find in any way Erastil-centric. The PCs are not agents of him, his church or in anyway required to follow his teachings. If your players are bent on the nature-based philosophy, perhaps they could be followers of the Green Faith ?
It's not Erastil-centric at all. There are just some forgotten shrines to him in the wilderness, and he gets a write-up simply because taming the wilderness to build farms and the like is right up his alley so he's probably the best fit.
Doesn't mean they have to bother with those sites. They don't have to worship him. They don't even have to acknowledge he exists. The "state religion" might be Gozreh, or the Green Faith. Or Abadar. Or Iomedae. Or Calistria. Or anything else.
|
|
While there is much said about escaping into fantasy worlds to leave your troubles behind, another possibility is to take them with you. They're still the same problems, but you're not the same you in those fantasy worlds. You can be whoever you want to be (something the real world will often prevent).
Don't like sexism? The game still has it, but now you can mount a crusade against it! As a powerful Pathfinder character, you can change the world - so in addition to rescuing it from insane genies, power-hungry wizards, vengeful priestesses, or vindictive fairies, you can kick chauvinist butt!
Sometimes this is fun. But if an entire adventure path features this as a major component (rather than an occasional issue), you need to evaluate if that's what your players want to concentrate on.
When one goes to work and has to prove everyday that yes, people with two X chromosomes can not only do simple aritmatic, but may possibly be a better software engineer than anyone else in the vicinity, one gets weary of having to deal with the constant assumption that they're wierd for liking numbers.
I know I have a relatively large chip on my shoulder from constant reactions of "I never thought someone like you could be an engineer!" Having it be a constant issue in my hobby for 6 months to a year would make it decidedly unfun. An occasional plotline around it would probably, on the other hand, allow me to work out some of my anger over the issue without having "You're a girl, you can't do anything except housework," constantly thrown in my teeth.
so, I would advise that if there's a player very sensitive to this issue (or any other issue in a game), talk it over. Find out what people would enjoy in your game, and tailor things to fit what you'll all find the most fun.
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 will say that Erastil's focus on home and hearth makes him harder to work into an adventurer's character in many ways.
Excellent point: He's probably the least suitable deity for adventurers in the main Pantheon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world.
+1
I believe that sexism shouldn't be a LG trait any more than torture or slavery should be. Sure I'll change it in my campaign; just seems that I shouldn't have to conflict with the campaign setting as written to resolve issues that are otherwise self-evident.
if a LG god has a dogma like this:
"Should a cleric of Erastil, either male or female, who advocates that a wife leave her abusive husband loose his divine powers because it conflicts with the god's tenet that women "should defer to and support their husbands"
While he certainly is against Instant Divorce, that doesn't mean that men have jester's licence! Men have a place in the family, just like women. Beating their wives and being drunk all the time is not that place. And if they become criminal, they will be punished.
Some folks prefer their RPG escapist experience free from all those inequalities, injustices and intolerances of the Real World.
Those folks will have to adjust Pathfinder to avoid offending their sensibilities.
This conversation has echos of the "Slavery in Pathfinder" discussions from a while back.
One camp wants the fantasy world to represent an ideal where the socially bad things do not exist or are lessened, so that they may enjoy the setting without being troubled by real-world nastiness.
The other camp wants those negative real-world elements included so they can play characters who respond to oppression and violence. e.g. "Slavery exists and is prevalent so I can play a character of the noble minority who fights against it, even if it difficult or nigh impossible"
I am in the latter camp, though I certainly understand the desire of the former. It is — above all — a matter of taste. If a GM made his views on the matter clear, I would have no objection to the "lightening" of subject matter in a given campaign. However, I am glad that Pathfinder doesn't gloss over the real world nastiness in all cases; heroes need legitimate causes to champion, and being a crusader for freedom in a world where slavery is universally abhorred is... too easy. Playing a "Joan of Arc" female who becomes an important prophet of an otherwise misogynistic deity (and overcomes the cultural backlash) is an appealing notion to me. Erastil's sexist edicts would enable that.
Some players might see Erastil's gender discrimination as an opportunity to play a character who faces a backdrop of sexism and deals with it in a heroic manner. Still others would prefer not to have to confront such issues during their "fantasy time". YMMV.
|
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world.+1
I believe that sexism shouldn't be a LG trait any more than torture or slavery should be. Sure I'll change it in my campaign; just seems that I shouldn't have to conflict with the campaign setting as written to resolve issues that are otherwise self-evident.
It really seems hyper-sensitive people are misunderstanding some of the Erastil content and viewing it for the worst.
Barring an extensive dicussion of whether or not Erastil REALLY IS sexist in the way you think he is for a moment, what would you rather have his alignment be?
|
that is totaly not the pointif a LG god has a dogma like this:
"Should a cleric of Erastil, either male or female, who advocates that a wife leave her abusive husband loose his divine powers because it conflicts with the god's tenet that women "should defer to and support their husbands"
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world. It is not about "we can change it" it is about no longer be willing to support a company who wrote this as LG
NOT my oppinion, but the way of thinking of some of my players
That would not be the dogma of a LG god...that would be the dogma of a LN or LE god, depending on their reasoning behind it (LN would view it as necessary to uphold the marriage contract for its own sake, without consequences to the parties involved).
As a LG diety, Erastil would want to maintain the marriage, but the clerics role would be to counsel both party's...help heal and strengthen the wife and chastise and, ehem, educate the husband, using force if necessary. If it is obvious that it isn't going to be in either of the individuals best interests to remain together, he'll separate them and maybe try to find more suitable spouses for them (for her, maybe he knows a local widower who has been out-of-sorts since his wife died, and for him, the local women's powerlifting champion).
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world.+1
I believe that sexism shouldn't be a LG trait any more than torture or slavery should be. Sure I'll change it in my campaign; just seems that I shouldn't have to conflict with the campaign setting as written to resolve issues that are otherwise self-evident.
Actually, from the quote, the thing that he was saying was the way to lose female players was your interpretation of the Erastil's actions.
To me, it is like saying that Cayden Cailean punishing a cleric for not promoting drinking contest among the villages youth is a major issue therefore you removed all references to drinking from Cayden Cailean. While you can do anything you want in your game, it seems more like you exacerbated/played-up the issue in order to give a reason why it was being altered for your game.
Sometimes this is fun. But if an entire adventure path features this as a major component (rather than an occasional issue), you need to evaluate if that's what your players want to concentrate on.
Tell me what AP that is so I can give you my two coppers about how to adjust it to suit you better.
If you mean Kingmaker, here's my advise.
And there it is.
If this seems like blank space to you, that's because it is. Erastil doesn't play a major role in Kingmaker, so you don't have to fix anything. He gets one encounter area in one AP, and there's a write-up in #32 simply because it was his turn and he fits the concept rather well.
That all doesn't mean he plays a bit role. Or any role, really.
one gets weary of having to deal with the constant assumption that they're wierd for liking numbers.
Of course you're weird for liking numbers. Nothing sexist about it, either. Men who like numbers are weird, too. :P
I know I have a relatively large chip on my shoulder from constant reactions of "I never thought someone like you could be an engineer!" Having it be a constant issue in my hobby for 6 months to a year would make it decidedly unfun. An occasional plotline around it would probably, on the other hand, allow me to work out some of my anger over the issue without having "You're a girl, you can't do anything except housework," constantly thrown in my teeth.
May I suggest Kingmaker, then? Tell your GM to play up Erastil's role in it a bit, so you can give that a good workout.
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.
I thought I didn't like the eight-legged freaks.
I have no problem with the really small ones (as long as they stay away from me) and can engage big ones as long as it is in a computer game or RPG.
Wanna hear a horror story? Don't tell your friend. (AND IF THE FRIEND READS THIS, SKIP THE SPOILER TAG BELOW!) True one, too, or at least it was said it was true. Call it urban legend:
So this DM thinks that player behaviour should be married to character behaviour. The characters are about to be ambushed by a really big, monster spider.
So, while describing the set-up of the room, he tells them that something attacks them that looks like THIS - and drops the tarantula he keeps as a pet onto the table. According to his logic, everyone who didn't freak out, jump off the chair, or wet himself (I assume) gets to act in the surprise round.
I read that on some message board or other.
It wasn't in my game, because you'd read about me in the news.
As I said, don't tell your friend, or she'll have nightmares.
She also has bowed out of drow games
Note that PF games are real old-school in that they worship demon lords. Arachnophilia is not necessary!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barring an extensive dicussion of whether or not Erastil REALLY IS sexist in the way you think he is for a moment, what would you rather have his alignment be?
I don't believe Erastil's sexism is in question. The god advocates specific societal roles for each gender as well as the subjugation of one gender by the other; that's the definition of sexism. Some may see the fact that he advocates roles for each gender as somehow egalitarian, but the roles themselves aren't equal.
Since he advocates the subjugation of people based on, of all things, gender alone, I'd say that pretty much knocks Erastil out of the good camp. So, at best, he'd probably be Lawful Neutral; he endeavours to maintain the status quo in disregard of what's good or bad.
|
|
Sometimes this is fun. But if an entire adventure path features this as a major component (rather than an occasional issue), you need to evaluate if that's what your players want to concentrate on.Tell me what AP that is so I can give you my two coppers about how to adjust it to suit you better.
If you mean Kingmaker, here's my advise.
Hrm. Maybe you should read the portion of my post you quoted again. Maybe this is a language issue, but the "if" there is a condition.
"If an adventure path features [sexism] as a major component, you need to..." means exactly what the language says here - if there is such a path, you need to evaluate your desires and your players' desires to see if this adventure path is a fit for you. If there is not...then, well, I didn't say anything about that adventure, did I?
What I believe about this adventure path doesn't matter much with regard to the above quoted statement, but I happen to believe that posters are overstating the sexism on Erastil's part quite strongly.
And I cannot have someone else run Kingmaker in our group to play up Erastil's sexism as something for me to rail against - it would disappoint the other players in my group too much, as they're chomping at the bit to play the Kingmaker game I'll be running for the eight of them as soon as we finish up Second Darkness.
You know Evil Lincoln is right..this is another subject on which neither camp is ever going to give ground..you either like the idea or you hate it..each to his own I say play the game as you see fit but don't try and force your views on others..
I'm bowing out of this thread it''s becoming another yes it is no it isn't arguement that serves no real purpose but to cause bad blood in our community.
Erastil would not approve.
Since he advocates the subjugation of people based on, of all things, gender alone, I'd say that pretty much knocks Erastil out of the good camp. So, at best, he'd probably be Lawful Neutral; he endeavours to maintain the status quo in disregard of what's good or bad.
At the risk of getting into an alignment debate, what about a god who promoted a society that was aristocratic, assigning political roles (dominant, subservient) based on family of birth alone? Would he be precluded from being good as well?
|
|
Since I don't have the materials on hand, can someone pop in an excerpt of exactly what it says in the books on Erastil's gender roles?
Subjugation is a strong word.
I really hate to use a parallel from the real world BUT, many consider the Christian faith more or less "good" aligned. But there are many facets of that belief system I hold to be questionable. Whether or not I agree with those beliefs, in many cases the religion is working towards "goodness". As opposed to "EVIL". (Though real world alignments do not exist and everything is subjective.)
I mean, perhaps I am completely against drinking in every way, as a form of drug use. And I believe it evil, should I challenge Cayden's alignment?
|
|
a couple quotes:
"He loves old
customs that encourage strong family bonds, no matter
how quaint they are by modern standards, and enjoys
hunting for sustenance but not for sport. Happy weddings
and new babies make him smile."
"He believes the strength of a man’s will makes
him the center of a household, and while women can be
strong, they should defer to and support their husbands,
as their role is to look after the house and raise strong
children (consequently, there are few female priests in
his church). Independent-minded women, he believes,
can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry
them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother
command their attention."
"Erastil is very pro-marriage, seeing it as the proper way
to create families and frowning on those who would bend
or break the sacred bonds with adultery or divorce. The
church sees marriage as a way to “tame” unruly men and
women, and most villages have at least one married couple
who tied the knot after being caught in an indiscretion.
Widowers and widows usually remarry, especially if there
are still children in the house. Most of his priests are
married, though they are not required to be."
I am not seeing anything that does not make him LG. He is an old, old god, from an old time who is very set in his ways. He does not believe , he is kinda old school in that men our the head of the house and women meant to take care of the house and raise the children.
I don't see any abuse there nor and yes this is sexist, but not evil. There is nothing vile or evil about it, unfair yes, but religion is like that. He is a very, very old god after all and all these modern ideals are new fangled and just interfere with the running of the home and degrade good wholesome values.
If you don't like it then change it, I for one love it{not that i agree with it]. He is not just a copy of another god, he has his own way of doing things and own ideals of what is right and proper.
No one forces your players to worship him, you have a large list of gods to choose from and having them distinct is a great thing. Hell be anti- Erastil and his "backward ways".
I have to ask are they offended by the evil gods as well? Devil worshipers and murders? there are much worse good with much, much worse dogma's then Erastil after all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like it's starting to be an argument about alignment, which of course is the oldest argument in the game, and one that's not likely to be resolved any time soon. But what I will say is that I'm a little bit goggle-eyed at the idea that, because Erastil's an LG god, we at Paizo must clearly think that all of his views are absolutely correct.
Alignment is a generalization. If we only applied the LG label to characters (or deities) who were totally and unfailingly in agreement with our own views, there would be no lawful good characters. Nobody's perfect, and that includes the gods of our world. Even generally good and lawful folks can have ass-backward ideas.
An example: There's an SF author I respect a lot who, in one of his essays, talked about how he found homosexuality totally abhorrent and wrong. I promptly threw the book across the room and raged about how he was such a pigheaded bigot, and how I'd been wrong all this time to think that he was an okay guy.
About an hour later, I picked up the book and read the next essay, in which he discussed the loving manner in which he'd cared for his seriously disabled son for decades until the child's death. Add that to all his other good works, and I ended up with some serious cognitive dissonance. It was perhaps the first time in my life that I really sat and contemplated how people don't fall in a single place on the good-evil spectrum, but rather are a composite of many different spectrums on different issues.
All of which goes to say: If a person generally tries to do right and obey the laws as he or she understands them, especially if it's well-intentioned and selfless, there's a good argument for that person counting as lawful good in my mind... EVEN if they have some ignorant or downright wrongheaded views. Not everybody shares that view - and hey, I do believe in absolute morality in some extreme cases, and I'm (probably) not going to argue that the crazy serial killer is LG - but I think the farther you get from those obvious touchstones, the murkier the argument gets.
Erastil may be stodgy and wrong, but he's no more evil than your sweet old (quietly racist) grandmother, or your good friend who's uncomfortable around gays, or your zealously religious brother who works at the soup kitchen and is sure you're going to hell for not going to church. Is one unfortunate viewpoint enough to sully your inherent goodness? One I might have said yes, but I'm not that sure anymore.
And if after all of that, you'd still prefer to have a campaign where Erastil has no (or progressive) views on gender roles - GO FOR IT! Our books are *suggestions*. But Erastil's views do not reflect the views of the company, any more than an author writing about serial killers necessarily endorses mass murder.
|
|
This sounds like it's starting to be an argument about alignment, which of course is the oldest argument in the game, and one that's not likely to be resolved any time soon. But what I will say is that I'm a little bit goggle-eyed at the idea that, because Erastil's an LG god, we at Paizo must clearly think that all of his views are absolutely correct.
Alignment is a generalization. If we only applied the LG label to characters (or deities) who were totally and unfailingly in agreement with our own views, there would be no lawful good characters. Nobody's perfect, and that includes the gods of our world. Even generally good and lawful folks can have ass-backward ideas.
An example: There's an SF author I respect a lot who, in one of his essays, talked about how he found homosexuality totally abhorrent and wrong. I promptly threw the book across the room and raged about how he was such a pigheaded bigot, and how I'd been wrong all this time to think that he was an okay guy.
About an hour later, I picked up the book and read the next essay, in which he discussed the loving manner in which he'd cared for his seriously disabled son for decades until the child's death. Add that to all his other good works, and I ended up with some serious cognitive dissonance. It was perhaps the first time in my life that I really sat and contemplated how people don't fall in a single place on the good-evil spectrum, but rather are a composite of many different spectrums on different issues.
All of which goes to say: If a person generally tries to do right and obey the laws as he or she understands them, especially if it's well-intentioned and selfless, there's a good argument for that person counting as lawful good in my mind... EVEN if they have some ignorant or downright wrongheaded views. Not everybody shares that view - and hey, I do believe in absolute morality in some extreme cases, and I'm (probably) not going to argue that the crazy serial killer is LG - but I think the farther you get from those obvious...
Quote For Truth
Cuz he's a STAG. Duh.
|
Erastil may be stodgy and wrong, but he's no more evil than your sweet old (quietly racist) grandmother, or your good friend who's uncomfortable around gays, or your zealously religious brother who works at the soup kitchen and is sure you're going to hell for not going to church. Is one unfortunate viewpoint enough to sully your inherent goodness? One I might have said yes, but I'm not that sure anymore.
Hit the nail on the head for me. Erastil is the embodiment of an old-fashioned god, too stubborn to adapt to a modern, cosmopolitan point of view.
He doesn't seek to put women down or give men absolute power over them, he merely has strong opinions (which I, and many others, disagree with) about what it takes for people to be prosperous and live well.
And just like modern-day members of some real life faiths choose to ignore or apply a different interpretation to some of the very sexist writings of our forebears, a female priest of Erastil can choose to follow the his tenets insofar as she agrees with them.
Certainly there are many examples of this in real life. A quick Google search ofr the phrase "Sexism in ____" with your religion of choice filled in for the blank will find that Erastil's opinion on gender roles is actually relatively mild.
If you and your group want a more G-rated, Disney campaign setting that is completely reasonable (don't let me wording make me come off as mocking you, I totally understand) but will require some tweaks to just about any boxed setting.
|
Barring an extensive dicussion of whether or not Erastil REALLY IS sexist in the way you think he is for a moment, what would you rather have his alignment be?I don't believe Erastil's sexism is in question. The god advocates specific societal roles for each gender as well as the subjugation of one gender by the other; that's the definition of sexism. Some may see the fact that he advocates roles for each gender as somehow egalitarian, but the roles themselves aren't equal.
Since he advocates the subjugation of people based on, of all things, gender alone, I'd say that pretty much knocks Erastil out of the good camp. So, at best, he'd probably be Lawful Neutral; he endeavours to maintain the status quo in disregard of what's good or bad.
See, here is where I have to jump in. Your entire view of this matter is prejudiced by your own perception and you don't even realize it. The material says women 'should defer' not must or, as you put it, be subjugated. From what I can see, you (and others offended here) are reading material that advocates an old fashioned view of family, intended to evoke a certain feel in a fantasy game, and interpreting it as offensive primarily because you would not accept such views in your real world environment. There is a logical disconnect in this view of the world. Essentially, you are asking everyone, from every culture to share your values. Anyone who does not is engaged in sexist/racist/badwrongthink behavior - even if its in a fantasy game.
By your very logic, any society that has strongly defined roles for gender would be sexist. You need to be careful of judgments like this, as you can easily (and justifiably) be accused of ethnocentrism in cases like this. In our society, it would be offensive to expect such behavior. In another one, certainly in a pre-industrial society mirrored off of a medieval archetype, this would likely be completely acceptable and most likely firmly in the LG camp.
Sacred prostitution was accepted in several ancient cultures and given a revered position in society. People aspired to such a position as their life would be better than could otherwise be expected. Many aspects of the practice would have been seen as positive and defended by those involved.
Suicide in Pre-WW2 Japanese culture could actually be a positive thing in certain circumstances, admired for the sacrifice it accomplished for the honor of a family or individual. Also an honorable and cherished tradition that provided a valuable service to their society
In fantasy Golarian, in a specific religion whose tenets revolve aroud farming, family and the land, traditional family values and strongly defined gender roles are seen as community building and positive. This is a benefit to the people, as it prevents social decay or conflict in isolated small communities. Sounds good to me.
Hrm. Maybe you should read the portion of my post you quoted again. Maybe this is a language issue, but the "if" there is a condition.
Yeah, blame the language.
That is a sure way to lose female players.
If that is Lawfull Good in Golarion, my female players will not want to play in that world.+1
I believe that sexism shouldn't be a LG trait any more than torture or slavery should be. Sure I'll change it in my campaign; just seems that I shouldn't have to conflict with the campaign setting as written to resolve issues that are otherwise self-evident.
I think the entire point is that it is NOT LG, but it is a perfect example how a LG paladin can still be a sexist a$@%!#@ in some regards.
While I sympathize with female players that are offended, I think there is a bit of an overreaction. The faith clearly encourages 'traditional' family values not much unlike christianity I'd say, such quirks makes the faith more real and alive to me. Despite all that I think Joan of Arc is a perfect example of a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One last little note: this thread has the potential to become hot (see also: prone to flaming), and I want to remind everyone ahead of time to please be courteous to each other, and don't get too up in arms or personal over this.
The OP and some of other folks have players who are disappointed by Erastil's backward views. That's understandable. They've also said that they would prefer a game world where they didn't have to deal with sexism, because they deal with it enough in the real world as it is. That is also totally reasonable. Some folks, including some Paizo staff, have different tastes, and we stand behind our artistic choices, but there's nothing wrong with either position.
Debating alignment is fine, debating the merits of moral ambiguity in gaming is fine, but let's remember that it's all personal preference, and make sure we stay civilized. (This is probably jumping the gun a little, but I've been involved in enough gender-issue-based namecalling in other forums in the last few weeks to want to head things off at the pass. :P)
|
|
In fantasy Golarian, in a specific religion whose tenets revolve aroud farming, family and the land, traditional family values and strongly defined gender roles are seen as community building and positive. This is a benefit to the people, as it prevents social decay or conflict in isolated small communities. Sounds good to me.
Underling makes a good point here. Erastil is your go-to-god for farming and land.
My paternal grandfather owned a farm and my father was one of many "farm kids" who worked the fields and all that jazz. Grandma stayed at home and did the household thing. For a FARMING environment, that's pretty much the best set up. Kids getting made to work the fields under Pop, and Ma taking care of the home. Doesn't fit my ideal family, but then I'm not a farm kid.
For Erastil, that family-type is the model for farming in a pre-industrial set up.
your good friend who's uncomfortable around gays
Now that you've mentioned the "g-word, want to make things interesting? Tell us: What's Erastil's view of homosexuality?
(I'd personally see him as more of an opposer. After all, he's pro-family and pro-kids, it seems that love is not his first concern but more a means to an end, the end being kids. So he probably prefers people to make babies. He's probably too conservative to contemplate gay unions with adopted kids).
I think the entire point is that it is NOT LG, but it is a perfect example how a LG paladin can still be a sexist a!*&#** in some regards.
This reminds me of Harry Dresden (from the Dresden Files, a series of really great Hard-boiled Detective/Fantasy novels), which is a self-confessed "sexist", in that he has those urges concerning women, namely to protect them (a bit of an old-school gentleman in that regard) - which is kinda dangerous in his situation: One of his best friends is a sweet little thing of a female cop - who can break a dozen of your bones before you are aware of the fact that she started moving.
He means well, but realises that it's not politically correct to cast women as in need of protection. Still, he's a good guy.
your good friend who's uncomfortable around gaysNow that you've mentioned the "g-word, want to make things interesting? Tell us: What's Erastil's view of homosexuality?
(I'd personally see him as more of an opposer. After all, he's pro-family and pro-kids, it seems that love is not his first concern but more a means to an end, the end being kids. So he probably prefers people to make babies. He's probably too conservative to contemplate gay unions with adopted kids).
Dunno. I presume he's probably anti-homosexuality and anti-birth control for precisely that reason: wanting EVERYONE TO MAKE BABIES ALL THE TIME... more hands to help with the harvest, and all that. That said, I'd bet that he probably has plenty of roles in which non-child-bearing folks can help the community (the old women, infertile folks, etc.), so I like the idea of some of his faithful going up to the same-sex couple and saying, "Okay, fine, you're not reproducing, but come foster these orphaned kids!"
Of course, as with any god, his views are undoubtedly filtered through the needs and prejudices of his congregation in a given region.
|
|
One last little note: this thread has the potential to become hot (see also: prone to flaming), and I want to remind everyone ahead of time to please be courteous to each other, and don't get too up in arms or personal over this.
The OP and some of other folks have players who are disappointed by Erastil's backward views. That's understandable. They've also said that they would prefer a game world where they didn't have to deal with sexism, because they deal with it enough in the real world as it is. That is also totally reasonable. Some folks, including some Paizo staff, have different tastes, and we stand behind our artistic choices, but there's nothing wrong with either position.
Debating alignment is fine, debating the merits of moral ambiguity in gaming is fine, but let's remember that it's all personal preference, and make sure we stay civilized. (This is probably jumping the gun a little, but I've been involved in enough gender-issue-based namecalling in other forums in the last few weeks to want to head things off at the pass. :P)
Fair enough (as my post probably tipped the balance toward you needing to weigh in)
I will clarify the intent of my prior post to minimize its flame-baitiness. Our American/western view of the world is created largely by a combination of Judeo-Christain values and enlightenment philosophy. Often, the cultural baggage these associations give us become so deeply accepted into a person's world view that it is difficult to objectively examine a practice that is "wrong" from our viewpoint for how it might be "good" in another culture's world view.
Suicide, prostitution, drug use (Native american shamans) are all behaviors we would immediately judge as wrong, or evil, yet in other societies they were part of the fabric that held it together, and thus perfectly acceptable. Even encouraged.
I honestly feel that Erastil's old fashioned gender views fall under this role. I love Pazio because they don't sanitize their game world from adult topics. Have you even looked at the work Logue and Pett turned in over the years?! Talk about yikes! And I loved it.
There are plenty of publishers who play in a safe, nurturing sadbox. Paizo broaches some more adult themes and topics, which is why I love their stuff. I have found dealing with these types of issues in game an eye opening experience for many of my players, and a rewarding one for myself.
Isn´t Erastils view that of the next best Mother?
"Girl, when will you marry, settle down and give me grandchildren?" - "Mum!"
Is that old fashioned? yes. Sexist? Maybe. But evil/not good it for sure isn´t. It is just his (or her) point of view.
So when he "sees" a female adventurer, he probably isn´t that happy with this woman as if she had grown a family, but he still accepts her and grants his powers to her.
By the way; as I interpret him, he isn´t exacly fond of adventuring male. They should start a family, too. And stay with them.
Let me first say that I don't have sexist views. I wasn't raised that way and in no way find women inferior or required to fill 'certain roles'.
However, my wife likes that in her games. When I GM for her, which is often, she actually asks me to play up those themes in our games. She wants a gritty world where women are often *not* treated equally. In the current game we are playing, she is a noble daughter with unusual magical talent (Oracle/Witch/Mystic Theurge) trying to avoid marriage to unsavory lordlings and such. She even has conversations with me a lot of the time because I am not playing the NPCs misogynistic enough! With my personal views I often have a hard time playing up such attitudes because I just don't understand them intrinsically. That being said, those games are not the games for everyone.
However, may I say that I greatly appreciate that Paizo has given us an campaign setting that doesn't hold back adult themes. I want moral quandary and unsettling issues to come up in my games. I don't want a sanitized world, I want one that is gritty and has a feel of being a real place where our characters can challenge the status quo and do incredible things! Erastil is but one example. Again though, thats not for everyone.
On the arguement of LG not being an appropriate alignment for Erastil...I'd counter that it is perfectly appropriate. Every alignment has a range in it, just because a character or deity is LG doesn't mean they always act like a Saint. A sexist attitude doesn't mean you can't be Lawful Good. And to be honest, his 'sexism' does sound as though its not as cut and dry as some folks seem to be making it out to be.
An example of two Lawful Good character who absolutely hated one another in fiction are the characters Derek Crownguard and Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance novels. Sturm was a more introspective and compassionate LG, whereas Derek was a prideful and arrogant LG. Both had nearly identical views on the world, but disliked one another because of station and family history. It became an irreconcilable difference between them in the stories. Just an example.
I find it refreshing to have a sexist god in the game. These beings are far from perfect and it's kind of nice to have designers that aren't worried about being politically correct
I don't really get an "anti-woman" vibe, here. As SKR (the author of the bit in question) says, this is a god who thinks people should have families, and stick with them. IF you're an adventurer working for Erastil, you're a bit odd no matter what your sex. You're off being unsafe when you should go marry, settle down, raise some children, and cultivate the land. Some posters seem to think that it is somehow ok for men to buck this trend, but not women. In fact, it seems to be implied in a few places that men need women to make them good familymen, too. I think an adventurer of either sex could be easily enough justified, though considered a bit daft by many erastil-ites.
"Sexist" isn't automatically "misogynistic." Saying women ought to "defer to their husbands" does NOT have to read as "slavery" or "stay in an abusive relationship." No good god supports abuse of power. And if a woman has final say in a household, Erastil may shrug his shoulders and grumble a bit, but he'll be alright so long as there IS a final authority and not a constant power struggle. Crazy kids and their newfangled ideas...
Ok, so this is going to sound very blunt and downright b!tchy but I feel it needs to be said....
OMFG, really? Someone went off on the feminist rant because Erastil is acting like a old time farming god? I don't believe half of these rants. The abusive relationship thing that everyone has been harping on isn't even in the write up and it's way off on the deep end of illogical things that someone comes up with after reading one sentence and disregarding the rest of the article. The "what if he advocated slavery" thing... um, players have no problem worshiping Asmodeus. As for the LG thing, Erastil is LN, not LG.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not anti-feminist, just anti-"radical-man-hater-feminist".
I would say Sean's later comments and summarizations of Erastil's tenets make things a little more palatable - emphasize the building and protecting of communities and families as opposed to the feel of "that woman should stay home". If Erastil's more about either half of a man/woman pair being less without the other rather than a one sided view that women need a strong man, it's still conservative and has much of the same flavor, but is a little less jarring for women players.....
I will say that Erastil's focus on home and hearth makes him harder to work into an adventurer's character in many ways. Kingmaker is uniquely suited to feature him, as you're building a community, rather than galivanting around after fame and fortune.
I have to say that this is a good reply that kinda gets it. You should emphasize the communities and families part because THAT IS THE POINT! It's not a matter of "If", Erastil IS about the pair being better than one alone, as seen in his ideas that Cayden needs a strong woman to help him settle down. And yes, Erastil is a very good deity for Kingmaker because he is the god of community.
Seriously though, I like that the game isn't PC, I hate that in games because it is fake. Just because it exists doesn't mean that a female character can't be a paladin or a cleric of Erastil. Who says they don't want to have a family? Who says they have to? It's up to them to choose what to focus on, and if your player can't get over the fact that the campaign setting isn't 100% PC and Disneyfied then she either needs to get over it quick, worship another god, or quit the campaign... or gaming all together, since gods like that always exist (St. Cuthbert for example)
Isn´t Erastils view that of the next best Mother?
"Girl, when will you marry, settle down and give me grandchildren?" - "Mum!"
Exactly! And that's how I'm going to play Jhod Kavken in Kingmaker, as a substitute for their mothers. He's going to pester them about settling down at start a family, introduce them to suitable (in his mind) girls and boys, and so on.
|
|
OMFG, really? Someone went off on the feminist rant because Erastil is acting like a old time farming god? I don't believe half of these rants. The abusive relationship thing that everyone has been harping on isn't even in the write up and it's way off on the deep end of illogical things that someone comes up with after reading one sentence and disregarding the rest of the article. The "what if he advocated slavery" thing... um, players have no problem worshiping Asmodeus. As for the LG thing, Erastil is LN, not LG.
I still don't see why Erastil should be considered LN....
As for the LG thing, Erastil is LN, not LG.
Not by the SRD, he's not. He's LG. But otherwise, nice post. The abuse thing upset me for coming out of nowhere, too...
I'm a bit surprised that no one has picked up on the other implications of Erastil's writeup yet. Since he's all about family as a baby producing unit, that means that he's also somewhat anti-gay. If there ever was a god in Golarion that could house the "god hates f~%$" kooks it's Erastil.
You know, I was a big fan of the Forgotten Realms, but the stressed egalitarianism in the setting sometimes didn't quite make sense. It was clear that some people were sexist, for instance, but no good or even neutral culture had any sexist leanings at all, and neither did any mainstream good or neutral deity. Somehow, sexist comments and views just sort of sprung out of nowhere, because everyone, everywhere was enlightened in their views.
Honestly, I'm really liking that Erastil is presented the way he is, just as I'm glad that other gods in the setting are presented as having views and tenants first and foremost.
Also, I'm wondering what people's thoughts on Asmodeus' faith are? Asmmodeus does not allow women in positions of power in Hell, and does this specifically to establish a hierarchy and to dominate someone in any given situation.
Not only is this one of Asmodeus' tenants, but its clear that there are women that worship Asmodeus and ignore his misogynistic leanings. Meaning that even the very lawful Asmodeus makes exceptions if it suits his purposes.
I'm a bit surprised that no one has picked up on the other implications of Erastil's writeup yet. Since he's all about family as a baby producing unit, that means that he's also somewhat anti-gay. If there ever was a god in Golarion that could house the "god hates f~#s" kooks it's Erastil.
I wouldn't even oversimplify it in this manner. Most of Erastil's write up seems to indicate what he would wish under perfect circumstances. While he may not be happy that a worshiper isn't going to get married and have children, that doesn't mean that if that same worshiper grows lots of crops and animals and provides for the community, or if he defends his small community from outside threats, that Erastil wouldn't still love and favor that follow.
He'd just wish that he would have had a wife and children.