I have trouble interpreting Erastil as LG on this interpretation, and would have to remove the "women defer to men" bit to think of him as LG. Otherwise, I would hold him to be LN at best (holding on to tradition merely for the sake of tradition, regardless of whether it was good or evil).
So to you to "defer" means "shut up woman I am talking ..go get me a beer" Which really is not what that means or even implies
And no I see nothing that says "I am not good" everything I have seen put him firmly in the LG side of the AL scale.
It's not sexism, but what different genders have evolved to do, so from a nature/community standpoint, it would make sense to encourage women to build the hearth and home so to speak, just as it was dutiful to men to defend and provide.
No.
Evolution does not work that way :|
Then to classify something as good/evil you really have to examine how our "modern" ethics have played out. Personally I don't think our current age of morale ambiguity has played out that well so much so that I would tout rampant sexualization and nigh autonomous child rearing as progress not to mention a slew of other social problems ... but that's a different conversation.
Are you honestly saying that the world is a worst place now, what with it's drastically lower crime rate, significantly more humane living conditions, and incredibly improved civil rights?
Sexist does not mean evil. He is a LG god and would indeed take offense to someone being abusive or treating their wives like property or live stock. He may be sexist, but women are not slaves nor does it say can't speak there mind.
He has female clergy and paladins, clearly he has no issues with them. But men are the bread winners, they do the work, they defend the family so they are the head of the household. In matters that effect the family as a whole they have final say most times.In his eyes women have the important job or raising strong children, while the men have the job of providing and defending his family.
You may not like this but, it is no less good then any other non abusive arrangement. People Defer to others all the time, The act is not about subjugation and in most modern households this still goes on to some extent.
|
Farming & family are traditionally tenets of fertility gods/cults. If Erastil was the goddess of fertility & was encouraging women to rear children, would the same claim of sexist beliefs be laid at her doorstep? I kind of doubt it.I would claim it to be sexist, if the women were, in addition, required to defer to men. Or, for that matter, if men, in addition, were required to defer to women. That would mean that a person would have to defer to another person merely because of their gender. That would count as sexism, in my book.
I have trouble interpreting Erastil as LG on this interpretation, and would have to remove the "women defer to men" bit to think of him as LG. Otherwise, I would hold him to be LN at best (holding on to tradition merely for the sake of tradition, regardless of whether it was good or evil).
Yes, it is sexist. This is the one line in the article that I think you can point to and say ‘this is not based on outmoded but at one time legitimate ideas of what was best for the individual / family / community – this is just plain, pig-headed, wrong.’
Does this character flaw in Erastil make him Lawful Neutral (or worse) rather than Lawful Good? No. It is one real failing stacked up against a whole bunch of fundamentally Good beliefs. As I posted several pages ago: Someone who believes in strong, safe communities, close family bonds, the growing and storing of food to make sure no one starves, helping those in need, raising happy children, standing up to bullies, etc etc, is pretty much the poster child for Lawful Good.
The alignment system is not so rigid that having one fault cancels out all sorts of goods. Even if you feel it does, you might make this argument if Erastil commanded that his belief that wives should defer to their husbands was rigidly enforced. There is nothing to indicate this is the case. By implication, it is NOT the case – for example, Erastil also believes that men and women should settle down and get married, and yet he allows and grants powers to priests who do not follow this path. He believes that headstrong women can be trouble, and yet he allows and grants powers to headstrong female priests. It can therefore be inferred that his ‘personal beliefs’ as presented in the article are preferences rather than official doctrine.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I was just thinking...
I remember all the complaints back in 2e about the Swanmays being sexist because they were all female,
Or the Battle Maidens in OA being ripped for being all female in 3.0 And lets not forget the only way males could be a Eunuch Warlock
Or how all the witches in Ramauthar were female in FR...
So why is it such a big deal that one deity has one hang up favouring the guys?
I was just thinking...
I remember all the complaints back in 2e about the Swanmays being sexist because they were all female,
Or the Battle Maidens in OA being ripped for being all female in 3.0 And lets not forget the only way males could be a Eunuch Warlock
Or how all the witches in Ramauthar were female in FR...
So why is it such a big deal that one deity has one hang up favouring the guys?
Oh, it's not a big deal for me, really (can't speak for anyone else). It's not a problem that he's sexist - like I said earlier, it gives nongood characters I'd love to play a great good enemy to fight where I can still relate to their motivation. ^_-
|
[3. It's funny how you cross of Taldor's politically driven intolerance while Middle Ages were all about politically driven intolerance. Read on about the Catholic-Orthodox split and why it actually happened. Cheliax, devils and Evil aside, is on the same page as Inquistion era Catholicism in many respects (well, maybe slightly more tame out of opportunism). Razmiran and Rahadoum are no different than any "our religion is good, yours is bad" medieval country (and that was, like, all of them), except for the philosphical difference of one being a godless country and the other being a false religion, but that's irrelephant to our story.
OK, I'm calling B.S. on this. You don't like his simplistic answers, yell what do you know, your the pot calling the kettle black.
|
It is still sexist for the women to defer to the men merely because of the genders involved. The smartest, wisest woman would, according to this religious teaching, defer in family matters to the least intelligent, least wise husband, simply because she is a woman and he, her husband, is a man; this is sexist.
Not really, because such a paragon of womanhood wouldn't be saddled with such a jackass.
If her ambition in life is to shackle herself to some lazy, stupid, unimaginitive, gambling, drunken wife-beater, then she obviously isn't as wise and intelligent as she (or her sisterhood) thinks she is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If her ambition in life is to shackle herself to some lazy, stupid, unimaginitive, gambling, drunken wife-beater, then she obviously isn't as wise and intelligent as she (or her sisterhood) thinks she is.
That would assume that the woman had a choice in who she married. Referring back to the article: "Independent-minded women... ...can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly..." 'Marrying off' sounds to me as if someone else is calling the shots; most likely the woman's father since he's the head of the household to which his wife and supposedly his daughter(s) should defer.
marry them off to me says "find them a good match that can handle them" not sell em to the wife beater for three pigs and and cow. You need to read the whole thing. Erastil thinks strong men and women need others of the like to "settle each other down"
He does like people who don't think of others, who are disruptive to the community. Look at his view on adventures. A woman like that would not settle down with a dope. If she did shes not very smart or wise.
Erastil does not see women as property, nor would he demand they stay with an abusive spouse as that is not healthy to a strong family.
You guys are taking what is essentially a quaint little throwback to older conservative ideal and blowing it way out of proportion. There is nothing evil there.
I guess such things as, holding a lady's chair, opening the door for her, calling her Mame and always being polite to women and nodding your head or tipping your hat to her are also things that make you LN and bar you from good.
As honesty they are all in the same scale of sexism
What I mean is the Husband is so pig headed , foolish and controlling he does not heed his smarter, wiser wife's advice then that marriage has more issues then just the man making the calls. And so no, it is not a good stable marriage that Erastil would approve of.
A good man, will know when his wife makes more sense then he does. He will listen to her in matters she knows more about.
I am not sure how many of you guys are married but have you ever done something your wife told you was a bad idea and did it anyhow? You recall how she didn't remind you of that?
As I said this is not a big issue. It's up there with opening a lady's door, which is also a sexist act that bars you from being good.
nor would he demand they stay with an abusive spouse as that is not healthy to a strong family.
Perhaps, though Erastil frowns "on those who would bend or break the sacred bonds with adultery or divorce." which makes getting out of an abusive marriage a little trickier.
nor would he demand they stay with an abusive spouse as that is not healthy to a strong family.Perhaps, though Erastil frowns "on those who would bend or break the sacred bonds with adultery or divorce." which makes getting out of an abusive marriage a little trickier.
Hell my grandmaw frowns on adultery or divorce that does not mean she would tell a wife to go back to her wife beating husband.
He wants happy stable family's, he however is a good god, he does not expect you to stay in a abusive or unhappy marriage. He is not LN , he does not want you to stay no matter what, he wants stable happy strong family as they make stable happy strong communities
being tied in a loveless marriage with an abusive husband makes neither a stable happy family or a stable happy community
nor would he demand they stay with an abusive spouse as that is not healthy to a strong family.Perhaps, though Erastil frowns "on those who would bend or break the sacred bonds with adultery or divorce." which makes getting out of an abusive marriage a little trickier.
Molehill here is a Mountain. You guys have amplified this to 11. I hate the word "strawman" but the Scarecrow from Oz would be impressed with some of the ones you have constructed.
1. The Author of the article states the God has NO tolerance for abusive relationships. That a Cleric of Erastil would take an active and if necessary violent part in preventing the abuser from continuing their abuse.
2. The Author of the article has stated that the God would not prevent female Clerics and Paladins.
3. The Author of the article said the god is not opposed to people who prefer relationships with the same gender.
4. The Author of the article has said that the gods PRIMARY concern is happy healthy families & communities. From that you can infer that there would be a lot of tolerance and leeway for personal choices and the way people are born as long as does not disrupt the overall happiness and survivability of the community.
You can probably take that as errata or additional information.
Your are starting to TROLL by constantly harping on points that have been answered.
Erastil frowns "on those who would bend or break the sacred bonds with adultery or divorce." which makes getting out of an abusive marriage a little trickier.
I frown on people that commit Adultery they are breaking an oath and a promise - At least end the relationship first, that way you only break their heart and you don't humiliate them as well.
Here is your wicker-man
I think it would be the thousands of other trivial reasons people get a divorce and Erastil would be unhappy about it but would not stop the divorce.
1. Found a new partner and
...S/he has more money
...S/he is better in bed
...S/he will get me a noble title
...S/he has a nice ass
2. I need to find myself
3. I dont get to go out and party any-more
You can not deny people have been divorced for less
On the other had an abusive or violent relationship Erastil being LG would say get out of the relationship as fast as you can and we will help you with the paperwork and a little extra divine favour to see you through the tough times.
|
|
Because old fashioned gods of old-fashioned societies, such as those that rely on family farms and hunting, tend to reflect those societies, which are themselves male chauvinist? I personally object to Erastil's viewpoints on gender relations, but I don't see why one would object to his very existence, as there are plenty of religions, current and historical, that subscribe to such a view.I agree 100% with everything you said here. And I wrote the article you're talking about. The above was actually my intent. Erastil's old. He's conservative. He's set in his ways. You'll notice the seeds of this are in his Gods and Magic writeup, and you can see hints of it in his campaign setting writeup, too.
My character is not a chauvinist nor close-minded. He's a Devotee of the Green who's more nature-oriented, but follows Erastil's tenets regarding community. He doesn't follow Erastil's chauvinistic bent and it's hard to say he's a devout follower of Erastil. And yet the God has deemed him worthy to be granted divine magic. Go figure. I guess that the gods' motives on who they bless and don't remain beyond human (or dwarven, elven orc, etc.) understanding.
So he will defer to her? In contradiction to what the text says about Erastil's beliefs about who should defer to whom?
It's not deferring to her. It's listening to her and taking her advice before making his decision. Even kings listen to their advisors. Does that mean they're deferring to them? No.
I think it's things like this that tell you why worship of Erastil is on the way out.
Besides which, why make all the gods perfect for anybody to worship? Odds are, there aren't any important female Erastil worshippers. Why deny such things exist? They exist in real life, too (and I think a lot of followers of such faiths would object to the claim that they are nongood). It's a shame, but it makes no sense to say that none of the religions in Golarion are sexist.
|
And if the husband listens to her, but doesn't take her advice, and then does something that she is pretty sure is stupid, because she is smarter and wiser than he, Erastil would say she should still defer to him, just because he is male? We are back where we started, it seems, with a sexist dictate from a sexist God. And not something I can accept as an LG God's dictates.It's not deferring to her. It's listening to her and taking her advice before making his decision. Even kings listen to their advisors. Does that mean they're deferring to them? No.
So he will defer to her? In contradiction to what the text says about Erastil's beliefs about who should defer to whom?
Then...don't worship him?
Her question and mine is: why does the LG god of Farming, Hunting, Trade and Family have to be written as being sexist? Just wondering what the designers had in mind when they included this unnecessary tenet into the god's doctrine.
Perhaps because being a wife and mother, kind of like being a husband and father, has something vaguely to do with the FAMILY?
How on Earth are humans supposed to survive if women are too "independent" (i.e. wage slaves to some corporate entity, rather than running their own place) to have children? This is exactly why Europe is dying out at the moment -- because the women have this idea that by having children, they're subjecting themselves to some kind of oppression, and by swinking for some greedy board of directors, they're somehow "independent."
I like this Erastil -- greatly.
|
|
So he will defer to her? In contradiction to what the text says about Erastil's beliefs about who should defer to whom?What I mean is the Husband is so pig headed , foolish and controlling he does not heed his smarter, wiser wife's advice then that marriage has more issues then just the man making the calls. And so no, it is not a good stable marriage that Erastil would approve of.
A good man, will know when his wife makes more sense then he does. He will listen to her in matters she knows more about.
Why not? Erastil is a god with tenets-perhaps we don't know enough about him to make such a judgement call. His lawful good tendencies means he probably has a sacred text devoted entirely to the matters of family, where such an issue would be addressed. At great length, most probably, just like any religous text.
Her question and mine is: why does the LG god of Farming, Hunting, Trade and Family have to be written as being sexist? Just wondering what the designers had in mind when they included this unnecessary tenet into the god's doctrine.Perhaps because being a wife and mother, kind of like being a husband and father, has something vaguely to do with the FAMILY?
How on Earth are humans supposed to survive if women are too "independent" (i.e. wage slaves to some corporate entity, rather than running their own place) to have children? This is exactly why Europe is dying out at the moment -- because the women have this idea that by having children, they're subjecting themselves to some kind of oppression, and by swinking for some greedy board of directors, they're somehow "independent."
I like this Erastil -- greatly.
This is such a hilairously terrible post, I don't even know how to comment on it.
It's wrong in every thing. Every thing. Not everything, but every thing. All of it's nouns are wrong, that's how bad it is.
|
Her question and mine is: why does the LG god of Farming, Hunting, Trade and Family have to be written as being sexist? Just wondering what the designers had in mind when they included this unnecessary tenet into the god's doctrine.Perhaps because being a wife and mother, kind of like being a husband and father, has something vaguely to do with the FAMILY?
How on Earth are humans supposed to survive if women are too "independent" (i.e. wage slaves to some corporate entity, rather than running their own place) to have children? This is exactly why Europe is dying out at the moment -- because the women have this idea that by having children, they're subjecting themselves to some kind of oppression, and by swinking for some greedy board of directors, they're somehow "independent."
I like this Erastil -- greatly.
O.o.O
Her question and mine is: why does the LG god of Farming, Hunting, Trade and Family have to be written as being sexist? Just wondering what the designers had in mind when they included this unnecessary tenet into the god's doctrine.Perhaps because being a wife and mother, kind of like being a husband and father, has something vaguely to do with the FAMILY?
How on Earth are humans supposed to survive if women are too "independent" (i.e. wage slaves to some corporate entity, rather than running their own place) to have children? This is exactly why Europe is dying out at the moment -- because the women have this idea that by having children, they're subjecting themselves to some kind of oppression, and by swinking for some greedy board of directors, they're somehow "independent."
I like this Erastil -- greatly.
Not helpful...sniffs the air and it has the faint whiff of troll and after reading his previous posts (which have better grammar and spelling) maybe a touch of Glenn Beck (Alan Jones if you are Australian).
EDIT: Remembering a previous thread where I said if I believed somebody was being offensively sexist and making the gaming community unwelcoming for female players I would let them know.
If your post was meant to be funny your delivery was really bad and its not working.
If you are serious its time you grow up and learn to respect your fellow human beings. That post shows your childishness and ignorance. I suggest you retract your post and refrain from further lack of empathy and tact.
|
|
Her question and mine is: why does the LG god of Farming, Hunting, Trade and Family have to be written as being sexist? Just wondering what the designers had in mind when they included this unnecessary tenet into the god's doctrine.Perhaps because being a wife and mother, kind of like being a husband and father, has something vaguely to do with the FAMILY?
How on Earth are humans supposed to survive if women are too "independent" (i.e. wage slaves to some corporate entity, rather than running their own place) to have children? This is exactly why Europe is dying out at the moment -- because the women have this idea that by having children, they're subjecting themselves to some kind of oppression, and by swinking for some greedy board of directors, they're somehow "independent."
I like this Erastil -- greatly.
Uh, Erastil is fictional...and in this fictional world, there is no such thing as corporation (except perhaps the Aspis Consortium, which seems more like a conglomerate). And Europe doesn't exist. In this fictional world. Thank god.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The author of the article has published that Erastil believes that women should defer to men in matters of the family. This is the part I see as incompatible with a LG god.
How?
Defer does not mean 'blindly obey'. Hells, my partner deferred to me on budgeting, because while I suck at it, I was better than her at it.
Erastil's Lawful Good, not Lawful stupid. In a 'traditional' house of Erastil worshipers, the husband may have the final say, but anyone who thinks that the woman wouldn't be able to influence/control the outcome is a fool. And few women suffer fools gladly.
Husband: I want to buy that shiny Masterwork scythe.
Wife: We don't have the money for it, dear.
Husband: But think about how much grain I could thresh with that blade! And if the goblins come back, then I could defend you!
Wife: And you couldn't defend me against a rusty dogslicer with the scythe you use now? You're a Commoner 2, not a Fighter 6!
Husband: Woman, I'm going to do it because Erastil says I'm the head of household!
*six months later*
Husband: More bread and broth? Why can't we have meat?
Wife: We could, dear, if we didn't have that shiny scythe sitting in the barn taking up all the money, but we have pleanty of flour.
Husband: *mutters incoherently, settles down with his bread and broth.*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I read statements like this, it just makes me shake my head in sadness. There are different levels of misogyny or misandry, but when one sex is basically discouraged from taking on certain roles simply because of his or her sex, that is sexism.
Nah. His stance isn't really sexist. May have a slight sexist flavour, but it's miles away from full-blown sexism.
It is in no way misogyny to discourage someone from taking on certain roles because her being a woman makes it a suboptimal choice for her. There is not an ounce of hatred against woman in such advice if the reasons are real.
I know, we all want the genders to be equal, but they just aren't. That's not hatred against one or the other gender, it's a plain fact. They are different. I don't say inherently better or worse, but there are definite differences between the genders, and their basic roles in life, and some of these differences mean that some tasks are easier for this or that gender, and in extreme cases, some tasks are impossible unless certain circumstances are given.
Erastil's a nature deity, and nature is "sexist". It discourages men from being child bearers, because they can't do it. It discourages men from taking care of infants, because they have no mother's milk.
On the other hand, it also discourages women from doing jobs that are heavy labour intensive, because when they're pregnant, they must go easy on heavy labour - and nature won't give you maternity leave! That farmland needs its attention, whether you can give it or not.
Erastil knows these things, and thinks people should stick to the roles nature made them most suitable for. He probably thinks it's silly to go through a lot of trouble extracting the mother's milk and keeping it fresh and the right temperature for the kid, just so the mother doesn't need to stay home and can instead be a farmer while the man stays at home. Or, even worse, have another woman do the wife's job of feeding the child (thus preventing her to do her own, proper part) so she can do other things.
He doesn't do that because he hates women, he does that because if you do things differently, they will become a lot harder. And Erastil's not the god of cities. He's not the god of artists and craftsmen, or the god of magic.
He's the god of farmers and hunters, the god of village life, and the life in a village, which may be miles away from a bigger city (or any other settlement really) is not easy for farmers and hunters.
Work can be hard, and things can get critical, if there's things like hard winters. In circumstances like this, it's best to encourage everyone to stick to the tasks they're best suited for, because if you decide to do things another way, people may die.
So he won't be thrilled with everyone doing their own thing and having the maximum personal freedom (expecting that from a lawful deity rather than a chaotic one is silly, anyway) and prefers everyone to follow traditions (traditions that have, in this case, evolved from the most efficient behaviour. Back in the earliest days of the human race, there were probably villages that got the idea that everyone should do what they want. They didn't survive long enough to establish traditions).
On the other hand, his dogma doesn't include "women are inferior", "do with your woman as you like", "women must obey" (deferring isn't quite the same as obeying), or anything. Plus, apparently, he's not hell-bent on enforcing his opinions, or there wouldn't be those don't share his views and still get divine power from him. This includes men who stray from their path, by the way, since there are things he discourages everyone from, like adventuring.
In short, he's a traditionalist (which can only be expected from a lawful character) and prefers everyone to assume roles they're best suited to, especially in certain areas of a world that is not our own (and has a different conditions than we have here and today), but he doesn't objectify, marginalise or oppress women, or deny them education, and is flat out against marital rape or brutality.
Vilifying him is just wrong. Just because he's got an elk head!
I disagree. Someone that thinks that women should defer to their husbands, and never thinks that men should defer to their wives, is sexist.In that regards, he's more pro-family and anti-adventuring than having any particularly sexist views...Except for that women "should defer to and support their husbands" bit.Nah. His stance isn't really sexist. May have a slight sexist flavour, but it's miles away from full-blown sexism.
That was explained about half a dozen times in this thread, too. I don't feel like digging it up, though.
Where does it say "never"? Or that men should never, on no situation, defer to their wives?
Nowhere. In fact, several passages strongly suggest that women can and should have influence over their husbands. Otherwise, they couldn't get the adventurous types to settle down.
I would hold him to be LN at best (holding on to tradition merely for the sake of tradition, regardless of whether it was good or evil).
Of course, he doesn't hold to tradition merely for the sake of tradition. He holds to tradition because the tradition in question is the most efficient way of doing things - things that can kill you if you're doing them inefficiently. Erastil's an LG poster child.
Some good points
You know, as the quote says, you make some good points, however...Erastil is still sexist. See, all that stuff about him seeing the "natural way of things" and all is probably true, but none of that has any actual bearing on making a man the head of the household and saying women should defer to men.
Not that that means he doesn't have a place in Golarion or something...but he is sexist, plain and simple...and all this talk is making me want to play a Calistrian cleric with a chip on her shoulder about old elky!
Where does it say "never"? Or that men should never, on no situation, defer to their wives?Nowhere. In fact, several passages strongly suggest that women can and should have influence over their husbands. Otherwise, they couldn't get the adventurous types to settle down.
Why are you making sense and why do I keep having to agree with you and your well thought out arguments.
You pointy eared tree-hugging, vegetation fondling, elven clown. (I almost feel better now).
Our Kingmaker group doesn't have a single follower of Erastil in it and we are getting along just fine. We have 2 followers of Iomedae, 1 Aroden, 1 Cayden Cailean, and 1 Torag.
So it is easily done. We plan to change all followers in the region to Iomedae and build the first empire dedicated to her and show that crotchety old bugger how it is done...
And if you were a woman and your partner a man, and you were both in Golaron and worshippers of Erastil, then apparently Erastil would say you should defer to your male partner, even though you were better at budgeting, simply because your partner were a man.
And they'd still have the free will to agree or ignore the church of Erastil's advice. Just like people do in real life all the time (much to the consternation of some church hierarchies around my home, I can tell you).
Agreed. Even if one goes for the "separation of roles" argument, that does not lead to the "women should defer to men" conclusion. Because, quite simply, one could have the separation of roles without having the "women should defer to men" conclusion.
Let's look at it from the standpoint of someone who is both lawful and conservative. Lawful types like to have fairly clear authorities laid out, it avoids that sort of chaotic ambiguity of authority that you see in places like Andoran. Conservatives like things done in "old" ways. Simple enough for the god to settle on a general practice and prefer it for millenia.
It seems that the core of this argument is whether a clearly sexist god can truly be 'good'. So here's my question: If a man thinks black people (chosen at random)are inferior to white people, does that make him evil? What if he still cares about them, and would give up his life for some? What if he gives to every charity whenever he has the money? What if he's heroic in all other ways? Is he good, or merely neutral?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It seems that the core of this argument is whether a clearly sexist god can truly be 'good'. So here's my question: If a man thinks black people (chosen at random)are inferior to white people, does that make him evil? What if he still cares about them, and would give up his life for some? What if he gives to every charity whenever he has the money? What if he's heroic in all other ways? Is he good, or merely neutral?
interesting, since the answer is 'yes'.
Looking at other in Golarion examples.
Can a Taldor noble be good? He is after all, in a society where there are clear social stratifications and some people are 'born better' than others. If he believes he should work to protecting the people of his land, is he good? Is he still good if he protects those same people because they're 'attached' to the land as serfs?
Can a Chelaxian Hellknight be good?
Heck, what about anyone from Osiron or Katapesh? They are from a land of slavers, and likely had slaves in the household? Is your character a runaway slave? Can he be lawful and be a run away?
Yes but that doesn't get one past "lawful" to "good", since the original tradition might be, and might always have been, not good or even harmful/evil.
I was gonna leave this alone but man your rambling so much none sense it hurts my head. If the tradition was harmful it would not be held by a lawful god, you might find it distasteful but it is not harmful.
In fact for the life style that Erastil embodies it is helpful. As many have pointed out why this would be of a benefit to the community as a whole and not in any way harmful.
The difference is now days things are split, one partner defers to the other on area's they know more about.This however does not work so well on a farm, someone needs to make the major calls in everything that effects the farm, and as the families lively hood and well being are tied into the farm it makes a damned lot of sense that the man working the farm would make the calls that effect both it and his household.
This does not mean the wife has no say or she does not help with the farm, but a mans and woman's role on the farm was often not the same. Fact is men are better at the hard labor and women better suited for the house chores . This is not a slight, just how nature has panned it out. In our modern world this does not matter, but on a farm like that the physical labor would be handed by those best made for it, the child raising, canning, house keeping would be done by the women as most places ya can't just drop your kids off and you would do chores where you could keep an eye on em. Which are the house chores.
You guys are simply implying negativity that is not implied or present anywhere at all in the article.
Yes but that doesn't get one past "lawful" to "good", since the original tradition might be, and might always have been, not good or even harmful/evil.
You should look back upthread. I've already been over how Erastil's a god with a good alignment. He promotes the welfare of the community, he promotes living in cooperative peace, he's gentle to calm a frightened child, he hunts for necessity not sport. The fact that's he's a bit conservative and hidebound isn't enough to make him non-good. Good isn't so fragile that it breaks upon being a bit sexist.
It seems that the core of this argument is whether a clearly sexist god can truly be 'good'. So here's my question: If a man thinks black people (chosen at random)are inferior to white people, does that make him evil? What if he still cares about them, and would give up his life for some? What if he gives to every charity whenever he has the money? What if he's heroic in all other ways? Is he good, or merely neutral?
If a man opens doors for women and otherwise treats them more special that other men, does that make him evil? Because that is sexist as well, to give one group more privileges than another.
That feels like a similar jump from "wife should defer to her husband" to the question of "what if he thought some race was inferior?"
Can there be a good racial deity? I mean, if that dwarven deity worries about the dwarven race before all others, does that make him too racist to be good?
How about, if a woman cares for her own family before others, like if there is a drought and she makes sure that her husband and children have enough water to live before sharing it with neighbors, is she now not good for acting as if her children are more important than the children of her neighbor?
When there is a priest at a wedding and he says that the husband must love his wife and that the wife must respect and obey her husband, does that automatically make that priest not good and less important than other people?
It seems that the core of this argument is whether a clearly sexist god can truly be 'good'. So here's my question: If a man thinks black people (chosen at random)are inferior to white people, does that make him evil? What if he still cares about them, and would give up his life for some? What if he gives to every charity whenever he has the money? What if he's heroic in all other ways? Is he good, or merely neutral?If a man opens doors for women and otherwise treats them more special that other men, does that make him evil? Because that is sexist as well, to give one group more privileges than another.
At the time when this was customary, woman still had less privileges, so that's a faulty metaphor.
Believe it or not, I'm on your side here. I made a slightly extreme comparison, because it is my opinion that good is doing good things with no reward, and giving up good things if doing so is good for others. If a man did that, but didn't think women should vote because they're more 'delicate' or somesuch reason, would goodness be beyond his reach? How does that make sense?