At the time when this was customary, woman still had less privileges, so that's a faulty metaphor.
I disagree that just because it was more common in a time where woman had less privileges, that it negates the fact that a people in a more modern setting could still have the opinion that woman should be treated better than others. I'm not saying that woman ever had more privileges because of this, just that there are levels of sexism one can experience and that they are not all equivalent to one another.
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?
Right, to actually answer your suggestion rather than rant about other things...
I would say that that it has to depend on their action or inaction rather than what they just believe. Like, for the man in your example, how does he react to women that try to obtain the right to vote?
Does he refuse to aid those people? Does he work with authorities to imprison and punish them? Does he work to harass/terrorize those groups?
Or does he offer as much aid to them as does others? Does he help them from being persecuted for their goal despite not agreeing with them? Does he not press them hard to agree with him?
Does he do these things out of the belief that it is right or out of the fear of being persecuted for being different?
For me, these factors are much more important than just stating what he believes should happen and present a better view of whether a person is really good or not.
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).
Except that I'm ...human. Yes: "...human". Not entirely sure, as I'm hanging out a lot in the Cerulean. No tree-hugging or any other contact with vegetation, either, because here, in the Maelstrom, there aren't any plants. At least not for long. What is now a tree might be a 500-metre high miniature stature of a goblin in a second (I know that 500-metre and miniature goblin stature don't fit, but apparently, Pandemonium doesn't know, or care.)
Torag.
That guy's so sexist! His motto is "Only bearded warriors are real warriors." Now guess which gender can't get a proper beard going.?
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 chauvinist pig!
I have a friend/coworker who is not sexist, then. He met this girl once, and on their first date, he told her "Since you make your own money, I won't pay for your food."
Apparently, that was really saintly of him, because they're still together after 7 years.
Right, to actually answer your suggestion rather than rant about other things...
I would say that that it has to depend on their action or inaction rather than what they just believe. Like, for the man in your example, how does he react to women that try to obtain the right to vote?
Does he refuse to aid those people? Does he work with authorities to imprison and punish them? Does he work to harass/terrorize those groups?
Or does he offer as much aid to them as does others? Does he help them from being persecuted for their goal despite not agreeing with them? Does he not press them hard to agree with him?
Does he do these things out of the belief that it is right or out of the fear of being persecuted for being different?
For me, these factors are much more important than just stating what he believes should happen and present a better view of whether a person is really good or not.
I wonder:
Is Robin Hood good - he kills people and takes their stuff and shares some with the less fortunate?
Are the slave owning founding fathers of the United States good?
Is the man that steals bread to stop him and his family from starving bad if he steals it from another starving family.
You live in a land of absolutes Blazej and for a lot of us the world is varying shades of grey.
For me Erastil's good outweighs his bad so it makes him good.
Minor issue (minor blip on gender relations) Vs all the good he does (looking after families keeping them from starving and safe from attack).
Like I said before some people have taken a minor issue and magnified it out of proportion.
Except that I'm ...human. Yes: "...human". Not entirely sure, as I'm hanging out a lot in the Cerulean. No tree-hugging or any other contact with vegetation, either, because here, in the Maelstrom, there aren't any plants. At least not for long. What is now a tree might be a 500-metre high miniature stature of a goblin in a second (I know that 500-metre and miniature goblin stature don't fit, but apparently, Pandemonium doesn't know, or care.)
I have no idea what you are talking about... The universe has returned to its correct state.
You live in a land of absolutes Blazej and for a lot of us the world is varying shades of grey.
Huh? Which absolutes are in my land?
|
The argument ('cause that's pretty much what it's become) seems constructed upon the assumption that to be good, one must be perfectly good in every thought, belief, word and action, always, and that the definition of 'good' has to agree with 21st century standards.
So, the logic is that Erastil can't be good because he supports gender roles in marriage.
By this same logic;
Lamashtu, a very pro-feminist diety, one who is a big supporter of midwives and motherhood and stuff, must be philosophically incapable of being evil, because there's that one fiddly detail of her faith that is woman-friendly.
Urgathoa is described as getting along with most other dieties, being very tolerant and accepting of others, despite the fact that Sarenrae hates her and opposes her at every turn. If Sarenrae is an intolerant hate-filled creature, ruled by predjudice and bigotry, and Urgathoa is the tolerant open-minded 'big tent' sort of gal, does that mean that Sarenrae can't be good, or that Urgathoa can't be evil, because one's a psycho bigot and the other is all 'can't we all just get along?'
Torag's followers despise and loathe flying creatures, and, despite being foes of Rovagug, also can't stand the followers of Sarenrae, another Good god. Does that mean that they aren't capable of being good, despite having arbitrary and irrational predjudices?
Asmodeus helped fashion a prison and secure Rovagug, the Rough Beast, deep within the earth, working alongside such an angelic presence as Sarenrae herself. Does helping the forces of good to overthrow a great power of evil make Asmodeus incapable of being evil himself? Does Sarenrae lose her good standing for accepting the help of the Prince of Devils?
The crusaders of Iomedae in Mendev during the Third Crusade were said to have spent as much time 'purifying' the druidic native Iobarians as they did fighting demons, and even in the modern age, druids are sent to the 'screaming fires' by Iomedan clergy. Is Iomedae no longer able to call herself 'good' because her Clerics have conducted an Inquisition against the local citizens of the land they are occupying, sending their priests and druids to the fire? She hasn't stopped this practice, after all, and while it's died down (ran out of heretics to burn, possibly...), it's still described as happening in the Campaign Setting, with crusaders described as 'rooting out demonic influence among the Iobarian underclass and taking their liberties at the point of a sword.' (Which sounds an awful lot like Iomedae-sponsored rape of the 'heathen' underclass, doesn't it?) To be fair, it sounds like the church of Iomedae has cut down on such shenanigans, and the goddess herself might be directly responsible for that, spanking any of her clergy or paladins who got too zealous in their search for demonic influence among the 'underclass' of oppressed natives.
Applying the assumptions made about Erastil upthread to the various dieties, few of them can be iron-clad exemplars of good or evil, as most of them have at some point held a belief or performed an act that wouldn't be considered appropriately 'good' or properly 'evil' by today's standards.
"wife should defer to her husband"Wait, that's the actual text that's gotten everyone upset? So, nowhere at all does it say that Erastil prefers women to defer to men? It just says he prefers wives to defer to husbands?
Alright, just to cover this, I believe this is the full offending section that this is all about:
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.
Aside from that bit I didn't notice anything else on the prefered interactions between men and women in general. He talks about marriage taming a person in reference to two deities, Cayden Cailean and Saerenrae.
In Cayden Cailean's case, Erastil seems to show not qualms about strong women as it seems that he believes such a woman would need to be determined to convince him to settle down.
For Saerenrae, Erastil suggested relationship seems to indicate that he doesn't expect her to be passive toward her spouse no matter what he did. Or at least that, if the husband's dedication to Saerenrae faultered, Erastil didn't seem to be sorry for whatever ire the man brought down upon himself.
|
That's not entirely Erastil's perspective. A very strong-willed man can "tame" a strong-willed woman... but who's to say that once she's "tamed" she's not going to continue adventuring, especially if her husband is also an adventurer? They'd be a true "power couple."These couples don't have to totally reject social norms. President John Adams and his wife Abigail were very close friends and she was his confidant and advisor in a world where men had all the power and women wore seven layers of clothing. Yet Abigail's advice to John was essential in his political work in the early years in the United States.
But in a world where fierce monsters lurk beyond the borders of the farmstead, even a "traditional" woman can't be faulted for defending her life and that of her children, just as the she-wolf and she-bear are more dangerous than the lone male.
And if a poor, independent-minded female worshiper of Erastil went adventuring to acquire wealth for herself so she wouldn't be married off just to escape poverty, is that wrong? No. Is she wrong if she's looking to make the world safer for the children she wants to have some day? No. Is she wrong if she doesn't want to be married, but believes in family and the protection of children? No. Is she wrong if she wants to travel so she can find a more suitable husband, rather than the bumpkins in her home village? No.
Erastil isn't saying women are weak.
Erastil isn't saying women are inferior.He is saying that a woman's role is to be wife and mother... just as a man's role is to be husband and father. Yet he's not insisting that everyone get married at the start of puberty and start cranking out children just because they can.
If his attitudes about women are sexist, then so are his attitudes about men. Erastil would consider me (an unmarried, almost-40, childfree man...
Apologies for the long quote!
May be you need to breakdown these issues in more detail when you write the articles. I know there are issues of limits and space, but you would save the hassle of having someone who is sensitive to an issue read it and then think no deeper than being offended.
When it comes to deities in campaign settings, it is often better to have more information on the god, it's beliefs and the organisation of it's religion rather than not. If you give information to young learners, you break it down into easily understandable concepts. Using your examples above offers the OP a better insight into Erastil and his beliefs.
There is always someone who reads something in an RPG and takes it upon themselves to be offended. Of course, if you do not like it, remove it. However, people become offended and complain, rather trying to see what they have read in light of the setting, game or even story. It is best not to assume that readers will automatically see it from your point of view.
Just because people game does not mean they know a lot about history and older societies. Even if they do, it does not mean they will not apply our modern morality to the religion or society being discussed. Personally, I love the idea of a bit of sexism and slavery being written into the game. More evil makes it a lot more fun being the good guy!
However, breaking down possibly controversial gods like Erastil and giving more of defined reasoning for why he is the way he is may help players who cannot see beyond simply being offended by the material. I say this because I get the impression that the OP's player has read the material and went straight to offended rather than considering the nature of the god or the roleplaying opportunities.
|
I believe that it'd be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right. Reverse sexism equally excludes another segment of gamers. Why is that desirable?
Sorry to bring this up this late into the thread but this sentence really grabbed me on the first page. I don't know if anybody said this already (I haven't read all 9 pages) but there's no such thing as reverse sexism. It's called sexism no matter which way you go.
That's all I had... do continue.
|
The argument ('cause that's pretty much what it's become) seems constructed upon the assumption that to be good, one must be perfectly good in every thought, belief, word and action, always, and that the definition of 'good' has to agree with 21st century standards.
...
I brought this up ages ago but was ignored. Your post also seems to have been ignored so far.
I used real world examples though. Are we really saying that Gandhi wasn't good? He wrote disparaging things about black Africans, he promoted 'traditional' family life, including the husband/wife relationship.
William Wilberforce was one of the great proponents of the end of slavery and I would mark him out as a good man from the 18th/19th centuries but he was more socially conservative than Erastil so he too cannot be good.
In fact, I think the standard being applied by Ambrus and a few others in this thread would prevent most people who were born before WWII (to pick an arbitrary but appropriate cut-off date) from being classified as 'good'.
I know that applying RPG alignment to the real world is problematic but Ambrus appears to have established that all of my grandparents are 'not good', which was news to me.
I look forward to Ambrus reaching his 80s and finding that the values he learnt when he was young are now regarded as out-of-date and that he is no longer 'good'.
To be honest, the only reason that I can see for this thread going on so long is sheer, stubborn belligerence.
May be you need to breakdown these issues in more detail when you write the articles. I know there are issues of limits and space, but you would save the hassle of having someone who is sensitive to an issue read it and then think no deeper than being offended.
Honestly, while it's not my job to deliberately offend people, it's also not my job to make sure we don't offend *anyone.*
(I'm a peacenik vegetarian feminist. Don't you think that writing about war, eating meat, and oppressing women offends me? But that's my baggage, and I'm not going to sanitize what I write just so it doesn't offend me or offend anyone else... the result would be bland and boring.)
And if what I write makes someone *think* about what I wrote, and *think* about their own perspective on that topic, than I am pleased with that result--even if I disagree with their conclusion.
|
|
And if what I write makes someone *think* about what I wrote, and *think* about their own perspective on that topic, than I am pleased with that result--even if I disagree with their conclusion.
Sure I imagine that makes the process of writing very satisfying. However, what I am trying to say is that the way you explained Erastil above gave a lot of insight into how the god was meant to be perceived.
I am not too sure the OP's player did think about the god or their own perspective. Instead, it sounds like she saw the offending material and her reaction was to take offence.
I am not a peacenik vegetarian feminist but I too am offended by war and the oppression of women. I am an SGI Buddhist (www.sgi.org) that has a love of meat and is probably more flawed than the average human.
All I was trying to say is that the explanation you gave above was excellent. I am a fan of the Paizo material and would never want to see any of the writers produce material with political correctness in mind to please a handful of readers. The setting has a lot of real world issues in it and the grit makes it all the more interesting (as you said above).
I am of the opinion that your explanation expanded on Erastil and would help someone like the OP's player see the god more clearly in the context of the setting. This would allow them to enjoy the roleplaying opportunities that are presented by the faith.
Thank you for the great work Sean!
All I was trying to say is that the explanation you gave above was excellent. I am a fan of the Paizo material and would never want to see any of the writers produce material with political correctness in mind to please a handful of readers. The setting has a lot of real world issues in it and the grit makes it all the more interesting (as you said above).
I am of the opinion that your explanation expanded on Erastil and would help someone like the OP's player see the god more clearly in the context of the setting. This would allow them to enjoy the roleplaying opportunities that are presented by the faith.
Thank you for the great work Sean!
I'm not as certain because, even after the explanation, the same complaints seem to shoot up. I doubt that there would be that much of a change in the reaction if the explanation were included in the article.
James Wyatt often said something like, "It is impossible to write a game rule so that 100% of the readers will understand it."
I think controversial deity dogma falls into the same category.
|
|
I'm not as certain because, even after the explanation, the same complaints seem to shoot up. I doubt that there would be that much of a change in the reaction if the explanation were included in the article.
That may be also a case of people replying to responses earlier in the thread and they appear much later.
James Wyatt often said something like, "It is impossible to write a game rule so that 100% of the readers will understand it."
I think controversial deity dogma falls into the same category.
That is a true. However, it never hurts to try and the get the message across in different ways. That is all I was really saying in my previous posts.
Personally, I had no issue with the article and no issue with Erastil. You and the rest of the Paizo team are doing a fantastic job.
I am looking forward to seeing how my group deals with Erastil when we get to the Kingmaker adventure path! :D I have already had a couple of discussions about Erastil and playing characters who are members of his faith.
First off many real world gods display things listed in this thread and yet they are not thought of as evil and it would offend most of their worshipers if called that.Holy wars have started over that in fact.
2nd why should Erastil change? He has seen other gods come and go, he has seen civilizations greater then the current one raise and fall, yet his teaching and beliefs saved mankind in those dark days. These new ideas are all fine and dandy when your setting someplace like Absalom, but your new ways don't work as well out in the wild, up in the north where outside your villages walls you are prey, out in the lawless wild lands. out here Erastil knows how to survive, how to make your community thrive and he will show you the old way. He does not force his views on you, but he will teach you how to live and how to thrive. And you will thrive.
No, his way has been the way of nature for thousands of years, why should he change? These new ways are but a blink of an eye for old dead eye, new and odd. Why should he change his ways? His way works after all.
I can't accept a good god being sexist, unless "god" is replaced by "very powerful human that can grant some less powerful humans limited super-powers if they kiss his ass".You just resolved your own dilemma. Golarion's gods have human foibles, just like the Greek gods. Problem solved.
Not quite. I'm sure none of Golarion's deities turns into a swan to shag up chicks. Uh, I mean women - not because I want to avoid offending any women who doesn't want to be called a chick, but mainly because using chicks when talking about swans makes Zeus look like a pedophile bestiality perv instead of a regular, womanising perv.
I think that Cayden and Shelyn would be totally after the "turn into a swan" idea. Shelyn because it's beautiful and romantic, and Cayden ... well, it makes surprise rounds easier !
Wait, doing naughty things with swans is romantic?
Only if you're a swan!
|
Wait, doing naughty things with swans is romantic?Only if you're a swan!
Encountering a being W/Godlike Charisma, lots of things would seem romantic. You'd suddenly be sooooooo into swans or bulls or whatever before 'bestiality' even occured to you. When it did, you'd be but it's that swan and wiping off the drool from your chin.
All the Best,
Kerney
Erastil is the god of rural and 1950's suburban America. He has a very conservative, traditional, family-oriented view where, in general, men are the providers and the heads of the household, while their wives are the caretakers, raise the family, and so forth. He has this view because he believes that, on the whole, this set-up makes for a close-knit, happy, healthy community. He's crotchety, and yes, a bit sexist--but it's also nowhere implied that he's not willing to make exceptions for circumstance, nor even that he will not tolerate strong women, or female dominated households. Indeed, the article implies to me, and SKR has basically confirmed, that he would expect a wife to 'civilize' her husband of loutish habits like drinking and wild carousing, and otherwise advise him and help steer his course.
It's really as simple as that. Erastil is like a 1950's PSA--misguided, outdated, sanctimonious, but also well-intentioned and (painfully) sincere.
|
|
It would be, if I thought the Greek gods were good.I can't accept a good god being sexist, unless "god" is replaced by "very powerful human that can grant some less powerful humans limited super-powers if they kiss his ass".You just resolved your own dilemma. Golarion's gods have human foibles, just like the Greek gods. Problem solved.
You seem to be mistaking GOOD for PERFECT. One need not be perfect to be good.
Just a questioin: What god (fictional or "real") have you ever encountered that WOULD meet your definition of being good?
Erastil, as written, is a *god*. Thus he is meant to be smarter than mortals, more able to understand other viewpoints and arguments, more able to "get" that sexism and racism are both evil and irrational, etc. Thus, unlike a human, a god doesn't have the excuse of ignorance to hide behind. If Erastil, despite godlike knowledge and wisdom, *still* thinks wives should defer to husbands, then Erastil is not good.
I happen to think Erastil being a god makes him less able to understand other viewpoints and/or change his perceptions. Gods are innately tied to their portfolios and their perpesctives on the cosmos - being a god of traditional small community values means that Erastil is almost fundamentally incapable of going beyond that perspective to something more egalitarian or enlightened.
Gods that are able to understand all viewpoints and look at things from all angles are actually Neutral, anyway, I should think.
|
|
On this analysis, the gods, unlike mortals, lack free will and cannot change their natures. I would be inclined to think of such beings as powerful spirits (or in modern terms, computer programs?), perhaps, more than gods as such. Powerful, sure, but in some sense worthy of pity.
And that is indeed a topic of philosophy. If a diety is all-knowing, it can never learn anything. It can never grow, or change, or hope for something better. It can never be pleasantly surprised. It can never be anything other than soul-crushingly bored, because it already knows everything that is going to happen. Indeed, ominscience pretty much precludes the possibility of free will, since you already know every so-called 'choice' you'll ever make. It a diety is all-powerful, it can't ever 'win' anything. It can't ever be proud of an achievement, because the very nature of omnipotence makes every single thing it 'accomplishes' meaningless and trivial.
Pretty much anything that makes life worth living is denied to such a being. To know that you will never be a better man than you are today? That you will never meet someone who can show you something that you don't already know? Pity seems the appropriate response.
I pointed out above why he does not change, he does not need to. Your Ideas are not new, and those that believed them before came and fell and his picked up the pieces and allowed folks to live. His idea of what is proper is an old, on and one that has outlasted so many civilizations, faiths and gods.
Let me ask you, why should he change? What would that change benefit? What does his way harm? Many folks have pointed out his way works for what he is.
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.
Ok I got to know, which faiths worship this version and what version of the bible is he in?
Let me ask you, why should he change? What would that change benefit? What does his way harm?It would benefit women, and benefit those that might benefit from might have instead of having the woman defer to a husband that disagrees with her. His way currently harms the same people that it would benefit.
No his way harms no one, it protects the family unit. His way does not disallow listening to the good ideas a woman . Defer does not mean "Shut up woman", it means I will make the final call, someone always makes the final call. In all aspects of life someone has to make that call.
You have yet to show a benefit they do not already have.
I would suggest that any farming unit would be more likely to survive if the person making the final call was the one that knew more about the situation and was smarter, rather than "the one with the penis". Or are you arguing that "the one with the penis" will also always know more about the situation and be smarter? Because that is one hell of a penis! :)In all aspects of life someone has to make that call.
You have yet to show a benefit they do not already have.
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.
He does not force them on folks who disagree, he does not approve but shacks his head and that is that. Changing how he thinks he should be changes nothing
Why should he change?
|
|
If the dieties get something out of having worshippers, then it makes sense that they would 'open up the tent' so to speak, and that could justify why Erastil allows LG and LN and NG worshippers, even if the LN and NG ones aren't 'doing it exactly right.' More is better, and it's possible that those doing the LN or the NG thing might fully sway to the ideal point-of-view, in time.
Applying this to the notion of 'deferential spouses,' Erastil has already been shown to empower women with clerical ability, which would put them in a position of telling *men* what to do. This may not be 100% what he would prefer, but, like every other god that exists as more than a footnote in the back of a book somewhere, he finds himself accepting that human (elven, etc.) worshippers are never going to be *perfect,* and makes some allowances for them, so long as they don't try to sneak in some chaotic or evil nonsense.
I'm not sure I'd see a feminist Erastilian cleric (such as the one in Seeker of Secrets) as a 'heretic,' (although the patriarchy might disagree!), but as someone who is either right, that the Erastilian faith used to be female-dominated (in which case, Erastil has been tolerating some pigheaded patriarchalist nonsense, but doesn't have any personal investment in it, since he's allowing her to challenge those assumptions) or wrong (in which case, Erastil is tolerating *her* pigheaded matriarchal nonsense, but isn't so offended by it as to 'cut her off' from clerical ability).
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.
Perhaps they will end up causing a schism in his faith, and that will go against his tenets of community-building, which will likely force his hand to make a blanket endorsement of one or the other viewpoint, or come up with some surprising alternative.
Version 1 "Yes, women were in charge of my faith for 1000 years. Now men have been in charge for the last 800 years. I was planning on switching back in a couple of centuries, but you messed it all up..."
Version 2 "I didn't like women placing themselves as spiritually superior to menfolk back in the day, and I attempted to balance things, but some macho idiots have been taking it too far in the *other* direction, and now I have to get all up in your faces and tell you that I didn't intend for men *or* women to be dominant. It takes both to make a home. It takes both to make a child. And it will take both, as equals, to make this church whole again. Next Cleric, of either gender, who Communes with me on this topic has all their spells spontaneously converted to Inflicts and applied directly to their backsides... Play nice, or I take the toys away."
Verson 3 "You two stop arguing this instant, or I'm turning this planet right around. I'm not even joking!"
Because that is one hell of a penis! :)That's what she said.
"I have seen that penis, it's not all that impressive really"
"Man read the name, All tribble do is eat, get laid and have more tibbles, If there is a nice dark warm opening your damned right I am putting something in it and taking it all night long"