My group is looking to start the Kingmaker A.P. soon and, following the advice in the Player's Guide, most of the players were planning on being followers of Erastil; a male paladin, female druid, female wizard and female ranger specifically. But, after reading through the god's writeup in Rivers Run Red, the paladin's player and one of the ladies (so far), voiced their objections to Erastil's sexist views such as [women] "should defer to and support their husbands, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children." and "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."
The latter player, a veteran role-player who's enjoyed playing fantasy games for several decades and who has largely enjoyed WotC's generally egalitarian P.C. policy, is understandably offended by finding such nonsense in a game supplement. 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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
One could respond back that Iomadae is also sexist. She only allows females to be priests, paladins, etc. Sexism goes both ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A provincial attitude for a provincial god?
I suggest changing it if you don't like it, but I happen to appreciate that even the "good" deities have their individual shortcomings.
Sexism and authoritarianism in religion are quite realistic. The egalitarianism of the WotC material always struck me as naive.
I don't endorse sexism (Evil Lincoln is no follower of Erastil), but the idea of an organizational "quirk" in a good-aligned religion is not difficult for me to reconcile.
Many people believe, for instance, that the Catholic church is good-aligned, and yet have little difficulty reconciling the gender discrimination that is intrinsic to that religion. (I should note that many Catholics do have trouble reconciling gender discrimination). The organization (and arguably the faith itself) has that quirk, but I doubt I could find a person who thought that Catholics could not be Paladins (in a world where both PRPG Paladins and Catholics exist).
Does that make sense? I hope it does, I wouldn't want to imply support for the attitude, simply that I don't see it as "out-of-place". I'm trying to be careful not to generalize, I hope that no Catholics are offended by my selecting their faith as an analog a good-aligned religion with patriarchal underpinnings.
By that token, individual worshipers may not agree with the organizational edict of sexism. Maybe instead of changing the edict, you should apply this dissonance as a plot element in your campaign? Maybe there is a female cleric of Erastil, who performs miracles even despite what the priests of Erastil would say is "correct", and that could create interesting non-evil antagonists within your campaign?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Because it prevents female characters from faithfully championing Erastil's portfolio while being "independent-minded" or while participating in regular adventuring duties without also conflicting directly with their god's tenets. 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"? It's not just a fluffy tidbit; it can actually hinder players' enjoyment of the setting.
One could respond back that Iomadae is also sexist. She only allows females to be priests, paladins, etc. Sexism goes both ways.
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?
Sure, anyone could just change the details they don't like. I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.
|
To somewhat threadjack here:
My issue was the art of the main character shown on these pages was a female follower who didn't look too conservative. It was the one disjoint thing about the article that somewhat threw me off (I actually re-read the section on sexism to make sure I hadn't read it wrong)
Last time I checked Iomedae didn't care about gender. Both could be priests.
One could respond back that Iomadae is also sexist. She only allows females to be priests, paladins, etc. Sexism goes both ways.
I have to have missed something. Where does it say that?
I just looked in the writeup she got in 6-fold trial. I don't see anything that says it. My first guess is that it is something that my GM made up awhile back and I never checked to see if that is right in canon.
But Iomadae is all about girl power, stating that the religion preaches that "Even if it goes against local tradition," For Iomadae to rebel against something, she has to have that something to rebel against. So in that sense, Erastil is necessary. Otherwise, there is no need for Iomadae to be all girl-powery.
Because it prevents female characters from faithfully championing Erastil's portfolio while being "independent-minded" or while participating in regular adventuring duties without also conflicting directly with their god's tenets. 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"? It's not just a fluffy tidbit; it can actually hinder players' enjoyment of the setting.
Do they have to be followers of Erastil to enjoy the setting? I don't think so. If they don't agree with the tenets of the fantasy religion, they're free to pick another one. Desna would work just fine for the adventurous woman. Better than a hearth and homey type anyway. Plus, Erastilite male chauvanism gives them some friction between their own PC viewpoints and the local religions. And that can be fun to play.
Sure, anyone could just change the details they don't like. I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.
To add rustic color and texture. Why add any details whatsoever? To make the information interesting to the customers, not necessarily appealing to all PCs.
Why is that desirable?
My question would be, 'Why is it a problem'?
I'm glad Paizo isn't afraid to reject the shackles of PC crap in their works. It allows far more creativity. It doesn't mean the authors feel that way, and it doesn't mean players who use that particular aspect feel that way. It's just another part of a 'realistic' fantasy world you can roleplay to.
What is wrong with being the sexiest?
/Spinal Tap
|
One could respond back that Iomadae is also sexist. She only allows females to be priests, paladins, etc. Sexism goes both ways.I have to have missed something. Where does it say that?I just looked in the writeup she got in 6-fold trial. I don't see anything that says it. My first guess is that it is something that my GM made up awhile back and I never checked to see if that is right in canon.
But Iomadae is all about girl power, stating that the religion preaches that "Even if it goes against local tradition," For Iomadae to rebel against something, she has to have that something to rebel against. So in that sense, Erastil is necessary. Otherwise, there is no need for Iomadae to be all girl-powery.
Ah, cool. I've stayed away from Six-Fold-Trial because I know a GM who may end up running it and I'd like to play in her game.
Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
I don't think it'll come up in my game, because the female cleric doesn't plan to worship Erastil anyway, but if I were playing, I would be annoyed that I couldn't play a female ranged cleric or paladin of Erastil without either changing the god or giving her some special dispensation to not stay at home making babies. Rangers or druids would be less problematic, as their power isn't directly granted by the god, and individual practioners of any particular religion may vary in their agreement with certain tenets of their faith at any time.
I would probably interpret things to say that the church discourages female adventurers, etc., but the god doesn't place limits on whether or not his faithful clerics and paladins may be female. That way players can make a character they want to make. They would still face the social consequences of those decisions but they wouldn't be denied their powers for being female characters. There would be very few women that enter the heirarchy for Erastil as the social barriers are very strong, but one can exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it prevents female characters from faithfully championing Erastil's portfolio while being "independent-minded" or while participating in regular adventuring duties without also conflicting directly with their god's tenets.
I would suggest that one doesn't have to completely agree with every thought a deity has in order to be able to serve them. If that were the case, clerics wouldn't be allowed to have a different alignment from their deity.
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"? It's not just a fluffy tidbit; it can actually hinder players' enjoyment of the setting.
I have to say, in that case, it is 100% the GM's fault for interpreting "should defer to and support their husbands" as "if you help a wife leave her abusive husband, you are stripped of your divine powers."
As far as I can tell, Erastil would encourage one to step into a unhealthy relationship and fix it, even if fixing it means separating them so that one or both can form healthy relationships with other people.
I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.
I would say that it is there because it gives him a strong personality that makes him feel a lot different from many of the other deities even though they are similar in alignment. Also it sets it up that you don't have to agree with every good deity in order to be good yourself. It seems to fit his background, leaving it out would have a chance to make him seem less real. It makes the beliefs of deities such as Iomedae and Shelyn more special because now they have to combat some perception others have (even if it is limited) without getting to chop off the offenders head for being incredibly evil (like most worshipers of Asmodeus).
I don't agree with statements like Erastil's, but neither do I believe they should be swept under the rug just because they make some people uncomfortable any more than removing all gay and lesbian reference for the same reasons.
I think Jess sums it up nicely..how about a Female Paladin pulling a Mulan and pretending to be male because she is the last of her line and all her forebears have been paladins...or she could just not bother pretending and see what happens.All good RP opportunities
Personally I like the hidebound old rustic..the looks on my players faces when Jhod(who they made High Priest) tells them he expects them all to marry and start families should be wonderful.
|
|
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.
Personally I prefer a god with personality to one that's just an exemplar of his portfolio. I think it makes the choice of worship a more interesting character decision than picking out the deity within a step of your alignment that has the domains you want. With a deity like Erastil, there's a pronounced difference between people who venerate him and people who are clerics of his faith. The ancient Romans didn't make offerings to Jove because they were supporters of marrying your sister and eating your children, they did it because making offerings to him was traditional and he was the king of the gods.
Just like there are wildly different interpretations of any one holy book, ranging from heretical to quibbling in the eyes of the faithful, I suspect that a female priest of Erastil with more modern ideas about women and their role in society might gloss over some things or, much like we do with that cantankerous, elderly relative who says a few off-color things from time to time, they respect and admire Erastil in spite of those things.
Then again you might have a very traditional Female Priest of Erastil with 12 children and a husband who just quietly lets her get on with running everyones lives.
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)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To counter the idea that an abused woman should be "forced" to stay and "defer" to her husband, there is mention of this specific occurence in the SKR article in question.
The Erastil-ite is duty bound to assist in repairing that marriage, even if it requires the husband to be "persuaded" to refrain from beating his wife. An abusive relationship is FAR from a stable and lasting one, and is all but guaranteed to end in one of the partners' deaths, divorce, or worse.
That's all not to mention the negative impact on any children in the household and the general down-bringing of the community through their actions.
In my mind, Erastil is old, crotchety, and unconcerned with mortal decisions/morality. Man & Woman need to remain together, generally in groups, to propagate the species and advance their communities. That's what's important. If a family were to reverse the normal gender roles, with Mom hunting/gathering/soldiering, and Dad cooking/cleaning/taking care of the household, I'm sure there would be some looks and whispers, but no divine retribution from on high.
A priest of Erastil, on seeing that family, may have some qualms about their stability and security, but so long as they stayed on the straight and narrow, would have nothing to say or do.
Also remember: applying 21st century morality and cultural relativism to a "medieval" style setting, with a stated "earlier than now, primitive, almost Druidic style religion, will yield funny results.
Finally, if you believe the deity is too misogynistic (as do I), simply drop that part of the write up. I currently have a female player with a female Elf Druid of Erastil in my Kingmaker game...her plans include importing women to marry them off to bandits in the area, some kind of "human breeding speed increase" program, and all sorts of public works style projects.
Though an outsider might call Erastil's faith sexist, that doesn't mean his female followers would be bothered by the supposedly "sexist" elements of said faith. For an IRL example - many non-Muslims call Islam sexist. Does that mean that all female Muslims feel repressed and like "lesser" Muslims? Certainly not. It might not make sense to you as a person, but then again, that's what role-playing is for. Erastil is not Ehlonna. And if your players want a nature deity that is decidedly NOT sexist... well, Gozreh fits the bill perfectly, considering his/her fluid sex.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, gaming, where there is no sexism (except for the drow matriarchy) or racism (except for PCs wreaking racially-motivated violence against orcs and goblinoids) or religious intolerance (except for places like Razmiran and Rahadoum) or political oppression (except for Galt and Cheliax).
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.
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)
You and she are free to ignore as much about Erastil as you'd like. It's an easier process than adding information. Why should your or her tastes be the ones Paizo writes to? The same held true in some of the debates about Golarion and slavery. If you don't like the content they come up with, remove it from your version of Golarion as you run the game.
The Paizo writers are trying to make a fantasy world that has interesting hooks for players and DMs to sink their teeth into, that resonates with the players and DMs, that has some moral complexity to it like real life has. Some of the things they come up with may be stuff that some people don't want to deal with in their games. But I think their track record shows that they're doing pretty well despite that. So they must be doing something that more of us think is right than is wrong. That puts the burden on you. You've got to come up with some way to deal with it that works for you, just as you would for any other content they come up with that you don't want to use whether it's the content of a treasure hoard, the CR of a monster, or the placement of a trap.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to remember that not every god needs to be perfect for every character (or player). With Golarion, we've really tried hard to create a world that feels real, and one of the key ways to do that (in my opinion) is to introduce some moral ambiguity.
In this particular instance, you've got a lawful good god that does lots of great things, but is also unfortunately socially conservative and unfairly marginalizes a large group of people. Since this perfectly describes how I view several major religions in our own world, I'd think my gaming experience would be lessened if there wasn't an analogue in Golarion that I could use to build characters.
If you really want to play a cleric of Erastil and don't want to deal with that conservatism, don't. Your GM has the power to say "Erastil doesn't believe that in my world." But you might also want to consider playing a character who's a religious reformer, or conflicted over her god's offensive social views, or an arrogant but generally well-intentioned jerk who's trying to spread the gospel "for people's own good."
Perfect gods are boring gods. Abadar won't heal you unless you can pay. Cayden Cailean's a drunkard. Iomedae's probably a little too self-righteous. Sarenrae's all about jihad. Shelyn's a libertine, Torag's a workaholic weapons-nut, and Desna doesn't give a #$&@. And those are just the "good" gods. To me, the fact that Erastil's "traditional family values" stance makes me mad is part of what makes him fun.
(Of course, I'm also the one who nearly broke Mike McArtor's brain with my insistence that Mengkare, the eugenics-espousing dragon lord of Hermea, could still be considered "good" by certain standards, so take my comments with a grain of salt....)
You and she are free to ignore as much about Erastil as you'd like. It's an easier process than adding information. Why should your or her tastes be the ones Paizo writes to? The same held true in some of the debates about Golarion and slavery. If you don't like the content they come up with, remove it from your version of Golarion as you run the game.
The Paizo writers are trying to make a fantasy world that has interesting hooks for players and DMs to sink their teeth into, that resonates with the players and DMs, that has some moral complexity to it like real life has. Some of the things they come up with may be stuff that some people don't want to deal with in their games. But I think their track record shows that they're doing pretty well despite that. So they must be doing something that more of us think is right than is wrong. That puts the burden on you. You've got to come up with some way to deal with it that works for you, just as you would for any other content they come up with that you don't want to use whether it's the content of a treasure hoard, the CR of a monster, or the placement of a trap.
+1000
If an aspect of Golarion is something any particular gaming group disagrees with, they should by all means ignore/re-work/Rule 0 it their satisfaction. But don't come preaching about it on the boards as if the writers have done "something wrong" by reflecting a thorny issue in the Campaign Setting.
Ah, gaming, where there is no sexism (except for the drow matriarchy) or racism (except for PCs wreaking racially-motivated violence against orcs and goblinoids) or religious intolerance (except for places like Razmiran and Rahadoum) or political oppression (except for Galt and Cheliax).
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.
Exactly! Prejudice and wrongdoing (and wrongthinking) are what keep a setting hopping, and injecting some of that into "the good guys" gives you that much more opportunity for adventure.
Cayden to Erastil while pointing up to Shelyn's balcony after another failed wooing session.."Look I'm trying..speak to her why don't you"
To be honest it was Erastil's views on the other gods that made me sit up and take notice.I love those parts of Sean's articles can't wait to see what Gorum's views are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cayden to Erastil while pointing up to Shelyn's balcony after another failed wooing session.."Look I'm trying..speak to her why don't you"
Erastil's response to Cayden: "Peeping isn't wooing, man. Get yourself a good plot of land, build a house. Girls love that stuff."
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)
You and she are free to ignore as much about Erastil as you'd like. It's an easier process than adding information. Why should your or her tastes be the ones Paizo writes to? The same held true in some of the debates about Golarion and slavery. If you don't like the content they come up with, remove it from your version of Golarion as you run the game.
The Paizo writers are trying to make a fantasy world that has interesting hooks for players and DMs to sink their teeth into, that resonates with the players and DMs, that has some moral complexity to it like real life has. Some of the things they come up with may be stuff that some people don't want to deal with in their games. But I think their track record shows that they're doing pretty well despite that. So they must be doing something that more of us think is right than is wrong. That puts the burden on you. You've got to come up with some way to deal with it that works for you, just as you would for any other content they come up with that you don't want to use whether it's the content of a treasure hoard, the CR of a monster, or the placement of a trap.
as log as it is only writen in an Adventure, sure no problem, I don't mention it - Problem solved. If it is in a Player product I don't have that option and it is not a "I don't like it, let's not use it" issue, it would ruin at least the gaming session for her - yes, she is that extreme about that topic, would it be a neutral god it could even be ok, but that paizo gave that trait to a LG god will make her (and to much lesser extend the other two women) angry and sad
I would suggest that one doesn't have to completely agree with every thought a deity has in order to be able to serve them. If that were the case, clerics wouldn't be allowed to have a different alignment from their deity.
You, sir, win, and that's an excellent use of game mechanics to back up the logic of your statement.
Actually I think that would be 'boy' not 'man'
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually love that Erastil is backwards-minded old dolt who believes that every woman should just sit back and play the mother/wife routine.
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 with no land) very "unmanly." If I lived in a world where Erastil was real, would that prevent me from praying to him for prosperity in my farming or hunting? No. Compared to the gods, we are all inferior and inadequate.
can't wait to see what Gorum's views are.Gorum's views are probably:
Pansy
Pansy
Pansy
*more specific type of*Pansy
_repeat....
Yeh you probably have a point there..though I think he might have a grudging respect for Torag and possibly Iomedae even if she's a bit soft for his tastes and he probably can't wait to have a go at Rovagug
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.
ah, that is something completly different,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do they have to be followers of Erastil to enjoy the setting?
Erastil is pretty much entrenched in the Kingmaker A.P., with sites, NPCs, background info and quests entirely designed around him. So, one is either forced to make significant changes to the A.P. or to change the god himself into something less offensive.
if I were playing, I would be annoyed that I couldn't play a female ranged cleric or paladin of Erastil without either changing the god or giving her some special dispensation to not stay at home making babies.
+1. In this case, the flavor that's been added to Erastil *excludes* those players who want to play strong-willed adventuring women rather than *include* them.
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)
Which is exactly the opinion voiced by my female player.
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.
I'm not saying that the world shouldn't have things that we vehemently oppose, but I do think those disdainful elements shouldn't be set up as things that the PCs are expected to support; which is the case with Erastil in the Kingmaker AP.
The Paizo writers are trying to make a fantasy world that has interesting hooks for players and DMs to sink their teeth into, that resonates with the players and DMs.
Unfortunately their intention has backfired. Instead of wanting to sink their teeth into the Kingmaker AP, players are questioning why they should be following the AP's primary deity; who it turns out is something of ass.
What if, instead of sexism, Erastil advocated forcing evil humanoids into bonded servitude as a means of righteous re-education? Would people be as eager to roleplay followers of a god who supports slavery saying that it's merely "realistic" or delightfully "rustic"?
To somewhat threadjack here:
My issue was the art of the main character shown on these pages was a female follower who didn't look too conservative. It was the one disjoint thing about the article that somewhat threw me off (I actually re-read the section on sexism to make sure I hadn't read it wrong)
Yeah. I noticed that with several pictures in connection with religious texts: That picture of Shelyn in Gods & Magic, for example, doesn't look right for Shelyn - and I'm not talking about her "solidness". I'm talking about how her dress doesn't look tasteful, accentuating her beauty without revealing too much of it. And Calistria doesn't look like she's supposedly depicted all the time, either. Far too grumpy. That face would fit a dwarven Goddess of Being Sulky ;-)
|
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!"
Because it prevents female characters from faithfully championing Erastil's portfolio while being "independent-minded" or while participating in regular adventuring duties without also conflicting directly with their god's tenets.
"Independent-minded". That sounds an awful lot like it would fit a chaotic deity, not a lawful one...
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"? It's not just a fluffy tidbit; it can actually hinder players' enjoyment of the setting.
Sure. Like a thousand other things, like Abadar's insistence that you don't just give away your resources to those in need, or Gorum's view that poisoning is for cowards who have no place in his church, or Cayden Cailean's disdain of teetotallers (or people who presume to address him by his first name).
And religion isn't the only thing that might "hinder players' enjoyment of the setting." Some won't like that most half-orcs are born because their human mothers were raped by orcs to breed smarter stock. Or that ogres will brutally torture, and then eat, humans. Or the fact that there is a whole nation built around a crashed spaceship. Or the fact that there's a gay paladin living in Sandpoint who hasn't lost his rightous powers for doing such a "vile act".
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.
Also, note that the very same article states, in talking about Erastil's holy text, that "communities omit things irrelevant to their way of life or add fables emphasizing local events or traditions." Seems like a perfectly easy way to have sects of Erastil with differing opinions on the role of women, if you must change that.
My group have no problem with Erastil..yet. The Druid and Cleric both follow him
I don't think it'll come up in my game, because the female cleric doesn't plan to worship Erastil anyway, but if I were playing, I would be annoyed that I couldn't play a female ranged cleric or paladin of Erastil without either changing the god or giving her some special dispensation to not stay at home making babies.
What about the guy who wants to play a divine liberator who frees slaves but never touches alcohol or drugs, who cannot play a cleric of Cayden Cailean because he hates teetotallers?
Or a Death Priest of Pharasma who likes undead?
If you really want to play an archer priestess of Erastil who won't get behind the damn stove where she belongs*, there's always heresy.
*According to Ole' Moosehead.
Do they have to be followers of Erastil to enjoy the setting?Erastil is pretty much entrenched in the Kingmaker A.P., with sites, NPCs, background info and quests entirely designed around him. So, one is either forced to make significant changes to the A.P. or to change the god himself into something less offensive.
Or have characters who aren't followers of Erastil. It's a sandbox-style campaign. The PCs don't have to get involved with any of the Erastil stuff if they find his view of gender roles objectionable.
But go ahead and change what you feel is objectionable about Erastil. You don't need to seek permission.
|
|
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 ?
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.
As a woman computer engineer, I can sympathize with women that don't want to deal with a lot of oppressive sexism in their gaming - sometimes it fun to fight and rail against it, but sometimes you just want to escape and relax.
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.
As always, tailor things to fit what your players want. That's the joy of pnp gaming, after all.