Half Orc, in case your GM hasn't changed his mind.
I think this is a time where you and your players need to sit down with him and flat out say that the way Erastil's beliefs work is offensive to the members of the party and each and every idea that the GM has come up with is just as (if not more so) offensive as the last. Offer alternatives to Erastil but make it clear that you and the players do not like the dogma behind Erastil. If he refuses to budge, well then maybe it's time to find another game.
I remember running a HERO System game a long time ago and it was going to deal with superheroes in the Middle East and terrorists. One of my players was from Israel and she felt uncomfortable with the subject area due to past experiences, so I changed the game. As a GM, one have to remember that the players still come before the story. If I know I have a player who had some issues with an abusive father, I try not to have that in my game. Everyone has their areas of uncomfort and that is ok. And hell, this belief of Erastil is such a minor change (compared to how I changed an entire game setting on one person ;) ) that this shouldn't be a problem for the GM.
Im actually running a Kingmaker campaign and I've actually changed Erastil around to just remove that aspect of him. And it took me like 2 seconds. I even made that certain cleric a female half orc because I preferred that.
As a side note I do think it was a poor decision to highlight that aspect of his faith in that article. I also though him a much more interesting deity before reading that.Agreed. I showed that article to a number of people with no prior Golarion knowledge. Not even the table in the main book.
And knowing nothing but what the article said, they were consistent in coming back with his alignment as LN with Evil tendencies. He thinks he's lawful good, but that just makes him delusional on top of oppressive.
(Note that the above is JUST on the basis of the article in Kingmaker #2. Other supplemental materials such as Gods and Magic and the Campaign Setting do paint a more balanced picture here.)
And I honestly cannot understand how someone could get evil out of it. It reads like the description of a loving grandfather who just doesn't understand young people anymore.
Also, it's a Role Playing Game. "Modern", "Progressive" issues here aren't issues there.
Gods aren't 'racial' gods any more (gods of dwarves, gods of humans, gods of elves) so that whole racial issue has been removed. I think maybe your team has put too much emphasis on this gods 'judgement' of females.
Personally, i wouldn't even PLAY with females that touchy about a subject in a fantasy setting, however, I also think if I did? I would never have brought up that aspect of the god, ever, knowing about their touchiness.I disagree. RPGs are 'Modern and Progressive.' The players live in 2011 and their method of entertainment is reflective of the times.
One of the women who plays in my Kingmaker game plays a ranger of Erastil. She wasn't exactly pleased with that aspect when she read the deity description in #31. She eventually decided that she disagrees with official doctrine (and is NG anyway so something of a 'free sprit' in that church). Erasil keeps granting her spells every day so she clearly hasn't made him angry yet.
8)
As a side note I do think it was a poor decision to highlight that aspect of his faith in that article. I also though him a much more interesting deity before reading that.
While I, on the contrary, found him interesting only after reading the article. The fact that Erastil is unimpeachably Lawful Good while also being highly socially conservative and old-fashioned is what makes him unique.
While I, on the contrary, found him interesting only after reading the article. The fact that Erastil is unimpeachably Lawful Good while also being highly socially conservative and old-fashioned is what makes him unique.
Oh, trust me, a lot of people like the concept of a Good God with, for lack of a better term, blind spots towards the actions of his followers. Nowhere does it say that Erastil enforces a 'get married or get out' philosophy. But the reason so many RL Religions fail horribly is that Mortals interpret those Philosophies to give themselves more power, put themselves at the top of the social order and/or punish their rivals.
Can anyone here see Erastil not granting spells to a chauvinist, so long as aforementioned chauvinist was one of the local communities best protectors, healers, and problem-solvers, helping the social harmony. Now, no way in hell are you going to see a high-level Chauvinist in most other Gods' clergies, but with Erastil, the old coot would probably let it slide until the Cleric in question started to turn either violent or outright (And I mean preaching physical violence and extreme emotional anguish, which is a further step than just 'woman is not as good as man' b%$++*~* chauvinists preach) psychologically abusive towards Women as a means of asserting a Man's authority.
so I say again:
is a cantankerous old bat, but he's still a Good, orderly God who wants the best for his followers without oppressing them, meaning he values the community and family over the individual and he expects people to look out for each other and support the 'leaders' of the community, more often than not the Fathers and Elders of the Village or Town.
|
Lawful tends to be conservative, what is the surprise?
Really? Desiring (and obeying) laws is conservative, but not progressive?
Progressives want nothing more than wanton chaos and murder? Criminals are all just a bunch of liberals?It must be your ignorance that enables you to listen to yourself speak, without your head exploding...
|
Lawful tends to be conservative, what is the surprise?Really? Desiring (and obeying) laws is conservative, but not progressive?
Progressives want nothing more than wanton chaos and murder? Criminals are all just a bunch of liberals?It must be your ignorance that enables you to listen to yourself speak, without your head exploding...
Wow. Cool off! he's just talking there. Don't take alignment discussions so personal: there's no such thing as alignment in real life. Peace out!
|
And I honestly cannot understand how someone could get evil out of it. It reads like the description of a loving grandfather who just doesn't understand young people anymore.
Maybe it was meant that way but it did not succeed.
Also most modern views see forcing people into a loveless marriage 'for the good of the community' as being if not out-and-out evil, then at least non-good.
And (because I can hear about four people punching reply to say that Golarion is not a modern setting) I have to ask what else it can be being written by writers in the modern world and played by gamers here but modern in its views of good and evil.
Also most modern views see forcing people into a loveless marriage 'for the good of the community' as being if not out-and-out evil, then at least non-good.
But that isn't what Erastil wants. He is "pro-marriage", but he wants those marriages to be happy ones. While he would suggest (and expect) that his followers should get married, he would not force someone to marry against their will.
At least, that's how I read the article on him.
I agree that the article does seem to paint a picture of a Lawful Neutral god as opposed to a Lawful Good god, which is unfortunate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow just wow..... Talk about blowing stuff out of all proportion and twisting stuff to make it fit a a horrible nihilistic vision of the world... I think you have too much of your Asmodeus in my Erastil.
In my Golarion, Erastil is a nice guy that just wants communities to be safe and happy, I would say that he wouldn't care if you were in same gender partnerships just as long as you were partnered up and happy.
Being partnered up and unhappy is no good for the community and he would oppose anything that damages the community. He likes things that strengthens the family not things that poisons and corrupts the family. An unhappy partnership is one of those things where he would try and council and then if it was not going to work out give his blessing to those involved going their separate ways.
Considering that he is also a most probably a widower, maybe he just wants people to experience the love and companionship that was taken away from him.....
Also Sarenrae is his daughter and he has a very good relationship with her and does not disapprove of her.
Using Sarenrae as an example... he is more than proud of his strong and independent daughter. He would be more than proud of the strong and independent daughters of the communities that worship him and if those daughters had more daughters strong and independent, it would make his millennium.
He likes weddings, babies, happy marriages, cared for children, living within your capabilities, respecting the land on which you live, not exploiting the environment, not interfering with his followers not taking direct action unless necessary.
Where as Abadar would see marriage as something to farther business opportunities and Asmodeus marriage is something to exploit and servant to dominate.
Unfortunately, almost everything you quoted here isn't up for debate. I conceeded already. However, none of it is in KM#2. The point I was trying to make was that that particular article does a really good,...Wow just wow..... Talk about blowing stuff out of all proportions and twisting stuff to make it fit a a horrible nihilistic vision of the world... I think you have too much of your Asmodeus in my Erastil.
In my Golarion, Erastil is a nice guy that just wants communities to be safe and happy, I would say that he wouldn't care if you were in same gender partnerships just as long as you were partnered up and happy.
Being partnered up and unhappy is no good for the community and he would oppose anything that damages the community. He likes things that strengthens the family not things that poisons and corrupts the family. An unhappy partnership is one of those things where he would try and council and then if it was not going to work out give his blessing to those involved going their separate ways.
Considering that he is also a most probably a widower, maybe he just wants people to experience the love and companionship that was taken away from him.....
Also Sarenrae is his daughter and he has a very good relationship with her and does not disapprove of her.
Using Sarenrae as an example... he is more than proud of his strong and independent daughter. He would be more than proud of the strong and independent daughters of the communities that worship him and if those daughters had more daughters strong and independent, it would make his millennium.
He likes weddings, babies, happy marriages, cared for children, living within your capabilities, respecting the land on which you live, not exploiting the environment, not interfering with his followers not taking direct action unless necessary.
Where as Abadar would see marriage as something to farther business opportunities and Asmodeus marriage is something to exploit and servant to dominate.
Fair enough, I see your point... he wasn't explained very well and hopefully the new Faiths book will change that.
Okay. I guess it's time to try to explain WHY the KM#2 article could be seen as a particularly nasty Lawful Neutral god, rather than this mysteriously misunderstood paragon of virtue people claim he HAS to be.
And again, I want to emphasize that the ONLY reference I'm using here is the KM#2 article. It's the only thing I'm GOING to use aside from general alignment opinions. I'm not even going to bother listening to arguments that he's depicted as a better entity elsewhere. Why? Because I concede that point already.
To this end, while it's a bit arbitrary of a way to do this, I'm going through, line by line, and picking out passages that point to a particular alignment. So we don't get into "reproduction of the article" issues, only a few key words will be picked out so those interested in following along will be able to find what I'm talking about. Please just accept that I'm talking about the entire quoted paragraph. You're probably going to need your copy to follow along.Quote:
...god of close-knit communities.....This entire passage has interesting connotations, but it contains a large number of references to how Erastil doesn't want to be involved in affairs beyond day-to-day living. The key thing to take away from this is that, like the vast majority of people, he will simply walk away from the 'common cruelties' of living in civilization if they are not a threat to the larger community.
There's a term for this. It's called the 'Bystander Effect.' Look it up, if you don't get the references. The things this can lead people to doing are utterly horrifying. That a diety would actually advocate giving in to this, which is what this passage seems to imply, does not bode well for a Good alignment. While there's some stuff following it that sounds redeeming, a lot of people will say they'll do these things, but when push comes to shove....they don't.
really... Because soomeone believes that people should be able to protect themselves and not rely on others strength he is evil? seriously?
Quote:
He believes the strength of a man’s will makes him the center of a household....This is where the article moves from "morally questionable" to "actively offensive" to many people. Much of the rest of Golarion's fiction is careful to 'mix it up' when it comes to calling things out. Erastil doesn't. This passage makes it quite clear he advocates taking choices away from people "for the good of the community." Replace "community" with "country" and you can probably find all sorts of appalling acts that have been justified. Does the fact that these evils would be perpetrated on a smaller group make them any less evil?
"Good?" Sorry, no. "Lawful" certainly, but not good.
I know many, many people who would disagree with you here, including many women. This is not about limitting women's choice. Its about setting up a distinct heirarchy to resolve conflicts. This doctrine exists in pretty much every major faith that exists in the world today. Where does it say anywhere that he would find these "evil" acts you say he justifies as ok? It doesn't. Just as it is 1 person's role to be a follower, it is the other person's role to lead justly.
Quote:
*Whole bunch of stuff about how Erastil makes his presence known.*Nothing interesting here, at least for this discussion.
Quote:
Erastil is lawful good...this is already looking pretty laughable. But, as is usual with these articles, it's kind of tucked away in there and easy to miss if you're just skimming before a game. Noted only because hearing "Lawful Good" seems to turn off a lot of people's brains or try to force them to interpret what's being said in a more positive light. When you don't know the alignment of the diety being described the article overall becomes much more sinister.
Quote:
Most of his priests are clerics, but a small minority are druids, rangers, and (most rare) paladins; a few scattered communities are served by adepts.I've singled out this particular line for a very big reason, keep it in mind.
Quote:
He’s not pretentious, and while he may be proud of his accomplishments....and a healthy wife....And here's where the moral outrage starts becoming justified. However unintended and indirect, it refers to the man's wife as, at worst, property. Even at best, any prosperity she may have is solely due to a man's accomplishments. In the world-view of Erastil, women have no intrinsic value, merely additive value to a man's place in the community.
And here you are reading things into the article that do not exist. This is also a very traditional way of thinking, as for most of human history women were property of their husbands in most societies. Usually, that meant that the men had more responcibility as well, like the well-being of his wife. Her health was dirrectly related to how well he could provide food for her, as her energy would be required on things that were equally important but did not provide food, like watching young ones, creating cloth, and taking care of the home.
Quote:
The church sees marriage as a way to “tame” unruly men and women,Hooo-boy. So far we've just been seeing gender issues, but this brings us to just where Erastil is "equal opporunity." And it's "Equal-opportunity oppression." Any sort of indiscretion is punished with lifelong commitment. And as we'll see further down in the article, priests of Erastil should not be expected to stop at coaxing language in bringing people together.
He believes that people need responcibility otherwise their actions go to unproductive activities. For the most part this is true. Because he sees the best way to calm them is to give them responcibility to a family? How is this beilef evil?
How is he ruining people's lives? By helping them find loveing relationships and starting families?
Quote:
Sparsely decorated, such structures often contain highly functional and modular furnishings;This basically refers to how Erastil's priests tend toward austerity and 'simple' lives. Sooo....it's okay to ruin people's lives in the name of moral superiority if you don't, personally, benefit and the "community" does? That's a pretty strange stance to take for a 'good' person.
Quote:
Diplomacy (though Intimidate may work just as well),Okay, full stop.
Read that again.
Again.
Quote:
...Intimidate...There, highlighted it for you.
We finally get down to just how the codes of behavior above are enforced, and Intimidate is specifically called out as being just as effective as Diplomacy?
And this is supposed to be a 'good' aligned course of action?
....what?!
I'm sure some people will come back and say that not all priests are like that. This isn't especially relevant, because I'm not trying to prove the article portrays an Evil god, merely a Neutral one who accepts Evil as a necessary method to 'get things done.'
Others will try to claim that Intimidate is 'just to get belligerent people to stand down.' The specific phrasing of this passage already proves that a lie. 'Just as well.' This means Intimidate is an acceptable substitute for Diplomacy in Erastil's world. Enforcement through Intimidate is, in effect, rule by fear alone. There is no possible way to justify this method except as an Evil act of the highest order, because of all the lesser evils needed to carry it through. If Erastil does not accept evil priests, then why is this specifically called out as acceptable?
The only conclusion that I can possibly reach here is that Erastil does accept Evil priests. But if that's the case, he cannot possibly be Lawful Good.
Intimidate: If you do not take responcibility for the son you just gave that woman, what will happen to her? How will she survive? That responcibility is yours as much as hers, and I will make sure whatever her fate is it is also yours.
Nothing evil there. lawful, yes. Evil, no. Also it uses intimidate to force someone to settle down.
Quote:
Adventurer priests of Erastil are rare,This particular bit is actually contradicted within the article in two places. The first is above - most priests are of adventuring classes and, even at the 1st-3rd levels they're implied to stop at, wield substantial power when compared to a community full of commoners. The later is lower in the same paragraph - young priests of Erastil are encouraged to go out on little adventures when they're younger to get to distant parishes to gain experience before settling down. This is probably where they gain their adventuring levels.
Quote:
Never trust a fool:The part of this saying where it discourages any sort of uprising against the local lord can start to look a little self-serving by this point.
Quote:
HolidaysThis whole section is pretty meaningless in terms of the alignment debate, as well.
Quote:
Relations...This is where things start getting a little sticky. The problem with the direct quote method is that it leaves things open to interpretation. The only thing that can be done is to try to see them through the lens above.
So, where does that leave us? Nowhere in "good" territory, that's for sure. Erastil believes in his views as an absolute right. Anyone who doesn't conform is hurting the community, and must be stopped for their own benefit. There is no room to question, no room for the new ideas that allow communities to grow and thrive Trouble of any kind is to be avoided if at all possible, ignored if feasible. Combating evil is seen as a fool's errand.
Erastil consistently advocates the eradication of free choice, the pursuit of tradition and rules as a goal unto itself, and most of all, the toleration of suffering today in the hopes that it will 'go away' tomorrow.
This is not the point of view of a good person. It is not the point of view of a good god.
Free choice is not GOOD. It is chaos in the D&D spectrum. Your biggest problem is assuming that free will=good. Get rid of that false assumption and you will see that Erastil beieves in everyone taking responcibility to strengthen the community. Its not about following the rules for the rules sake. Its following the rules because they work to build stronger communities, families, and raise strong, healthy people. Violating the rules puts the community in jepordy, which is the most important thing to make sure does not happen.
It is not that combating evil is a fools errand, but combating monsters usually is. Combating monsters throws away strong people who can help build up the community and strengthen everyone. There is evil in the community and close to home that can be fought. People go without food or shelter, dieing in the cold of winter. These things take enough energy to fight, you do not need to waste more on things that will never affect you or those you love, like dragons. His enemy is the mundane because it is close to home. Finding new enemies only turns a blind eye to those next to you.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but in "Seekers of Secrets" there is a Pathfinder Cleric of Erastil that has been banished by her church because she discovered information about strong leadership by female clergy that has been supressed by the now primarily male clergy of Erastil.
Maybe the chauvanist priest is 'overprotective' of the ladies and princesses in the party: he does things like pulls thier guard duty-for no good woman should have to do such a chore. He won't let the girls search bodies, because they are dirty-and no good woman should soil her hands with death. He asks them to be careful and to stand back so they don't get hurt... In other words, have him couch his (insults) in chivalrous terms.
It really depends on the players. Maybe one of the PCs will save his bacon and he will start to see the "ladies" as fully capable members of the team? Lots of opportunity to RP. If you avoid making the guy crass and overbearing :D
Enjoy :)
GNOME
|
|
I get my clearest idea of his attitude by reading the Relations with Other Religions section (paraphrased to avoid pasting Paizo content):
Abadar: An okay person, but too wrapped up in city concerns - that many people jammed together, too much evil escapes notice, and the pursuit of wealth is pointless if you sacrifice your honor.Aroden: He was a very good person, but he tried to go it alone too much - maybe out of pride? Sharing the load makes work easier.
Cayden Cailean: He means well, but he's just not that smart, and he acts like an irresponsible teenager. He needs a wife and family to help him settle down and grow up.
Desna: She makes me a bit sad, she's let loss harden her heart, for all she puts on a show of life and vivacity. If she'd open up to a husband and a family, she'd feel joy again. She's been around a long time, though, I can't expect her to change her ways.
Gorum: He's a mindless thug, fighting things that don't matter. Taking care of family, taming the wild to protect and nurture you own is a real fight.
Gozreh: ...like the weather, he is what he is, and nothing will change that.
Iomedae: I don't really approve of her having to carry these burdens she's taken up alone, though she's doing a fine job. I can't help thinking she'd be happier with a husband and family, though.
Irori: There's a lot good to say about him, but he's so self focused! He should work to help the community, not just himself. At least he doesn't put on too many airs.
Sarenrae: She's a fine woman, and would make a wonderful wife and mother - she would keep any man on his toes!
Shelyn: Such a beautiful, kind woman, always helping others. She may be a little too given to romance over common sense, but it's hard to fault her for that.
Torag: He and his dwarves are good, solid, grounded people. They're a little more militant than I like, but given their history, I guess I understand that.
I think these snapshots of thought outline pretty clearly his attitude, and I find it pretty easy to imagine him as an old widower who's lived in a small town his whole life. He's preoccupied with marriage, children, grandchildren, and the closeness of small communities that depend on each other. He's not comfortable with a lot of modern topics, and generally has an attitude that can close down certain conversations. He'll give a rough talking to to a young whippersnapper that isn't acting with any common sense, or have a long rambling chat as he tries to convince a neighbor of the error of his ways, whichever he thinks will lead to the best outcome.
You're playing a fantasy game in what is essentially the real world dark ages, but with magic.
You'll have a lot of decent people that see women as equals, but only very few. Polotical correctness and equal rights were not buzz words like they are today. However, in fantasy world female barbarians and archmages are a "reality".
So basically, "equal rights" don't exist in the fantasy world, but if a raging sexist isn't careful he'll get a lightning bolt in the face.
The NPC may be a raging sexist if you want or he can be the "family oriented" mentined above. Frankly the idea of him trying to set up the players with suitable mates to get them to settle down is more amusing than beign a sexist.
Anyway if the players don't like how he's played than they should deal with it in character. Perhaps the female barbarian mule kicks him in the chest or uses her intimidate skill to full effect. Just because he's LG doesn't mean he's above reproach.
If the players are offended in real life let them be. Games that take one out of their comfort zone are some of the best. If they're really upset IRL than tell them he's a FICTIONAL character set in the DARK AGES. They need to deal with it in character.
|
|
You're playing a fantasy game in what is essentially the real world dark ages, but with magic.
Not really. First off, in the game, there's no difference between men and women, except for their role in the reproductive process. And magic throws a HUGE monkey wrench into the works, even without game-induced equality between the sexes. Even in societies where women are denied education, she could become a sorceress and explode anyone that upsets or mistreats her. And in a setting with genetic breeding, crashed space ships and the development of gunpowder and guns as reliable weapons, I don't think you can honestly say the game setting is "in the Dark Ages".
You can have cultures and individuals with the traditional view of roles for the sexes, but the game doesn't in any way force it through mechanics or setting anymore.
|
Lawful tends to be conservative, what is the surprise?Really? Desiring (and obeying) laws is conservative, but not progressive?
Progressives want nothing more than wanton chaos and murder? Criminals are all just a bunch of liberals?It must be your ignorance that enables you to listen to yourself speak, without your head exploding...
Lawfull/chaotic has little to do with following laws. Consevative/lawful want to stay with traditional things, even if they are not the best, chaotic/progressives want to change them to what they think is better even if it isnt. It isn't a matter of following a law as much as what you want the law to BE
You're playing a fantasy game in what is essentially the real world dark ages, but with magic.Not really. First off, in the game, there's no difference between men and women, except for their role in the reproductive process. And magic throws a HUGE monkey wrench into the works, even without game-induced equality between the sexes. Even in societies where women are denied education, she could become a sorceress and explode anyone that upsets or mistreats her. And in a setting with genetic breeding, crashed space ships and the development of gunpowder and guns as reliable weapons, I don't think you can honestly say the game setting is "in the Dark Ages".
You can have cultures and individuals with the traditional view of roles for the sexes, but the game doesn't in any way force it through mechanics or setting anymore.
You're partially correct. Minus the magic, space ships (which I hate), and given the average technology the time is definitely comparable to real life pre-industrial revolution. One could use either Dark ages or age of enlightnment as real world comparables.
Yes, for purpose of game mechanics there is no difference between genders.
Most feudal villages wouldn't have head exploding femi-natzi sorceresses wandering around. Some would, but they would be rare. I imagine even the most chauvinist sexist bigot would be watching his P's and Q's in that village.
I didn't mean to imply that women and men weren't equals. Frankly, i'm writing my dissertation on matters of equality.
As you said, cultures will have different traditions. In some people are equals and in other they are not.
I was using the real world as a comparable. Historically women, among others, havent been treated very well. It's sad, but true.
|
|
Galorion is in no way historically accurate. The massive differences in history (especially western history) are staggering. To close your eyes to all the many and varied things in the setting that are so clearly modern is stunning.
Gender equity
Polytheism
Mortals rising to godhood
Sexual identification (straight/gay/other)
...
Magic
...
The list is long and its clear that the setting isn't dark ages nor enlightenment nor renaissance nor any other time period that actually existed.
The setting is fantasy and is a reflection of how we see the world. To say the Erasil and his ideas are the virtues of a small community is in fact insulting to small communities.
Reading through the Erastil article again, I again found a lot of stuff I disagreed with. Things that I felt made him a less "pure" good. Even then though, I find it hard to see him as a non-good deity, much less a deity more evil than good. Throughout the article I saw references to him helping out those in need, something I don't expect from someone supposed to be pushing into evil.
Looking through the relations, I gather from it that he likes the good deities more than the neutral deities he describes. Saying that another deity should get married is repeated every time (except for one that I believe is already married) for the good deities, but he doesn't recommend marriage to Abadar, Gorum, or Irori.
Even though I don't agree with Erastil, I wouldn't want him changed. I enjoy the positions of Iomedae and Erastil next to each other. One more focused on community to the detriment of the world and the other more focused on the world to the detriment of the community. One is a shining example of gender equality while the other holds to his long held opinions on gender roles. They are both forces for good and order in the world that aren't bent on destroying the other despite having very different opinions.
|
|
Something interesting from "Seekers of Secrets" (Pathfinder Chonicles). A female cleric of Erastil is detailed on page 18. According to her description,
"One year, she visited her mother’s grave in the crypt known as the Cairn of Kings, where she found evidence of a matriarchal order who ruled the temples of Erastil long before the male priests rose to power."
Obviously Erastil is still granting her spells. So I suspect there's more to the god than meets the eye.
*EDIT: woops, apparently FireberdGNOME already mentioned this. My bad.
A female priest of Erastil would be perfect actually, and I could see her serve as a midwife for example... who better than a woman to advocate motherhood to women?
|
|
because he IS NOT pure good, he is lawful good, and sometimes lawful steps on good. I hate the idea that LG is somehow the most good, lawful gets in the way sometimes...and Andrew R takes the thread win. [pdk extends ThreadCake to Andrew R]
Thanks, alignment issue and Charisma is =/= appearance or my two fav. things to argue.
Obviously Erastil is still granting her spells. So I suspect there's more to the god than meets the eye.
That is obviously a case of schism between Clergy and Deity. I see it as a power grab by a patriarchal group; this cleric (from Seekers of Secrets) is fighting that. She is not fighting her deity, only a straying protion of Erastil's clergy.
@Andrew R: yes and yes again ;) I would like to add that it works both ways: Lawful sometimes steps on Good and sometimes Good steps on Lawful :)
I see alignment is both a distance and direction to a goal. However, not only does the goal constantly change, the navigator is often restricted to either 'distance' or 'direction'! Makes it hard to find that point (that keeps moving anyway!) in the wilderness. :)
Thanks, alignment issue and Charisma is =/= appearance or my two fav. things to argue.because he IS NOT pure good, he is lawful good, and sometimes lawful steps on good. I hate the idea that LG is somehow the most good, lawful gets in the way sometimes...and Andrew R takes the thread win. [pdk extends ThreadCake to Andrew R]
Completely with you on the Charisma appearance thing, not nearly so much on the alignment part. My main issue with LG is that it's a bit of a hollow alignment- the lawful part automatically knows when to cede to the good part, and vice versa, thus making it the "best good alignment", though not the "pure good alignment" that NG is....but that's an argument for another thread, methinks.
Seems like a lot of folks are bringing their real life issues and experiences into the way they are interpreting Old Deadeye. Of course, people are welcome to do that, in their own games. Just recognize that it is your own perspective doing it, exaggerating some passages in his description while ignoring others, interpreting encouragement of a certain lifestyle as forcing people to live that way, and generally giving a sinister bent to a decidedly socially conservative, but indisputably benevolent deity. I agree that the article on Erastil in the AP could have been better written, but in reviewing it in its entirety (rather than cherrypicking quotes) I frankly just don't see the issue, unless you are definitely looking at it through RL ideological lenses.
Anyway, in my campaign, we have two worshippers of Erastil in the party, a male human paladin and a female elf ranger. Interestingly, it is the paladin who is being pushed toward marriage and "settling down" by the church. Kingmaker is actually extremely well-suited for allowing characters to develop long-term relationships with NPCs, given the long periods of "down" time. In fact, it would be weird if none did develop, worshipper of Erastil or not. The paladin rejected one flirtatious NPC who threw herself at him as not having the good old-fashioned values his god represents, and has now settled on and is courting a good, sensible local farm girl. He has no plans to retire from adventuring just yet, but feels he can balance time at home with the soon-to-be wife (and probably kids) with the couple of weeks per month the group is spending out in the field adventuring (with occasional longer breaks at home).
As for the elf ranger, she is resisting the call to family at this time, and the local priesthood is pretty understanding, given the longer lifespan of elves. Plenty of time for that family thing later.
18-years-of-age... to read about sex in a book?
"So that's the smart names for all the things I've been doing and licking for years now!
Also most modern views see forcing people into a loveless marriage 'for the good of the community' as being if not out-and-out evil, then at least non-good.
But that isn't what Erastil wants. He is "pro-marriage", but he wants those marriages to be happy ones. While he would suggest (and expect) that his followers should get married, he would not force someone to marry against their will.
At least, that's how I read the article on him.
Well, if you knock her up, you're marrying her. Longbow marriages do occur.
And that is done mainly so the girl and her child will be provided for. You can't expect her finding another man who'll marry her after she's not only been deflowered but already has a child. Many men will not like that prospect.
So if you got her in the family way, you and her are now family.
Makes sense, too: Golarion probably doesn't have laws for alimony or childcare, especially not in rural areas where Erastil thrives, and Erastil and his priests want all people to be cared for.
|
|
Yes, the article makes Erastil out to be a chauvinist.
That's exactly why he's one of my favorite deities in Golarian.
He's the only deity that feels consistent with the rest of the universe. It's refreshing to have a deity that actually feels like a deity in a pseudo-European dark ages high fantasy world.
Yes, the article makes Erastil out to be a chauvinist.
That's exactly why he's one of my favorite deities in Golarian.
He's the only deity that feels consistent with the rest of the universe. It's refreshing to have a deity that actually feels like a deity in a pseudo-European dark ages high fantasy world.
I can see why that in a historical context would be consistent with the setting.
I however think that magic is the great equalizer for society and political corectness. Things like charm person or gaess as well as domination or other such spells can easily affect the rulers that affect society.All of those sexily clad sorceresses could be in just the right position to improve the lot of women throughout the kingdom. Then again you can have women like Paxerion that are so good at what they do that they simply affect change by being an example of what women can do if given an equal chance.
Setting aside my games tend to be acurate up to a point. The fashion or weapons sure but the attitudes of one group of people being subserviant to another based on race/gender or whatever doesn't fit in a fantasy game very well just because magic will even the playing feild.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:...god of close-knit communities.....
This entire passage has interesting connotations, but it contains a large number of references to how Erastil doesn't want to be involved in affairs beyond day-to-day living.
Exactly. Heroics and crusades he leaves for his colleagues, he makes sure the normal people have a decent life and good chance of surviving things like marauders attacking their village, hard winters and dry summers.
The key thing to take away from this is that, like the vast majority of people, he will simply walk away from the 'common cruelties' of living in civilization if they are not a threat to the larger community.
Actually, that's completely wrong. He faces down bullies and calms frightened children. He demands cooperation and that you help your fellow man. He is for strong family ties. You don't get a strong tie to your family if said family is cruel to you.
Happy weddings make him smile. It's not just "marry and shut up".
Finally, he doesn't spout philosophy, he gives advice. That advice might be "You should find a girl to marry and have children with." "If you plant the seed like *this*, they have a much better chance of bearing fruit." "No, you're upwind. Move downwind or you'll scare the game away." Or "You know, you could do far more for your community if you stopped robbing the graves of long-dead kings, get a husband, and bear strong children."
And while he might not agree with an adventurer's way of life, he'll still help. You won't hear a "Swear that you marry this woman and I'll heal you."
Quote:He believes the strength of a man’s will makes him the center of a household....
This is where the article moves from "morally questionable" to "actively offensive" to many people.
While you might find fault with the "The provider has authority" part, the rules for man and woman are pretty much clear cut: Men toil on the fields or brave the wilds to hunt while woman stay behind to bear and rise children and care for the house.
If that is sexist, complain to nature.
Because if you switch the roles, you'll see the last generation of that community: Pregnant women should not work hard or they'll lose the child. They should not hunt or otherwise go into danger, because injuries that would normally not be too bad will kill the child.
Meanwhile, the man staying back caring for the young children watches his baby starve because he doesn't lactate.
Woman caring for home and kids while man toils and goes into danger is much more likely to succeed than the other way around.
Remember that Erastil is the god of villagers, not people in cities. Doing something grossly inefficient can mean that a harsh winter will take a much heavier toll than it would have otherwise. Everybody suffers.
Much of the rest of Golarion's fiction is careful to 'mix it up' when it comes to calling things out. Erastil doesn't. This passage makes it quite clear he advocates taking choices away from people "for the good of the community." Replace "community" with "country" and you can probably find all sorts of appalling acts that have been justified.
Yeah, except that you don't replace community with country here. A community is not a complex system of villages, cities, special resource sites and so on. A community has a few hundred members at most, maybe even a few dozen, and doesn't really concern itself with fighting the neighbour community (in fact, Erastil doesn't want people being drafted into armies for some nonsense. People aught to live their lives in peace). They fight the harsh mistress that is nature.
If you disrupt things, you don't look week and foolish to your neighbour community. It's more likely that some members of that community visit you come spring and find only frozen corpses, partially eaten by wolves.
Combined with the fact that he definitely does not promote spouses being beaten, abused or raped, or anything like that, I can't see him condoning evil for the good of the community no matter how hard I try.
Does the fact that these evils would be perpetrated on a smaller group make them any less evil?
The fact is that those evils won't be perpetrated at all.
Quote:Erastil is lawful good
...this is already looking pretty laughable. But, as is usual with these articles, it's kind of tucked away in there and easy to miss if you're just skimming before a game. Noted only because hearing "Lawful Good" seems to turn off a lot of people's brains or try to force them to interpret what's being said in a more positive light.
Note: Insulting those you argue against is never a good idea.
But since you have started it, I shall now feel free to insert comments like "If the woman doesn't like being shouted at, she should have done the sandwich probably the first time." Or not, because that would only kick off a discussion about whether it's worse to insult someone's gender or intelligence.
When you don't know the alignment of the diety being described the article overall becomes much more sinister.
Actually, I would have guessed LG without knowing the alignment from this or somewhere else.
That's because his very first concern seems to be that everyone is well-fed, sheltered from the elements and protected from danger. Because he promotes mutual cooperation and helpfulness.
All very good.
A lack of concern for "crusading" might throw one off the scent when it comes to typical LG deities, he does have a strong sense of community and tradition, both concerns of lawful deities and characters.
The whole "The need of the many comes before the need of the few" is very lawful, and if "the need of the many" is interpreted as "everyone survives" while the need of the few is more ephemeral concepts like "independence and authority", it definitely points towards good.
Quote:He’s not pretentious, and while he may be proud of his accomplishments....and a healthy wife....
And here's where the moral outrage starts becoming justified. However unintended and indirect, it refers to the man's wife as, at worst, property.
I'd rather say that it means that the man, being the traditional provider, must make sure his wife is healthy, by keeping hunger and exposure to the elements and physical dangers at bay.
Even at best, any prosperity she may have is solely due to a man's accomplishments. In the world-view of Erastil, women have no intrinsic value, merely additive value to a man's place in the community.
You're putting words in his mouth. You're basically the example of a LN cleric misinterpreting his teachings.
The full quote (which is about the average worshipper of Erastil) is: "He’s not pretentious, and while he may be proud of his accomplishments, they’re simple and easily demonstrable—a good crop, a fine piece of land, fat livestock, and a healthy wife and children."
Nobody does it say that the woman can't be proud of anything. But saying that men are not allowed to be proud to be doing their part seems a lot like trying to pick a fight.
Quote:
The church sees marriage as a way to “tame” unruly men and women,
Hooo-boy. So far we've just been seeing gender issues, but this brings us to just where Erastil is "equal opporunity." And it's "Equal-opportunity oppression." Any sort of indiscretion is punished with lifelong commitment.
"Punished"? So marriage is now something evil?
And as we'll see further down in the article, priests of Erastil should not be expected to stop at coaxing language in bringing people together.
You're twisting the intentions.
No cleric will force anyone to marry for a roll in the hey at arrow-point.
You might feel a bit more pressure if you knocked that girl up and now don't think you should provide for the life you have created. And remember that the pill or condoms aren't exactly wide-spread in rural Avistan, so indiscretions will often lead to pregnancy.
Quote:
Sparsely decorated, such structures often contain highly functional and modular furnishings;
This basically refers to how Erastil's priests tend toward austerity and 'simple' lives. Sooo....it's okay to ruin people's lives in the name of moral superiority if you don't, personally, benefit and the "community" does? That's a pretty strange stance to take for a 'good' person.
It's fun how you fail to quote the really relevant parts, instead quoting someone that will serve as ammunition in your ad deus attack.
Beyond the fact that if you knock some poor girl up and won't provide for her and her child, you're the jerk who ruined someone else's life, the furnishings in a temple of Erastil are highly functional because the priests actually pull their weight. They don't sit there all day pushing their dogma on anyone. They provide advise or help (or work their own fields or hunting grounds), and they think a place that is only used to offer prayer to Erastil for something like an hour a day and not have any use otherwise is wasting resources.
And Erastil is against wasting resources. You need to be effective if you're in a bare-knuckle fight against nature. Pampered city-dwellers don't realise that, of course, but they never think about how their easy lifestyle and the many choices it allows is only possible because a lot of people are suppressed and exploited.
Quote:Diplomacy (though Intimidate may work just as well),
Okay, full stop.
Read that again.
Again.
Quote:
...Intimidate...
I got it the first time.
There, highlighted it for you.
Thanks, how condescending of you.
We finally get down to just how the codes of behavior above are enforced, and Intimidate is specifically called out as being just as effective as Diplomacy?
You dispute that claim? Note, though, that it says "may work just as well", though you didn't highlight that for us.
And this is supposed to be a 'good' aligned course of action?....what?!
Who says that Diplomacy is good and Intimidate is evil?
Not I. Not the Pathfinder rules. Or the D&D rules.
Intimidate isn't necessarily about violence.
To put it simply: Diplomacy is the proverbial carrot, while Intimidate is the proverbial stick. Proverbial because Intimidate doesn't involve using violence (or threats of violence) any more than Diplomacy involves feeding vegetables to cooperative livestock.
Erastil is "a stern father" after all. Doesn't mean he abuses his children. And neither will the clerics.
Diplomacy is "Come on, stop getting drunk and breaking stuff every weekend, I'm sure you can have fun otherwise."
Intimidate is "This is the last time you'll get away with this. You'll just have to mend what you broke this time. Next time, you can take your booze and find yourself a village that will tolerate you breaking things and being rude - and worse - to women!"
...or just "You'll eat your vegetables or you'll to bed hungry!"
The specific phrasing of this passage already proves that a lie. 'Just as well.' This means Intimidate is an acceptable substitute for Diplomacy in Erastil's world. Enforcement through Intimidate is, in effect, rule by fear alone. There is no possible way to justify this method except as an Evil act of the highest order, because of all the lesser evils needed to carry it through.
Completely false.
First of all, the complete phrasing is "Might work just as well". That means that the article concedes that Intimidate can be an alternative to Diplomacy. Nobody can claim otherwise.
Beyond that, intimidate is not rule by fear alone, and it is not evil.
Seriously, Intimidating wrongdoers by making clear to them what the consequences are for continued wrongdoing is a perfectly acceptable, lawful way of getting people back in line. "You'll be getting off with a warning this time, but if you are caught speeding again, you'll be walking around for a while". That's intimidation. Stuff like that is usual for police to say. It goes even further, people getting a mild sentence for first offences and a stern reminder that repeated offences will carry much harsher sentences.
I wouldn't say that most of us live in an evil, tyrannical police state because crimes carry punishments and people are reminded of them.
And remember that you don't need ranks in anything to just talk to somebody.
Sometimes, no roll is necessary to change someone's behaviour. Just tell someone to stop fooling around. Basically, that's a DC 0 Diplomacy check. Unless you're really uncongenial, you always succeed at that.
Only if that doesn't work will you have to use actual Persuasion.
Some will appeal to someone's good nature when it comes to that. They use Diplomacy.
Others will make an appeal to authority, get the other to stop breaking laws or traditions by sternly telling them what happens if you break them, and hit it home that this is what will happen, not what might happen. In other words: Intimidate.
Quote:
Adventurer priests of Erastil are rare,
This particular bit is actually contradicted within the article in two places. The first is above - most priests are of adventuring classes and, even at the 1st-3rd levels they're implied to stop at, wield substantial power when compared to a community full of commoners.
Cleric levels do not mean that you're an adventurer. The game does not rule or even assume that only adventurers can take levels in PC classes. PC-classed characters are more - let's call it intense - than NPC-classed characters. That can mean adventurer, or just a stronger faith.
And neither does it say that the only way to gain levels is to kill things and take their stuff.
The later is lower in the same paragraph - young priests of Erastil are encouraged to go out on little adventures when they're younger to get to distant parishes to gain experience before settling down. This is probably where they gain their adventuring levels.
That's a bit of "getting it out of my system" gallivanting around. Travel the world a bit, see how they're doing things somewhere else, they're surely knowing some tricks we don't know here.
They're not professional adventurers. It's Golarion's way of touring around with your backpack on a different continent for a few months before going to university. That doesn't make you a professional explorer any more than a cleric travelling around a bit is an adventurer.
Oh, and again, you intentionally quote the wrong parts to serve your twisted view:
"Adventurer priests of Erastil are rare, and overall the number of mid-level priests is lower than most other churches, to an extent that in times of great need (such as during a plague) they must rely on magic lent or donated from allied faiths."
It doesn't matter one bit that a 3rd-level cleric could handle a dozen 1st-level commoners. It doesn't make him an adventurer. Adventurer means going on adventures, and most clerics of Erastil don't do that. You can get to level 3 easily without going on adventures. It takes longer, sure, you're probably middle-aged before you get there (as opposed to the 18-year-old cleric of Iomedae dispatching demons by the dozen with dictum, or returning their comrades to life after a fight with a Balor, using true resurrection).
Now, medium levels (level 7-13) are a lot harder to reach at all without adventuring. And those levels are lower. They're so low that clerics of Erastil frequently need aid from other faiths because they're not up to significant threats.
The second quote is
"However, every few years the church encourages young priests to travel in search of news, seeds for new crops, and useful new skills that can help their home village."
Travel. That is not necessary the very same as adventuring...
Quote:Never trust a fool:
The part of this saying where it discourages any sort of uprising against the local lord can start to look a little self-serving by this point.
Yeah, because the clerics clearly help exploit the masses so they can live in splendour, right?
As you said yourself: Wrong. They don't go for wealth.
And, as the article repeatedly says: The clerics care about the people's well-being. Getting yourself killed because you went up against knights and soldiers with a rusty pitchfork is detrimental to one's well-being.
The saying actually means is that a peasant won't be any help, anyway. Let the fool fight the baron if he thinks he's bad. Let him die if his adventuring didn't prepare him properly. He won't stay and till your fields if you're run through by the lord's personal guard.
Doesn't even matter whether the lord is bad and the fool really wants to free them, or the fool wants to be that tyrant himself, uprisings are fools' work. Let them do their work and the peasant do his own. Just as a man cannot feed his newborn child, he cannot overcome trained soldiers.
Again, Erastil cares about the community, that everyone is provided for. Crusades he leaves to the other gods. They're so happy to do it, why rob them of their fun?
Quote:
Relations...
This is where things start getting a little sticky. The problem with the direct quote method is that it leaves things open to interpretation. The only thing that can be done is to try to see them through the lens above.
Actually, the only thing that can be done is to acknowledge that things are open to interpretation. As we have already seen, that lens you want to use has a tint.
Erastil believes in his views as an absolute right.
Correction: Erastil knows that his methods are the most efficient. He knows that because he has observed mankind for millennia. He has seen that those who do things "his" way have a good chance of standing the test of time, while those who do things differently will often die out.
Anyone who doesn't conform is hurting the community, and must be stopped for their own benefit.
Your tinted lens again. No must about it.
There is no room to question, no room for the new ideas that allow communities to grow and thrive
Absolutely wrong. He re-evaluates his ways and methods constantly. The church regularly encourages clerics to travel and learn new tricks elsewhere.
It's just that in his neck of the woods, things still work best with his ways. As soon as men learn how to breast-feed children and women can hunt without putting their unborn to danger, he'll probably be the first to endorse these ideas.
Besides: Adherence to tradition and authority have absolutely nothing to do with good or evil. They're purely lawful.
Trouble of any kind is to be avoided if at all possible, ignored if feasible.
And that's evil now? "May you live in interesting times" is not a curse for nothing.
Combating evil is seen as a fool's errand.
It certainly is for simple folk. And his followers are simple folk. Let the other gods have all the heroes. Let them do all the great deeds. Let history gush about them at length.
At the end of the day, it's his simple farmers that made survival possible by providing food for everyone. And there are so much more farmers than wizards....
Erastil consistently advocates the eradication of free choice
That's utter nonsense and you know it. He is against free choice being the only thing one listens to. He is against free choice without consequence (something most good-aligned gods and mortals are against, actually).
This is not the point of view of a good person. It is not the point of view of a good god.
Actually it is. It's just that most of the conclusions you have drawn are flat-out wrong and that your definitions of the alignment system are far, far away from the game's.
The fact is that even though he has outdated views, and not everything he does is good on the saint level, he definitely is good.
And magic throws a HUGE monkey wrench into the works
Not really. It might seem big because it's so flashy, and flies right by the camera, but it's not, really.
But for every adventurer for whom magic is a perfectly common and daily occurrence, there are thousands who might never see magic performed in their life - and even if they do, it's very exceptional, nothing you see every day (not to mention dozens of times each day).
I think that despite supernatural beings, magic, and all the other stuff, the overwhelming majority of that world's population doesn't have that much more access to modern or supernatural resources than your average 12th-century peasant.
The thing is just that we literally see only the heroes, because it's them we play in our games. Who wants to play a farmer doing his boring job every day? We usually do something like that (or something far more awesome) in real life.
because he IS NOT pure good, he is lawful good, and sometimes lawful steps on good. I hate the idea that LG is somehow the most good, lawful gets in the way sometimes.
Exactly. NG is the "pure good", as a NG deity doesn't let order or chaos get in the way of goodness.
I agree that the article on Erastil in the AP could have been better written
I don't. Where are the page-long threads about Iomedae? Not that she's bad, but Erastil is something new in D&D-land: A multidimensional deity. Not a bland, two-dimensional representation of the alignment he is supposed to be the "poster child" for.
He feels more real that way. Like this was a religion that actually evolved somewhere, instead something made up for a game.
And people argue about it at length. Shows that the material is interesting.
Paizo's good at that sort of thing.
Lots of stuff
Nice and thorough rebuttal.
I think you've got the gist of Erastil better than Chris Kenney thought he did.
Nice and thorough rebuttal.
You just say that because it's a novel.
|
|
And magic throws a HUGE monkey wrench into the worksNot really. It might seem big because it's so flashy, and flies right by the camera, but it's not, really.
But for every adventurer for whom magic is a perfectly common and daily occurrence, there are thousands who might never see magic performed in their life - and even if they do, it's very exceptional, nothing you see every day (not to mention dozens of times each day).
If magic exists with any statistical relevence in the world, and isn't a sex linked trait, it's going to change the relative roles of the sexes in public life in many ways. That's pretty much what I was referring to. Adepts are NPCs with magic abilities. Create Water alone makes a huge difference in basic life. If only 1 out of 1000 people have this ability - it will still change things. The average farmer and his wife may not see magic, but they know it exists. The average noble has to deal with it in daily life, however - it would change a lot of societal norms from what Earth experienced.
|
|
While a wise woman, who could create water, and get her chores done via prestidigitation, would have more free time on her hands, and would be valued by the community, I don't think she'd get a free pass to put her feet up.
One of the common concepts in any socialist welfare program (and Erastil is an iconic socialist) is "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.".
Simply put, the fact that one is capable of better things, means more will be expected.
Well done; you did the whole Mickey Mouse 'Sorceror's Apprentice' thing, and cleaned your house with an animated broom and bucket.
Now send them round the other houses, starting with Granny Goatcheese. She can't reach her windows with her hip.
Since neither cleaning cantrips, nor creating infinite water, took you any actual effort, then there's no reason you can't grab a spade and get digging with the rest.
If magic exists with any statistical relevence in the world, and isn't a sex linked trait, it's going to change the relative roles of the sexes in public life in many ways. That's pretty much what I was referring to. Adepts are NPCs with magic abilities. Create Water alone makes a huge difference in basic life. If only 1 out of 1000 people have this ability - it will still change things. The average farmer and his wife may not see magic, but they know it exists. The average noble has to deal with it in daily life, however - it would change a lot of societal norms from what Earth experienced.And magic throws a HUGE monkey wrench into the worksNot really. It might seem big because it's so flashy, and flies right by the camera, but it's not, really.
But for every adventurer for whom magic is a perfectly common and daily occurrence, there are thousands who might never see magic performed in their life - and even if they do, it's very exceptional, nothing you see every day (not to mention dozens of times each day).
I'm not saying that it doesn't make a change at all. And I'd say in higher circles, gender equality is much more wide-spread, magic or not. There are ruling queens and high ladies all over the place. Some are mighty witches and wizards and all that, others are warriors or priestesses.
What I'm saying is that as far as Erastil and his faithful are concerned, these things don't exist in "their world". Their world being right down to earth, with the hands in the dirt. They leave crusades, wars, adventuring, cities and ruling to others. They're the people, their challenge is providing food and shelter, their enemy is nature unforgiving.
Not that many people have magic in those circles. Those who do probably have a special status - If your town's major spellcaster is a woman, I don't think Erastil's priests will keep telling her to settle down and get some children if she's a great asset in the village's defence against the local goblinoids or something like that.
But as I say, such people are the big exceptions, and will probably not worship Erastil, anyway.
And for these regular people, without a lot of personal power, or great wealth, the traditional gender roles (man = provide, woman = keeper of home and hearth) are much more important, since other ways will just not work in many cases.
People living in cities, the nobility and spellcasters have the means to change the roles. There, women can have children and then go right on doing their job - which isn't housewife, and isn't farmer, but something like local ruler or adventurer, because they can afford someone to care for their child when they're at work. They'll have wetnurses, housemaids and other servants, or the city has a childcare centre or school where the children will be while their parents work.
For a peasant family in a small village, those things usually aren't really an option.
Could magic just considerably widen the gulf between working poor and idle rich?