I think people are just reading way too much into it, rather than simply putting it down to the fact the author didn't consider how to write the text in a more equality-friendly manner at the time.
...and that as some 'confirmed bachelors' have confirmed, it can include heterosexual bachelors who have no interest.
In Australia it just as often refers to a 'cad' or a 'bounder'.
So no it isn't having a shot at anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really appreciated Vivianne Laflamme's analysis there. Definitely some good points. To be honest, I'd be far more OK with Folgrit's passivity if there were also male gods associated with passive roles. Like, what if Iomadae had a male consort whose only job was to support his crusading goddess/wife? I think there could be a really interesting story/deity there.
I feel that all the things Folgrit's portfolio includes are worthwhile, but as a guy who really doesn't fit the "male stereotype," I'd really like to see more male deities with supporting personalities and such. I love the empowerment of some of the female deities and applaud Paizo's efforts on the whole, and I'd love to see them apply that creativity to some male deities who push boundaries in the other direction and challenge some of the stupid aspects of "male stereotypes."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A god might be prone to vanity, or be OCD, or perhaps partake a bit too much in alcohol. If the god is neutral, there likely would be no issue. If a god is good, those flaws can not be so large as to interfere with the "greater good". Being "good" means putting others ahead of yourself, and if you have a flaw that actively hurts other people, than you are no longer good.Gods are so immensely powerful that I would say that smiting a few thousand people because they had a bad day does not automatically cause an alignment change. Whatever it is they normally do, it's probably on a scale of goodness or evilness way beyond even the lifetime of an entire nation.On this note, I would like to point out Sarenrae's reaction to Gormuz in Mythic Realms.
** spoiler omitted **
Sarenrae is still a Good deity, last time I checked. So evidently, gods are perfectly capable of...
Note that pretty much the entire city had been driven mad. It wasn't "well, there are some jerks here, better smite everyone". Also this event is called out as causing a shift in Sarenae's personality, to one of less reckless smiting and more embracing redemption. So yeah it was a mistake on her part that she regrets, and caused a re-examination of her existence. When the Greek Gods, or Yahweh, do something on par with this (and often for less reason), at best we get a shrug.
I also don't think it's accurate to say that "The Greeks thought Zeus was Lawful Good, or Yahweh is thought of as lawful good" For starters, those alignment categories are an invention of the game. At best, gods were considered to be harmful or helpful.
Secondly, modern game alignment arose out of modern ideas of morality. The ancient greeks and other contemporary peoples did not use the same moral framework in judging actions. Early societies are full of horrible atrocities, tyranny, and heinous belief systems that no one in the 21st century would consider fair or good. Most of those gods might have been viewed as being "good" in those frameworks, but would not be viewed so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that pretty much the entire city had been driven mad. It wasn't "well, there are some jerks here, better smite everyone". Also this event is called out as causing a shift in Sarenae's personality, to one of less reckless smiting and more embracing redemption. So yeah it was a mistake on her part that she regrets, and caused a re-examination of her existence. When the Greek Gods, or Yahweh, do something on par with this (and often for less reason), at best we get a shrug.
I spoilered the reply to this so as not to derail thread . . .
When Yahweh did something "on par with this," it was because those people fully deserved what they got. There was no need for apology, and the possibility for redemption had always been there for them . . . they chose to ignore it and live the way they wanted to. We reap what we sow. People most often don't like it because we look at the punishment bestowed upon those people of old and say, "Am I any different? Do I deserve the same?" and always the answer seems to be, "Yes." Of course, we'd rather say, "No." So, instead of changing our lifestyle, it's easier to blame Yahweh for His rightful punishment of evil people.
Now, I know that Paizo doesn't like people getting into these arguments, which is why I put this in spoiler tags. However, I do get tired of reading how people trash on God constantly. I'm not even trying to start an argument here. I'm just trying to point out the other side of the story.
For what it's worth, I agree with your statements on alignment categories.
Have a great evening!
This original post makes my head hurt.
We all know and love Bolka, the Dwarven Goddess of Marriage (mostly arranged marriages). But in one of the Faiths and Religions books, it is mentioned that her clergy assist 'confirmed bachelors find a wife'.
This seems pretty innocent to me, but the good olden days definition of 'confirmed bachelor' is taken to mean homosexual male. As Golarion is a setting closer to the Victorian age than present day and typically in fantasy Dwarves are very conservative, should we read into this that Bolka has a religious agenda versus homosexuality in Dwarven society?
Personally my theory is that Bolka loves all marriage, and just as long as the consenting same sex partners put on a proper do for the rest of the clan and there's plenty of Dwarven oaths and vows and all that good stuff, your wedding is blessed. But what if...?
Would love to get some developer feedback - Does Bolka have an anti-gay belief structure? How are homosexual dwarves dealing with Bolkan Inquisitors? Is there going to be an Inquisitor archetype with a gaydar ability? Are there underground gay camps?
MY DWARVEN STONEMOTHER OF BOLKA NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try to avoid insulting other people's intelligence. I'd also suggest avoiding trying to tell other people whether their relationships are about sex rather than love, or attempting to tell them how much of their own identity they're allowed to associate with their sexuality -- that's not likely to lead to any sort of productive discussion, and it's not something anyone's really qualified to judge for other people. Thanks!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the author of the two sentences on Bolka in question:
1) I am aware that in Victorian times this phrase was sometimes used to imply "gay male." But we're not in Victorian times, nor is Golarion, and the intended definition used in that quote is the more common and modern one, meaning, "one who is intent on remaining unmarried." (And if you're going to lean toward the Victorian definitions of words over the modern definiiton, I suggest you avoid telling someone "I was having a conversation with my mother yesterday....")
2) Her title, "the Golden Gift," doesn't mean she is the gift. Dwarves in Golarion aren't like that--culturally they don't treat women as property. Marriage is the gift. Her gift to the dwarven people is marriage. An untarnishing union of two souls.
Try not to inject bigotry into things that don't have it. Give Paizo (and this liberal, feminist author) the benefit of the doubt.
1) I am aware that in Victorian times this phrase was sometimes used to imply "gay male." But we're not in Victorian times, nor is Golarion, and the intended definition used in that quote is the more common and modern one, meaning, "one who is intent on remaining unmarried."
Like George Clooney.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even horrendous mistakes, such as accidentally-on-purpose opening up a hole leading to Rovagug's prison and allowing an escape route for the Spawn to be unleashed on the world because they didn't stop to consider any consequences.
They aren't infallible paragons.
This pretty much covers my feeling on the matter. So I disagree with Jessica that the gods of Pathfinder are "personifications of different forces/qualities/etc" (for the most part).
Yeah, you have "nature incarnate" Gozreh and "destruction incarnate" Rovagug, but they don't talk much. The rest of the gods are a mixture of ascended mortals, ascended demons, ascended angels, and other less than perfect beings who stepped into divine roles. They're just really, really powerful entities. Not the perfect divine embodiment of "goodness" (or "evil" for that matter). Heck, the fact that one of them was a mortal who got drunk and became a god by accident was one of the things that I loved about Pathfinder when I first started reading it.
So I don't really see any conflict with gods having beliefs that don't jibe perfectly with their alignment, or the prevailing view of cultures that came into existence generations after that god ascended. Most of them are just powerful people from various points of history who grew out of imperfect worldly cultures. Times change.
And even if the gods themselves don't have sketchy beliefs, I don't have a problem with their followers holding a wide range of cultural beliefs. Particularly since communication between gods, priests, and worshipers can so easily veer off into "unreliable narrator" territory (There aren't a lot of priests powerful enough to chat with their god directly, and there are enough monsters out there that you never know if the "divine messenger" you're talking to is the real deal or an evil plot).
Besides, this is a campaign world where slavery has been the norm for many, many, many centuries. Are the good gods suddenly less good because none of them have really done anything about that until Talmandor got involved with Andoran 40 years ago?
You really have to play loose with the alignment system in order for the world to make sense. Good people can hold crappy beliefs. Especially very old good people who live apart from humanity and are extremely powerful.
My experience with the term in literature does not support this interpretation. Like, here is another instance explaining the "implication is that the "confirmed bachelor" might be homosexual."Your example comes from the 196t0s. Completely irrelevant to the Victorian Era. I hope you understand why.
Because the texts are written for 21st century players, I always imagined that they depended (or were related too) 21st century understanding of the English language. But regarding this, reading further it looks like Reynolds has substantiated my belief that Golarion was not meant to draw on exclusively (or maybe inclusively?) Victorian era language.
But, regardless of how closely the authors were working to use a specific usage of the word, to today's modern reader, parsing out which meaning is intended isn't a self evident process. And this is assuming the modern reader is aware of the less problematic use. I certainly read it thinking the term "confirmed bachelor" was meant in the 21st century pejorative sense, because it seemed quite odd otherwise. My experiences with it have been it is used exclusively as a pejorative, but YMMV. Why use "confirmed" when you could just say "bachelor"? What makes someone "confirmed"?
So, why is marriage encouraged? As Bill Engvall so wisely put it, without the sex, being gay is just hanging out with your buds.I don't really think that is "wise" at all. In fact, it's pretty ignorant. And it's predicated on the idea that men and women are inherently different. Why is being gay no different than any other "bud" relationship (sans sex), and heterosexual relationships privileged as some more complex level of intimacy.well, mainly because of the key word being modified, that is "Sexual".
You're trying to pin every part of a person's identity on their personal sex preference. then you're arrogant enough to suggest someone else my have a problem. :roll:Im saying there is a significant difference between a relationship without sex versus one with sex. If you disagree with that, again, you're the one with the problem, not me.
Just like the basic fact that if you cannot comprehend the fundamental differences between the male and female of the gender, the problem is with you, not me.
I'm not trying to go "Gender Studies 101" on you here, but...
First thing, for nonheterosexual people, sexual identity is a very salient part of our everyday lives. As a group of people marginalized by our non-conformity to heterosexist social standards, we are made very conscience of our sexuality in ways that might surprise your ordinary heterosexual. The fact is, sexual identity is far more complex than just simply the gender (or sex) of the person you are having sex with.
And about those "fundamental differences between the male and female of the gender"... I'll just stop here before I let this run away with itself.
Suffice it to say (and bringing it back to the topic of this thread), the form the dwarven Pantheon takes does prove problematic for queer dwarves (assuming such people exist on Golarion). The explicit gender role assignments, androcentrism, and heterosexism rigidly order dwarf society around a hierarchical gender binary.
You can interpret this favorably or critically, but from my perspective as a queer feminist, dwarves as they're made up to be on Golarion aren't intelligible otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why use "confirmed" when you could just say "bachelor"? What makes someone "confirmed"?
Because Bachelor is often a considered a transitional stage. So a confirmed bachelor would be one who is staying at that stage.
I have a racist, homophobic problem player.
FIFY.
(And if you're going to lean toward the Victorian definitions of words over the modern definiiton, I suggest you avoid telling someone "I was having a conversation with my mother yesterday....")
This might make me seem uneducated, but what would that sentence mean in Victorian times?
This might make me seem uneducated, but what would that sentence mean in Victorian times?
From Dictionary.com:
Word Origin & History
conversation
mid-14c., from O.Fr. conversation, from L. conversationem (nom. conversatio) "act of living with," prp. of conversari "to live with, keep company with," lit. "turn about with," from L. com- intens. prefix + vertare, freq. of vertere (see versus). Originally "having dealings
with others," also "manner of conducting oneself in the world;" specific sense of "talk" is 1580. Used as a synonym for "sexual intercourse" from at least 1511, hence criminal conversation, legal term for adultery from late 18c. Related: Conversational (1779); conversationalist (1836); conversationist (1806).
|
|
Oh.
No, he is just an "actor".
I really just wanted more info on this God, and other people's experience with it.
This was to get a better understanding of what is expected of the clergy, and how outsiders view the clergy.
Also, to get a better idea how others felt about the God, and how they handle the worship of this god, in their game.
I was sort of caught off guard, when I saw this thread, and remembered how this player has been running his PC.
It was, shocking, to say the least.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification SKR.
Now comes the inevitable spin off thread following Black Blood's example:
Q: Does the dwarven goddess of marriage grant spells to homophobes with an active anti-gay agenda?
Not trying to 'inject controversy', just honestly brain-storming/wondering about the problematic scenarios/complexity in this particular religion.
|
Thanks for the clarification SKR.
Now comes the inevitable spin off thread following Black Blood's example:
Q: Does the dwarven goddess of marriage grant spells to homophobes with an active anti-gay agenda?Not trying to 'inject controversy', just honestly brain-storming/wondering about the problematic scenarios/complexity in this particular religion.
Well, such an agenda would be turning the community upon itself... I'd roll with that.
I think Bolka offers some significant opportunities to explore the nature of Dwarven Society.
Others have touched on it.
Dwarves are frequently portrayed as a race that has a built in flaw, low birth rates coupled with a high mortality rate.
They are also seemingly "Traditional" or "Conservative".
Yet that means they are traditional within their own structures and conservative is Implicit in a long lived race. It does not mean they echo our own socio-political quirks.
Dwarves are almost universally participants in the "Clan" structure. I think the implications of that are lost somewhat on gamers that exist in a society where having 4 generations of a family under one roof is an exception rather than the norm. Neither do most of us live in neighborhoods populated by blood relatives.
For Dwarves, marriage is likely, less a social contract that promotes stability than a mechanism that generates genetic diversity. Clan structures are already incredibly stable by design yet it offers the added complication of isolationism (particularly given traditional dwarven homesteads).
Dwarves need babies, but they probably don't lack for parents. Clans can provide multiple, closely related members to mentor the younglings. It's the generation of young that is key to dwarven society. A goddess of Mariage would certainly prefer heterosexual pairings as it would facilitate future generations however pairing opposite gender homosexual members of the race could provide complex, interlinked familial ties that serve to strengthen the traditional Clan Structure as well as generate much needed genetic diversity. Moreover this structure could lead to situations where polygamy would be desirable.
The built in desire to procreate is well established in the Human species. Most of my lesbian friends feel their " biological clock's ticking ". More than a few of my gay guy friends occasionally wish for kids. A large number of both groups have gone against their basic natures to facilitate having kids. It's common among us.
It should be common among Dwarves, perhaps dwarves even having stronger inborn impulses than humans considering their low birth rates.
I'd think it interesting if Bolka encouraged more complex Marital Constructs to facilitate the continuation of the Dwarven Race. Put aside our prejudices towards sexual orientation and polygamy. Also set aside the notion of polygamy being detrimental to women.
What If?
Bolka allowed same sex marriage, under condition of multiple pairings. If a female pairing were to take one or more male pairs into an "extended marriage". This would be a unique method of interclan exchange, thus creating much needed genetic diversity as well as strengthening the bonds between clans. This structure need not be only applied to homosexual pairings as the greater population could benefit from cross pairing sexual congress.
One factor that would make this practical, it's likely that the ovulation cycle of dwarven females is measured in months, if not years. Constant cohabitation isn't necessarily needed, given their long lifespans, cohabitation could be problematic in some instances. The traditional "DwarfHold" is a very communal existence in practice. Such a system would allow for small, isolated groups to remain viable over long time periods.
It also allows for interesting familial relationships for PCs.
A birth mother.
A father that raises you in conjunction with your mother.
A (perhaps more than one) potential biological father who takes an active interest in your development.
One or more "Second Mothers" who are more than willing to step in as a surrogate, should the need arise.
One or more "Second Fathers" who will oversee your training in Crafts or martial skills.
Siblings, of a sort, within a decade of the PC's age.
I'd say it depends on what that agenda is and how big a part of the cleric's personal goals it is. Remember clerics can't be more than one step away from their deity in alignment.
Given that Bolka is neutral good, her being homophobic seems incongruous. I'm pretty sure "confirmed bachelor" means just that -- she's in favor of marriage for everyone, regardless of gender, and her clergy likes to convince people that have declared themselves uninterested in marriage (such as confirmed bachelors) to find a spouse.Good people don't have phobias?
Homophobia is a hate, not a fear.
What's the Greek word for hatred again?
Agoraphobia is the fear of being in a wide open space.
Arachnaphobia is the fear of spiders.
Hating gays is not a phobia, it's a prejudice.
Gays are becoming more accepted almost daily in the Western World through exposure. Exposure breaks down prejudices, it also helps with phobias. But a true phobia is very different than a prejudice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the clarification SKR.
Now comes the inevitable spin off thread following Black Blood's example:
Q: Does the dwarven goddess of marriage grant spells to homophobes with an active anti-gay agenda?
Not trying to 'inject controversy', just honestly brain-storming/wondering about the problematic scenarios/complexity in this particular religion.
I don't see the point in answering ridiculous questions, that gives them an air of legitimacy.
That stance will end Internet forums as we know them.
If only...
Aww you'd miss it.
|
|
Wow, what a rude response from a Paizo developer.
I fail to see how the question is ridiculous.
You seem to have an extremely black and white view of morality in Golarion. In terms of story-telling opportunities for the setting, this is very sad. It does seem to explain why the Golarion Dwarves seem to be so... one-dimensional in terms of story, personality and history.
But I'll take your response as:
"As soon as Bolka knows that a cleric of Bolka has a homophobic agenda, spells immediately cease."
|
|
Well, such an agenda would be turning the community upon itself... I'd roll with that.Thanks for the clarification SKR.
Now comes the inevitable spin off thread following Black Blood's example:
Q: Does the dwarven goddess of marriage grant spells to homophobes with an active anti-gay agenda?Not trying to 'inject controversy', just honestly brain-storming/wondering about the problematic scenarios/complexity in this particular religion.
Dammit, misread. That should be "I'd roll with her not granting spells in that case.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification SKR.
Now comes the inevitable spin off thread following Black Blood's example:
Q: Does the dwarven goddess of marriage grant spells to homophobes with an active anti-gay agenda?Not trying to 'inject controversy', just honestly brain-storming/wondering about the problematic scenarios/complexity in this particular religion.
Wait.
What example?
I swear I didn't start anything.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit, misread. That should be "I'd roll with her not granting spells in that case.
Funny thing is, I read, "I'd roll with that." as "The cleric of a community based deity would be turning the community against itself, that should answer your question."
That said, how far a cleric can go is a recurrent question in Pathfinder. The burner sect, for example, do they still get spells? The cleric in Death's Heretic was working directly against his deity's will, but still got spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit, misread. That should be "I'd roll with her not granting spells in that case.Funny thing is, I read, "I'd roll with that." as "The cleric of a community based deity would be turning the community against itself, that should answer your question."
So did I.
That said, how far a cleric can go is a recurrent question in Pathfinder. The burner sect, for example, do they still get spells? The cleric in Death's Heretic was working directly against his deity's will, but still got spells.
Funnily enough, I have always thought of Salim as an inquisitor rather than a cleric. Plus, I think that somehow he is a special case, but we cannot assess that yet, since we don't know how the Rahadoumi became a servant of Pharasma and why she wants him where he is... *looks at James Sutter encouragingly* Go on, James, you know you want to tell us.
As for the Burners, personally, in my head!canon they still receive spells, just not from Iomedae or any other good or lawful entities... :)
Makamu
|
|
Dammit, misread. That should be "I'd roll with her not granting spells in that case.Funny thing is, I read, "I'd roll with that." as "The cleric of a community based deity would be turning the community against itself, that should answer your question."
Ha, thanks. That's exactly it. I just prefer to keep my difficult ambiguity generally restricted to my gender, is all. ;)
That said, how far a cleric can go is a recurrent question in Pathfinder. The burner sect, for example, do they still get spells? The cleric in Death's Heretic was working directly against his deity's will, but still got spells.
Going off the web fic Certainty, the Burners aren't getting them, which when taken with Salim's enabling by Pharasma, paints them as being WAY off course. Then again, Iomedae's article mentions people fitting the Burners' MO as being exactly the sort of people who earn her ire, so that might be a specific case.
I guess another point of comparison might be the more extreme, neutral Dawncult worshippers of Sarenrae who don't know how to redemption or mercy much. Or the sedentary Desnan priest that kicked things off in Rise of the Runelords by being Father Of The Year.
(hot damn I am eager to punch some Burners as an Iomedean paladin in WotR!)
As for the Burners, personally, in my head!canon they still receive spells, just not from Iomedae or any other good or lawful entities... :)
Makamu
I knew it!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I didn't mean Salim, I meant the BBEG (without spoiling too much, it is an excellent novel).
Another example would be if there are any clerics of Saranae involved in the slave trade that get spells. (Since those bast- er Kelish people, are involved in slavery).
Sorry, had to get my innter Taldan to shut up :-)
(And if you're going to lean toward the Victorian definitions of words over the modern definiiton, I suggest you avoid telling someone "I was having a conversation with my mother yesterday....")
I do love my momma!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example would be if there are any clerics of Saranae involved in the slave trade that get spells. (Since those bast- er Kelish people, are involved in slavery).
I could see that being a mini-schism in the church.
Some might argue that providing healing services for slavers and the slaves they have captured for sale is only enabling them to continue slaving and making them 'more successful slavers' by cutting down their losses to disease or bad health, etc. In essence, those Sarenraens seen working with slavers, to try and 'fix the system from within' and provide healing to the slaves, could be seen as working *for* the slavers, and perpetuating the system in the process. By refusing to heal slaves, some will die, yes, but it will undercut the institution of slavery itself, making it less profitable, less desirable and less successful.
Others might argue that standing back and withholding healing from injured slaves furthers suffering among a group of people who are already suffering unreasonably and doesn't do anything to 'punish' the slavers themselves, since, if they lose a larger number of slaves, they'll just go round up *more* people, and the situation becomes even worse. Those who idealistically refuse to 'help the slavers' are just punishing the slaves themselves, and allowing their high-minded ideals to drown out the compassion they *should* be feeling.
And so, two Sarenraens, both with good intentions, could be violently opposed to each other on this matter. In the most extreme cases, one could be seen as callously allowing others to die, because of unrealistic idealism, like those Andorans who would rather sink a ship full of slaves than allow them to reach market, while the other could be seen as a traitor, taking coin from slavers to make their 'product' healthy and strong on the block, boosting their profits, and thereby 'profiting from slavery,' even if they personally don't own any slaves and have never sold a person or helped capture someone to be enslaved.
Same for Bolka, really. I could see *some* clergy of Bolka shaking their heads at homosexuality in general, calling it 'selfish' to allow one's personal desires and attractions to stand in the way of the very serious business of strengthening the clan by pumping out more dwarf babies. Others might not care, so long as the 'confirmed bachelor' participates in child-rearing, or in some other manner supports the clan / family / community, functioning as an uncle or aunt or god-parent to the children of their kin, and helping provide material support, crafting training, etc. Very few gods are so monolithic in their teachings as to not allow their clerics to remain individuals.
I sometimes feel that's a problem with settings that have too many gods (with 'too many' being an entirely subjective measure, obviously!), in that you start getting assumptions that if someone is a booze-hound, they must worship the god of booze, and that it's somehow 'wrong' to be a drunkard who worships the god of war or the goddess of love, as if, somehow, nobody ever drank booze before Cayden Cailean staggered out of the Starstone with a hangover and Mythic ranks.
The more gods a setting has, the more it seems that we hear arguments about what a cleric (or even lay worshippers) *can't* do, or *can't* believe, as if some viewpoints can only be held by worshippers of the God of That Viewpoint, and every cleric is a zombie-robot who believes every single thing that their god believes and marches in lockstep to the party line, with no room for individuality or 'feet of clay' or crises of faith or heresies or just two clerics politely disagreeing on one particular matter that may have little or nothing to do with their gods actual teachings.
Instead of 'more gods = more options,' it almost seems to go the other way, so that, the more gods exist, the more specialized they become, and the less generally usable, either as a player seeking a patron for their character, or as a GM, seeking a fun story role, only to find out that 'church X *never* would do Y' and that this tool has been made so specialized as to have become less usable.
(All the time I see this with various evil gods. "Oh, you can't play a non-evil cleric of Asmodeus in Council of Thieves or Urgathoa in Carrion Crown or Crimson Throne, because we use them as villains, and that might get weird." Like no members of evil groups have ever attacked and betrayed and turned against their own before, in the history of ever? Betrayal is practically their hat!)
I didn't mean Salim, I meant the BBEG (without spoiling too much, it is an excellent novel).
Another example would be if there are any clerics of Saranae involved in the slave trade that get spells. (Since those bast- er Kelish people, are involved in slavery).
Sorry, had to get my innter Taldan to shut up :-)
Ah, yes, of course. I am sorry, I had forgotten about the BBEG (although I was very impressed with the narrative at the time). As regards Sarenraen (is this the correct adjective to use?) clergy, I think Set gave an excellent answer on where these things might add a lot of wanted and needed complexity to the issue.