| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random thought: Do you know how artists are oftentimes depicted with a bunch of discarded artwork, such as having a trashbin full of crumpled concepts that didn't launch?
Is that not possible with Shelynites due to their faith's anathema against destruction of art? After all, one being's trash is another being's treasure. Must they preserve everything they ever make?
Might make for some crazy hoarder behavior.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anathemas are like two three sentences, a super abridged version of what takes most real world religions several books full of rules, and even then people can't agree on what exactly it all means a few millennia later.
So is throwing away a working sketch for a final design breaking anathema? Well later art historians might love to see that sketch, but I don't think you're going to go to hell for it. But it's something that one particularly strict Shelynite might say yeah you really shouldn't, or at least agonize about which sketches are worth keeping; and another would say that Shelyn really wouldn't want to restrict artists like that and let them concentrate on the main work. And neither of them would be so wrong that they'd get in trouble.
That said, if you need character traits for a few clerics of Shelyn to set up an interesting temple with some personality conflicts, this is entirely suitable :)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose one of the ongoing theological debates among Shelynites would be: when in the process does concept become art itself? Surely not every concept is sacred, yet every piece of art is. Is there a firm line or is it a spectrum of value that increases? And does the point/spectrum correlate to beauty, effort, (potential) impact, emotion, skill, or what?
Given her alignment (NG) and that of her followers (LG, NG, CG, so no non-Good devotees, cutting out lots of artists!). I'd think they find common ground on the value of art to humanity (sentient-ity?) and flourishing. Yet the Lawful likely have more rigid guidelines than the Chaotic re: line/spectrum.
Note that the Edict "be peaceful" comes before art edicts, so I'd say disruptive art goes against that so could at least be isolated, perhaps even destroyed if doing so promoted peace.
Also the anathema reads, "destroy art or allow it to be destroyed, unless saving a life or pursuing greater art". So yeah, lives (perhaps quality of life too) takes priority over art (and arguably peace does too). And I'd say discarding of drafts and such would be part of the process toward greater art. You just couldn't give up on a project I suppose, settling for whatever final form you've achieved.
Stephen King tossed away Carrie only for his wife to retrieve it, leading to, well, Carrie being known worldwide. So um, yeah. She's obviously the Shelynite in the King household. :-P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the point of most of the religious dictates associated to game mechanics is to get people to think about what their characters are doing and wy.
If you justify "burning my drafts motivates me to write better poetry" then you're sacrificing art in the service of more art, which Shelyn is cool with.
Like if you're someone who works with metal, salvaging scrap is part of the deal. So if you take something that was once upon a time beautiful, but has fallen into disrepair and you repurpose it into something that is once again beautiful then you've done your duty as a Shelynite.
Creation is sometimes a destructive act, which if you're mindful about it is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, do Shelynites believe in an objective standard for beauty?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, do Shelynites believe in an objective standard for beauty?
Emphatically no. There's probably nobody more committed to "things are beautiful relative to the frame of reference" than Shelynites (perhaps Shelynite academic philosophers).
Like there exists such a thing as a Hobgoblin who is considered an absolutely smokeshow by other hobgoblins, but there's no reason Goloma or Iruxi or Cecaelias would agree and this is just normal and natural.
Shelyn's instructions are to find the beauty where you can, which might involve changing the thing (like when a sculptor removes stone from a block).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, do Shelynites believe in an objective standard for beauty?Emphatically no. There's probably nobody more committed to "things are beautiful relative to the frame of reference" than Shelynites (perhaps Shelynite academic philosophers).
Like there exists such a thing as a Hobgoblin who is considered an absolutely smokeshow by other hobgoblins, but there's no reason Goloma or Iruxi or Cecaelias would agree and this is just normal and natural.
Subjectivity has ramifications.
What exactly does it mean for Shelyn to value beauty, when the value and nature of said beauty wavers? How do her own sensibilities factor in? Do they alter to the culture in question? Must she give different answers and directives re: beauty depending on the questioner? Does the answer factor in those around the questioner too?And if beauty isn't an essence (remember, Golarion's a magic woo-woo world), then what is it? Opinions? Experiences? Emotions? Does art only exist when there's an audience to appreciate it (that seems off)?
Ultimately, wouldn't "beauty" get so broadened and/or watered down that Shelyn's the goddess of both everything and nothing? Or is it that experience itself with beauty that matters, much like love? (which is also in her sphere)
What would Shelyn find ugly? Can nothing unharmful be called ugly?
How do the Mi-Go, who revere the Great Old Ones like muses, factor in?
Or Otyughs? And so forth.
Not saying I disagree that IRL beauty's subjective (and arguably intersubjective and/or tied to health), but in Golarion that subjectivity seems problematic when there's dogma and edicts involved, as well as a tangible (non-Chaotic) deity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to think that the artist in their own right, the creator of a piece, is the final arbiter who decides if some creation (be it only partially complete or even having been finished for decades but no longer resonates with the artist) actually IS "Art" in the first place.
If they would lash out and destroy some piece of work that they personally cherish or believe is of artistic value that they themself create then that would indeed be breaking the code. Similarly destroying or defacing "Art" made by another individual who themselves believes that it IS "Art" would be breaking the code regardless of if the Shelynite personally believes it meets their own personal standard... unless the purpose of doing so would help them further serve to create/pursue "greater art" that they create or otherwise participate in making. On the same note, I would probably say that if the Shelynite does not KNOW the intent or beliefs of the original creator then they should almost certainly always err on the side of preservation regardless of the subject matter or medium.
An allowable example would be one such worshipper who finds grafitti tagged over the top of another creation that they value more... unless the grafitti was itself added to the piece by the original creator.
This can also can create some rather bizarre consequences such as if they encounter an artistic yet lewd and truly offensive depiction of something they hold dear (say, a mural painted with blood, offal, and body parts of a former sentient living being that shows the Avatar of Sheyln in an inappropriate way) then they are STILL obligated not only to NOT destroy the "Art" but are also required to actively protect it from being damaged or destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how mandalas, the kind made with colored sand and swept away immediately afterward, make Shelynites feel?
And yeah, Themetricsystem, blasphemous art would seem an oxymoron to Shelynites, I suppose. And if "one sentient being holds dear" is the standard, that seems untenable, unworkable in practice normally, even before considering the immense spectrum of sensibilities in Golarion's multiverse.
The example with body parts might break the "be peaceful" rule enough to warrant removal (though not necessarily destruction!).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to say that there are some things which even Shelynites would never consider a form of art, and I don't think it's too controversial to say that creations which require or bring real harm to people would likely be among them. There's still Nocticula for artists who want to be so hard-edge transgressive that they don't care who gets hurt in the creation or maintenance of their art.
On the other hand, I don't care at all to pin down exactly where the line is drawn between art which people find uncomfortable, even art which could be harmful for certain people to consume--Shelynites strike me as a good an origin as any for the concept of content warnings--and creations which should never be considered art. In fact, I imagine certain unsavoury types might enjoy attempting to troll Shelynites by getting them riled up over whether they will consider something art and therefore be duty-bound to protect it.
That seems like an endlessly maddening spiral, however, and I have work to go to in an hour.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, do Shelynites believe in an objective standard for beauty?Emphatically no. There's probably nobody more committed to "things are beautiful relative to the frame of reference" than Shelynites (perhaps Shelynite academic philosophers).
Like there exists such a thing as a Hobgoblin who is considered an absolutely smokeshow by other hobgoblins, but there's no reason Goloma or Iruxi or Cecaelias would agree and this is just normal and natural.
Subjectivity has ramifications.
What exactly does it mean for Shelyn to value beauty, when the value and nature of said beauty wavers? How do her own sensibilities factor in? Do they alter to the culture in question? Must she give different answers and directives re: beauty depending on the questioner? Does the answer factor in those around the questioner too?
If a Shelynite finds something beautiful, Shelyn values the "why" of why the person sees beauty in it, rather than the beauty itself. She's more concerned with her people finding things they find beautiful and making things that they find beautiful and sharing those things with the world than what she, herself, finds beautiful.
A person sharing the "why" of a thing they find beautiful is just as important to Shelyn as sharing the beautiful thing itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random thought: Do you know how artists are oftentimes depicted with a bunch of discarded artwork, such as having a trashbin full of crumpled concepts that didn't launch?
Is that not possible with Shelynites due to their faith's anathema against destruction of art? After all, one being's trash is another being's treasure. Must they preserve everything they ever make?
Might make for some crazy hoarder behavior.
You're not familiar with modern art, do you?
A trashbin full of crumpled concepts is art! You can sell it for millions.
And throwing a trashbin worth millions into the garbage truck is the epitome of art!!!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not familiar with modern art, do you?
A big part of the value of art is created by context, which cultivates meaning via discussion. A few years ago there was a big furor about an art installation that consisted of a banana duct taped to a wall. Absent context, this is a silly thing.
But with a different context, it was actually a fairly sly, and subtle joke about the art world and what society at large pays attention to. The artist, Maurizio Cattelan, is known in the art world as a big of a prankster and one of his recurring themes is "suspension" (example 1, example 2.)
Inside of the art world, his work is generally read as clever and subversive, taking irreverent potshots at self-serious institutions (he became famous initially through a sculpture inspiration that depicted a Pope getting hit by a meteor). But basically nobody outside of the art world had any idea who he is or why they should care.
So the banana installation, is about the context of "people inside the art world are going to read this fundamentally differently than people outside the art world". People outside the art world are going to see it as "it's just a banana duct taped to a wall, this is what art is?" but people inside the art world are going to see it as a subversion of some of his own themes, and might even get the joke that he's going to get more press and attention (and money) from "duct taping a banana to the wall" than for any number of horses he could taxidermy (not to mention how he somehow sold three of them for a considerable sum, which is itself funny.) So it's a question of "what does the art world value" and "what does society value" and "what does society get from the world of art" and the bow on the package is that this is something that cost him less than $5 and was done in a couple of minutes.
Is the banana duct taped to the wall goofy? Absolutely. Is it cynical? Yes. Is it clever? Also yes. Can you find inside of it a commentary on the excesses of the art world, given that people gave him money to "own" this art? Yup! Can you find in it a commentary on how society at large only sees modern art as an object of scorn, hot how attention is currency? Indeed. Is there something there about how the Cavendish banana is threatened by the Tropical Race 4 fungus, and someday being able to display that specific kind of banana would be a sign of immense privilege? Perhaps. Is there also something here about how the sort of person who will give Cattelan $120,000 for a banana, some duct tape, and a certificate probably wasn't going to spend that money on something more productive anyway? Sure. Is there something there about the impermanence of art, as pieces that captured the attention of the zeitgeist in the past might have commanded huge sums at the time, but have been basically forgotten about, since the banana is going to rot naturally and its depreciation is not a surprise? It's a thing you can discuss, for sure.
So the thing is that from one perspective, it's a banana on a wall. From a bunch of other perspectives, there's a lot to discuss and ponder here. The piece in question, is titled Comedian.
The true artist was the guy who tore down the banana and ate it. Or maybe the true art was the circus that ensued both upon release and later ingestion. Like a mandala, it was about the experience (and I wouldn't be surprised if the eater was a conspirator.)
Most times the art world feels like bidding on tulips. In fact, collectors who specialize in one artist will guarantee the worth of their art by bidding up any sales of that artist's work to keep it inflated.
IMO Shelyn would roll her eyes at such mortal foolishness.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random thought: Do you know how artists are oftentimes depicted with a bunch of discarded artwork, such as having a trashbin full of crumpled concepts that didn't launch?
Is that not possible with Shelynites due to their faith's anathema against destruction of art? After all, one being's trash is another being's treasure. Must they preserve everything they ever make?
Might make for some crazy hoarder behavior.
You're not familiar with modern art, do you?
A trashbin full of crumpled concepts is art! You can sell it for millions.
And throwing a trashbin worth millions into the garbage truck is the epitome of art!!!
I'm a philistine. In MY version of Golarion Shelyn does NOT approve of most Modern Art.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The true artist was the guy who tore down the banana and ate it. Or maybe the true art was the circus that ensued both upon release and later ingestion. Like a mandala, it was about the experience (and I wouldn't be surprised if the eater was a conspirator.)
Most times the art world feels like bidding on tulips. In fact, collectors who specialize in one artist will guarantee the worth of their art by bidding up any sales of that artist's work to keep it inflated.
IMO Shelyn would roll her eyes at such mortal foolishness.
"Somebody can just come in and eat the banana" is part of the art though! It's a banana on the wall, it's easily removed, and entirely fungible (the "certificate of authenticity" that people bought instructs them to replace the banana and tape as needed).
Another angle here though is that Cattelan can get people to pay attention to (and money for) his silly installation because he was already famous (i.e. if you or I did it, nobody would pay attention). There are probably people in the art world who need $120k more than Cattelan does, but odds are good he just turned around and spent that money on other people's art anyway. Shelyn likely approves of Cattelan, and Duchamp, and other various pranksters of the art scene.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm taking away is that Shelyn probably has a lot of cults and sects with differing views on art. I am very in favor of this idea.
They prefer the term "salon". "Cult" sounds so gauche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its likely that she might rely on the intentionality of someone presenting something as art, in their heart of hearts. Essentially the transition of the artist looking at something, and reframing it from just an object to an artistic work, as the moment where it gains meaning.
The crumpled concepts? They weren't art because the artist chose not to acknowledge or present them as such.
A found poem? Is art because the person who noticed it has essentially become the artist in their contextualization of it as a poem.
Modern Art? Yeah its a banana taped to a wall, but since the artist meant something by it and framed it as meaningful, it is art.
Art is the invitation to view something in a particular way, so to me, it makes sense that Shelyn is really instructing you to not destroy things that others have presented for the purpose of invoking that consideration (and the intended audience doesn't matter, it could just be the artist.)
Based on like 2 semesters of the philosophy of aesthetics, in my perspective the two prong test for something being "art" is:
1) One person believes a thing is art.
2) That person is able to have a discussion about the artistic value of the thing in question with a second person.
If it's something you are simply unwilling to share for whatever reason, then it's not really art until you are. It's sort of like Wittgenstein's argument about how there can't be a private language (i.e. "meaning" can't be created by one person, it is created via intersubjectivity.)
The one thing I am curious however, is that "art" ultimately does not put something on a pedestal, because there is no lack of "bad art" in the world. So what is Shelyn's perspective on "bad art"? Not art that someone is still working on, or art that some people appreciate and others don't, but art that is almost universally seen as low quality.
Dishonest Art, where the person creating it is representing something they don't believe?
So what is Shelyn's perspective on "bad art"? Not art that someone is still working on, or art that some people appreciate and others don't, but art that is almost universally seen as low quality.
I like this. What does she think of:
Limericks?Campy stage productions?
Outfits with intentionally clashing colors and/or absurd stylistic flourishes?
Cartoon-style or stick-figure drawings in general?
Cartoon-style drawings with political commentary?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like will Shelyn attend your improv show if you ask her politely? Can a Shelynite dodge those things like everybody else can, does, and probably should?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like will Shelyn attend your improv show if you ask her politely?
According to the Perform Skill the absolute minimum bar to get outsiders to pay attention is a legendary performance. So the improv actors better be pretty darn good :-) :-)
Personally (philistine that I am) convincing people to pay $120,000 for a banana sounds one heck of a lot more like a Legendary bluff check than a Legendary Perform check.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The internet would have me believe there are people paying literal millions of dollars for badly drawn ape jpegs, the banana is at least a funny story and has cultural cache.
Which makes me wonder how Shelyn and the Lantern King get along. That's a whole campaign I think.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, boy, people are trashing modern art again.
I think a solid 90% of complaints I see about "modern art" are from people who glance at it, have an immediate reaction, and start posting annoyed screeds about it. They don't consider that maybe that's the point. A lot of modern art is itself a reaction to older art movements, critiquing or mocking them. "Modern art" tends to make fun of the Renaissance and traditional beauty standards a lot, which is why, fun fact, about 5% of the complaints about it come from very angry neonazis who take their European mythology and "superhuman" narratives very seriously.
Oh, and also, it only sells for that much because rich people use art as a form of money laundering. They're moving on to crypto and NFTs now, unfortunately.
Modern art is interesting, even if it's not my thing. I'm glad it exists to challenge and annoy people--it keeps the art world lively, which is how it should be.
I bet Shelynites get in a lot of arguments about modern art. Consider, too, that the person who made the banana and the person who ate the banana were quite possibly expressing the exact same artistic opinion.
EDIT: As for how Shelyn feels about "bad" art, I think what matters to Shelyn is the earnestness as much as the final result. She finds the effort to be beautiful as beautiful as anything. It's about the emotions for her, and I'll bet she can see beauty in just about anything made in good faith with a good heart.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll reemphasize the "good heart" aspect since she doesn't allow non-Good followers. So art that harms or otherwise has evil or Evil elements would be right out IMO, unless a comment against such of course.
*sigh* Now realizing how subjective "harm" is too, which brings us both to artist's intent and the context/audience.
And still wondering how much Shelyn's opinions matter, being another subjective voice. Since she's neither lawful (communal, pro-intersubjective) nor chaotic (individualistic;-pro-subjective), where would she place the opinions of others, especially mortals?
Who knew such a fluffy deity could inspire such deep (pseudo-) theological debate!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take is that, being the goddess of beauty, she's just able to see the beauty in anything made with good intent. Her genuine personal opinion is gonna be, "oh my gosh this is gorgeous darling" whether it's the Mona Lisa or macaroni art.
But what kind of art would an evil artist produce? Propaganda posters?
I mean, those can be pretty damn evil.
What about satires? As a saying goes, a satire is allowed to do everything. But not everything is a satire.
Parodies? Theatrical productions that are thinly(if at all)-veiled propaganda for the patron sponsoring it?
That is a can of worms I'd be loathe to touch even with an 11-foot pole...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what kind of art would an evil artist produce? Propaganda posters?
I mean, those can be pretty damn evil.
What about satires? As a saying goes, a satire is allowed to do everything. But not everything is a satire.
Parodies? Theatrical productions that are thinly(if at all)-veiled propaganda for the patron sponsoring it?
That is a can of worms I'd be loathe to touch even with an 11-foot pole...
*Emperor's Children enter the chat*
More seriously I think you're limiting the scope of evil art. For example Flesh Warping could be art, creating string instruments from the strands of the muscle of still living beings, music composed of cries of despair, paintings of horrific events, performing a puppet show with live marionettes, etc.
What kind of art would an evil artist create? I think these are some pretty cartoonish mustache-twirling examples. Works promoting evil ideals such as bigotry or oppression or eugenics would be what I'd expect. 300 is a pretty evil movie, even if the creator was probably just clueless, and an even better example would be Birth of a Nation.
But what kind of art would an evil artist produce? Propaganda posters?
I mean, those can be pretty damn evil.
What about satires? As a saying goes, a satire is allowed to do everything. But not everything is a satire.
Parodies? Theatrical productions that are thinly(if at all)-veiled propaganda for the patron sponsoring it?
That is a can of worms I'd be loathe to touch even with an 11-foot pole...
*Emperor's Children enter the chat*
More seriously I think you're limiting the scope of evil art. For example Flesh Warping could be art, creating string instruments from the strands of the muscle of still living beings, music composed of cries of despair, paintings of horrific events, performing a puppet show with live marionettes, etc.
Torture porn, graphic horror, lots of "art" out in the real world that's non-Good (even when it has quality or appeal). Not sure how protective Shelyn would feel about medieval depictions of hell.
Also art whose message punches down, so yes propaganda, but many jokes & comedies would fall in this category too, i.e. those with blatant bigotry. Or art which induces hate, especially since she's the deity of love so maybe anti-romantic notions might bother her (though that seems like it'd be very situational given how venting against romance is a prime source of poetry and other art).
Satire by nature should be punching up, though it's a fuzzy line between that and bitter ridicule, scorn, etc.; and sowing dissension might be either Good or Evil depending on what one's dissenting against or seeking to establish. Of course with "Be Peaceful" being her main edict, can't say there's too much dissenting in Shelynite art, except maybe against non-peace/war/etc.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion reminds me of my all-time favorite Artist, Jack Kirby.
Jack Kirby joined the military as soon as we entered WW2, leaving drawing Captain America. The Army said, "you can draw? We have a use for that." and made him a scout. See, in those days before quick photography, a sketch was often the best they could get of enemy positions. So Jack Kirby crawls through the dangerous mud of no man's land between the entrenched positions of the two armies. He looks at the Nazi fortifications, and he hurries back to draw a picture. The commanding officers look at the picture, and make a plan to attack. Jack Kirby's drawings save lives, but when they are past the Nazi fortifications, well, the drawing is useless, and there's a shortage of toilet paper, so the drawing go on to a second, noble purpose.
But all this teaches Kirby to draw well and fast. Kirby was already supermotived to take out Nazis, and he's saving his comrades lives, and he doesn't have much time to waste. So he goes back to drawing comics after the war, and no one can match his speed, and Kirby can especially go into turbo mode drawing nazis. After a few years of Kirby out-drawing any writer they pair with him, he's paired with Stan Lee, the only writer with ideas to much Kirby's speed. And even then, when they're behind schedule, Kirby kicks out drawings of Nazis. Only the black uniforms don't show up well in print, so they make the uniforms green and call them Hydra.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Shelyn would oppose graphic horror, nor political dissent in art. Most great art is dissent. She's the goddess of peace, but there can be no peace when there is injustice, and it's not like she's a pacifist!
And yeah, graphic horror and stuff might not be for everyone, but Repo: The Genetic Opera is still art, and I think Shelyn would still see beauty in it. Honestly, as long as the art doesn't directly encourage evil, or involve evil in its creation, I think Shelyn supports it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a solid 90% of complaints I see about "modern art" are from people who glance at it, have an immediate reaction, and start posting annoyed screeds about it.
People speak out about "modern art" because they don't get it, but the secret is that most art is not intended for random strangers to "get". A lot of art is made because the artist has something they want to express or explore and one medium or technique speaks to them as the best way to do this.
But once the artist has finished with whatever it is, they don't really control it anymore (except possibly economically) so any given person is going to take from it whatever they will. So it's foolish for an artist to try to cultivate a specific response instead of just trying to communicate whatever.
Since the transition between "what the artist is thinking" and "how the audience interprets it" is fraught with potential disconnects, the good faith way to deal with art you don't "get" is to either shrug and move on to the next thing or to look deeper and try to figure it out for your own benefit. Most art exists in close proximity to other similar works, so if a given painting, book, sculpture, album etc. does nothing for you, there's probably another one a couple of steps away that might. You go to a gallery, or a bookstore, or a museum, or a concert not because you believe everything there is going to connect with you, but in hopes that something will.
The other thing is that since the advent of photography/videography there's little need to portray common things realistically, since cat videos are a dime a dozen (though remain delightful) and you probably have a camera in your pocket. So things like "I'm going to paint something that looks exactly like the thing I'm painting" just doesn't speak to that many artists.
But the thing about bad faith attempts to look at a pile of candy or a banana on the wall and complain about the state of art is that the hardest part of aging and having the culture move past you is not about "what's new in your life" but "those things that you remember that aren't there anymore." But a lot of people think lashing out at someone else is a lot easier than looking inwards.
At the risk of being annoyingly pedantic, "art that hurts" and "art that sows despair/self-hatred" are very complicated labels. I'm a big fan of art being allowed to be messy, risky and even problematic at times in the pursuit of attaining something new and better.
The best and most well-known example I can think of right now: Bo Burnham's Inside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True! I wasn't sure what you meant there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a little kid draws a picture. In the moment of creation, that kid is REALLY proud of that picture. Mom posts it on the kitchen cabinet. Next day, kid draws another picture. Mom posts that one too. <wash-rinse-repeat> Ten years go by.
Or in other words, are Shelynite clerics who become parents basically condemned to be hoarders?