| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 28 Sep 2006 : 19:19:27
ok, a friend asked me to ask this in Candlekeep, it's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek question   (and you younger players, maybe you should go read another thread  )
Has anyone actually role played a clergy of Sharess (speciality priest, crusader, cleric, favored soul, etc.)?
Have you had a PC in your party that was a priest/priestess of Sharess?
Have you ever DMed a NPC Clegy of Sharess?
Does anyone take the whole Sharess faith/church seriously in their campaigns?
I still can remember the look on my friend's face when he first read the 2E Warriors and Priests of the Realms description of the Crusader and the bard "going to look for a crusader of Sharess" |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| xaviera |
Posted - 12 Oct 2009 : 14:48:55
quote:
Originally posted by Menelvagor in this scroll
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
In assembling the information for another thread, I've only just now  realized (after playing a Sharessin for 3 years) that at the time of 3.5e (~1374?) Sharess has been free from Shar's influence for a paltry 16 years, compared to a good 600 or so as one of the Maidens of the Forbidden Fruit. This means that the elements of decadence and debauchery should massively predominate in her worship, and that everything I've written here is irrelevant.
Not necessarily, xaviera. We're dealing with godly magic here. We have no idea how long it took Shar to corrupt Sharess, and how strong the Evergold is as a restorative.
That's true, but my point is that if a lot of the gods have gone through portfolio shifts, moved up and down the hierarchy, appeared and disappeared, there'll be a lot of confusion among mortals about exactly what each god stands for. It's a perfect opportunity for a proliferation of sects preaching all sorts of things, some of which may be incorrect or even heretical ("my grandmother worshipped Lliira for this and Waukeen for that and you're just flat-out wrong!"). Dead gods may also be worshipped by many mortals, not just a few, since the battle lines aren't as clear when you're down there in the thick of it and it'll be difficult to separate the truth from the lies amidst the confusion of what's happened since 1358. In the context of the discussion in this scroll, that means you (the DM) can do whatever you want with your local church of whoever and most of the common people (NPCs) won't be able to gainsay it. Finally, in 'times of trouble' people tend to get conservative, so there's another reason that sects preaching various restrictive or even crazy practices might gain ascendancy (flagellants, doomsayers, etc.). It's easy to say "so-and-so took so-and-so's portfolio" but that won't necessarily be obvious to a lot of people.
|
| xaviera |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 20:07:59
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
Lliira, the beer commercial god.
Ha ha! I love it!
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
It's the existence of the last category that seems most in doubt. Not so much that there might not be individual sects promoting whatever, but that there would actually be gods that cared. I think there would be and I was gathering that others here rather forcefully disagreed.
In the absence of any canon pronouncements of the type "A actively opposes B" that could be made to fit the sort of issues we're talking about, I get the impression that the gods may frown on certain things but they aren't going to come right out and say "thou shalt not", if only because it cuts them off from potential worshippers. Yondalla (for example) might have something to say to an unmarried, libertine high priestess, but if that priestess then chooses to make a general pronouncement to her flock that would be her decision. In fact, the gods might deliberately sponsor different sects in order to satisfy as many worshippers as possible, so long as they don't come to blows. All those prayers go to the same place, after all.
|
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 17:58:14
quote:
The deity doesn't have to condone premarital sex or prostitution -- they just don't have to promote it, either.
There may be a typo in there, I'm not sure. In any event it seems as though there is a spectrum of possibilities.
1. pro prostitution, pro casual sex. This would be Sharess and maybe Sune or some others. They actually have a portfolio that covers one night stands. Lliira, the beer commercial god.
2. Don't care. So long as it doesn't interfere with their interests, they just couldn't care less about beasts with two backs. This would cover most of the deities in the Realms, apparently.
3. Active promotion of more restrictive sexual practices. These could range from outright celibacy to perhaps even just not paying for sex. I think you could make arguments for a number of gods to fit in to this spectrum somewhere.
It's the existence of the last category that seems most in doubt. Not so much that there might not be individual sects promoting whatever, but that there would actually be gods that cared. I think there would be and I was gathering that others here rather forcefully disagreed.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 17:27:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
I can acknowledge your points here without coming to the conclusion that a god of marriage would condone prostitution or premarital sex. Is it truly just a popularity contest with the gods? A god of family and marriage doesn't have her own ideas on how a good life should be led? Just as a priestess of Sharess is out there preaching debauchery, I would expect to see another priest saying, "Ignore the harlot, she won't fulfill any of your emotional needs." Does that priest actually exist in the Realms?
The deity doesn't have to condone premarital sex or prostitution -- they just don't have to promote it, either.
It's not about deific popularity -- it's about finding the one that's the best match. Much like choosing a friend or spouse -- you don't go for the one everyone likes, unless they are a good match for you.
And yes, every deity is going to have their own ideas on how to lead a good life. But so does every person. If deity A says that a good life is X, and deity B says that a good life is Y, people that favor X will choose A, and people that favor Y would pick B. People that didn't like either would go for someother deity.
Certainly, a priest can say that another priest is wrong -- but it's up to the listener to choose which to believe. With so many deities, there are going to be conflicting messages. People gravitate towards whichever they feel is right.
We see it in the real world all the time. Just among Christianity, there's like a dozen or so major denominations and a host of lesser ones. If a person feels that a church or denomination isn't fulfilling their spiritual needs, they pick a different one. Ditto for politics -- we've got Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, the Reform Party, and a host of other ones, some quite short-lived. People gravitate towards whichever party they feel matches best their own ideas for how the country should be run.
Deities and people are going to promote what they feel is best. If they feel something is less than ideal, they can discourage it without banning it, or they can simply ignore it and not condone it. |
| Ranak |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 17:22:49
I think that one point missing from this debate is a simple one:
By and large women are equal to men in the realms. They don't need male protection, a family, or anything like that, so their sexual politics evolved differently. When a woman can call down a pillar of flame just as well as a man, what does she need with monogamy. If she wants some physical gratification, there are no barriers.
There are surely people in the Realms who believe in love, and partnership, but it is a choice. It is not enforced by the Gods or society.
On the other hand, some Gods might encourage it from the perspective of fostering a warm and healthy respect of the individual, to encourage love and discourage reducing the coupling with another to the physical act.
I think it would make for a marvelous character in a Realms novel, actually. A priest struggling with his vow of chastity, conflicted.
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
I can acknowledge your points here without coming to the conclusion that a god of marriage would condone prostitution or premarital sex. Is it truly just a popularity contest with the gods? A god of family and marriage doesn't have her own ideas on how a good life should be led? Just as a priestess of Sharess is out there preaching debauchery, I would expect to see another priest saying, "Ignore the harlot, she won't fulfill any of your emotional needs." Does that priest actually exist in the Realms?
|
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 17:02:00
I can acknowledge your points here without coming to the conclusion that a god of marriage would condone prostitution or premarital sex. Is it truly just a popularity contest with the gods? A god of family and marriage doesn't have her own ideas on how a good life should be led? Just as a priestess of Sharess is out there preaching debauchery, I would expect to see another priest saying, "Ignore the harlot, she won't fulfill any of your emotional needs." Does that priest actually exist in the Realms? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 16:34:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
quote:
How is marriage undermined when neither participant is married or looking for a relationship?
Well, the god's goal of promoting marriage is undermined by people not looking for a long term relationship. If they couldn't have ready access to guilt free sex without, say, getting married...
The same would go for birth control. They wouldn't be fans.
Right? Bane doesn't sit around saying, "Well, if murder isn't your thing, that's cool by me." These gods are manipulating people to their own ends. A god of marriage and family is going to try to get people into long term relationships that result in families just like Cyric is trying to sew chaos and make people nuts and Shar is trying convince people that life is pointless or whatever.
It seems to me that the family/marriage gods just aren't doing a good job pushing their agenda if prostitution/premarital sex is not being opposed.
People don't get married just to have sex, though. Having access to free nookie fails to fulfill any emotional needs. If you're not looking for a relationship, the prospect of getting sex isn't going to force you into one -- or if it did, the relationship would likely be a short one, which also fails to meet the goals of a family deity.
Besides, if you worship a deity of family, then you're going to be looking for that relationship. If you don't worship a deity of family, then you're not terribly concerned with whether you're living by their strictures or not. With a gazillion gods to choose from, you'd choose one that most matched your own outlook.
Lastly, for some people, sexual compatibility is something they want in a long-term relationship. If you wait until marriage, and then find out that your partner's idea of good sex (style, location, frequency, etc) doesn't mesh at all with yours, then you're both going to be unhappy in that regard. A lot of people that indulge in affairs claim that it's because their partner isn't satisfying them sexually. |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 16:18:40
Intramarital sex is a new term to me. I like it.
|
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 16:15:58
quote:
How is marriage undermined when neither participant is married or looking for a relationship?
Well, the god's goal of promoting marriage is undermined by people not looking for a long term relationship. If they couldn't have ready access to guilt free sex without, say, getting married...
The same would go for birth control. They wouldn't be fans.
Right? Bane doesn't sit around saying, "Well, if murder isn't your thing, that's cool by me." These gods are manipulating people to their own ends. A god of marriage and family is going to try to get people into long term relationships that result in families just like Cyric is trying to sew chaos and make people nuts and Shar is trying convince people that life is pointless or whatever.
It seems to me that the family/marriage gods just aren't doing a good job pushing their agenda if prostitution/premarital sex is not being opposed. |
| xaviera |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 15:16:46
Because there are plenty of grey areas, you (and Icelander) are free to fill in the spaces as you wish with various sects or denominations that uphold the value of, say, intramarital sex, or abstinence, or chastity, or whatever. I would think that some (though not necessarily all) followers of Yondalla, for example, would be very strong on intramarital relations and much less so on extramarital ones, even if the goddess herself isn't known (by us) to have issued any press releases on the topic.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 15:15:04
How is marriage undermined when neither participant is married or looking for a relationship? |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 14:25:14
Hellkeepa,
I am reluctantly resigned to gods like Selune having a "I don't care" attitude when it comes to sex. That would be your middle ground of not opposing but not supporting. It is the matter of gods with the family portfolio where I have more trouble. These gods I would expect to actively oppose activities that would tend to undermine marriages. I would count prostitution and even premarital sex in there. I'm not saying there aren't counter arguments, as Erik and Wooly have ably demonstrated. I just think there would be a god or two on the "sex is your reward for getting married" side of the ledger. Or a region or two that would traditionally espouse the same beliefs.
If I come across as overly black and white, there's three reasons for it.
1. It makes the point I am trying to deal with easier to see.
2. It lets other people fill in gray areas which should be fun for them and fun for me to evaluate.
3. I am a black and white guy. Can't you feel me judging you? |
| Hellkeepa |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 11:59:56
HELLo!
Ozzalum: There is a distinct difference between not opposing, and actively supporting.
This is the whole crux of the discussion above, as I've understood it. While you seem to believe there that there is only the choice of actively supporting it or actively opposing it, things aren't that black and white. Neither in real life nor in the realms. One could say that the average realmian has a quite agnostic view about sex and sexual relations, as far as I've understood it.
Anyway, whatever you decide to rule for your version of the realms, just remember: There are a lot of grey shades, and what ultimately is the only concern is wether or not you and your players enjoy it. ;-)
Happy playin'! |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 11:21:24
Erik,
I think perhaps you overestimate the number of people in "swinger" type relationships as well as the number of religious folks out there that have no idea what original sin means. I was confused when you mentioned this theory that the original sin had to do with sex. I don't think anyone in a serious fundamentalist church would get that one wrong either. But enough of the real world.
You have me convinced that you can come up with some reasons for people not to sleep around like crazy and so on. You still lost me on why any god with family in their portfolio would accept prostitution or even unwed sex. This is based on the temptation to cheat as well as the whole cow/milk theory. I'm not saying that gods interested in families would focus all of their energies on opposing premarital sex and prostitution, but I can't see them telling their priests or paladins to support or participate in such practices. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 02:02:07
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
It's easy to say that our world stigmatises certain forms of sexual behaviour because of Judeo-Christian morality and more specifically because of the doctrine of original sin. But is it accurate?
Where do people think that those doctrines came from? They came from social and character concerns like those de Bie enumerated above.
Good point. Though I would venture to say that while the stigma may have *started out* rooted in societal concerns, now it's migrated almost entirely to the sex aspect.
The doctrine of "original sin" provides a perfect illustration of the point. Originally conceived, this doctrine states--not that the original sin was sex and therefore sex is bad (m'kay)--but rather that our original progenitors sinned and we are therefore tainted by their sin; basically, that we inherit a sinful nature. It has nothing to do with sex at all, whatever Angelina and Antonio would have us think. But the modern usage of the term is almost 100% of the time a sexual one.
But here, we're discussing real world topics that don't apply to the Realms. And so . . .
quote:
Society and religon are complicit variables in a complex emergent system, man. We can't go around pretending that it's a one way street, even if what we're doing is strictly speaking just playing pretend.
Woah. I could swear that made me high just reading it.
And that's another good question . . . one for a different thread.
Cheers |
| Icelander |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 01:43:08
I'll start off with the preface that I mostly agree with de Bie's points in this thread. I can't help wondering, though, about one thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But not because it's sex so much as social and character concerns. Does she want to build a reputation for herself as "easy"? Does she understand the demands of station? How are potential suitors (who may or may not be ok with it) going to say? Who's going to buy the cow when they can get the milk . . . etc. That last one's a bit of a joke. 
I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Saying that sex isn't stigmatised 'in itself', but might be stigmatised because of these reasons doesn't appear to me to describe a situation any different from our world.
It's easy to say that our world stigmatises certain forms of sexual behaviour because of Judeo-Christian morality and more specifically because of the doctrine of original sin. But is it accurate?
Where do people think that those doctrines came from? They came from social and character concerns like those de Bie enumerated above.
Society and religon are complicit variables in a complex emergent system, man. We can't go around pretending that it's a one way street, even if what we're doing is strictly speaking just playing pretend.
Sure, predicting the society we'd have if we removed just one variable at any point is logically impossible, but we like to pretend that small changes have small effects and large changes have large effects. I guess the thinkin' is if you can't rely on the result anyway, why not make the math easy to handle, ya dig?
So I guess that what I'm saying is that the Realms may not have religions that are even vaguely similar to ours, but that don't mean that all of the factors that in our world lead to various types of sexual activity being stigmatised are non-existent. It don't even remove most of 'em.
In any world with less than 100% birth control that is observable by the prospective groom's family, premarital sex is going to pose certain problems with inheritence. I ain't no sociologist, but while marital allegiences exist and noble daughters are de facto valuable currency, it would be a weird society that did not evolve some sort of code of conduct for them which stigmatised premarital sex.
Now, I ain't saying that no one would ever rebel against this code. The Realms is a changing society, not anything like medieval at all. We got ourselves intergenerational conflict as landowning nobility either adapt to compete with rising merchants or find themselves outdated. Along with that, it only makes sense we'd find values shifting. Where in our real world, familial values remained pretty stagnant from the 7th century AD to the Renaissaince, the Realms is more likely to be analogus to our modern world, with every generation having a unique identity.
What does this mean?
Hells, I guess it's a pretty long-winded way to say: 'Yo, homes, peeps still peeps. And peeps be hella complex.'
And while it might make sense to generalise about moral values for the monotheistic, parochial, endogamyous, mostly illiterate and relatively uncommercialized people of the real world medieval era who were linked only by a unified church, it's a bit harder to rationalise doing so for the pantheistic, cosmopolitan, exogamyous and commercialised people of the Realms. Basically, when confronted with a question of what people in the Realms think of a given issue, coming up with a glib answer of 'they think X' is almost guaranteed to be wrong.
They're going to have as much diversity of opinion as there is in the real world. Many of the same factors will influence it and even if you remove some of them that are among the causes of Z in our world, it's not just a simple matter of saying that because there is no Y, there's not going to be any Z. |
| xaviera |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 01:07:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Xaviera, I largely agree with your points in spirit, but I wanted to point out a couple things:
I think we are in agreement on these points (without bothering to repeat them here). I was attempting (rather less articulately than you) to make the point that prostitution, while not bearing the same social stigma that it does RL, would nonetheless have a variety of social negatives attached to it and, by extension, so would indiscriminate sex. By implication, then, there are social incentives to (relative) abstinence (ie. avoiding the negatives ).
- The noble girl who frolics with the stable boy is censured, not because she had sex, but because she did it with and/or got pregnant by someone below her station
- The young man who patronizes prostitutes may be viewed as a stud by his friends but a poor catch or even a loser by the local girls
- The paladin who sleeps around is seen as more concerned with his own needs than those of others
Thus, while there is nothing wrong with sex per se, in some situations abstinence may be preferrable to indulgence. In reply to the original reason this thread was resuscitated, it should be fairly easy to come up with reasons why abstinence may be considered praiseworthy in the Realms for certain people at certain times. In other words - as has been stated by others - just because sex is not viewed as sinful doesn't mean that everyone is out doing it like rabbits and that people may in fact have a variety of perfectly reasonable motives for not doing it at all.
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 20:16:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
I would propose that prostitution is always and everywhere a foe of family. Where a family already exists, the trouble is obvious, but prostitution also reduces the incentive to get married and/or develop a long term relationship necessary for family. Therefore, it would be opposed by those gods with an interest in family.
I'm not as inclined to think prostitution would steer someone away from marriage. Unless one is very wealthy, a visit to a prostitute is a one-off affair, with little or no emotional connection. A night of sex is no substitute for true companionship, and it's certainly not long term. I see prostitution being used more as a temporary solution for a lack of companionship, a way to keep from being too lonely while seeking a longer and more fulfilling relationship.
This of course assumes we're speaking of single, unattached people.
In this regard, one-night stands are much the same thing. Money may not change hands, but casual sex is still no substitute for being in a real, long-lasting relationship.
From the literature I've read on the subject (autobiographies and the like), I'm inclined to support Wooly's side. Generally, those are glossy and represent the best-possible scenario, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think they might paint a realistic picture in this respect of a society in which (we're told) prostitution is not/less stigmatized.
Generally, people who patronize prostitutes are a) not ready for a long-term, committed relationship (because they're too young, or not interested in settling down, or haven't met the right person), b) not interested in or incapable of (for job-related or social reasons) sustaining such a relationship, or c) not getting what they want/need at home, so they are being unfaithful.
Of those, only about a third (if we assume all three categories are equal) are morally reprehensible, and they aren't morally reprehensible for their patronage, per se, but rather for betraying their wives/husbands/children. And as I said before, that's not ok--not here, not there, not anywhere. Solicitation is a *symptom*, not the disease.
A deity interested in *family* should be about preventing discontent in the first place; i.e., encouraging open communication, spending quality time, and yes, fulfilling each other's needs. This is not to suggest that if a paladin ditches his priestess-wife to go to the local Sharessan festhall, that it's the priestess's fault; the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. But solicitation is indeed preventable, and there are things they could both be doing to build up their family (which a family deity would encourage).
Also, keep in mind that there are many, many situations in which a significant other is perfectly ok with a husband/wife who sleeps around. People have open relationships, people swing, etc. It's when they're not on the same page that it becomes an issue.
To summarize: the bad part is the secrecy/betrayal--not necessarily the extra-marital sex.
Also, it is natural for most people eventually to want to settle down (not everyone, but a lot of people). One wants the companionship, to feel loved and desired, etc., and you think you'd get sick of paying for it eventually.
@Xaviera, I largely agree with your points in spirit, but I wanted to point out a couple things:
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
Thus we have one reason to avoid prostitutes and another to make use of their services.
Tiny quibble: "you might get sick" or "you won't get pregnant" aren't reasons to avoid or patronize. They're rather considerations about the consequences.
I think the *reason* is because you want what the pro is offering.
quote:
Just because sex is not viewed as negatively as it is in RL Western societies doesn't mean that there won't be any social disincentives to indulge freely. I expect that the local lord would not take too kindly to his daughter frollicking with the stable boy.
Sure, absolutely. But not because it's sex so much as social and character concerns. Does she want to build a reputation for herself as "easy"? Does she understand the demands of station? How are potential suitors (who may or may not be ok with it) going to say? Who's going to buy the cow when they can get the milk . . . etc. That last one's a bit of a joke.
Also, to clarify (since that came at the end of a post that started about prostitution) that isn't an instance of prostitution, unless the stable boy takes money for his favors.
Cheers
|
| xaviera |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 19:32:48
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
1. Disease is no big deal.
Not sure I entirely agree. Sure, adventurers tend to have ready access to curative magic, and you can pay the local priest for it (er, donate to his church), but honestly, it's still a hassle. I'm sure there are a lot of folk who go around without being "cleansed" of diseases and whatnot, simply because of the expense.
quote:
2. Birth control is readily available.
Generally true. Also the case in RL, but as near as I can tell, this makes little difference in whether sex is still had--it just increases the birth rate if it's absent.
I'd agree with Erik about disease. People of the lower classes, the socially marginalized or ostracized, or those living in remote areas will be without regular clerical health care and may very well carry diseases. Even if every prostitute in town visits the local cleric at the end of every shift, there's still a chance of something being passed along to the clients. And if symptoms don't appear for a month or so...
As far as birth control goes, I'd guess that it is more likely to be of the herbal or barrier type or than magical in nature and thus subject to issues of quality control, effectiveness and safety. I also expect that abortifacients will be available from the local herbalist or hedge witch. I dont expect such methods will have any major effect on population except perhaps at the upper levels of society where people could afford to pay for effective amulets (with limited charges, naturally ). Besides, you always need more peasants for the local orcs to terrify.
Thus we have one reason to avoid prostitutes and another to make use of their services. Just because sex is not viewed as negatively as it is in RL Western societies doesn't mean that there won't be any social disincentives to indulge freely. I expect that the local lord would not take too kindly to his daughter frollicking with the stable boy.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 19:24:58
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
I would propose that prostitution is always and everywhere a foe of family. Where a family already exists, the trouble is obvious, but prostitution also reduces the incentive to get married and/or develop a long term relationship necessary for family. Therefore, it would be opposed by those gods with an interest in family. What say you?
But if this is too close to discussing earlier points, feel free to ignore.
I'm not as inclined to think prostitution would steer someone away from marriage. Unless one is very wealthy, a visit to a prostitute is a one-off affair, with little or no emotional connection. A night of sex is no substitute for true companionship, and it's certainly not long term. I see prostitution being used more as a temporary solution for a lack of companionship, a way to keep from being too lonely while seeking a longer and more fulfilling relationship.
This of course assumes we're speaking of single, unattached people.
In this regard, one-night stands are much the same thing. Money may not change hands, but casual sex is still no substitute for being in a real, long-lasting relationship. |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 19:14:58
I would propose that prostitution is always and everywhere a foe of family. Where a family already exists, the trouble is obvious, but prostitution also reduces the incentive to get married and/or develop a long term relationship necessary for family. Therefore, it would be opposed by those gods with an interest in family. What say you?
But if this is too close to discussing earlier points, feel free to ignore. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 17:01:00
Alright, I think we're all kinda heading off into conversational territory that's fraught with danger. Let's bring the focus of this scroll back to its actual topic, instead of spending so much of our time dissecting some of the earlier points made.
Oh, and this will be the last warning. Any further disruptions, and I'll be forced to temporarily seal this scroll. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 16:56:09
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
but I've got to say Wooly annoys me too with what I perceive to be dismissive responses.
I'm certainly not trying to be dismissive, and I apologize if I came across that way. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 16:51:17
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The comment I replied to was yours, in which you brought up celibacy. That post does not mention chastity at all.
Refer again to my post from 25 Sep 2009 : 07:22:12. Irrelevant parts deleted.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
...
I ask because in my campaign, even paladins of those gods are not expected to be celibate*.
...
In published Realmslore, we know that Aleena Paladinstar is a worshipper of Tyr and far from sexually abstinent.
...
*Chastity, however...
Note the last. Carefully. Read the post again if it helps.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And my post generally agreed with you, which makes the argument that followed even more bizarre.
As demonstrated above, I believe that argument to be founded in lack of reading comprehension.
Please take the time to read posts before responding to them. The subject is interesting to me, but it simply wastes time and bandwidth when someone bases his contributions on incorrect assumptions. Not to mention the risk of offending people who might assume that you ignore salient points deliberately.
The part of the post that I referred to -- excising the parts to which I was not referring -- was specifically about celibacy.
I do take time to read posts before responding. And if I'm not responding to all of the parts of the post, I don't quote them. The only incorrect assumptions in this whole debate have been what you thought I was saying, as opposed to what I was actually saying.
And now we're arguing about what we were arguing about... which is ridiculous. If you want to keep pursuing it, PM me. Otherwise, I'm done. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 16:45:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The comment I replied to was yours, in which you brought up celibacy. That post does not mention chastity at all.
Refer again to my post from 25 Sep 2009 : 07:22:12. Irrelevant parts deleted.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
...
I ask because in my campaign, even paladins of those gods are not expected to be celibate*.
...
In published Realmslore, we know that Aleena Paladinstar is a worshipper of Tyr and far from sexually abstinent.
...
*Chastity, however...
Note the last. Carefully. Read the post again if it helps.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And my post generally agreed with you, which makes the argument that followed even more bizarre.
As demonstrated above, I believe that argument to be founded in lack of reading comprehension.
Please take the time to read posts before responding to them. The subject is interesting to me, but it simply wastes time and bandwidth when someone bases his contributions on incorrect assumptions. Not to mention the risk of offending people who might assume that you ignore salient points deliberately. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 15:49:43
Thank you, Ozzalum. I see your point much more clearly now!
If I might address a few points?
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
The Realms seem to be specifically designed to remove the consequences from sleeping around.
I don't agree with this conclusion, partly because I don't accept your premises, and partly because I don't think this conclusion follows from them. Here's why:
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
1. Disease is no big deal.
Not sure I entirely agree. Sure, adventurers tend to have ready access to curative magic, and you can pay the local priest for it (er, donate to his church), but honestly, it's still a hassle. I'm sure there are a lot of folk who go around without being "cleansed" of diseases and whatnot, simply because of the expense.
quote:
2. Birth control is readily available.
Generally true. Also the case in RL, but as near as I can tell, this makes little difference in whether sex is still had--it just increases the birth rate if it's absent.
quote:
3. Marriage is generally downplayed and lasts only as long as the interested parties are still interested. No fault Divorce.
I don't quite accept this point. While it's true that, ideally, people can dissolve a marriage contract without issue if it's a mutual decision, but I see no reason divorces can't be just as messy in the Realms as they sometimes get in the real world, or why under certain circumstances, it wouldn't be just as destructive. I would actually like to see a story written about a married couple that explores their dynamic/relationship.
The difference is that there is (generally) no religious stigma to divorce in the Realms, the way there often is in RL.
quote:
4. There is no social stigma associated with the behavior, up to and including paying for sex. (This removes the concept of an injured party if somebody "cheats" on a loved one. Why would anyone be upset about their partner having sex with someone else if sex is just another fun activity?)
I accept the first statement, but the parenthetical does not follow. Are Realmsians so emotionally vapid that there's no such thing as a real, loving, committed relationship that could be harmed by sleeping with someone else? Absolutely not!
We have all sorts of evidence to support my point--heck, basically every Realms novel ever written ends up with some hero/heroine riding off into the sunset, ostensibly forming a loving, committed relationship.
The confusion of your statement seems to be conflating "sex isn't stigmatized" with meaning "relationships have no emotional value"--two things that have almost nothing to do with each other.
People don't need to be regulated by society to form an emotional bond, and people DO need to care about and support--rather than hurt--other peoples' feelings to have a relationship.
quote:
5. The gods don't stigmatize any sexual activity, up to and including paying for sex.
I accept this premise--as far as we know.
quote:
You are left with no good societal reason for the average person to abstain from sex.
Oddly enough, while I quibbled with a number of your premises, I'll accept this argument. Mostly because I don't see this as a problem.
I don't think you need a societal reason to abstain from sex--I think personal responsibility and emotional reasons are quite enough. I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to do as they want and their emotions/urges tell them, so long as they aren't violating the natural basic rights of other people (i.e., no harrassment, assault, etc).
quote:
But the virtue associated with some form of sexual abstinence is gone.
This I don't think is quite true--making a commitment/swearing a sacred vow, such as one for chastity (i.e., complete or nigh-complete sexual abstinence) is certainly virtuous and a way to explore one's inner spirituality. Plus, honoring any good-faith commitment you make to yourself or to others is a virtue.
But I agree with the spirit of your argument, which is that sexual abstinence *by itself* isn't a virtue in the FR. Only when it's invested with something else--e.g., done for a reason, etc.
quote:
The discussion on prostitution and paladins was my attempt to take an extreme case, a holy person paying for sex, and see if you could find some social or divine stigma. It appears that the answer is no, even in the case of gods that are supposed to be devoted to love or family. That is one thing I found difficult to believe.
Well, this is only an issue if one accepts that prostitution is stigmatized, which it isn't (generally) in the FR. There is nothing contradictory about a paladin patronizing prostitutes and a paladin raising a family.
Where you get into an issue is when it's the SAME paladin doing both things.
There is a difference between "uncommitted sex" and "cheating." A married paladin--or a paladin committed to a sexual partner and/or a family--should NOT be in the business of patronizing prostitutes, just as he should not be sleeping around, as it would be a betrayal--just like in RL. (Unless, of course, the wife and paladin had worked it out and were both ok with it--real people in the real world do this all the time. Possibly joining in.)
Did you think that breaking society's strictures was the only thing that paladin was doing wrong when he cheated on his wife and betrayed his kids? Because if that's the case, then that paladin was more issues than his infraction--he's basically a psychopath if he doesn't care about the thoughts and feelings of people he's ostensibly supposed to love or at least support.
To sum up my point, FR society doesn't frown on having sex itself--it frowns on dishonoring your committments and being untrue to yourself and others.
(And before we start with the devil's advocacy, we have no evidence to show that the FR is a psychopathic society that doesn't care about your effect on others--well, unless you worship Cyric or a demon-prince. The novels are full of examples of people in committed relationships who--justifiably--get pissed at one another for cheating. Some are more ok with it than others, but that's an individual's choice, not societally determined.)
In toto, I find a society (like my view of the Realms) wherein people are free to make their own choices and decisions--without having to bow to sexual hang-ups inflicted on them by the church or society--a very compelling one. I don't think moral responsibility requires a societal basis; personal accountability for personal actions is all you need.
quote:
Icelander expresses himself a bit more freely than I do, but I've got to say Wooly annoys me too with what I perceive to be dismissive responses.
I don't think you guys are arguing quite the same point, and I'm hoping that this restating will clarify issues.
Cheers
P.S. And, finally, to take a page of my own advice, here's my argument, restated:
I see no reason the Realms would or should have stigmatized sex--committed, recreational, or financial--on a societal level.
I believe that personal accountability and emotional responsibility take care of any issues regarding moral reprehensibility. We don't need some sort of societal stigma.
The difference between the Realms and the RL, as far as sexuality goes, is that RL society has its own set of pressures against sex, whereas the Realms is much more open/progressive about it.
That's the difference.
Cheating is still cheating. Betrayals are still betrayals. A paladin who turns his back on his wife and children so he can patronize prostitutes is repugnant, but not *because* he patronizes prostitutes--the issue falls (as I think it should) on his betrayal of his family, rather than on his financial transactions.
And that's more or less how I'd like it to be, in an ideal world. In RL, we see so many examples of politicians in the news getting absolutely reamed for patronizing prostitues, etc., but no one asks how they could do such a cruel and psychopathic thing to their wives, husbands, and children. I think the focus needs to be shifted to the emotional and personal--the consequences of the action rather than the action itself.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 14:22:48
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I wasn't lecturing on anything, thank you. I was responding to a post about celibacy. Everything I was saying was in regards to a discussion on celibacy, not abstinence.
This is objectively incorrect. The first post you responded to in this discussion was discussing 'abstinence' in general. Refer to your post on 25 Sep 2009 : 15:00:02, in response to mine from 25 Sep 2009 : 07:22:12. Note also that the original post to which you are replying has references to all three of the words 'abstinence', 'chastity' and 'celibacy'.
I'm certainly aware that in your conversation, you did not effectively address anything other than celibacy and went so far as to respond to a comment which specified chastity and not celibacy by confusing the two.
In the spirit that accidental ignorance is better than malicious rudeness, I chose to believe that you had misunderstood the subject of the conversation.
Do you mean that you were instead deliberately ignoring the point of all posts to which you responded? Why would you do that?
The comment I replied to was yours, in which you brought up celibacy. That post does not mention chastity at all.
And my post generally agreed with you, which makes the argument that followed even more bizarre. |
| Ozzalum |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 12:34:07
Erik,
Let me restate my case, such as it is. The Realms seem to be specifically designed to remove the consequences from sleeping around.
1. Disease is no big deal.
2. Birth control is readily available.
3. Marriage is generally downplayed and lasts only as long as the interested parties are still interested. No fault Divorce.
4. There is no social stigma associated with the behavior, up to and including paying for sex. (This removes the concept of an injured party if somebody "cheats" on a loved one. Why would anyone be upset about their partner having sex with someone else if sex is just another fun activity?)
5. The gods don't stigmatize any sexual activity, up to and including paying for sex.
You are left with no good societal reason for the average person to abstain from sex. Sure, you may have people who are too poor to pay or too ugly (inside or out) to attract a mate. You may have people just uninterested for whatever reason. But the virtue associated with some form of sexual abstinence is gone.
The discussion on prostitution and paladins was my attempt to take an extreme case, a holy person paying for sex, and see if you could find some social or divine stigma. It appears that the answer is no, even in the case of gods that are supposed to be devoted to love or family. That is one thing I found difficult to believe.
In general I think this setup for the realms leaves you with a setting that is not particularly engaging on the spiritual level. Icelander has explained why better than I could.
Icelander expresses himself a bit more freely than I do, but I've got to say Wooly annoys me too with what I perceive to be dismissive responses. Regardless, I think we have had a good discussion. I just have to get used to the argument style.
|
| Sandro |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 09:28:01
quote:
If you take away ritual, mysticism, tradition and ceremony*, what is left isn't a religion. It may be an acknowledgement of a powerful creature, but knowing that a lion can eat me and worshipping that lion as a god ain't the same thing.
In the Realms, it does, because the gods A) are indisputably real and grant power to their followers and B) many faiths are based on simply having priests/clerics spreading the message and tenets of their god (priests of Talos praising the beauty of wanton destruction, priests of Sune praising love, etc.) rather than simply praising their god as the ultimate power in the multi/universe. In the Realms, being a worshipper of a certain god means that you agree with their views on the world, rather than believing that your god is the supreme (and typically singular) power of the cosmos. In the real world (disclaimer, nothing against religion, blah blah blah), "ritual, mysticism, tradition and ceremony" are used to help re-enforce belief in the god, where in the Realms, they are all unnecessary as everybody either A) knows the gods are real, or B) has no part in religion, where in our world the grey area is much, much larger.
As far as limiting their worshippers in some way to ensure that they are distinct from others, their worshippers are setting themselves apart simply by worshipping the god, due to the fact that there are gods for so many different things. The majority of fighters (as a profession, rather than class) will worship Tempus (as a generalization), especially during campaigns (prayers before battle, prayers during battle, prayers after the battle); most magic users will worship Mystra (prayers in general), and so on and so forth. There's nothing so specialized in our world -- there is no god for all accountants to worship. Instead, a god must win over the worship of accountants, rather than gain it simply by being their patron god.
And, of course, knowing what will happen if you don't worship a god through life is a fair bit of incentive to find it within yourself to at least minimally worship one. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 07:00:41
Might I suggest that we all just take a moment and relax, here?
Obviously this conversation is a big kerfuffle, and I find that the best way out of such a confusion is to restate our central arguments and go from there.
Just a suggestion.
Cheers |
|
|
