| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Apr 2013 : 23:08:40
|
"marriages are intimately tied to religion/churches of a particular culture"
Clearly is a statement that no secular marriage is possible or acceptable. You basically say a wedding requires a religion. There are 13 states in the US that recognize civil marriages by result of actions some times to be as binding is a religion blessed marriage.
When posting on the web, only what is read can be interpreted. Not all marriages are intimately tied to a religion, unless you say in explanation that any civil marriage is a result of a new undefined religion. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2013 : 23:43:26
|
I find it interesting that in the RW Christian faith, one of the Epistle writers actually discouraged marriage, saying that it is better NOT to do so, because the faithful are advised to preoccupy their minds with non-relationship, non-sexual, non-parenting things. But he concedes that marriage is allowed, if people simply cannot help themselves (1 Corinthians 7).
There is also the familiar adage, "What Would Jesus Do?", to consider. According to the Bible, Jesus never married, and if being Christian means being Christ-like, then that would seem to mean never getting married.
But this was eventually reversed by traditions of the Christian church, which took marriage on as a holy sacrament, as well as the notion of "Christian family values" and what-not. Marriage was endorsed and embraced, to the point that some denominations now see themselves as protecting their institution from the changes that outsiders wish to inflict upon it.
This has gotten me to wondering if we can find a similar such apparent inconsistency in any of cultures of the Realms, in which a deity never really encouraged--and maybe even discouraged--marriage, but the faithful of that deity nevertheless pushed forward full steam ahead with it? Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem). |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2013 : 23:57:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
"marriages are intimately tied to religion/churches of a particular culture"
Clearly is a statement that no secular marriage is possible or acceptable. You basically say a wedding requires a religion.
Two concepts can be intimately linked without one necessarily requiring the other. These two things are NOT the same:
- "marriages are intimately linked to religion in our culture"
- "no secular marriage is possible or acceptable"
Even if you look at them on a purely logical basis, those two statements are not the same. I understand WHY people might think they're the same - and in fact I attempted a clarification of what I meant when it first came up.
Look deeply at marriage in our Western culture. Look at Bride magazine, or wedding planners, even marriages that happen on television. It is extremely RARE to see instances where people think of marriage as a non-religious event; invariably, there will be a church involved, a minister or rabbi, etc. It is COMMON and expected to immediately think of religion when thinking of marriage in our culture. THAT IS THE INTIMATE TIE.
It does not LOGICALLY follow that saying "there's an intimate link" automatically means non-religious marriages aren't possible. I am quite obviously aware of purely secular weddings, and I am in NO WAY denying their existence.
Seriously, I am beginning to understand why my mother has totally abandoned this website. 
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 22:41:10
|
AD&D (1E) Unearthed Arcana does have a multipurpose 1st level cleric spell called ceremony, and one of the ceremonies which can be performed (by a cleric of sufficient level) is marriage. In short, gaining the divine-magical benefits/binding of this spell basically involves a priest and therefore basically involves a religion. It probably also varies considerably for each faith, and several probably wouldn't even recognize this sort of ceremony in any event. I imagine some churches/faiths in the Realms would not accept marriage by another as valid.
However, people can be married by other authorities, or simply bind themselves through oaths of love, without ever involving any religious commitment. And better yet: people can be married by, say, the local magistrate or judge or civil authority ... then married again (even on the same day) through another ceremony presided by a religious authority.
The idea behind marriage is supposed to be bonding ... ideally for love, less ideally for legal or national purposes ... it's not supposed to be about scribbling another special superpower on your character sheet.
Having said that - there's no reason why a special "wedding gift" spell (say, a modified find familiar bonding?) or enchanted trinket (magic ring) could not be fashioned for the married couple. A religious marriage in the Realms might make use of the AD&D 2E priest spell focus to impart other divine-magical effects to the people being married, the place of marriage, or to all of the witnesses present. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 23:10:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
"marriages are intimately tied to religion/churches of a particular culture"
Clearly is a statement that no secular marriage is possible or acceptable. You basically say a wedding requires a religion.
Two concepts can be intimately linked without one necessarily requiring the other. These two things are NOT the same:
- "marriages are intimately linked to religion in our culture"
- "no secular marriage is possible or acceptable"
Even if you look at them on a purely logical basis, those two statements are not the same. I understand WHY people might think they're the same - and in fact I attempted a clarification of what I meant when it first came up.
First of all said basically not compatible, not an absolute.
Your assertion clearly claims most marriages are because of religion, that all are tied to religion intimately.quote:
Look deeply at marriage in our Western culture. Look at Bride magazine, or wedding planners, even marriages that happen on television. It is extremely RARE to see instances where people think of marriage as a non-religious event; invariably, there will be a church involved, a minister or rabbi, etc. It is COMMON and expected to immediately think of religion when thinking of marriage in our culture. THAT IS THE INTIMATE TIE.
Well I look at Realms history, however also real world local community. It clearly is not all that common in the Realms to be tied to any religion and I know of many in RL that married only for the civil reason, not even sure if they believe a religion.quote:
It does not LOGICALLY follow that saying "there's an intimate link" automatically means non-religious marriages aren't possible. I am quite obviously aware of purely secular weddings, and I am in NO WAY denying their existence.
Seriously, I am beginning to understand why my mother has totally abandoned this website.
We might work on logic in a different way.
When you post an absolute you certainly can be called on them.
Maybe you might consider your Mother's choice. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 23:30:38
|
| In a polytheistic world why would faiths not respect marriages performed by other priests? |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 23:45:40
|
I really think you guys have reached the end of your argument. Marriage is, indeed, intimately tied to religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages have to do with religion. That is a SOCIAL observation (about how marriage is practiced and perceived in our world), not a LOGICAL observation.
It's kinda like saying "Driving is intimately tied to masculinity." Not all drivers are men, obviously, and not all men drive. However, it is a cultural subcurrent that men and their cars have a special relationship. (Some men take it a bit far, but that's neither here nor there.) But men don't need cares in order to be men, and neither do cars need men in order to be cars.
My writing career is intimately tied to the Realms, because it was telling stories in the Realms that really got me going with this whole writing thing, and I've published 5 novels there. Does that mean that the Realms is a requirement for my writing? Obviously not, as a brief glance at my bibliography will provide.
Saying something is intimately tied does not mean that it requires the other thing to exist. Western civilization has celebrated almost strictly religious marriages for millennia thus far, and the vast majority of marriages are still religious. The numbers are changing.
Can we just let it go?
And lest this seem too serious:
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Having said that - there's no reason why a special "wedding gift" spell (say, a modified find familiar bonding?) or enchanted trinket (magic ring) could not be fashioned for the married couple.
That could be a lifesaver. And here's why:
"Oh hey, Drizzt, I, uh, meant to get you a wedding present, but all they had were these straight-blade longswords . . ."
[awkward]
quote:
A religious marriage in the Realms might make use of the AD&D 2E priest spell focus to impart other divine-magical effects to the people being married, the place of marriage, or to all of the witnesses present.
Hey. It's her special day. She can look radiant and have wings if she wants to!
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 08 Apr 2013 23:50:26 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 23:51:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
In a polytheistic world why would faiths not respect marriages performed by other priests?
I see no reason for such, short of the extremely rare Realms dweller that believes in only their deity.
Though clearly a spouse with Bane and the other of Selune' as patrons might be considered suspect by most religions.
Ed clearly can answer, if not before, about how common marriage is and how well each faith respects a ceremony preformed by a different faith. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2013 : 23:54:01
|
| Erik , I did like you, no longer. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11800 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 14:04:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem).
Just wondering, where did this come from? I don't recall ever hearing anything about Mielikki being against sexual relationships. In fact, except for the fact that Unicorns tend to favor young female virgins, I'd pretty much go with Mielikki is in favor of them but holds more for finding Mr. Right. Being a nature goddess, I can't see her being against anything that leads to procreation of the race.
However, your general idea is of interest. Someone earlier mentioned an idea of Siamorphe priests performing "short term" marriages. I see Siamorphe as probably not liking this idea, especially if the individuals involved are of different classes (i.e. noble and peasant, noble and slave, noble and paid whore/gigolo) as it produces bastards that can tear apart countries. Yet, as some mention, perhaps there are Siamorphan priests who misinterpret her and seek to make sure that all children are born in wedlock as long as one member is of noble blood. This act isn't enough for the goddess to excommunicate the priest (maybe) if it only happens rarely. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11800 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 14:15:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem).
Just wondering, where did this come from? I don't recall ever hearing anything about Mielikki being against sexual relationships. In fact, except for the fact that Unicorns tend to favor young female virgins, I'd pretty much go with Mielikki is in favor of them but holds more for finding Mr. Right. Being a nature goddess, I can't see her being against anything that leads to procreation of the race.
However, your general idea is of interest. Someone earlier mentioned an idea of Siamorphe priests performing "short term" marriages. I see Siamorphe as probably not liking this idea, especially if the individuals involved are of different classes (i.e. noble and peasant, noble and slave, noble and paid whore/gigolo) as it produces bastards that can tear apart countries. Yet, as some mention, perhaps there are Siamorphan priests who misinterpret her and seek to make sure that all children are born in wedlock as long as one member is of noble blood. This act isn't enough for the goddess to excommunicate the priest (maybe) if it only happens rarely.
On the Siamorphe thing above, the priest would be trying to PREVENT bastards because technically the child would have been conceived in wedlock, however Siamorphe may be against such marriages because the marriage is not conceived in love nor meant to last. Their priests however may see it as a means to continue a dynasty against all odds. Its a question of working the literal letter of the law versus the goddess' intent. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 18:04:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem).
Just wondering, where did this come from? I don't recall ever hearing anything about Mielikki being against sexual relationships.
Well, I wasn't asserting that she is against marriage, but rather, inquiring as to whether she or others might be, given their own personal natures.
Humanoid societies tend to favor marriage for social stability and to encourage responsibility in childrearing. But such things are very resource-intensive activities/constructs, so a god might conceivably prefer followers' attention not to be so divided, but rather, to be focused/fixated/obsessed with the god's personal agenda.
Nevertheless, regardless of the god's preferences, humanoid civilization seems to depend on stabilizing institutions, of which marriage is just one. So this could conceivably put humanoids at odds with their deities.
Consider all of the law and structure within drow society, even though they serve a goddess of chaos.
In a History Channel program on the origins of tales of mythical monsters, it was said that the myth of Medusa the Gorgon was probably originally a cautionary tale against priestesses losing their virginity. Medusa was bedded (by Poseidon, I think?), and so, she was severely punished by being horribly transformed.
A deity could conceivably frown on marriage, too, and not just sex. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 18:25:21
|
| In Athena's temple no less. Athena was not pleased. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 21:25:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Erik , I did like you, no longer.
It was the Drizzt joke, right? Bridge too far? 
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 22:24:30
|
| I thought someone posted different priests would not respect other faiths' marriages |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 22:36:19
|
| Some have speculated that certain Priests would not accept marriage of opposing faiths. Speculation is not the same as canon. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11800 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2013 : 23:04:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem).
Just wondering, where did this come from? I don't recall ever hearing anything about Mielikki being against sexual relationships.
Well, I wasn't asserting that she is against marriage, but rather, inquiring as to whether she or others might be, given their own personal natures.
Humanoid societies tend to favor marriage for social stability and to encourage responsibility in childrearing. But such things are very resource-intensive activities/constructs, so a god might conceivably prefer followers' attention not to be so divided, but rather, to be focused/fixated/obsessed with the god's personal agenda.
Nevertheless, regardless of the god's preferences, humanoid civilization seems to depend on stabilizing institutions, of which marriage is just one. So this could conceivably put humanoids at odds with their deities.
Consider all of the law and structure within drow society, even though they serve a goddess of chaos.
In a History Channel program on the origins of tales of mythical monsters, it was said that the myth of Medusa the Gorgon was probably originally a cautionary tale against priestesses losing their virginity. Medusa was bedded (by Poseidon, I think?), and so, she was severely punished by being horribly transformed.
A deity could conceivably frown on marriage, too, and not just sex.
My mention of the sex piece was because you were basing Mielikki as an example because she is the eternal maiden and thus being a proponent of abstinence. I was just wondering where that piece had come from. I do understand your idea that other religions may not like certain types of marriage, and its worth exploring.
In fact, you provide a very good example with chaotic oriented societies. The drow are a good example, but I'd also bet that orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, and ogres all probably don't have marriage as a strong institution. I'd wonder about cultures like giants too (specific to the types of giants, because I can see cloud and storm giants favoring some kind of blessed union favored by their deity). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2013 : 18:50:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
For commoners, they might never need the legal side of marriage to come into play unless they have a lot of property - and I suspect that there wouldn't be a lot of rules or legal demands on splitting property anyway (unless you were rich or noble, in which case you'd have probably spelled out property issues in the marriage contract... just a guess, though).
Marion Zimmer Bradley's 'Darkover' novels mention both formal (di catenas) and informal marriages (acknowledged by sharing 'a bed, a meal and a fireside').
A full, formal, marriage between persons of rank (and property) would include sets of rules for handling inheritances of title, wealth, etc. It would also likely be presided over by either a representative of the noble caste and/or a priest of the dominant religion, depending on the particular culture. It may have nothing to do with the personal deity preferences of the participants (though in a pantheistic society where all deities are members of the same group, this isn't much of a problem - there might be issues, however, marrying someone in a state where the official pantheon is not the same as one's own, culturally or personally).
A 'commoners' marriage (like Bradley's freemate marriage) may have no particular divine involvement. However, depending on the importance of religion in the culture other variants of 'simple marriages' may consist of some degree of ritual, even if only a statement of intent before a priest and/or the deity's idol.
Lawful cultures would probably have more ceremonies and at more levels of society. There would also likely be more religious involvement, given that there's more likely to be a state-sponsored religion or simply more of an acknowledgement of the role of the gods in an ordered society.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Someone earlier mentioned an idea of Siamorphe priests performing "short term" marriages. I see Siamorphe as probably not liking this idea, especially if the individuals involved are of different classes (i.e. noble and peasant, noble and slave, noble and paid whore/gigolo) as it produces bastards that can tear apart countries.
The difficulty of getting out of a marriage will likely vary with the degree of formality of the marriage and of the religion - I would expect Siamorphe, as a deity of nobility, to go for the hard line in terms of social stability and all that. On the other hand, I see marriages under the auspices of Sharess as being very flexible in definition and dissoluble simply by mutual consent (so it's unlikely that noble/state/formal marriages would be presided over by Sharessin).
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
Edited by - xaviera on 14 Jun 2013 18:54:08 |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2013 : 22:39:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I find it interesting that in the RW Christian faith, one of the Epistle writers actually discouraged marriage, saying that it is better NOT to do so, because the faithful are advised to preoccupy their minds with non-relationship, non-sexual, non-parenting things. But he concedes that marriage is allowed, if people simply cannot help themselves (1 Corinthians 7).
There is also the familiar adage, "What Would Jesus Do?", to consider. According to the Bible, Jesus never married, and if being Christian means being Christ-like, then that would seem to mean never getting married.
But this was eventually reversed by traditions of the Christian church, which took marriage on as a holy sacrament, as well as the notion of "Christian family values" and what-not. Marriage was endorsed and embraced, to the point that some denominations now see themselves as protecting their institution from the changes that outsiders wish to inflict upon it.
This has gotten me to wondering if we can find a similar such apparent inconsistency in any of cultures of the Realms, in which a deity never really encouraged--and maybe even discouraged--marriage, but the faithful of that deity nevertheless pushed forward full steam ahead with it? Mielikki, for example, is said to be an eternal maiden, yes? And never to have taken a consort/companion/spouse? And yet her champion Drizzt certainly married Catti-brie (some form of informal "common law" type marriage, 'twould seem).
I wouldn't go so far as to declare Drizzt to be Mielikki's champion; he's a lay worshiper of her's, and not a particularly observant one at that. A cleric of Mielikki may take a vow of chastity or celibacy out of devotion to their goddess, but the layman isn't held to that standard.
And Drizzt's marriage to Catti was almost certainly official and formal, given that he noted that he was Bruenor's son by marriage in The Pirate King.
Interesting note; none of the Gospels explicitly say Jesus never married; they just don't touch on it at all. As a rabbi practicing at the time he would have actually been expected to marry and father children, given that a big part of the jewish faith is God's command to "be fruitful and multiply." |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2013 : 00:45:31
|
quote:
Kentinal
Some have speculated that certain Priests would not accept marriage of opposing faiths. Speculation is not the same as canon.
I have speculated, and all the canon examples of marriage I can think of seem to have been presented in an implicit, rather generic, and decidedly inoffensive way - that is, it is understood that characters are married and that's usually about all we need to be told. When mentioned at all, it seems that a marriage-priest serving Sune is the most popular (and logical) choice; sometimes a priest serving some other goody-two-shoes diety like Selūne, Tymora, or Lathander who can "bless" the union in another specially symbolic fashion.
Personally, I wonder why we need assume everybody gets married by a priest. In North American society the vast majority of marriages are not made (or unmade!) by a religious authority, but by a legal or civil authority - what Realms society might call a magistrate. In fact, many people in the Realms might prefer to be married instead by a Prince, Baron, Warlord, Wizard, or other wise and powerful figure. I imagine that wedding vows made under an arcane geas would be at least as enduring as oaths (and fear of retribution for broken oaths) linked to some divine agency. I'd love to be married by a wizard. And who's gonna tell a King that his marriage proclamations aren't valid? Who's gonna tell a warlord that he can't have four wives?
Once again - many couples in our world hold multiple marriage ceremonies on the same day to reinforce their bond. I have friends who were married in a Wicca dawn ceremony, then married in the afternoon in a Christian church, then married "on paper" by a local civil authority. Why not people in the Realms as well? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2013 : 17:26:40
|
Ah, marriage! One of society's most important institutions (this coming from a family lawyer, Lol). As I think has been said before on the thread, the particulars of the marriage ceremony, compact, and form matter more the higher up the social ladder one climbs. So, that's where you see it best defined.
However, it is important to remember that one of THE most critical roles of marriage in society is to define paternity. In a time and place where the only way to try to ensure that a woman bears YOUR child is to enter into a long term monogamous (or largely so) compact with her it becomes pretty formal, even among the lower classes. In the modern era we have paternity testing (itself a relatively recent development!), widely available hormonal birth control (to prevent unwanted paternity when desired), and a generous welfare state to allow for viable single parent households among the economically disadvantaged. In a pre-modern society like the Realms, the marriage contract would be a pretty big deal as the family is the central unit of society (the state being a much more tenuous construct).
People would take the commitment seriously, divorce would be basically unheard of, and those having children outside of wedlock (i.e. bastards) would be shamed. This is not to say infidelity didn't happen (quite the contrary), just that once people married they tended to do so for life (even if they lived other lives on the side). Adventurers, being the 'free spirits' of society (having wealth, mobility, and a generally lighter commitment to the state), might be less likely to marry than most. Merchants and nobles would pretty much ALL be married fairly early as the added benefits of social/political alliances that marriage allows families to forge (as well as the NEED for clear paternity when it comes to defining heirs) would be too tempting to resist.
In a polytheistic society like the Realms where many cities/realms aren't shy about identifying 'patron' deities (separation of church and state is a foreign concept to most realms) churches would end up performing (or at least blessing) almost every union. It lends formality to the ceremony, allows for it to be recorded easily, and allows peasants to stand aside kings in that their unions carry equal weight to those involved. So, there wouldn't be much of a tradition of 'civil unions' in such a society. We also have to remember that, aside from defense and tax collection, the bureaucratic mechanisms of the state (as we recognize them in the modern world) simply do not exist. An American from 1913 wouldn't even recognize (and would likely be shocked by) the vast U.S. government of the 21st century, much less a citizen of a pre-modern state. |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2013 : 17:07:54
|
Kris - I think that you are applying real world morality to the realms. While they are logical conclusions I do not think they are Ed Greenwood's imagined world. Or at least they would vary regionally widely. Such as children out of wedlock... societies in the real world frown on this but that doesn't mean it is universally reviled in the realms.
Most people in the realms may not even be aware you are supposed to have a patron deity. In Ed Greenwood's book Elminster's Forgotten Realms he says most people don't know which afterlife they are going to until they get there! |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2013 : 18:53:56
|
Mr. H,
I suspect you are right (after I went back and read some of THO's/Ed's quoted comments earlier in the thread) and that I am indeed applying some real world assumptions about relationships to the Realms.
I can certainly imagine a world with an agrarian based economy that is less obsessed with religious/sexual morality than our own Middle Ages society (one where highly sexualized behaviors are more common and people can be freer with their affections and associations). The polytheistic nature of the Realms makes that doable. Basically, you'd be talking a Roman style world prior to the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.
However, no matter the religious situation (unless it openly espoused the superiority of polyandry as a mating strategy) I still think you have to account for the serious concerns about paternity men have/had, especially in the pre-modern era. All one has to do is look at the animal kingdom to know how much this matters to reproductive strategy and social behaviors surrounding reproduction. Men are simply not favorably inclined towards investing their earned resources in the raising of other men's children. In a world without paternity testing (or widely available 100% effective birth control) mate guarding is best achieved through some degree of sexual monogamy (at least on the female side of the relationship ledger). In short, marriage with sexual fidelity for women.
Don't get me wrong about bastards, I'm not saying they wouldn't be common. They CERTAINLY were here on Earth throughout history. It is just that bastards occupy a social status below that of recognized children (even second, third, or later born ones) and have fixed upper limits to their social mobility. As such, they must always try harder to succeed in the world than acknowledged children and will always face scorn from their 'betters' even when they do. The ranks of adventurers would be PACKED with bastards as a consequence. Cesare Borgia (and his recruited band of bastards) from the recent Showtime 'Borgias' series is an example of this sort of striving (and the resentment it would engender).
Lastly, while I read EGP:EFG the same way you do, that most people invoke many deities throughout a lifetime, one of the other inescapable aspects of a polytheistic society with religions based on 'portfolio specialization' (to coin a phrase, Lol) is that there would only be a few deities whose portfolio covered marriage/reproduction and the like and under whose rites marriage would fall. Umberlee might have some ideals about a preferred ceremony for hand-clasping at sea, but I'm not sure many people would care what she thought about the subject! Lol. So, you'd be looking at around half a dozen different ways to get the job done (with a few faiths predominating regionally) most of which would be accepted by the others unless you had a REAL conflict between churches/the aims of their deities. That's more what I meant to say. |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Emma Drake
Learned Scribe
USA
206 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2013 : 19:58:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Kris - I think that you are applying real world morality to the realms. While they are logical conclusions I do not think they are Ed Greenwood's imagined world. Or at least they would vary regionally widely. Such as children out of wedlock... societies in the real world frown on this but that doesn't mean it is universally reviled in the realms.
I can't speak to the entirety of the Realms, but having just read Death of a Dragon, there are certainly heavy judgements placed on "ill-gotten" children in some places (like Cormyr). For those who haven't read that book, the crown princess got pregnant on the sly and when people realize she is with child, there is a big hullabaloo because they don't know that she was actually married when she conceived.
In Chapter 21, one of her personal guards calls her unborn child "misbegotten" and she describes his tone as "disapproving." Certainly, she carries a heavier burden, as the crown princess, to produce an heir within the context of a marriage, but the tone of the passage says to me that illegitimacy is something of which many people disapprove.
On multiple occasions within the same text the promiscuity of Alusair is held up as a point against her being a capable monarch. Azoun's dalliances, while something of an open joke/embarrassment (at least for Filfaeril), don't detract from his qualifications to rule in the eyes of his subjects, at least for the most part.
There are also plenty of instances in different texts that I read where a man is allowed dalliances but the woman expected to maintain at least a semblance of monogamy/fidelity.
These are a reflection of social mores but I think that this idea of certain paternity is a big factor. And if certain paternity is important, it follows that illegitimacy would also be important, or at the very least noted as "not the norm." |
"I am always here, all about you. You are never truly alone. I flow wherever life flows, wherever winds blow and water runs and the sun and moon chase each other, for there is magic in all things."
- Mystra (Ed Greenwood, Silverfall) |
Edited by - Emma Drake on 20 Jun 2013 20:09:45 |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2013 : 18:03:16
|
If the laws of a particular country allow, there's no reason that bastards couldn't be legally acknowledged as heirs, though they might rank below legitimate offspring (or not!).
Lines of descent might also be matrilineal, even in a patriarchal culture. A combination of the two might lead to an oppressive society in which women are sequestered and their lives and behaviour highly regulated. Alternatively, it might help maintain the social position and power of women in societies (like many of the Realms) where there is more equality than in our own world (and the birth of children in cases where the husband clearly could not have been responsible brings up other issues as well).
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2013 : 19:13:36
|
| Matrineality has always made more sense to me...you always know who someone's mother is! |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2013 : 23:22:48
|
| To the Drow certainly... |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2013 : 23:47:57
|
| It is not like Drow lie at all, right? |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2013 : 23:50:51
|
Their reputation for unimpeachable honesty is one of the hallmarks of their race!
Well, the Lloth worshipping ones anyway...
On a related note, some classic advice for dealing with Drow can be found here:
http://www.dungeonbastard.com/?p=557 |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
Edited by - Kris the Grey on 23 Jun 2013 23:57:14 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
marriage in the Realms
