Help me brainstorm: Why might a Good fertility deity smile upon homosexuality?

[Malimar]

So in my setting, I currently have the CG fertility goddess Dalya listed as "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

And yet it is definitely not fertility-promoting to smile upon relations that don't maximize fertility.

The two aspects are in conflict. And, while it's fine and interesting for two aspects of a deity to be in conflict, I can't shake the feeling that if only I were a little cleverer, I could come up with a clear justification why Dalya might smile upon all sexual orientations, not just the ones that maximize baby-making.

Anybody have any ideas?

[legomaster00156]

It sounds to me like you're fine. I mean, she's a fertility goddess, not a love goddess. She might encourage those couples that cannot produce children to adopt, though.

[Caedes]

It sounds to me like you're fine. I mean, she's a fertility goddess, not a love goddess. She might encourage those couples that cannot produce children to adopt, though.

This. Healthy kids have the chance of making babies.

[Braininthejar2]

The same reason natural selection smiled upon them - while being homosexual vastly reduces your own chances of having offspring, it increases the survival rate for the children of your siblings - a childless 'uncle' that cares about them can make a world of difference.

[Gildedragon]

Doesn't regard tthem . they're outside of her sphere of influence.
Likewise she doesn't much regard platonic relationships, or those that use contraceptives, or masturbation.

If her focus is fertility.

At most she might heavily encourage being a surrogate/donor for those that can't bear children, likewise she probably welcomes adoption and childcare (such as being a nursery worker, nanny, pediatrician, or wet nurse).

Her priests may bless non-reproductive unions with blessings of fruitfulness (not necessarily in children but economic prosperity; abundance in food; joint projects)

[Psyren]

Gay people can still procreate. So she would encourage that. She'd also encourage adoption, as all the kids being taken care of means less guilt at making more.

[Troacctid]

Same-sex couples often want children. Opposite-sex couples often do not. Why would she smile upon the latter and not the former?

[Fizban]

Any Good deity worth the alignment smiles upon anything that makes their followers happy, as long as it's not Evil.

[Gildedragon]

Also there's no reason spontaneous parthenogenisis isn't common among those who pray to her.

Or foundlings a la momotaro or the stork or whatnot.
Pray to her and you'll get a kid... Somehow.
A kid left out to die of exposure will be found, a plant will become self aware, a guy will find out the hunk they played with was actually a dragoness in disguise and now has a half dragon kid.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, I... regardless of specific reasoning and all, I think I'd try to coach it in terms less likely to be incendiary. Rather than saying "she smiles on heterosexual relations" and all, say "she smiles on parents and children."

[martixy]

From what I understood about the context of this question, one might pose it as such:
Why would a force that cares about the proliferation of life wish to encourage strategies or behaviours which do not directly contribute to the end goal?

With that context in mind, drawing comparisons to evolution seems somewhat inevitable, so I'm gonna approach the discussion on that angle:
An actual reasoning deity does not have to follow the rules and pressures of an unintelligent process such as evolution by natural selection.

And even evolution has been known to produce instances of altruism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtOXvA14X4)(one of the key points this discussion boils down to).

So she could more purposefully promote values which evolution would be ill-equipped to optimize for. As an algorithm natural selection only looks for local maxima, while a godlike entity could very easily expand the criteria for success to include wider varieties of behaviours, which include methods such as adoption and other more abstract socially beneficial concepts.

Somewhat of a weird argument, I know. Hopefully not too esoteric to get the point across.

[Zanos]

So in my setting, I currently have the CG fertility goddess Dalya listed as "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

And yet it is definitely not fertility-promoting to smile upon relations that don't maximize fertility.

The two aspects are in conflict. And, while it's fine and interesting for two aspects of a deity to be in conflict, I can't shake the feeling that if only I were a little cleverer, I could come up with a clear justification why Dalya might smile upon all sexual orientations, not just the ones that maximize baby-making.

Anybody have any ideas?
Nah it's fine, fertility Goddess promotes relationships that have kids. Makes sense to me. Actively endorsing and promoting something and staunchly opposing it aren't the only possible views on something. You can just not care. Doesn't seem like there's any conflict to me. Most gods don't have an opinion on most topics.


Gay people can still procreate. So she would encourage that. She'd also encourage adoption, as all the kids being taken care of means less guilt at making more.
With magic or something?

[lord_khaine]

With magic or something?

With *close your eyes and think of England* i suspect.

[Godskook]

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

This is not an accurate statement, and fails to understand "good", so let's take this exceedingly broad statement out of the context(because the statement applies outside the context) and use a different context to illustrate why the statement is false. Alcoholism.

The CG god of freedom, parties and good times might still explicitly frown upon every person who uses Alcohol in an "irresponsible" manner. Drinking Alcohol "irresponsibly" qualifies for the statement. Its a "consenting" adult doing something, alone, possibly in his own home. Still CG, still the god of freedom, still the god of parties, and still the god of good times.

Now, I'm not trying to draw any parallels between Alcholism and sexual procilivity. I'm just pointing out that your logic has a fundamental flaw in it that's irrelevant to sexual proclivity.

Having lost that statement, the question now becomes, do you still have an issue or can you reconcile "frown upon sexual proclivities that are counterproductive to the god's interests", and "CG"?

[sabernoir]

Now she wouldn't exactly "smile upon homosexuality" but I agree with my predecessors in that she might just not care, my reasoning being as follows.

Let's assume that your goddess is good because her fertility blessings help humanity survive and spread. So then:
:smallbiggrin:
More children born=good
:smallfurious:
Children killed=bad
:smallconfused:
No change=neutral

While homosexuality isn't helping her cause, it isn't hurting it either. Heterosexuals who sacrifice children are worse than homosexuals in this case. While the gays (pardon slur) aren't getting blessed anytime soon. (UNLESS they are caring for other children, or she bestows pregnancy on a lesbian couple.) They sure as heck aren't getting cursed either.

I rest my case.

BTW I would love feedback, I am extremely new to posting on the forums (though I have lurked around for a while) and any input helps.

[Psyren]

With magic or something?

Artificial insemination in a D&D setting would likely involve magic, yeah. There's also the old-fashioned way - enjoyment is not a prerequisite after all (though consent of course should be.)

[VonMuller]

In a fantasy setting a Goddess of Fertility would probably grant the boon of parenthood through spells and miracles to the barren, infertile and physically unable that are devout.

After all. She is not a Goddess of Sexual Reproduction. Only fertility.

Or perhaps one of the greatest services in her church is being a surrogate mother to gay couples. Giving life to those that want but can't.

[Waker]

Since your deity in question is a Good fertility Goddess specifically and not love, I'd say support of non-reproductive relationships would most likely be as a result of surrogate/adoptive parenting. Even excluding sentient races doing so, non-heterosexual animal pairs have done taken in offspring from other parents, so there is already basis for that.

[Psyren]

Or perhaps one of the greatest services in her church is being a surrogate mother to gay couples. Giving life to those that want but can't.

I mean, they/we can. Just not with each other. The plumbing does work :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Does the goddess of fertility really need to actively promote homosexuality or heterosexuality? Can't she just encourage the people who are going to breed to do it properly and abundantly?

Her faithful's efforts would be put to better use by promoting her portfolio not trying to be some kind of morality police.

[atemu1234]

How about you just don't follow through with the unfortunate implications of a fertility deity in a setting with gay people, and just have it not be a factor in that deity's worship?

[Jack_McSnatch]

The more important question is, why would homosexuals follow a fertility goddess and not a god that appeals to them and their lifestyles? Joe the fighter worships Heironius because he wants to live his life with honor and integrity. His partner, Steve, a druid, worships Ehlonna, because he thinks nature is the most powerful force, and that people should love and respect it. Neither shows any particular devotion to a fertility goddess, because she doesn't have any effect on them, unless her domain reaches to plants, in which case Steve might offer her some token praise for his garden.

If you really want a reason she'd support it, it'd amount to "fertility is good, but over population is bad, and there are plenty of orphans that want loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation."

Edit; or, alternatively, she could just be a goddess of sex and pleasure. Or, alternatively alternatively, make her neutral, and her church is staunchly opposed to any sexuality that doesn't result in babies. Yet a third approach, make it a plot point with a rogue sect that hates homosexuality despite the goddess's message of the love and tolerance. Taking it so far as to attack people because of their sexuality. Obviously the mainstream church wants nothing to do with them, and asks the players to deal with this evil sect.

[icefractal]

Why might a Good fertility deity smile upon homosexuality?There's your answer right there. :smallwink:

To be more specific, the fact that this is a good-aligned deity already means there's going to be some trade-offs accepted between maximum fertility and quality of life. Because pure fertility is a neutral force - and the ruthless kind of neutral at that.

So she smiles on them for the same reason she smiles on:
* Women not being constantly pregnant.
* Men not using magic to change sex so most of them can be pregnant too.
* Using resources for people who are infertile or too old.

That's assuming this is specifically a human fertility deity, of course. If not, then humans are a poor choice, rabbits would breed much faster. And ants still faster, and slime molds even faster than that. Perhaps Juiblex is really the ultimate fertility deity. :smalltongue:


But also, this is a good suggestion:

Rather than saying "she smiles on heterosexual relations" and all, say "she smiles on parents and children."And even sans-magic, those two aren't equivalent. With magic in the picture, they especially aren't.

[tantric]

meet Erzulie, the Vodou loa of love, all kinds

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c5/31/60/c53160da1ad72c25e70f6db65bc61490.jpg

technically, Erzulie is a family of loa. there are different aspects representing different facets of feminine love, including the Black Madonna.


Erzulie Fréda Dahomey, the Rada aspect of Erzulie, is the Haitian African spirit of love, beauty, jewelry, dancing, luxury, and flowers. She wears three wedding rings, one for each husband - Damballa, Agwe and Ogoun. Her symbol is a heart, her colours are pink, blue, white and gold, and her favourite sacrifices include jewellery, perfume, sweet cakes and liqueurs. Coquettish and very fond of beauty and finery, Erzulie Freda is femininity and compassion embodied, yet she also has a darker side; she is seen as jealous and spoiled and within some Vodoun circles is considered to be lazy.


In her Petro nation aspect as Erzulie Dantor she is often depicted as a scarred and buxom black woman, holding a child protectively in her arms. She is a particularly fierce protector of women and children. She is often identified with lesbian women.

A common syncretic depiction of Erzulie Dantor is St Jeanne d'Arc, who is displayed carrying or supporting a sword. She was copied as the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, as she is represented as being dark-skinned with two scars on her face.


Another lwa, Erzulie, is associated with love, sensuality and beauty. Erzulie can manifest aspects that are LGBT-related, including transgender or amazonian traits, in addition to traditionally feminine guises. When inhabiting men, these aspects can result in transgender or homoerotic behaviour, whereas they may result in lesbianism or anti-male sentiment in women. Erzulie Freda is seen as the protector of gay men, and Erzulie Dantor is associated with lesbians



The more important question is, why would homosexuals follow a fertility goddess and not a god that appeals to them and their lifestyles?
although i personally serve the trickster gods, Erzulie is my *girl*. besides, every gay man has a black woman inside him, and you best look out, cause she's comin out. i'm hopelessly masculine (NOT straight acting), i detest madonna and almost every other diva ever manufactured, i despise shopping, especially for clothes, etc, but i flat get the appeal of the goddess and could ask for no better protector.

[Tuvarkz]

I'm assuming you're running medieval-ish fantasy and not modern/contemporary/future fantasy.
She doesn't need to. There's not a need for modern morality to apply to a medieval fantasy setting, in the same way it's fine for many Good aligned deities to not have an issue with smite-happy paladins as long as they don't target innocents nor act in an overtly cruel manner.

[Jack_McSnatch]

although i personally serve the trickster gods, Erzulie is my *girl*. besides, every gay man has a black woman inside him, and you best look out, cause she's comin out. i'm hopelessly masculine (NOT straight acting), i detest madonna and almost every other diva ever manufactured, i despise shopping, especially for clothes, etc, but i flat get the appeal of the goddess and could ask for no better protector.

I'm glad you know clearly what you like and what you don't like, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. The question was "why would you devote your life to a goddess who's all about procreating, when butts cannot produce children?" Joe acts very masculine. He doesn't like shopping (Steve does. Joe doesn't question it, he just carries the bags.) and you might think he's straight, cause he feels his sexuality is his business and doesn't bring it into conversation. He may value Dalya as a protector of children, them being the future and all, but he isn't going to devote his life and worship to her. He worships Heironious because that's the god who appeals to him. That's the divine force he pays homage to. Dalya has her place, and it's an important place, but her portfolio doesn't align with Joe's interests of mastering the sword, living his life chivalrously, and... well, mastering the OTHER kind of sword.

[tantric]

I'm glad you know clearly what you like and what you don't like, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. The question was "why would you devote your life to a goddess who's all about procreating, when butts cannot produce children?" Joe acts very masculine. He doesn't like shopping (Steve does. Joe doesn't question it, he just carries the bags.) and you might think he's straight, cause he feels his sexuality is his business and doesn't bring it into conversation. He may value Dalya as a protector of children, them being the future and all, but he isn't going to devote his life and worship to her. He worships Heironious because that's the god who appeals to him. That's the divine force he pays homage to. Dalya has her place, and it's an important place, but her portfolio doesn't align with Joe's interests of mastering the sword, living his life chivalrously, and... well, mastering the OTHER kind of sword.

because we're not like that. look at gay culture. see a lot of heroes? nope - divas. suppose a talented baseball player comes out, do you think gay men will wear t-shirts with his pic? not unless he's naked. and i like baseball.

you do understand the relationship between procreation and love? we're not talking about a Demeter type fertility goddess, we're talking about humans. besides, as Sting said, 'the Russians love their children, too'. us, too, even if we don't pop them out. i basically raised my niece - her dad was a slacker and her mom/my sister a psychopath junkie. we are still vital parts of human families and contribute to the survival chances of our nieces and nephews, otherwise we wouldn't exist.

it is because of love and sex that we're different. we often sympathize with women because a)they have sex with men then have to deal with them ;-) and b)women get the short end of the stick, socioculturally, like we do and c)it's not women who beat the crap out of us. and no, there's never been a society where highly effeminate men didn't suffer some form of abuse. and lesbians, of course, have rarely had any choice in the matter. me, i generally prefer straight guys as friends, basically because i'm an INTJ and because gay culture is sex obsessed, superficial and just bitchy.

[Jack_McSnatch]

because we're not like that. look at gay culture. see a lot of heroes? nope - divas. suppose a talented baseball player comes out, do you think gay men will wear t-shirts with his pic? not unless he's naked. and i like baseball.

you do understand the relationship between procreation and love? we're not talking about a Demeter type fertility goddess, we're talking about humans. besides, as Sting said, 'the Russians love their children, too'. us, too, even if we don't pop them out. i basically raised my niece - her dad was a slacker and her mom/my sister a psychopath junkie. we are still vital parts of human families and contribute to the survival chances of our nieces and nephews, otherwise we wouldn't exist.

it is because of love and sex that we're different. we often sympathize with women because a)they have sex with men then have to deal with them ;-) and b)women get the short end of the stick, socioculturally, like we do and c)it's not women who beat the crap out of us. and no, there's never been a society where highly effeminate men didn't suffer some form of abuse. and lesbians, of course, have rarely had any choice in the matter. me, i generally prefer straight guys as friends, basically because i'm an INTJ and because gay culture is sex obsessed, superficial and just bitchy.

I'll be honest, I'm really really confused right now. You seem to be talking about a completely different topic. I'm talking about gay people in a D&D world, and how and why they would devote all their worship and their immortal soul to a Demeter like fertility goddess in said D&D world, where devoting your entire being to a deity has actual concrete effect on not just your life, but your afterlife. You know, what this thread is actually about.

I mean, you even kind of answered my question for me, when you said "I, personally, serve the trickster gods..." were this a D&D world, that means that when you die, if you've lived as the trickster gods want you to live, then you'll go onto their realm when you die. I'm imagining Valhalla, but for rogues. The point is, regardless of how strongly feel you feel about Erzulie, you worship the trickster gods. You've devoted your immortal soul to their service, not Erzulie's, just as Joe devoted his immortal soul to Heironious.

[chainer1216]

Gay people can still procreate. So she would encourage that. She'd also encourage adoption, as all the kids being taken care of means less guilt at making more.

Also its a fantasy setting, maybe magical ways for procreating exist for couples/groups that for whatever reason can't.

Im fond of using an alchemical "dragon egg" that uses a drop of blood from all involved parties, consent being necessary for the magic to work. 9 months later a child "hatches".

[Zanos]

How about you just don't follow through with the unfortunate implications of a fertility deity in a setting with gay people, and just have it not be a factor in that deity's worship?
It isn't really "unfortunate" implications, not every god has to actively promote every possible non-Evil lifestyle. This is a god of specifically fertility, not love. And deities of fertility are pretty common in both the real world(or were) and fantasy settings.

That said, as Psyren brought up, it's entirely possible she blesses homosexual relationships just as much when the couple seeks to have children, with whatever methods you chose to make available in your setting.

[Karl Aegis]

"Gay couple" implies homosexuality and monogamy. That's two strikes against you. Throw a prostitute into the mix sometimes and you are A-OK!

[Malimar]

Thanks for your input, all! Very helpful ideas so far.


It sounds to me like you're fine. I mean, she's a fertility goddess, not a love goddess. She might encourage those couples that cannot produce children to adopt, though.

This. Healthy kids have the chance of making babies.

At most she might heavily encourage being a surrogate/donor for those that can't bear children, likewise she probably welcomes adoption and childcare (such as being a nursery worker, nanny, pediatrician, or wet nurse).

She'd also encourage adoption, as all the kids being taken care of means less guilt at making more.
Aha, adoption! If I were cleverer, this would have been obvious to me.


The same reason natural selection smiled upon them - while being homosexual vastly reduces your own chances of having offspring, it increases the survival rate for the children of your siblings - a childless 'uncle' that cares about them can make a world of difference.
This occurred to me, but it's a little... hm, not sure what I'm trying to say. It's a little hard to translate into specific church doctrines, maybe?


Gay people can still procreate. So she would encourage that.

Also there's no reason spontaneous parthenogenisis isn't common among those who pray to her.

Or foundlings a la momotaro or the stork or whatnot.
Pray to her and you'll get a kid... Somehow.
A kid left out to die of exposure will be found, a plant will become self aware, a guy will find out the hunk they played with was actually a dragoness in disguise and now has a half dragon kid.

In a fantasy setting a Goddess of Fertility would probably grant the boon of parenthood through spells and miracles to the barren, infertile and physically unable that are devout.

After all. She is not a Goddess of Sexual Reproduction. Only fertility.

Or perhaps one of the greatest services in her church is being a surrogate mother to gay couples. Giving life to those that want but can't.

Also its a fantasy setting, maybe magical ways for procreating exist for couples/groups that for whatever reason can't.

Im fond of using an alchemical "dragon egg" that uses a drop of blood from all involved parties, consent being necessary for the magic to work. 9 months later a child "hatches".
I like it! (I vaguely recall at least one setting where tieflings are generated in this way, by prayers of the faithful to an evil deity being rewarded by evil pregnancy, not by being descended from fiends.) Maybe this is one way Aasimar come about. Or maybe there's other fun templates somewhere to apply to such children, or maybe, being Chaotic, she does it differently each time, just as Gildeddragon says.


Same-sex couples often want children. Opposite-sex couples often do not. Why would she smile upon the latter and not the former?
She wouldn't! She probably frowns upon all couples that don't want children and smiles upon all that do. Except she's got other stuff in her portfolio (like Good and Freedom and Love and stuff) that ameliorates this frowning.

Also many prostitutes in this setting use birth control while ostensibly worshipping Dalya, which probably consternates the goddess to no end.


That's assuming this is specifically a human fertility deity, of course. If not, then humans are a poor choice, rabbits would breed much faster. And ants still faster, and slime molds even faster than that. Perhaps Juiblex is really the ultimate fertility deity. :smalltongue:
There's actually a second fertility deity in this setting who's CE, not many people worship her/it, kind of a cross between Tiamat and Golarion's Lamashtu and ancient Greece's Echidna. I have no problem saddling an evil deity with not liking homosexuality, because "frowning upon homosexuality is evil" is a statement I'm willing to make.

[Coidzor]

The more important question is, why would homosexuals follow a fertility goddess and not a god that appeals to them and their lifestyles?

They really shouldn't exclusively worship her, unless she encompasses all of agriculture and they're engaged in the business of agriculture. Even if she's only the fertility part, well, vintners are going to offer something to get a good crop of grapes, cattlemen want more healthy cattle, and so on.


I have no problem saddling an evil deity with not liking homosexuality, because "frowning upon homosexuality is evil" is a statement I'm willing to make.

Is the treatment of gay people a central conflict in your setting?

Have you made sure your players are on board with that? Because, frankly, not everyone wants to have something from the real world that's an ongoing problem or conflict in their fantasy fun time.

[Gildedragon]

more info on her? Domains? More portafolio info? Gods she is close to pantheonwise?
Who are her key worshippers?

[Coidzor]

Also many prostitutes in this setting use birth control while ostensibly worshipping Dalya, which probably consternates the goddess to no end.

The consternating thing in that equation is the chain of decisions that lead you to do that, mate.

Why on earth did you decide to make the fertility goddess the patron of prostitution and why did you make her incapable of understanding why prostitutes wouldn't want to be constantly pregnant with the fatherless children of johns? :smallconfused:

[Segev]

Yeah, just because somebody promotes freedom doesn't mean they have to ACTIVELY support every choice somebody might make with that freedom.

If the god of baseball gives a blessing to every kid who gets into Little League, he isn't being a terrible, evil, bigoted person just because he doesn't give those same blessings to kids who get on the swim team instead. His active support of baseball isn't an inherent condemnation of swimming.

[Malimar]

Is the treatment of gay people a central conflict in your setting?

Have you made sure your players are on board with that? Because, frankly, not everyone wants to have something from the real world that's an ongoing problem or conflict in their fantasy fun time.
I mean, I'd (at best) look askance at any player who objects to "the only people who dislike homosexuality are the marginalized followers of the jerkbaggiest deity and you are encouraged to murder them"? (I wouldn't go so far as to say I care enough to actively refuse to associate with people who dislike homosexuality, but I am perfectly comfortable with such people not being comfortable in my game.)


more info on her? Domains? More portafolio info? Gods she is close to pantheonwise?
Who are her key worshippers?
Here's what I've got on her page right now:

With the resettlement of land, a popular cult, worshipping the beautiful goddess Dalya as the goddess of agriculture, fertility, and wisdom, has arisen, led by the charismatic priestess Majesty Birb. Dalya is tricksy, though, and isn't afraid to resort to underhanded methods to support her followers.

Love, agriculture, alcohol, apples, bees and other pollinators, songbirds and mischievous jays, youth, cats, freedom, art, and music are sacred to Dalya. Her festivals, which are mostly in the spring, tend to involve inordinate amounts of wine, dancing, and fornication.

Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy (polyandry and polygyny and any other combination), and prostitution. She encourages homosexuals and asexuals to adopt orphaned children, and often grants a blessing of children to the devout who can't normally bear them.

Dalya lives on the Celestial Plane of Light.

She hates both [the LN god of industry, science, and engineering] and [the CE god of pestilent fertility and monsters], and occasionally works with [the NG goddess of nature of land and air], [the LG god of heroism and the sun], and [the TN god of nature of the sea].

Dalya is Chaotic Good.

Clerics of Dalya may choose from the Chaos, Charm, City, Commerce, Community, Creation, Family, Feast, Gluttony, Good, Halfling, Healing, Joy, Luck, Lust, Passion, Planning, Plant, Pleasure, Renewal, Sloth, Summer, Trade, or Trickery domains. [This setting has a very limited number of gods, so I give each one lots more than the standard 3-5 domains.]

For her favored weapon, a cleric of Dalya may choose between the sickle and the scythe.

Dalya's holy symbol is a cornucopia (horn of plenty).

Clerics of Dalya generally wear robes of bright green.

Followers of Dalya are frequently bards, rogues, halfling paragons (Unearthed Arcana), halfling outriders (Complete Warrior), temple raiders of Olidammara (Complete Divine), or divine pranksters (Races of Stone).

[Zanos]

I mean, I'd (at best) look askance at any player who objects to "the only people who dislike homosexuality are the marginalized followers of the jerkbaggiest deity and you are encouraged to murder them"? (I wouldn't go so far as to say I care enough to actively refuse to associate with people who dislike homosexuality, but I am perfectly comfortable with such people not being comfortable in my game.)
I think putting a dislike of homosexuals on par with crimes like murder, genocide, demon summoning, etc. is a step too far. I know plenty of people who don't like gay people and aren't the worst people on the face of the planet and don't deserve to be murdered.

[Coidzor]

I mean, I'd (at best) look askance at any player who objects to "the only people who dislike homosexuality are the marginalized followers of the jerkbaggiest deity and you are encouraged to murder them"? (I wouldn't go so far as to say I care enough to actively refuse to associate with people who dislike homosexuality, but I am perfectly comfortable with such people not being comfortable in my game.)

FYI, it's generally considered just the teensiest bit rude to try to turn this around to insinuate I'm a bigot. :smalltongue:

Unless treatment of LGBT people is a central theme, it's better to not make a huge deal about how the various factions feel on paper, and instead just give a picture of the society as you see it.

Coming up in advance with things like saying this god hates all gay people or this god doesn't hate gay people but frowns on them and doesn't want them worshiping them is a waste of time and makes you look very strange if you're trying to make homosexuality something that's just normal and accepted in your setting without people batting an eye.

So either A. be up front about this being a central conflict in your games so players who don't want that can move on elsewhere without any hurt feelings or miscommunication or B. don't make it a big deal, just have LGBT people as part of the normal setup of your societies.

[Gildedragon]

Wait: hates industry and engineering but gives the city domain? That makes no sense.
Also hates science/industry... so she probably ought hate the plow, fertilizers... and agriculture in general

[Malimar]

FYI, it's generally considered just the teensiest bit rude to try to turn this around to insinuate I'm a bigot. :smalltongue:

Many apologies. That wasn't what I meant to imply at all. I was only trying to clarify... I don't know what I was trying to clarify, exactly, but I was trying to clarify it.


Unless treatment of LGBT people is a central theme, it's better to not make a huge deal about how the various factions feel on paper, and instead just give a picture of the society as you see it.

Coming up in advance with things like saying this god hates all gay people or this god doesn't hate gay people but frowns on them and doesn't want them worshiping them is a waste of time and makes you look very strange if you're trying to make homosexuality something that's just normal and accepted in your setting without people batting an eye.

So either A. be up front about this being a central conflict in your games so players who don't want that can move on elsewhere without any hurt feelings or miscommunication or B. don't make it a big deal, just have LGBT people as part of the normal setup of your societies.

I try to detail my setting as much as possible in the background notes, especially the specifics of the deities, because religion is a major theme. I can see where you're coming from, I think I just have a different setting-background-documentation philosophy.

For the record, 90% of the population of this setting (at least in the main nation) are bisexual, a detail that I try to make subtly present without making it a big deal (but more often I forget and make most couples hetero because I'm not bad at life), but that's mostly a.) to open up maximum romance options to those players who want to pursue them and a little bit b.) why import boring real-world norms when you can use new and interesting ones?

(People have objected to that on the grounds that such a society probably wouldn't have enough reproduction going on to maintain a population, but a.) I don't think that's actually necessarily a problem (given magic-induced low mortality rates and sufficiently high rates of banging and also polygamy, which is endorsed by several of the most popular deities) and b.) the "Dalya grants non-fertile couples children anyway" revelation from this thread might help ameliorate that objection.)

[Segev]

As a general rule, unless she has a reason to loathe it, or to actively support it, I wouldn't put her opinion on things that happen in her purview. She probably should be indifferent to homosexuality, and it probably shouldn't be mentioned in her writeup, unless it's somehow important. Assuming that she has animus against something just because she doesn't support it is...weird.

[CharonsHelper]

As a general rule, unless she has a reason to loathe it, or to actively support it, I wouldn't put her opinion on things that happen in her purview.

+1

I don't expect a goddess of fertility to weigh in on the subject, just like I don't expect a goddess of the hunt to care.

[John Longarrow]

As a goddess of fertility, I'd remove the entire line "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

"Dalya smiles upon families and delights to the laughter of children and the joy they bring to parents" would be a much better line. She cares little for who does what with whom, just so long as they are plentiful in life, the begetting of life, and in the rearing of the young.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Maybe she's just happy to bless people with fertility, so it's there if and when they decide to use it? Or is her goal specifically to make people have more kids?

[Winthur]

One reason I wouldn't be too comfortable with being too intricate about this stuff is, uh, slight concern with fetishization and poor generalization.

A lot of the stuff that touches sexuality in tabletop games can be executed kind of awkwardly. I wouldn't want a lore dump to tell me the specific way that this particular goddess talks about this issue. My beer & pretzel dungeon crawler, lax on roleplaying players would probably not care either.

Some of the comments about "modern gay culture" here would feel sort of out of place in a D&D universe that, presumedly, doesn't hold nearly as much baggage to LGBT issues as our real world. If I were to use tantric's suggestions, I would probably end up making it a 2 Broke Girls-esque stereotype.

Ideas about how certain people and cultures had attitudes to homosexuality makes me think that you just have to figure out your own microculture that supports homosexual relations more. Perhaps homosexual relations are a common form of bonding, flamboyant depictions of Spartan warriors notwithstanding. Perhaps an annual orgy festival to promote open love and fertility is held among the worshippers. Kinda sounds like that point about fetishization to me, though, but as long as the players aren't like "Yay, let's explicitly join!", it should be fine.

I'm sort of conservative and squeamish about that, I suppose.

[Jack_McSnatch]

One reason I wouldn't be too comfortable with being too intricate about this stuff is, uh, slight concern with fetishization and poor generalization.

A lot of the stuff that touches sexuality in tabletop games can be executed kind of awkwardly. I wouldn't want a lore dump to tell me the specific way that this particular goddess talks about this issue. My beer & pretzel dungeon crawler, lax on roleplaying players would probably not care either.

Some of the comments about "modern gay culture" here would feel sort of out of place in a D&D universe that, presumedly, doesn't hold nearly as much baggage to LGBT issues as our real world. If I were to use tantric's suggestions, I would probably end up making it a 2 Broke Girls-esque stereotype.

Ideas about how certain people and cultures had attitudes to homosexuality makes me think that you just have to figure out your own microculture that supports homosexual relations more. Perhaps homosexual relations are a common form of bonding, flamboyant depictions of Spartan warriors notwithstanding. Perhaps an annual orgy festival to promote open love and fertility is held among the worshippers. Kinda sounds like that point about fetishization to me, though, but as long as the players aren't like "Yay, let's explicitly join!", it should be fine.

I'm sort of conservative and squeamish about that, I suppose.

Pretty much all of this. I mean, I'm bi. I like guys and girls, and I think sexuality should be celebrated...

But not in a D&D game. I would be extremely weirded out if my group ran a game where the first thing we get is an exposition dump about gay, lesbian, and trans people and how it's totally normal for everybody everywhere. Celebrating sexuality is something to be done in private, with your partner... not with your nerd friends sitting around a table playing D&D. That'd become very uncomfortable very quickly. I think you're focusing too much on who people hump, and not enough on the swords and sorcery.

[Celestia]

I think the best way to handle it is to simply not mention it. She's a fertility goddess, not a sexuality goddess. The two concepts are entirely unrelated. Not all who want children are straight, and not all who are straight want children. A fertility goddess specifically calling out straight people is simply exclusionary and nothing more. She should bless all who want or care for children regardless of who they are.

[Gildedragon]

As a goddess of fertility, I'd remove the entire line "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

"Dalya smiles upon families and delights to the laughter of children and the joy they bring to parents" would be a much better line. She cares little for who does what with whom, just so long as they are plentiful in life, the begetting of life, and in the rearing of the young.

+1
The mention is awkward

[Segev]

As a goddess of fertility, I'd remove the entire line "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

"Dalya smiles upon families and delights to the laughter of children and the joy they bring to parents" would be a much better line. She cares little for who does what with whom, just so long as they are plentiful in life, the begetting of life, and in the rearing of the young.

Definitely the best suggestion I've seen. It focuses on the important aspect to the deity, and doesn't bring hotbutton issues or even buzzwords into it.

[Zanos]

For the record, 90% of the population of this setting (at least in the main nation) are bisexual, a detail that I try to make subtly present without making it a big deal (but more often I forget and make most couples hetero because I'm not bad at life), but that's mostly a.) to open up maximum romance options to those players who want to pursue them and a little bit b.) why import boring real-world norms when you can use new and interesting ones?
They should give you an honorary writing credit on Dragon Age 2.


I think the best way to handle it is to simply not mention it. She's a fertility goddess, not a sexuality goddess. The two concepts are entirely unrelated.
Entirely unrelated? Come on now. 99.9%(repeating of course) of humans historically were born as a result of heterosexual relationships.

I suppose a god of the proliferation of the undead might not actively endorse necromancers, but it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense in a setting where the vast majority of undead are created by necromancers.


Pretty much all of this. I mean, I'm bi. I like guys and girls, and I think sexuality should be celebrated...

But not in a D&D game. I would be extremely weirded out if my group ran a game where the first thing we get is an exposition dump about gay, lesbian, and trans people and how it's totally normal for everybody everywhere. Celebrating sexuality is something to be done in private, with your partner... not with your nerd friends sitting around a table playing D&D. That'd become very uncomfortable very quickly. I think you're focusing too much on who people hump, and not enough on the swords and sorcery.
+1. Only bards should be rolling perform checks.

[Malimar]

Wait: hates industry and engineering but gives the city domain? That makes no sense.
Also hates science/industry... so she probably ought hate the plow, fertilizers... and agriculture in general

From Dalya's perspective: She's the Shire, the god of industry is Saruman. It's perfectly reasonable that they might come into conflict.

From my perspective: The "help me hammer out an inconsistency in one of my gods" premise of this thread notwithstanding, religion is inconsistent. Inconsistency marks almost every god from real-world myth. Inconsistency in in-game religions is not generally something to be avoided.

Besides: God A hating god B doesn't mean every aspect of god B's portfolio is antithetical to god A.

[Sagetim]

I think if your chaotic good fertility goddess is silent on the matter it might help you to create spot events that the characters can choose to get involved in or not as they see fit. This is where bards and rumors would come into play, when the party is gathering information for potential adventure hooks.

The party might hear about a preacher of the fertility goddess going around condemning people and cursing homosexuals for not being fruitful. Another rumor might involve a fertility preacher using their goddess granted miracles to bless unfertile couples with children, resulting in a large number of people flocking to swing by that small town for children that are 'theirs'. Another rumor might involve increased people on the road and subsequent increased bandit attacks, but not make the link to the pilgrimages to whatever hamlet or throp the child granting preacher is in. Yet more could come of this if the followers of the two preachers start to clash, and it might not be immediately obvious that it's a religion based conflict. To the outside observers, it might just look like people are going crazy and turning on each other, and they might then start suspecting that some kind of mind control or Enchantment specialist is to blame...resulting in yet another adventure hook where an Enchanter has been blamed for these people killing each other and is on the lam.

And any or all of these adventure hooks could have subtle details to them. The cursing preacher might be a social stat sorcerer who is putting on a show of being a servant of the fertility goddess so they can gather followers, mislead their potential enemies, and get away with cursing people who have little to nothing to do with their end goals. Maybe the curse they are using is the character's attempt to mark the souls of others as theirs so that they can make some poorly thought out gambit at becoming a god themselves. If that's the case, they're probably cursing their own followers too, but making it seem like a significant religious ceremony instead.

The fertility preacher who is granting children to childless couples could be legit, could be a fey giving people changeling children, could be an agent of demons or devils seeking ways to get tieflings or imps or something onto the material plane.

The two preachers could also both be legitimate preachers of the fertility goddess, who is just staying out of the whole debate to see how things play out. Gods and Goddesses aren't necessarily all knowing in DnD, so the issue may have just not really come up while this Goddess has been at the reigns and she's letting the preachers act in the way they have interpreted her teachings so she can see what the actual effect is on fertility. Seems kind of evil to curse people for circumstances beyond their control, sure, but seeing how it goes for a bit before stepping in gives the faithful a chance to intervene on their own behalf, gives the person doing it time to learn from their own possible mistake and repent, gives mortals time to be mortals and try and figure it out. It also doesn't stop other fertility preachers from using remove curse on the victims.

All that said, you should probably go with John Longarrow's suggestion and just change the entry so that it doesn't mention sexualities and what not. It side steps the issue and allows you to have these things happening in the background if the players aren't particularly interested in following up on any of the rumors. Then they might get new or confused rumors that are linked to the same issue, but not necessarily obviously linked (like bandit attacks going up because there are more people on the roads, or a baron freaking out because a lot of his serfs up and left without his consent)

[Keltest]

Personally, I don't see why a goddess of fertility would care either way. She doesn't need every single person to be constantly churning out babies, she just protects and blesses the people who do. She probably wouldn't even notice anybody doing anything outside her portfolio that isn't strictly opposing it.

[Inevitability]

I think putting a dislike of homosexuals on par with crimes like murder, genocide, demon summoning, etc. is a step too far. I know plenty of people who don't like gay people and aren't the worst people on the face of the planet and don't deserve to be murdered.

Evil acts vary in evilness, though. RAW, cheating at a game is Evil, but it's not going to send you rocketing towards the Abyss in the same way quadruple murder is.

[Segev]

Evil acts vary in evilness, though. RAW, cheating at a game is Evil, but it's not going to send you rocketing towards the Abyss in the same way quadruple murder is.

Technically, I would qualify cheating at a game as "chaotic," not (necessarily) evil. It takes circumstances to make it evil.

Cheating is about breaking rules, nothing more and nothing less. Rules are a lawful construct. While it can be said that the Good have rules they follow, the same can also be said of the Evil. It is equally (un)true in both cases. Good and evil are about goals and motivation, not about rules. Where they seem to be about rules typically comes from where the multiple goals start aligning and conflicting. "It is good to help this person, but it is not good to do so by hurting this other one." "It is evil to hurt this person, but there's nothing in it for me and it would hurt me more in the medium-term to do so."

[Inevitability]

Technically, I would qualify cheating at a game as "chaotic," not (necessarily) evil. It takes circumstances to make it evil.

Cheating is about breaking rules, nothing more and nothing less. Rules are a lawful construct. While it can be said that the Good have rules they follow, the same can also be said of the Evil. It is equally (un)true in both cases. Good and evil are about goals and motivation, not about rules. Where they seem to be about rules typically comes from where the multiple goals start aligning and conflicting. "It is good to help this person, but it is not good to do so by hurting this other one." "It is evil to hurt this person, but there's nothing in it for me and it would hurt me more in the medium-term to do so."

All of this is logically consistent and well-written.

It is also wrong, by RAW. Take a look at the Book of Vile Darkness, page 7.

[Mendicant]

As a goddess of fertility, I'd remove the entire line "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

"Dalya smiles upon families and delights to the laughter of children and the joy they bring to parents" would be a much better line. She cares little for who does what with whom, just so long as they are plentiful in life, the begetting of life, and in the rearing of the young.

This is the best, most obvious way to deal with this.

Even if you're really dead set on having your religions be full of the odds and ends that historical religions accumulate (don't wear mixed fibers, cats are sacred, if you try to make me cross myself with the wrong number of fingers I will literally set myself on fire, etc.) you can do that without touching this third rail that you don't even particularly want to touch.

[Barbarian Horde]

I suppose if the DM made the homosexuality in the campaign the Macguffin and somehow was effecting fertility on such a scale that she feels the need to interfere I to don't think there should be issues.

As for the post above I don't like messing with RAW to much unless I have to. That personally doesn't seem like a game breaking mechanic that needed any changing to me.

[AOKost]

I'd suggest that because they love each other and there are spells that can allow virtually any couple to conceive and bear children, therefore they don't care about sexuality per-say but more about procreation.

[Segev]

All of this is logically consistent and well-written.

It is also wrong, by RAW. Take a look at the Book of Vile Darkness, page 7.

I don't have a copy of that, so I cannot easily do so. However, my understanding of both BoVD and BoED is that they have a tendency, if you take them strictly at their word, to make Evil and Good impossible to "be." There is too much contradiction within their own pages, even kept to themselves (let alone combined).

I know, as well, that the BoED has stuff that is undeniably malevolent that is labeled as "good" because "it's okay if the good guys do it," essentially. Or "It's okay if it only hurts evil people." Which is counter to what Good is both colloquially and in the DMG and the PHB.

In short, I don't find them to be good definitive sources on what is "evil" or "good." They might have useful suggestions, but I would take them with a grain of salt.

I do not subscribe to a theory on alignments that they are arbitrary "team jerseys" with equally arbitrary lists of behaviors that correspond. I subscribe to a theory on alignments that they stem from core principles, and that behaviors which correspond to them are derivable from those principles.

This is consistent with alignment as presented in core books in nearly every edition, and how it tends to be run in most settings and explorations of the concept that aren't deliberately trying to be edgy by "proving" that "good is not good."

(The BoED and BoVD are exceptions in that they're not trying to prove that last point; they just seem written by people who did not think their subject matter through.)

[Jay R]

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

She's not implicitly frowning on it; she's just not interested.

A sea god has no interest in farming. That doesn't mean he frowns at farmers. It means he's busy listening to the prayers of sailors.

A goddess of the arts isn't frowning on parties; she' s ignoring them and helping artists.

A high school science teacher isn't frowning at history classes; she's teaching science.

A fireman isn't frowning at policewomen who fight crime. He doesn't even think about it while pulling somebody out of a burning building.

And for the same good reason, the fertility goddess is not wasting time frowning on people who are not being fertile.

[Inevitability]

I don't have a copy of that, so I cannot easily do so.

This is what it says:


EVIL ACTS
Examining the actions of the malevolent not only helps
define what evil is, but it also gives an insight into the
schemes of a villain. What follows is more than a list that
defines evil as opposed to good. Read over the following sections
to get ideas for villainous plots, schemes, motivations,
and personalities

A bit later, we get:


CHEATING
Cheating is breaking the rules for personal gain. When evil
villains cheat, it’s not just at games. They create contracts with
clauses that they can manipulate to trick others. Villains
manipulate officials so that evildoers are set free instead of
going to prison. They rig their enemies’ equipment so that it
breaks or does not function properly. Cheaters may threaten
the lives of a councilman’s family to make him vote for their
plan. They may use spells and poison to ensure that a particular
gladiator dies in the arena so that they can earn a profit by
wagering on the survivor.
Cheating can take many forms. For example, a cheater
might trick two enemies into fighting each other, or fool
an enemy’s lover into betraying his or her loved one. A
cheater might challenge an opponent to a rigged contest or
a fight that is rigged, or simply make an agreement that he
or she has no intention of upholding.

So by RAW, cheating is evil.


However, my understanding of both BoVD and BoED is that they have a tendency, if you take them strictly at their word, to make Evil and Good impossible to "be." There is too much contradiction within their own pages, even kept to themselves (let alone combined).

I know, as well, that the BoED has stuff that is undeniably malevolent that is labeled as "good" because "it's okay if the good guys do it," essentially. Or "It's okay if it only hurts evil people." Which is counter to what Good is both colloquially and in the DMG and the PHB.

In short, I don't find them to be good definitive sources on what is "evil" or "good." They might have useful suggestions, but I would take them with a grain of salt.

I do not subscribe to a theory on alignments that they are arbitrary "team jerseys" with equally arbitrary lists of behaviors that correspond. I subscribe to a theory on alignments that they stem from core principles, and that behaviors which correspond to them are derivable from those principles.

This is consistent with alignment as presented in core books in nearly every edition, and how it tends to be run in most settings and explorations of the concept that aren't deliberately trying to be edgy by "proving" that "good is not good."

(The BoED and BoVD are exceptions in that they're not trying to prove that last point; they just seem written by people who did not think their subject matter through.)

This is a very interesting way to look at things. Could you give some example principles for each alignment, so that I may get a better idea of this system?

[Zanos]

That reads more of an example as to how Evil people can cheat, rather than defining all cheating as Evil. Making an agreement you don't intend to uphold doesn't seem particularly villainous unless you had more to it. Could be as simple as just not going out for drinks after you said you would.

[Gildedragon]

That reads more of an example as to how Evil people can cheat, rather than defining all cheating as Evil. Making an agreement you don't intend to uphold doesn't seem particularly villainous unless you had more to it. Could be as simple as just not going out for drinks after you said you would.

Or cheating a brutal slaver from their "merchandise".
Buying them would be engaging in/rewarding an evil deed. Cheating them out of the people would be chaotic but most assuredly good.

[Inevitability]

That reads more of an example as to how Evil people can cheat, rather than defining all cheating as Evil. Making an agreement you don't intend to uphold doesn't seem particularly villainous unless you had more to it. Could be as simple as just not going out for drinks after you said you would.

It's in the section called 'evil acts' and explicitly called one.

I agree that it doesn't seem 'particularly villainous' (the weirdness of the BoVD is half of what we're discussing) but what matters is whether it's evil. Evil and villainous are two different things that don't necessarily overlap.

[Segev]

This is what it says:



A bit later, we get:



So by RAW, cheating is evil.

That reads more of an example as to how Evil people can cheat, rather than defining all cheating as Evil. Making an agreement you don't intend to uphold doesn't seem particularly villainous unless you had more to it. Could be as simple as just not going out for drinks after you said you would.


It's in the section called 'evil acts' and explicitly called one.

I agree that it doesn't seem 'particularly villainous' (the weirdness of the BoVD is half of what we're discussing) but what matters is whether it's evil. Evil and villainous are two different things that don't necessarily overlap.

Actually, though "cheating" is the title of the heading, the context of the sub-article it heads speaks of "when evil villains cheat."

That isn't speaking, then, of cheating itself being evil, any more than if it said, "When evil villains eat, they eat live puppies in front of orphans who loved them," is saying that eating is an evil act.

It is, instead, describing the kinds of cheating that evil people engage in. And it's not a bad listing. Each of those cases is cheating at the expense of the innocent for one's personal gain. But as has been mentioned, one can cheat the guilty out of their viciously-obtained spoils to aid the innocent, as well. The Chaotic Good fast-talker who swindles a slaver out of his cargo for a handful of magic beans significantly less impressive than those Jack got for his cow is cheating. The Chaotic Neutral kid who thinks he's fooling people when he stacks the Candy Land deck is cheating, but he's really not hurting anybody and isn't being evil. The Neutral Good sheriff who lies and claims that the wanted criminal died in the fire when he knows the man is innocent of the crimes of which he's accused and behaved heroically in the fire incident before escaping is cheating the law, but he is doing so in a Good way.

The CN lawyer who steals the contract the LE moneylender has that gives him legal right to take the widow's land without paying her more than a pittance because he knew it had great wealth buried under it is cheating the moneylender out of his legal property, but he is not being evil.



This is a very interesting way to look at things. Could you give some example principles for each alignment, so that I may get a better idea of this system?

The "nice guy/prick; plays by the rules/doesn't play by the rules" chart is a good start.

But the core of Good is the value of others' well-being and happiness. It is, for lack of a better way of expressing it, love for one's neighbor as oneself. Good can be forced into hard choices (rationing or having to deal with quarantines are common examples), but Good always laments those choices and never finds them emotionally easy, and always, ALWAYS looks for a third option to the best of its ability.

The core of Law is adherence to specific practices. Much is often made about how Chaotic people might have "personal codes," but that is missing the key difference: to the Lawful, it is genuinely a CODE. A set of rules to be followed. Lawful types can change their rule set, but do not do so easily, and generally only do so if they find one that better serves their moral alignment than the one to which they currently adhere. Or if they discover that their code is so incompatible with the society in which they live that they must shift it to avoid creating the very disorder their Lawful adherence to a code seeks to avert.

The core of Evil is not mere selfishness, but a disregard for others to the point that their suffering is not a factor in determining if gain for oneself is worth it. It is either supreme apathy towards others' well-being, or an active joy taken in their suffering. Where neutrality is "self first," evil is "self only." Now, don't get me wrong, evil can have loved ones and friends and even entire groups it likes, or even restrict its malevolence to specific groups (certain "good family men" who were murderous bigots come to mind). But whether they justify it by saying "they deserve it for being X" or they don't even bother, the evil stems from the dismissal of humans (or sapient/sentient beings) as acceptable targets.

My own signature evil character is of the complete apathy sort. I was watching an episode of Doctor Who recently where the villain of the week was a businessman who was asked the supposedly armor-piercing question of, "Why is your life more important than theirs?" and who blustered about how he builds up industry and prosperity and progress and thus his life is more important.

I was stricken by that justification. It's meant to show that the man is irredeemably evil and make a political statement that I won't belabor here, but I found it weak even ignoring the lame political jab. My own signature evil character would have replied, "Because their lives are not mine, and I do not care about them."

Segev has no illusions about his alignment, and doesn't particularly care.

Chaos is the one most principle-driven, simply because it has no rigid code. Law chooses its code based on goals, and then sticks to that code religiously. Chaos chooses goals, and then does whatever it needs to to get to them. Chaotic Good and even Chaotic Neutral has amongst its goals a certain amount of respect for others, so will refrain from some expedient actions even if they could get away with them because they're "wrong," but they judge each situation as it comes up; "I won't murder" is a guideline they may seem to follow as if it were a rule, but the Chaotic person, in the right circumstance, will bend or break that "rule," because they really are weighing everything in the specifics of their goals.

Chaos plays by no particular rules, but if you know a Chaotic person's goals, you can still predict what they might do. Lawful people are predictable because they follow rules you can predict. Chaotic people are predictable because they act towards their goals.

It's worth noting that even CE can seem to have limits, restrictions, or even "rules." These are usually entirely pragmatic, but can be based on things like loyalty and friendship, even.

Heaven help the person who offends or threatens the friend or loved one of the Chaotic Evil. Even if that loved one begs them not to on pain of their disappointment, that just tells the CE person they need to be sneaky enough in their disproportionate retribution that their loved one never finds out it wasn't "pure chance" that karma came for their tormentor.




A bit stream-of-consciousness, here, but I hope it at least sketched a picture for you.

[Inevitability]

The "nice guy/prick; plays by the rules/doesn't play by the rules" chart is a good start.

But the core of Good is the value of others' well-being and happiness. It is, for lack of a better way of expressing it, love for one's neighbor as oneself. Good can be forced into hard choices (rationing or having to deal with quarantines are common examples), but Good always laments those choices and never finds them emotionally easy, and always, ALWAYS looks for a third option to the best of its ability.

The core of Law is adherence to specific practices. Much is often made about how Chaotic people might have "personal codes," but that is missing the key difference: to the Lawful, it is genuinely a CODE. A set of rules to be followed. Lawful types can change their rule set, but do not do so easily, and generally only do so if they find one that better serves their moral alignment than the one to which they currently adhere. Or if they discover that their code is so incompatible with the society in which they live that they must shift it to avoid creating the very disorder their Lawful adherence to a code seeks to avert.

The core of Evil is not mere selfishness, but a disregard for others to the point that their suffering is not a factor in determining if gain for oneself is worth it. It is either supreme apathy towards others' well-being, or an active joy taken in their suffering. Where neutrality is "self first," evil is "self only." Now, don't get me wrong, evil can have loved ones and friends and even entire groups it likes, or even restrict its malevolence to specific groups (certain "good family men" who were murderous bigots come to mind). But whether they justify it by saying "they deserve it for being X" or they don't even bother, the evil stems from the dismissal of humans (or sapient/sentient beings) as acceptable targets.

My own signature evil character is of the complete apathy sort. I was watching an episode of Doctor Who recently where the villain of the week was a businessman who was asked the supposedly armor-piercing question of, "Why is your life more important than theirs?" and who blustered about how he builds up industry and prosperity and progress and thus his life is more important.

I was stricken by that justification. It's meant to show that the man is irredeemably evil and make a political statement that I won't belabor here, but I found it weak even ignoring the lame political jab. My own signature evil character would have replied, "Because their lives are not mine, and I do not care about them."

Segev has no illusions about his alignment, and doesn't particularly care.

Chaos is the one most principle-driven, simply because it has no rigid code. Law chooses its code based on goals, and then sticks to that code religiously. Chaos chooses goals, and then does whatever it needs to to get to them. Chaotic Good and even Chaotic Neutral has amongst its goals a certain amount of respect for others, so will refrain from some expedient actions even if they could get away with them because they're "wrong," but they judge each situation as it comes up; "I won't murder" is a guideline they may seem to follow as if it were a rule, but the Chaotic person, in the right circumstance, will bend or break that "rule," because they really are weighing everything in the specifics of their goals.

Chaos plays by no particular rules, but if you know a Chaotic person's goals, you can still predict what they might do. Lawful people are predictable because they follow rules you can predict. Chaotic people are predictable because they act towards their goals.

It's worth noting that even CE can seem to have limits, restrictions, or even "rules." These are usually entirely pragmatic, but can be based on things like loyalty and friendship, even.

Heaven help the person who offends or threatens the friend or loved one of the Chaotic Evil. Even if that loved one begs them not to on pain of their disappointment, that just tells the CE person they need to be sneaky enough in their disproportionate retribution that their loved one never finds out it wasn't "pure chance" that karma came for their tormentor.

I disagree with the system as you describe it. Take Serenity's Operative (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Operative). He's a ruthless individual willing to commit murder, enslave innocents, cause mass panic, and generally wreck havoc to accomplish his goals. He doesn't particularly care about human lives. He fits your definition of Evil to a T.

That is, except the Operative does all this for abstract ideals, rather than for personal gain. He's not doing evil because it allows him to become more powerful. He's not doing evil because his loved ones will suffer if he doesn't. He's not even doing evil so that he may one day live in this 'better world' he's trying to create (on the contrary, he considers his own existence pointless once this world is brought about). No, his actions are fully selfless, and his dedication to his organization goes beyond simply 'liking' it.

Would you really say this individual isn't Evil? Or would you say Evil can be selfless?

[ryu]

I disagree with the system as you describe it. Take Serenity's Operative (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Operative). He's a ruthless individual willing to commit murder, enslave innocents, cause mass panic, and generally wreck havoc to accomplish his goals. He doesn't particularly care about human lives. He fits your definition of Evil to a T.

That is, except the Operative does all this for abstract ideals, rather than for personal gain. He's not doing evil because it allows him to become more powerful. He's not doing evil because his loved ones will suffer if he doesn't. He's not even doing evil so that he may one day live in this 'better world' he's trying to create (on the contrary, he considers his own existence pointless once this world is brought about). No, his actions are fully selfless, and his dedication to his organization goes beyond simply 'liking' it.

Would you really say this individual isn't Evil? Or would you say Evil can be selfless?

Except that's not selfless at all. Notice how willing he is to sacrifice others while bringing about his goal. Nothing in the world matters with the exception of his goal. What you think because you've projected the object of your desire into an outside object, in this case a goal, it stops being selfish?

[atemu1234]

Except that's not selfless at all. Notice how willing he is to sacrifice others while bringing about his goal. Nothing in the world matters with the exception of his goal. What you think because you've projected the object of your desire into an outside object, in this case a goal, it stops being selfish?

By that logic, wanting to save someone you love's life is also selfish. And whether it is or not, you're unlikely to get people to agree that it is.

Particularly in the Operative's case, he doesn't care if he lives or dies, he just wants to make a perfect world so that -other people- can live in it, regardless of what he has to do to create it. A selfish man he is not.

[Inevitability]

Except that's not selfless at all. Notice how willing he is to sacrifice others while bringing about his goal. Nothing in the world matters with the exception of his goal. What you think because you've projected the object of your desire into an outside object, in this case a goal, it stops being selfish?

According to that logic, a paladin who heals, protects and aids others without ever getting anything in return, then finally sacrifices herself to permanently improve the world for everyone else, all of this out of dedication to her ideals of a better world, is being selfish.

[ryu]

According to that logic, a paladin who heals, protects and aids others without ever getting anything in return, then finally sacrifices herself to permanently improve the world for everyone else, all of this out of dedication to her ideals of a better world, is being selfish.

Indeed. The motivation isn't to help people any more. Not primarily. It's to follow a creed you've deemed good such that you feel you're a good person. There are alarmingly few people in this world that aren't selfish because to be selfish is to have ultimate motivating force relating specifically to one's self and what they do in the world. This is why decrying selfishness as evil is extremely problematic. Non-selfish people either don't exist or are a vanishingly small negligible number, and that's a good thing. If you aren't looking toward your own goals to some extent, how can you expect anyone else to for you?

[2D8HP]

So in my setting, I currently have the CG fertility goddess Dalya listed as "Dalya smiles upon....
....if only I were a little cleverer, I could come up with a clear justification why Dalya might smile upon all sexual orientations, not just the ones that maximize baby-making.

Anybody have any ideas?


Well I don't remember the 3e Deities & Demi-Gods well, but I remember a bit of the 1e one, and I used to watch Jason and the Argonauts when it was broadcast, and I remember some Greek Myths, which is the lens I'll use.

When I think of a fertility goddess I think of Demeter (Ceres).

IIRC, Aphrodite (Venus) was the goddess of romantic love/passion/lust (Eros/Cupid the god), and Hera (Juno) the goddess of childbirth and marriage.

So you combine Demeter with either Aphrodite or Hera, or both.

Aphrodite/Eros represents the desire for and act of coupling, whether same sex or hetero, so that fits, and Hera represents long term commitment whether of a parent to a child, or a couple to each other, so that also fits.

Either way (or both) works.

What was the dilemma again?

Now mix-in Athena and Hecate as well, and you really got something!


...sounds like a lot of work, but let's be reasonable, you really only need powers for being favored by Athena, because only losers and Trojans (so, losers) need favors directly from the other gods.





FIRST WITCH

Why, how now, Hecate! You look angerly.

HECATE

Have I not reason, beldams as you are?

Saucy and overbold, how did you dare

To trade and traffic with Macbeth

In riddles and affairs of death,

And I, the mistress of your charms,

The close contriver of all harms,

Was never called to bear my part,

Or show the glory of our art?

And, which is worse, all you have done

Hath been but for a wayward son,

Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,

Loves for his own ends, not for you.

But make amends now. Get you gone,

And at the pit of Acheron

Meet me i' th' morning. Thither he

Will come to know his destiny.

Your vessels and your spells provide,

Your charms and everything beside.

I am for the air...

[Mendicant]

Non-selfish people either don't exist or are a vanishingly small negligible number, and that's a good thing. If you aren't looking toward your own goals to some extent, how can you expect anyone else to for you?

If everyone is "selfish" then "selfishness" is a meaningless term. Someone is "selfish" only when their self-concern is insensate to the needs of others, and in a disordered or excessive way. It's a state that only exists in contrast to normal self-regard (the median state) or selflessness (the other edge.) Conflating goals, self-care, or an ethical code with selfishness is semantically and logically unjustified. It's like saying all people are "fat" because all people have lipids in their bodies.

[Doctor Awkward]

So in my setting, I currently have the CG fertility goddess Dalya listed as "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

And yet it is definitely not fertility-promoting to smile upon relations that don't maximize fertility.

The two aspects are in conflict. And, while it's fine and interesting for two aspects of a deity to be in conflict, I can't shake the feeling that if only I were a little cleverer, I could come up with a clear justification why Dalya might smile upon all sexual orientations, not just the ones that maximize baby-making.

Anybody have any ideas?


It depends: is Dalya a goddess of productivity or procreation?

Soil can be fertile. An imagination can be fertile.

Her portfolio doesn't have to deal with reproduction at all.



...Levity aside. if "fertility" and reproduction is her sole overriding concern in life, then she probably isn't good at all. She would smile on a loveless relationship, if the two people involved were both healthy and capable of producing offspring. She would also smile upon a king who keeps a harem of women to birth him many children, even if none of those women consent or are given a choice. A species multiplying is all about biology at the end of the day. Emotions have nothing to do with it, unless the two people involved the act decide ahead of time that they should.

A goddess whose only concern in life is reproduction is probably Chaotic Neutral. In fact, Dionysus, the Greek God of fertility is listed as such in Deities and Demigods (though he's also the god of madness, revelry, wine, and... theater... so... meh?)

[tantric]

I'll be honest, I'm really really confused right now. You seem to be talking about a completely different topic. I'm talking about gay people in a D&D world, and how and why they would devote all their worship and their immortal soul to a Demeter like fertility goddess in said D&D world, where devoting your entire being to a deity has actual concrete effect on not just your life, but your afterlife. You know, what this thread is actually about.

I mean, you even kind of answered my question for me, when you said "I, personally, serve the trickster gods..." were this a D&D world, that means that when you die, if you've lived as the trickster gods want you to live, then you'll go onto their realm when you die. I'm imagining Valhalla, but for rogues. The point is, regardless of how strongly feel you feel about Erzulie, you worship the trickster gods. You've devoted your immortal soul to their service, not Erzulie's, just as Joe devoted his immortal soul to Heironious.

okay - Demeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeter#Agricultural_deity) has nothing whatsoever to do with human fertility or love. she's the goddess of agriculture and the fertile earth. her cult was a mystery religion, one that keeps its rites secret. in fact, it was the famous Eleusine Mysteries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries), one of the first psychedelic cults.

i used to be fond of Erzulie, but not a devotee. however, the day after writing this an old friend contacted me and invited me over...which led to incredible sex. unlike most gay men, i refuse casual or anonymous sex, so getting laid is rare for me. now Erzulie's my GIRL. love her.

there's no set reason about how the afterlife works in dnd, nor do you have to use their model of the planes. people who worship greek gods could go to tartarus, for the wicked, hades for the forgotten or elysium for the blessed. and why can't you have asgard and the other norse realms? can you not have a philosophical religion like taoism, buddhism or confucianism?

what i was trying to convey is what actual gay men are like. your idea of a 'fighter who loves his sword but also likes ****" is just not how it works. we are not like y'all, and we don't want to be. admittedly, there are a few like you say, but very few. sexuality is hugely important in the human psyche. i don't expect this to make much sense to you, but gender is a social construct, and there are more than two. many societies have 'third genders'.


Gender is more fluid – it may or may not depend upon biological traits. More specifically, it is a concept that describes how societies determine and manage sex categories; the cultural meanings attached to men and women’s roles; and how individuals understand their identities including, but not limited to, being a man, woman, transgender, intersex, gender queer and other gender positions. Gender involves social norms, attitudes and activities that society deems more appropriate for one sex over another. Gender is also determined by what an individual feels and does.

and btw, this is the actual trickster god i'm sworn to:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Brer_Rabbit_Disney_screenshot.png

br'er rabbit, though i'm equally fond of Starchild from parliament/funkadelic, whom i worship as the Maitreya, the next buddha:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gF23MveEFkA/hqdefault.jpg

[Jack_McSnatch]

okay - Demeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeter#Agricultural_deity) has nothing whatsoever to do with human fertility or love. she's the goddess of agriculture and the fertile earth. her cult was a mystery religion, one that keeps its rites secret. in fact, it was the famous Eleusine Mysteries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries), one of the first psychedelic cults.

i used to be fond of Erzulie, but not a devotee. however, the day after writing this an old friend contacted me and invited me over...which led to incredible sex. unlike most gay men, i refuse casual or anonymous sex, so getting laid is rare for me. now Erzulie's my GIRL. love her.

there's no set reason about how the afterlife works in dnd, nor do you have to use their model of the planes. people who worship greek gods could go to tartarus, for the wicked, hades for the forgotten or elysium for the blessed. and why can't you have asgard and the other norse realms? can you not have a philosophical religion like taoism, buddhism or confucianism?

what i was trying to convey is what actual gay men are like. your idea of a 'fighter who loves his sword but also likes ****" is just not how it works. we are not like y'all, and we don't want to be. admittedly, there are a few like you say, but very few. sexuality is hugely important in the human psyche. i don't expect this to make much sense to you, but gender is a social construct, and there are more than two. many societies have 'third genders'.


A) I never asked about your sex life. Good for you getting some, I don't really care.

B) "We are not like ya'll?" You aren't regular people with your own hopes, goals, and desires? I'm bisexual you rambling halfwit. I KNOW what gay men are like. Gay men are regular ****ing people. They work to support themselves, they eat food they enjoy, they have hobbies, and they have sex, just like everybody else in the world.

C) Yes, there is a set way the afterlife works in D&D. They detailed it extensively in multiple books. If it works different in YOUR world, great. I'm glad you decided to put all that thought and effort into a cosmology, that's a lot of work. I just use the pre-existing D&D set up for simplicity's sake.

D) I never even SAID anything about gender. Go back to tumblr. This forum is for dungeons and dragons, not gender politics. Furthermore, gender is not a social construct, it's very much a natural one. I'd go into a biology lesson, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you already had sex-ed. Suffice to say, that is why men have manly bits and women have womanly bits. Spoiler alert, it's so babies can be made.

Gender ROLES however are very much a social construct. Ones gender does not dictact what one must do, think, or enjoy.

Also, you continue to prove my point for me when you babble about how Erzulie's "your GIRL," and then immediately talk about your worship of a cartoon rabbit god, and... some guy I haven't heard of. I'm sure he's very talented... but I still have no idea who he is.

Seriously, are you trolling? I feel like I'm just feeding a troll.

[SirNibbles]

i don't expect this to make much sense to you, but gender is a social construct, and there are more than two. many societies have 'third genders'.

GENDER
Your character can be either male or female.
-Player's Handbook, page 109

[Calthropstu]

So in my setting, I currently have the CG fertility goddess Dalya listed as "Dalya smiles upon heterosexual relations, polygamy, and prostitution, without actively persecuting homosexuality, monogamy, or asexuality."

Even this "not actively persecuting" language makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it is definitely not Good (nor Chaotic -- "freedom" is also in her portfolio) to even implicitly frown upon anything consenting adults do or fail to do in their own homes.

And yet it is definitely not fertility-promoting to smile upon relations that don't maximize fertility.

The two aspects are in conflict. And, while it's fine and interesting for two aspects of a deity to be in conflict, I can't shake the feeling that if only I were a little cleverer, I could come up with a clear justification why Dalya might smile upon all sexual orientations, not just the ones that maximize baby-making.

Anybody have any ideas?

You REALLY should not post questions like this. Way WAY too easy for this to get real political real fast.

[Florian]

You REALLY should not post questions like this. Way WAY too easy for this to get real political real fast.

Which, personally, I find highly amusing, like this is a case of interpreting way too much into a very simple topic. I´m not getting why there can´t be three different deities, covering "fertility", "love" and "lust" that can agree that there can, but not must be, an overlap between the domains they cover. Adding in deities covering "sadomasochism" and "rape" includes the same type of overlap, but covers the dark side of it.

[gkathellar]

Set aside the alignment bit for a moment. I'd expect lots of homosexuals to have a lot to gain from a fertility god's assistance (whether it be adoption services through their church or actual divine assistance in having children), and a fertility god to have a lot to gain from their worship. If nothing else, it's a question of mutual shared interests.

[Segev]

I disagree with the system as you describe it. Take Serenity's Operative (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Operative). He's a ruthless individual willing to commit murder, enslave innocents, cause mass panic, and generally wreck havoc to accomplish his goals. He doesn't particularly care about human lives. He fits your definition of Evil to a T.

That is, except the Operative does all this for abstract ideals, rather than for personal gain. He's not doing evil because it allows him to become more powerful. He's not doing evil because his loved ones will suffer if he doesn't. He's not even doing evil so that he may one day live in this 'better world' he's trying to create (on the contrary, he considers his own existence pointless once this world is brought about). No, his actions are fully selfless, and his dedication to his organization goes beyond simply 'liking' it.

Would you really say this individual isn't Evil? Or would you say Evil can be selfless?Oh, evil CAN be selfless. It tends to be mad, one way or another, if it is, however. You can have a man who is truly, utterly devoted to his best friend or love interest, who will do literally anything for her. He would give of himself until there was nothing left to give. But he would take from others first to give to her. He will do anything that he has to to see her happy. If that means concealing some of his actions to protect her from knowing what has been done for her sake, he'll do that. He would kill children, run over puppies, rob the poor of their one chance out of poverty, jaywalk, rig games, extort or blackmail... ANYTHING he thought was necessary to make her life better, to get her what she wants.

And he's evil.

Replace "best friend/love interest" with "the greater good," and you don't change that it's evil. Even the Operative acknowledges that he's evil. His self-analysis is mostly correct. His only mistake is in thinking that "the greater good" can be achieved by the means he executes. He fails to see the trees for the forest, and thus will cut down every single one to preserve the view of the forest.

But yes, he's evil.

Good cares about people as people, individuals as individuals. While Good is as susceptible to "a million is a statistic" as anybody else, Good is the alignment that will care enough to stop and realize that, no, it is NOT a statistic if it catches itself thinking that way. Good, remember, when faced with "hard choices," looks and looks for a third option. It may not always succeed at finding it, and it may do hard things that its conscience laments, but it views each such time as a FAILURE because of the inability to find that third option.


You REALLY should not post questions like this. Way WAY too easy for this to get real political real fast.I'm actually impressed by how apolitical this thread has stayed so far. I think it speaks well of the maturity and respect of the Playground's forum members that they focused on the very narrow specifics of the question rather than branching out into areas where it's easy to hit raw nerves.

[CharonsHelper]

And he's evil.

Replace "best friend/love interest" with "the greater good," and you don't change that it's evil. Even the Operative acknowledges that he's evil. His self-analysis is mostly correct. His only mistake is in thinking that "the greater good" can be achieved by the means he executes. He fails to see the trees for the forest, and thus will cut down every single one to preserve the view of the forest.

But yes, he's evil.

I'll +1 him being evil. Extremely Lawful Evil in D&D terms. Very much an 'ends justify the means' kinda guy.

Really - he's close to the epitome of the sort of evil character which can actually work at the gaming table, though maybe he'd be a bit too willing to sacrifice the party for his ideals. (Idealists are sometimes creepy for that sort of reason.)

I could totally see that operative working with a group of good guys to take down the BBEG to keep the world safe, the rest of the group should just keep an eye on his methods.

[Coidzor]

Set aside the alignment bit for a moment. I'd expect lots of homosexuals to have a lot to gain from a fertility god's assistance (whether it be adoption services through their church or actual divine assistance in having children), and a fertility god to have a lot to gain from their worship. If nothing else, it's a question of mutual shared interests.

What in particular are you thinking along these lines?


I'll +1 him being evil. Extremely Lawful Evil in D&D terms. Very much an 'ends justify the means' kinda guy.

Really - he's close to the epitome of the sort of evil character which can actually work at the gaming table, though maybe he'd be a bit too willing to sacrifice the party for his ideals. (Idealists are sometimes creepy for that sort of reason.)

I could totally see that operative working with a group of good guys to take down the BBEG to keep the world safe, the rest of the group should just keep an eye on his methods.

Also his sudden but inevitable betrayal. :smallamused:

[solidork]

This is sort of unrelated to your primary question, but this reminds me of a recent Tumblr post I saw about a fertility goddess: https://laurabwrites.tumblr.com/post/161330920080/old-god-same-portfolio

Basically, who do women pray to when they don't want a child?

[Calthropstu]

Which, personally, I find highly amusing, like this is a case of interpreting way too much into a very simple topic. I´m not getting why there can´t be three different deities, covering "fertility", "love" and "lust" that can agree that there can, but not must be, an overlap between the domains they cover. Adding in deities covering "sadomasochism" and "rape" includes the same type of overlap, but covers the dark side of it.

Agreed. Homosexuality would be more the perview of love and lust. Homosexuality is an antithesis of fertility since it 1: cannot reproduce naturally and 2: for every homosexual pair it's removing from the overall gene pool. I can't see a fertility god embracing it happily... so I kind of agree that tolerating something so opposite her primary purpose is a huge concession on this godess' part. Tolerance is the enabler of freedom, so it fits her freedom profile. Honestly, I don't see why the op has an issue.

Edit:
I just took a look at the rest of this thread and am completely convinced that the op is of the mindset "anyone who disagrees with me is a horrible bigot."
Maybe he should look at the definition of bigot and stand in front of a mirror. I am respectfully bowing out of this thread.

[tedcahill2]

Instead of her sphere of influence being couples that can makes babies (i.e. heterosexual couples) having it be anyone seeking to bear or rear a child. That would seem more appropriate to me. So her worshippers would include anyone, regardless of orientation, that wants to have children, and would not include couples (even heterosexual couples) that do not want children.

[Malimar]

I didn't have Demeter in mind for a basis for Dalya -- mostly because Demeter wasn't really on my radar (nor were any other particular specific fertility deities, just the general concept "fertility deities are important to agricultural humans and should be represented in D&D"). The original conception was a cross between Yondalla and Olidammara, which morphed as I explored her into more of a gender-swapped Dionysius, then eventually became more of her own thing.


Edit:
I just took a look at the rest of this thread and am completely convinced that the op is of the mindset "anyone who disagrees with me is a horrible bigot."
Maybe he should look at the definition of bigot and stand in front of a mirror. I am respectfully bowing out of this thread.
I, uh, haven't said anything about "anyone who disagrees with me", or about bigots or bigotry? I think you might be projecting here?


This is sort of unrelated to your primary question, but this reminds me of a recent Tumblr post I saw about a fertility goddess: https://laurabwrites.tumblr.com/post/161330920080/old-god-same-portfolio

Basically, who do women pray to when they don't want a child?
That is an extremely interesting point.

In my setting, probably fall under the purview of the goddess of (among other things) virginity, but I can easily see a setting where this is part of the portfolio of the goddess of fertility.


GENDER
Your character can be either male or female.
-Player's Handbook, page 109
Perfectly reasonable for when 3.5 came out, but in this day and age, 5e's take on the subject is an improvement, IMO, if for no other reason than it encourages a more interesting range of exploration of characterization.

[Florian]

I don´t know why there has to be that heavy humanocentric aspect to it, instead focusing on the "pure thing". I mean, are there not egg-laying fish people in that setting? Tadpoles? No plane-touched? I mean, my imagination (and vocabulary) fails me where and how intercourse with a fire elemental or tree can happen and what it looks like but still produce something.

[Malimar]

I don´t know why there has to be that heavy humanocentric aspect to it, instead focusing on the "pure thing". I mean, are there not egg-laying fish people in that setting? Tadpoles? No plane-touched? I mean, my imagination (and vocabulary) fails me where and how intercourse with a fire elemental or tree can happen and what it looks like but still produce something.
The main race in the main kingdom is mongrelfolk (and they are, as it happens, the bulk of Dalya's worshippers), so yeah, definitely doesn't need to be just humans.

Though the god of undersea nature fills the role of fertility deity for the fish people (egg-laying and otherwise) in this setting. Not sure why I divided it up that way, that's just how the cookie wound up crumbling. Plus there's the evil fertility deity for some of the more monstrous folk.

[2D8HP]

...who do women pray to when they don't want a child?


I'd guess Tyche (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Tykhe.html).

[Trekkin]

Well, how broad is her portfolio?

I mean, the good points previously raised about not caring being default nonwithstanding, I can see how you might want to address the implied connection between fertility and couples capable of producing children -- and it's always nice to have an answer in case a player feels the need to ask. In which case, the relevant dogma might point out that optimizing the number of births over the expected duration of the biosphere would necessarily entail optimizing the chance that any given kid will survive to reproductive age, and their children and so on; the optimal number of children at any one time is almost certainly less than the maximum number of children that all fertile people can produce anyway. Between adoption and just being a contributing member of society, it's totally possible for an individual to contribute significantly to the local carrying capacity without themselves having children. The same logic would include people anatomically or genetically incapable of reproducing -- some of whom would likely have some interest in a goddess of fertility.

Thus you could have her church's official stance be that it takes a village to raise a child and all contributions to that process are valued. This might involve adoption. It might be education. It might be pediatric chirurgery. There are a lot of ways for someone to lower the cost of having children and maximize the chance that those kids grow up to perpetuate the process, any of which would logically be blessed in Dalya's eyes.

I'm not saying that she needs to push people to do these things, of course -- only that, should someone who for whatever reason cannot have children show up at the temple door one day to ask if they have a place, there is a sound, logical way to answer in the affirmative.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd focus on her community aspect. Presumably as a good aligned goddess, she's not terribly into the whole idea of women staying home and cranking out babies until they drop. But that's how you'd get the most babies, if you didn't care for anyone's welfare in the process.

Focus on her being a goddess of family, and promoting large, extended families that have close knit ties. The focus isn't on the production of as many children as possible, but large, welcoming families that love and accept the children they are blessed with. Any child-free people would be expected to aid their family. A woman who decided never to marry or have children but spent her life healing and aiding her family is held in higher esteem then the one who popped out 12 children and didn't take care of them. Forcing people who have no interest in children to have them will just result in misery and resentment.

Given how...Well, dull farming can be, you could say that homosexual male couples might just adopt children from accidental pregnancies especially if the couple is in no condition to take care of them on their own, even if the young couple in question retains their status as the mother and father of the children. If the couples are related, this might even be the norm as the entire family pitches in to take care of all children.

Half-orc or tiefling children might be another source of adoption for all couples, given this is a good aligned goddess and those children run a high risk of becoming abandoned for whatever reason. Would be somewhat amusing if communities devoted to this goddess weren't pure human due to a tendency to adopt unwanted children.

[Gildedragon]

I'd guess Tyche (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Tykhe.html).

Or Apollo
A popular (and now extinct because of its popularity) birth control herb was seen as a gift by him

[Honest Tiefling]

Or Apollo

If I was a woman praying not to get pregnant, I don't think Sir Rapes-A-Lot would be high on that list.


A popular (and now extinct because of its popularity) birth control herb was seen as a gift by him

It was a type of fennel, and associated in many places with Dionysus, actually. The thrysus that he carries is often a fennel stalk for this reason. And it wasn't birth control, but an abortifacient.

[2D8HP]

...Half-orc or tiefling children might be another source of adoption for all couples, given this is a good aligned goddess and those children run a high risk of becoming abandoned for whatever reason....


That's some good worldbuilding.

I can imagine a clever/cruel DM planting "village of monsters" rumors, and then pulling an The Eternal Champion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Champion_(novel)) switcheroo.

[Gildedragon]

If I was a woman praying not to get pregnant, I don't think Sir Rapes-A-Lot would be high on that list. I believe that's actually an epithet of his father's.


It was a type of fennel, and associated in many places with Dionysus, actually. The thrysus that he carries is often a fennel stalk for this reason. And it wasn't birth control, but an abortifacient.

As to why Apollo: his role as a god of medicine, poison and herbs probably had to do with his association with the plant and its effects.
Also him and Diana were seen as protectors of pregnant women because of their mother's trials at the hands of Hera.

[Coidzor]

That's some good worldbuilding.

I can imagine a clever/cruel DM planting "village of monsters" rumors, and then pulling an The Eternal Champion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Champion_(novel)) switcheroo.


Even most murderhobos aren't going to want to go to the trouble of hunting down and killing every single PHB race individual in the setting. After all, if they kill everyone, there won't be anyone to kill and loot in the next dungeon.

[Honest Tiefling]

Even most murderhobos aren't going to want to go to the trouble of hunting down and killing every single PHB race individual in the setting. After all, if they kill everyone, there won't be anyone to kill and loot in the next dungeon.

Maybe not PHB races, but drow might direct an elven murderhobo away from a dungeon for a spell. If this village is centered around an ancient shrine with rumors of artifacts, they'd kill their own race to get it.

[Zanos]

Maybe not PHB races, but drow might direct an elven murderhobo away from a dungeon for a spell. If this village is centered around an ancient shrine with rumors of artifacts, they'd kill their own race to get it.

Eh, a Drow genocide would legitimately improve pretty much any setting where they're present.

Funnily enough there's not nearly as much of a push to suggest that Duergar or Illithid are redeemable, probably because they aren't hot.

[ryu]

Eh, a Drow genocide would legitimately improve pretty much any setting where they're present.

Funnily enough there's not nearly as much of a push to suggest that Duergar or Illithid are redeemable, probably because they aren't hot.

I mean.... Tentacles are a thing in some parts of the internet. It's less common than elf fetish, but it DOES happen.

[Gildedragon]

I mean.... Tentacles are a thing in some parts of the internet. It's less common than elf fetish, but it DOES happen.

There's a redeemed Illie in the BoED

[Honest Tiefling]

There's a redeemed Illie in the BoED

This requires treating the Book of Exalted Deeds as a good thing. Or even reading it.

[ryu]

This requires treating the Book of Exalted Deeds as a good thing. Or even reading it.

I mean.... Ambrosia farming, the druids beloved exalted wildshape, and sanctified spells for anyone who's interested ALL come from there.

[Florian]

I mean.... Ambrosia farming, the druids beloved exalted wildshape, and sanctified spells for anyone who's interested ALL come from there.

Ah, the Book of Mangled Alignment Understanding.... Always a pleasure to see it mentioned in a serious way.

@Malimar:

I think it´s best to reassemble the cookie again and go back to the drawing board.

At the moment, Holy St. Uterus is neither a racial patron, doesn´t have sole dominion over her portfolio, lacks love, bed fun and family in return. That gives of an eerily unfinished vibe.
Either make her the TN goddess of fertility for all races, no exceptions. Or reshape her to be more of a racial goddess for your Mongrelfolk, emphasizing sex and fun more.

[Inevitability]

This requires treating the Book of Exalted Deeds as a good thing. Or even reading it.

How about an illithid who drew the Balance card or put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment, then? As long as they're kept away from the Elder Brain's telepathic control, I don't see why their alignment would change back.