One of them is bisexual? I don't think that really fits any of those characters...
Dorn seems to be the "man rules over woman, woman cleans house" type person, so it is almost assuredly not him.
Raasad is a monk, so that would at least imply he is religious in some way, and if we pull a real-life correlation, religion is typically heterosexist. Plus, being a monk, he would naturally have stricter views on chastity and romance, regardless of heterosexism or lack thereof. He is a possibility, but not a likely one in my mind.
Neera is the best bet I feel. She doesn't have any particularly imposing cultural values pushed on her, and elves (if I am correct) tend to be a little more liberal sexually speaking. I still feel a little wary just because, with her background, she seems almost the helpless type that would rely on her Prince Charming, but I feel she fits the bi role better than the others.
"I'm pretty sure they can (follow no deity), which would make this even less of an issue. "
Monks follow an abstract spirituality. Not gods,thats why they are not as simple to deal as clerics. The game could easily put a gay or bi cleric of alustriel,for example.
What there is of offensive in saying that some MONK ORDERS have codes (and as stated before,some faerun orders DO have codes regarding this) regarding chastity and marriage? This is not the hate and bygotry you are affirming.
The point is that sexually-exclusive codes of religion in a fantasy world have to be added by its creators, the writers. The reason why I say this might be slightly alienating to some players is as to why it was felt necessary to add this to the fantasy world. A fantasy world indifferent/positive to homosexually-orientated peeps is potentially quite engaging for that audience, offering something that real life by and large doesn't.
This is related to what you said about artificial/realism. I agree that it is a good thing that games have aspects of realism, but something is not good just because it is realistic....I don't think, for example, that it would be fun to add a system to a game which makes you have to eat every 8 hours and then go to the toilet. It's "realistic" but worthless. So, game designers must decide what things that are realistic improve the gameplay, and which things do not improve it. So how would adding the existence of sexually-discriminating religious codes improve the game? Being realistic doesn't automatically equal "good" so, to come full circle, why do you think it's a good thing? Reading your posts I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) you would find the world more immersive/believable because you'd think that with so many different people/races/cultures/etc, some people somewhere would be homophobic (different viewpoints and all that). I understand how you could think that was more immersive, but it seems to me to be a bit shallow. Having e.g. a homosexual npc adds a whole new possibility and extra content and immersive experience to a gamer (well, at least if done well), the expanded NPC interactions and romances are something that people love about BG2. Having Rasaad say "Yes there are many religions in Faerûn and in some you can't have sex, some it's that whole man-woman only rule, blah blah" seems very tiny and _purposefully_ mirroring a (IMO) negative aspect of the real world and thus requires some justification.
It's funny really, I wouldn't actually give a shit if your suggestion made it into the game, just, I'm confused as to why you thought it was important enough to make several long posts on it so I'm trying to understand that.
Lazy drunken sexually muddled monks! Want! Make it all amuddle! Sexually!
A character's personality has nothing to do with what makes a character's bumpy-uglies tingle all fun like (or hearts aflutter oh sigh). In fact I could see all of the new NPCs and the old ones too swinging merrily every which way. Of course sexuality can and does affect how someone develops but it isn't necessarily any major defining part of them or their behavior. Geez.
Edit 2: This was in response to something said somewhere above. I don't know. I have wine.
@scyther1 Alustriel is not a deity, she's a high level magic user that rules Silverymoon, and a chosen of Mystra, besides. And there is not a single deity in the Realms which specifically forbids same-sex relations. Hanali Celanil (Elven Deity of Love and Beauty), Sune Firehair (Faerunian deity who has love in her portfolio) and Sharess/Bast (Mulhorandi deity of love/lust and seduction) have no mention of forbidding same sex love and/or romance. Other deities, I suspect wouldn't care because it's not part of their portfolio. At best a deity of justice may say you must treat all those you love with the same care and consideration, because it is only just. Whereas Helm, deity of guardians, may only say you must keep your love safe. There is no specific deity who proclaims that males must only procreate with females or vice versa. So, in the Realms, that's pretty much the same as saying it doesn't happen. There is no deity specifically of procreation or families.
As for keeping characters in character, most of them don't really speak about who they are attracted to, and whether they prefer male or female. Yes, Nalia is engaged to that Roenall guy, but she doesn't like him, and she may not like him because she doesn't swing that way. We (the players) don't know, and neither the game nor Nalia actually says. There are very few characters we can point to as leaning one way or another. Yes, Jaheira and Khalid were married. So was/is Keldorn. Cernd had a child with a woman- he could still be bi. Skie is in love with Eldoth. Eldoth only seems to love himself. Coran seems to be an inveterate womanizer. Kivan was married and mourns his wife. Shar-Teel may prefer women (she certainly looks down on men), and Safana seems to prefer men. Sarevok loved Tamoko. Who else can we definitively say is one or the other?
There is no deity specifically of procreation or families.
What about Shiallia? Her doctrine states that the only true goal of living things is to procreate.
Not that this would necessarily prohibit same-sex relations, since you can reproduce without having sex (artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or just plain magic in the Realms).
Her portfolio is "The High Forest, Neverwinter Wood, woodland glades, woodland fertility, growth". So, not procreation as a portfolio. And if we could her as one, that's... one deity who is a demipower. Even Chauntea, the Earthmother has this as her scriptures: "Growing and reaping are part of the eternal cycle and the most natural part of life. Destruction for its own sake and leveling without rebuilding are anathema. Let no day pass in which you have not helped a living thing flourish. Nurture, tend, and plant wherever possible. Protect tress and plants, and save their seeds so that what is destroyed can be replaced. See to the fertility of the earth but let the human womb see to its own. Eschew fire. Plant a seed or a small plant at least once a tenday."
Ah Ch'hing is one of the nine immortals of Kara-Tur who oversees love and marriage. And Jisan in Zakhara symbolizes "fruitfulness".
Okay, so we can point to one deity that might frown on same-sex relationships.
Please to everyone, read everything before reply if you can, serious as i'm a lot afraid of being misunderstood here.
@LadyRhian, at the risk of get a lot of flame, i could say that Chauntea and Silvanus (more Silvanus) maybe could have something against gay relations, as they're nature deities and gay relationships don't serve the instinct intent of sex that is continuation of the specie. But so does sex for pleasure don't intent continuation of the specie and would be in the same package, marriage itself is repulsive from nature perspective.
For nature the social behavior would not matter (as for both deities society is somehow irrelevant) they would only look in the matter from a instinct and organic perspective.
I dare to say the only group that could forbid homossexual relationships are druids (and only them), cos as you point pratically all the gods in Faerûn are too bound to their portifolios to have any interest in forbid gay relations, but even them aren't bound to this idea, as a druid has freedom to interpret nature.
We must remember that in faerûn the Christian interpretation doesn't exist (and i say interpretation based in my personal theological studies, as Jesus never said anything against homossexual relations, this is bullshit made by religious institutions that fake the society prejudice with stupid dogmas).
@kamuizin animals display homosexual behavior in abundant measure. it can be safely argued it is part of natural behavior. also, if we discuss natural, it would be natural to let a child/adult with any deformity or invalidity die, since such individual would be incapable to take care of himself and survive in his habitat, thus feeding the other animals.
as we see, we have a fact, but if we develop an argument further we must come into a clash with some kind of ideology or social construct. also, instincts tend to navigate us toward pleasure and sex is one such pleasure.
really, nature is a tricky argument that usually ends up in failure, being really a question of perspective, because it is hardly definable in itself. just my 2c
edit- i just re- read the post for mistakes and add: i was not trying to lecture, i just think that any god or goddess could prohibit sexual variety for some ideological reason if she/he wished it, but i think realistically there is no inherent base for it.
@trinit that's the exactly point that i touched, it's natural left a child/adult with any deformity or invalidity die, i'm not evaluating a social behavior but only evolution and instincts there, it's the only point of view that would create in faerûn any issue in gay relations.
Am i bad for say this? No, neither good or bad i'm just describing a nature behavior that is the sole point of my previous post.
@Kamulzin Actually, it's in there, "See to the Fertility of the earth, but let the human womb see to its own." Neither a condemnation of same sex relations nor an endorsement.
"It's funny really, I wouldn't actually give a shit if your suggestion made it into the game, just, I'm confused as to why you thought it was important enough to make several long posts on it so I'm trying to understand that. "
If this was not about baldurs gate,but a random rpg. I would not post a single letter here. But,wish you or not these changes also change the original nature of the game. What was scapist becames not anymore. As Issues and polemics are being added. But whatever. If this is going into the game, lets at least optimize things to be the least pollitical and the more intelligent possible. Baldurs gate is a game of the past,where these things were not put in games. So,lets at least be careful in adding them,so the original spirit of the game,which is of neutrality in these stuff, is preserved.
Also,im as tired of this discussion as you (this discussion sucks) and im sorry for these big posts. I just feel obliged to make the game stay more or less how it was originally. If you want to discuss other thing,just dully note what i said here and proceed to some other discussion (or change the direction of this topic) . Im only answering posts directed to me anyway.
"The point is that sexually-exclusive codes of religion in a fantasy world have to be added by its creators, the writers. The reason why I say this might be slightly alienating to some players is as to why it was felt necessary to add this to the fantasy world. A fantasy world indifferent/positive to homosexually-orientated peeps is potentially quite engaging for that audience, offering something that real life by and large doesn't. "
Look,im not saying that homosexuality should be openly discussed in the games. Read my last posts. What i said was that different orders would seen it with different eyes (some more open,some less ,mainly because of chastity codes). When i think about faerun ,i think the situation there would be like in ancient china, not in modern boston. In ancient china people were neutral of homosexuality but still viewed it differently. Mainly because sexual identity did not exist as we know today.
It is weird to adopt a point of pro-homosexuality or against homosexuality and discuss a polemic in the game. No doubt of that. Thats why bg games did not touch in the subject. But if it is to start putting this in the game it would be better to not place in a monk exactly because this begs the question of chastity in monasteries. And it does not matter if the relationship is straight of gay, charname asking if he could have a relationship because he is a monk would still be a pertinent banter to put.
"Having Rasaad say "Yes there are many religions in Faerûn and in some you can't have sex, some it's that whole man-woman only rule, blah blah" seems very tiny and _purposefully_ mirroring a (IMO) negative aspect of the real world and thus requires some justification."
Yes,it would be weird ,but im not saying this. Also it would also be weird to extrapolate in the way of dealing with these things in the game. Putting a couple of same sex monk npcs ot people openly adopting a pro-homosexual attitude ,for example. I think would be kinda over the top.
Thats why these things are not discussed in the faerun manual to begin with. It would be bizarre if the game said "the clerics of bane are homophobics" or "tyr only accepts straight marriages" ,as it would be to speak of the opposite like "all clerics love gays" or "there are gay parades in cormyr" it would be bizarre stuff to put in a scapist game. However,homosexual relationships are still talked with because homosexuality exists in the realms, which is kinda obvious. The basic manual talks of a lesbian couple, yanseldara and vaeranna,for example.
So,about the banter. What i suggested was something like this:
Charname: Asks if rasaad can have relationships,since he is a monk. Rasaad:Says some orders have chastity codes, some allow monks to marry and have families,his order is overall neutral regarding relationships. Charname:ok ...
A banter that is pertinent,given the context and backstory of rasaad.
"Alustriel is not a deity, she's a high level magic user that rules Silverymoon, and a chosen of Mystra"
Sorry,but Im kinda rusty about d&d stuff (some years since the game group split). To tell the truth even though i have the basic forgotton realms manual and the complete divine guide,my favorite setting was always ravenloft .
"And there is not a single deity in the Realms which specifically forbids same-sex relations. "
It would be weird to explictly put these things in the game. In games there is generally an avoidance of polemics to mantain the spirit lighty hearted. The forgotten realms do nor mention anything abou these stuff so in reality we dont know. We just know that in forgotten realms there is no stigma to homosexuals since there is no sexual identity. However that does not mean that homosexual relationships are viewed exactly the same as hetero ones (for biological reasons) or that some deities and orders have more reserves about it than others. I think that even though ed green wood said that there was not notions of homophobia in the realms,he also said (according to candle keep forum) that each people and culture sees sexuality differently.
"Deities, I suspect wouldn't care because it's not part of their portfolio"
You say that deities are only linked to their porfolios. But some of them have multiple ones, take tyr for example. His descryption in the guide of complete divine says that his clerics are "violent","intolerant",and that "they apply rigorous moral judgments to everythig". What i mean is that some deities look more rigorous about morality in general,while others look more indulgent. Helm is one that does not appear very indulgent (apparently).
Tyr has also the portfoli of knowledge,so this would lead his clerics to study "what is right?", "what is true", that would lead them to formulate mores. One of the teachings of tyr is exactly the formulation of mores abot everything. There are deities linked to the cycle of death and renewal, family ,of knowledge,truth, etc. That could be more restrictive (maybe),and even the evil deities of hate. But this im saying off-baldurs gate. Game should avoid getting weird or getting too deep in these polemics.
"There is no deity specifically of procreation or families"
There are deities with the portfolio "family" and "renewal" in the guide of complete divine. Also ,other portfolios may have indirect connections to these stuff.
----------------- kamuizin
"I dare to say the only group that could forbid homossexual relationships are druids (and only them), cos as you point pratically all the gods in Faerûn are too bound to their portifolios to have any interest in forbid gay relations, but even them aren't bound to this idea, as a druid has freedom to interpret nature."
Im saying this just for the same of curiosity about the realms ,and not directly about the bg content. Ed greenwood has stated that there is no stigma applyed in homosexuals and that there is no notion of sexual identity ,even though he also explained different cultures have different views regarding sexuality . However, this seems to mirror not the modern western society ,but the ancient and medieval cultures of japan and china. Where homosexuals had no stigma but homosexual relationships were still viewed differently than straight ones (for biological reasons that influence society).
However,some portfolios may have influence on the level of restriction and acceptance regarding relationships in general. Deities with portfolios (of varied alignments) like knowledge,order,hate,tiranny,renovation,family, planning,strength,nobility,etc. Could be (or not) more restritctive.
Also, what you said regarding druids (that they have freedom to interpret nature,since they are not connected to deities) is also true regarding monks.
Im logging off for now. Sorry guys ,if these posts are too extensive,is just that i want bg to keep its original spirit. And my intention was never to gay bash anyone or to demonstrate that there are "homophobic deities" in faeurinian religions. Just to make things less unilateral.
@Scypher1 We know because Ed Greenwood, creator of the Forgotten Realms, said so. And in 2nd edition (which Baldur's Gate is based on) Tyr's portfolio was only Justice. Knowledge was in Oghma's portfolio. And Complete Divine is 3rd edition, which is not Baldur's Gate's edition. This is why I have all my 2e stuff. Things changed in 3e.
Can we merge this endless argument into one big thread already? It's getting tiresome to have it in every other thread. I mean I used to try and fight the good fight but there's so much of it! I'm sick of having to defend my "lifestyle" to every stranger on the internet who thinks they know how everyone else should live. Let's just quarantine this whole mess in one thread.
@Shandyr As I said on another thread, Bruce Bagemihl published the book "Biological Exuberance", cataloguing the many species of animals which exhibit homosexual and bisexual behaviors. As it is, Bonobos probably remain the most well-known, but it's been seen in all sorts of animals including birds, insects, mammals like dolphins, lions and bison. Nine out of ten matings seen in giraffes occurs between two males rather than a male and a female. And in Penguins, there are penguins who will mate and pair-bond with another male, even given the choice of a female. Similarly among sheep- about 8% of male rams prefer another male ram over a female ewe. So I don't think Silvanus would particularly care.
Personally,i see the third edition forgotten guide as more detailed about generally everything. Though the visuals decayed. Miss the more medieval likeness of ad&d.
Anyway.Greenwood said this only after the third edition.Maybe that would make 3rd edition content to have some weight,in case his comment is accounted for.
Comments
"I'm pretty sure they can (follow no deity), which would make this even less of an issue. "
Monks follow an abstract spirituality. Not gods,thats why they are not as simple to deal as clerics. The game could easily put a gay or bi cleric of alustriel,for example.
Sorry for double repost,
Note: my edit in my last long post regarding banters did not work in the first time and is now corrected.
This is related to what you said about artificial/realism. I agree that it is a good thing that games have aspects of realism, but something is not good just because it is realistic....I don't think, for example, that it would be fun to add a system to a game which makes you have to eat every 8 hours and then go to the toilet. It's "realistic" but worthless. So, game designers must decide what things that are realistic improve the gameplay, and which things do not improve it. So how would adding the existence of sexually-discriminating religious codes improve the game? Being realistic doesn't automatically equal "good" so, to come full circle, why do you think it's a good thing? Reading your posts I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) you would find the world more immersive/believable because you'd think that with so many different people/races/cultures/etc, some people somewhere would be homophobic (different viewpoints and all that). I understand how you could think that was more immersive, but it seems to me to be a bit shallow. Having e.g. a homosexual npc adds a whole new possibility and extra content and immersive experience to a gamer (well, at least if done well), the expanded NPC interactions and romances are something that people love about BG2. Having Rasaad say "Yes there are many religions in Faerûn and in some you can't have sex, some it's that whole man-woman only rule, blah blah" seems very tiny and _purposefully_ mirroring a (IMO) negative aspect of the real world and thus requires some justification.
It's funny really, I wouldn't actually give a shit if your suggestion made it into the game, just, I'm confused as to why you thought it was important enough to make several long posts on it so I'm trying to understand that.
A character's personality has nothing to do with what makes a character's bumpy-uglies tingle all fun like (or hearts aflutter oh sigh). In fact I could see all of the new NPCs and the old ones too swinging merrily every which way. Of course sexuality can and does affect how someone develops but it isn't necessarily any major defining part of them or their behavior. Geez.
Edit 2: This was in response to something said somewhere above. I don't know. I have wine.
As for keeping characters in character, most of them don't really speak about who they are attracted to, and whether they prefer male or female. Yes, Nalia is engaged to that Roenall guy, but she doesn't like him, and she may not like him because she doesn't swing that way. We (the players) don't know, and neither the game nor Nalia actually says. There are very few characters we can point to as leaning one way or another. Yes, Jaheira and Khalid were married. So was/is Keldorn. Cernd had a child with a woman- he could still be bi. Skie is in love with Eldoth. Eldoth only seems to love himself. Coran seems to be an inveterate womanizer. Kivan was married and mourns his wife. Shar-Teel may prefer women (she certainly looks down on men), and Safana seems to prefer men. Sarevok loved Tamoko. Who else can we definitively say is one or the other?
Not that this would necessarily prohibit same-sex relations, since you can reproduce without having sex (artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or just plain magic in the Realms).
this way i'm just guessing and it is extremely not fun. :P
Ah Ch'hing is one of the nine immortals of Kara-Tur who oversees love and marriage. And Jisan in Zakhara symbolizes "fruitfulness".
Okay, so we can point to one deity that might frown on same-sex relationships.
@LadyRhian, at the risk of get a lot of flame, i could say that Chauntea and Silvanus (more Silvanus) maybe could have something against gay relations, as they're nature deities and gay relationships don't serve the instinct intent of sex that is continuation of the specie. But so does sex for pleasure don't intent continuation of the specie and would be in the same package, marriage itself is repulsive from nature perspective.
For nature the social behavior would not matter (as for both deities society is somehow irrelevant) they would only look in the matter from a instinct and organic perspective.
I dare to say the only group that could forbid homossexual relationships are druids (and only them), cos as you point pratically all the gods in Faerûn are too bound to their portifolios to have any interest in forbid gay relations, but even them aren't bound to this idea, as a druid has freedom to interpret nature.
We must remember that in faerûn the Christian interpretation doesn't exist (and i say interpretation based in my personal theological studies, as Jesus never said anything against homossexual relations, this is bullshit made by religious institutions that fake the society prejudice with stupid dogmas).
also, if we discuss natural, it would be natural to let a child/adult with any deformity or invalidity die, since such individual would be incapable to take care of himself and survive in his habitat, thus feeding the other animals.
as we see, we have a fact, but if we develop an argument further we must come into a clash with some kind of ideology or social construct. also, instincts tend to navigate us toward pleasure and sex is one such pleasure.
really, nature is a tricky argument that usually ends up in failure, being really a question of perspective, because it is hardly definable in itself.
just my 2c
edit- i just re- read the post for mistakes and add: i was not trying to lecture, i just think that any god or goddess could prohibit sexual variety for some ideological reason if she/he wished it, but i think realistically there is no inherent base for it.
Am i bad for say this? No, neither good or bad i'm just describing a nature behavior that is the sole point of my previous post.
"It's funny really, I wouldn't actually give a shit if your suggestion made it into the game, just, I'm confused as to why you thought it was important enough to make several long posts on it so I'm trying to understand that. "
If this was not about baldurs gate,but a random rpg. I would not post a single letter here. But,wish you or not these changes also change the original nature of the game. What was scapist becames not anymore. As Issues and polemics are being added. But whatever. If this is going into the game, lets at least optimize things to be the least pollitical and the more intelligent possible.
Baldurs gate is a game of the past,where these things were not put in games. So,lets at least be careful in adding them,so the original spirit of the game,which is of neutrality in these stuff, is preserved.
Also,im as tired of this discussion as you (this discussion sucks) and im sorry for these big posts. I just feel obliged to make the game stay more or less how it was originally. If you want to discuss other thing,just dully note what i said here and proceed to some other discussion (or change the direction of this topic) . Im only answering posts directed to me anyway.
"The point is that sexually-exclusive codes of religion in a fantasy world have to be added by its creators, the writers. The reason why I say this might be slightly alienating to some players is as to why it was felt necessary to add this to the fantasy world. A fantasy world indifferent/positive to homosexually-orientated peeps is potentially quite engaging for that audience, offering something that real life by and large doesn't. "
Look,im not saying that homosexuality should be openly discussed in the games. Read my last posts. What i said was that different orders would seen it with different eyes (some more open,some less ,mainly because of chastity codes). When i think about faerun ,i think the situation there would be like in ancient china, not in modern boston. In ancient china people were neutral of homosexuality but still viewed it differently. Mainly because sexual identity did not exist as we know today.
It is weird to adopt a point of pro-homosexuality or against homosexuality and discuss a polemic in the game. No doubt of that. Thats why bg games did not touch in the subject.
But if it is to start putting this in the game it would be better to not place in a monk exactly because this begs the question of chastity in monasteries. And it does not matter if the relationship is straight of gay, charname asking if he could have a relationship because he is a monk would still be a pertinent banter to put.
"Having Rasaad say "Yes there are many religions in Faerûn and in some you can't have sex, some it's that whole man-woman only rule, blah blah" seems very tiny and _purposefully_ mirroring a (IMO) negative aspect of the real world and thus requires some justification."
Yes,it would be weird ,but im not saying this. Also it would also be weird to extrapolate in the way of dealing with these things in the game. Putting a couple of same sex monk npcs ot people openly adopting a pro-homosexual attitude ,for example. I think would be kinda over the top.
Thats why these things are not discussed in the faerun manual to begin with. It would be bizarre if the game said "the clerics of bane are homophobics" or "tyr only accepts straight marriages" ,as it would be to speak of the opposite like "all clerics love gays" or "there are gay parades in cormyr" it would be bizarre stuff to put in a scapist game. However,homosexual relationships are still talked with because homosexuality exists in the realms, which is kinda obvious. The basic manual talks of a lesbian couple, yanseldara and vaeranna,for example.
So,about the banter. What i suggested was something like this:
Charname: Asks if rasaad can have relationships,since he is a monk.
Rasaad:Says some orders have chastity codes, some allow monks to marry and have families,his order is overall neutral regarding relationships.
Charname:ok ...
A banter that is pertinent,given the context and backstory of rasaad.
"Alustriel is not a deity, she's a high level magic user that rules Silverymoon, and a chosen of Mystra"
Sorry,but Im kinda rusty about d&d stuff (some years since the game group split). To tell the truth even though i have the basic forgotton realms manual and the complete divine guide,my favorite setting was always ravenloft .
"And there is not a single deity in the Realms which specifically forbids same-sex relations. "
It would be weird to explictly put these things in the game. In games there is generally an avoidance of polemics to mantain the spirit lighty hearted. The forgotten realms do nor mention anything abou these stuff so in reality we dont know. We just know that in forgotten realms there is no stigma to homosexuals since there is no sexual identity. However that does not mean that homosexual relationships are viewed exactly the same as hetero ones (for biological reasons) or that some deities and orders have more reserves about it than others. I think that even though ed green wood said that there was not notions of homophobia in the realms,he also said (according to candle keep forum) that each people and culture sees sexuality differently.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13186&whichpage=89
"Deities, I suspect wouldn't care because it's not part of their portfolio"
You say that deities are only linked to their porfolios. But some of them have multiple ones, take tyr for example. His descryption in the guide of complete divine says that his clerics are "violent","intolerant",and that "they apply rigorous moral judgments to everythig". What i mean is that some deities look more rigorous about morality in general,while others look more indulgent. Helm is one that does not appear very indulgent (apparently).
Tyr has also the portfoli of knowledge,so this would lead his clerics to study "what is right?", "what is true", that would lead them to formulate mores. One of the teachings of tyr is exactly the formulation of mores abot everything. There are deities linked to the cycle of death and renewal, family ,of knowledge,truth, etc. That could be more restrictive (maybe),and even the evil deities of hate.
But this im saying off-baldurs gate. Game should avoid getting weird or getting too deep in these polemics.
"There is no deity specifically of procreation or families"
There are deities with the portfolio "family" and "renewal" in the guide of complete divine. Also ,other portfolios may have indirect connections to these stuff.
-----------------
kamuizin
"I dare to say the only group that could forbid homossexual relationships are druids (and only them), cos as you point pratically all the gods in Faerûn are too bound to their portifolios to have any interest in forbid gay relations, but even them aren't bound to this idea, as a druid has freedom to interpret nature."
Im saying this just for the same of curiosity about the realms ,and not directly about the bg content.
Ed greenwood has stated that there is no stigma applyed in homosexuals and that there is no notion of sexual identity ,even though he also explained different cultures have different views regarding sexuality . However, this seems to mirror not the modern western society ,but the ancient and medieval cultures of japan and china. Where homosexuals had no stigma but homosexual relationships were still viewed differently than straight ones (for biological reasons that influence society).
However,some portfolios may have influence on the level of restriction and acceptance regarding relationships in general. Deities with portfolios (of varied alignments) like knowledge,order,hate,tiranny,renovation,family, planning,strength,nobility,etc. Could be (or not) more restritctive.
Also, what you said regarding druids (that they have freedom to interpret nature,since they are not connected to deities) is also true regarding monks.
Im logging off for now. Sorry guys ,if these posts are too extensive,is just that i want bg to keep its original spirit. And my intention was never to gay bash anyone or to demonstrate that there are "homophobic deities" in faeurinian religions. Just to make things less unilateral.
Anyway.Greenwood said this only after the third edition.Maybe that would make 3rd edition content to have some weight,in case his comment is accounted for.
Bye.
Oh please, give them another hetero woman...
This never-ending discussion start to be ridiculous.