Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Need help designing a deity that isn't a total ripoff of Dibella from Elder Scrolls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6287245" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Well, to quibble, I find those to be inherently the same thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I love the English language, but it's woefully underequipped to discuss the topic of 'love'. Generally the word is used to mean a variaty of in some cases completely unrelated topics and ideas. I would much prefer if we distinguish what we mean by love in a particular context by using the Greek, if you are familiar with it.</p><p></p><p>For example, "Im-Tinar also strongly condemns rape as a perversion of both love and sex.", is very modern and all but rape - while clearly being the opposite of 'love' as a modern English speaker would define it - is not the opposite of or even opposed to the concept of eros. To quote Olaf from Frozen, giving one conventional definition of love (that I happen to like), "love is putting someone else’s needs above your own". But eros, which is often translated as 'love' in English, and its overall traits often displayed in English media (movies, books, etc.) under the general heading love actually means more like "the desire to possess". Under that definition, you can rape someone you 'love' and it is not a contridiction but an expression of 'love'. This can be seen in the very common rape motif that appears in Greek myth. In fact, in Greek myth when men 'love' a woman, there first and overwhelming desire is to rape her. This was not seen as contridictory at the time and while it disgusts us now (I'd hope), that general definition of love is extremely common in society so that in general when someone speaks of 'love' in English the notion of 'the desire to possess' and 'to put someone else's needs above your own' are bound up together as if they werent' (mostlly) in contridiction.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is going to be really hard to explain outside of very modern conceptions that depend on a history your world is probably not going to share with our own. Indeed, Im-Tinar is increasingly sounding to me as if she only makes sense in the real world post 1960's. If Im-Tinar is the god of love as Olaf from frozen defined it, then she need not also be the god of eros nor even think them related. If Im-Tinar is the god of love in the erotic sense, then she need not be necessarily concerned with love as Olaf defined it. If somehow she is both the god of love as Olaf defined it and the god of eros, then she has to reconcile those two positions. I don't know how you do that while having "few restrictions on what sort of love it may be", because clearly the desire to possess and the desire to put someone elses needs first are in some amount of contridiction. You yourself later introduce at least 2 restrictions - not betraying, consensual, on the expression of 'love' as the unity of those things. I think more would probably occur to us as we discussed it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure how that is actually confusion. To not take a stance is generally correctly regarded as a stance itself - the passive stance.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, Im-Tinar strikes me as anachronistic here. For example, under traditional Hindu traditions regarding 'love' - say as outlined in the Kama Sutra - secretly cheating on a lover because you desired someone else (or under about a dozen other reasons) wouldn't have been seen as a betrayal of love but a celebration of it. Instead of actually espousing her own coherent position, she seems to be striking an incoherent position which is mostly defined by the ways it is in opposition to the orthodox or rival position - though without defining why that position should be orthodox in the first place. Why is In-Tinar's view not the default view of society? What makes her have so little influence? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is it? That too is a stance on beauty that will need to be decided on. Not all goddesses of beauty would agree. The idea of the inverted goddess of beauty I mentioned earlier - a goddess of ugly - was precisely that beauty was subjective. But if you can't also be a goddess of ugly, then certainly you aren't a goddess that says beauty is subjective. The Greeks certainly didn't feel beauty was subjective. They would have defined beauty as the thing that inspires eros - the desire to possess it - and would have mostly believed that it was a universal attribute. Certainly the Poruqe as you describe them don't seem to be the sorts that think beauty is subjective. Rather the opposite, they seem to believe that beauty is the ideal - an external Platonic reality to strive to - and that ugly, far from being a mere perception existing only in the mind, is a real flaw in reality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6287245, member: 4937"] Well, to quibble, I find those to be inherently the same thing. I love the English language, but it's woefully underequipped to discuss the topic of 'love'. Generally the word is used to mean a variaty of in some cases completely unrelated topics and ideas. I would much prefer if we distinguish what we mean by love in a particular context by using the Greek, if you are familiar with it. For example, "Im-Tinar also strongly condemns rape as a perversion of both love and sex.", is very modern and all but rape - while clearly being the opposite of 'love' as a modern English speaker would define it - is not the opposite of or even opposed to the concept of eros. To quote Olaf from Frozen, giving one conventional definition of love (that I happen to like), "love is putting someone else’s needs above your own". But eros, which is often translated as 'love' in English, and its overall traits often displayed in English media (movies, books, etc.) under the general heading love actually means more like "the desire to possess". Under that definition, you can rape someone you 'love' and it is not a contridiction but an expression of 'love'. This can be seen in the very common rape motif that appears in Greek myth. In fact, in Greek myth when men 'love' a woman, there first and overwhelming desire is to rape her. This was not seen as contridictory at the time and while it disgusts us now (I'd hope), that general definition of love is extremely common in society so that in general when someone speaks of 'love' in English the notion of 'the desire to possess' and 'to put someone else's needs above your own' are bound up together as if they werent' (mostlly) in contridiction. This is going to be really hard to explain outside of very modern conceptions that depend on a history your world is probably not going to share with our own. Indeed, Im-Tinar is increasingly sounding to me as if she only makes sense in the real world post 1960's. If Im-Tinar is the god of love as Olaf from frozen defined it, then she need not also be the god of eros nor even think them related. If Im-Tinar is the god of love in the erotic sense, then she need not be necessarily concerned with love as Olaf defined it. If somehow she is both the god of love as Olaf defined it and the god of eros, then she has to reconcile those two positions. I don't know how you do that while having "few restrictions on what sort of love it may be", because clearly the desire to possess and the desire to put someone elses needs first are in some amount of contridiction. You yourself later introduce at least 2 restrictions - not betraying, consensual, on the expression of 'love' as the unity of those things. I think more would probably occur to us as we discussed it. I'm not sure how that is actually confusion. To not take a stance is generally correctly regarded as a stance itself - the passive stance. Again, Im-Tinar strikes me as anachronistic here. For example, under traditional Hindu traditions regarding 'love' - say as outlined in the Kama Sutra - secretly cheating on a lover because you desired someone else (or under about a dozen other reasons) wouldn't have been seen as a betrayal of love but a celebration of it. Instead of actually espousing her own coherent position, she seems to be striking an incoherent position which is mostly defined by the ways it is in opposition to the orthodox or rival position - though without defining why that position should be orthodox in the first place. Why is In-Tinar's view not the default view of society? What makes her have so little influence? Is it? That too is a stance on beauty that will need to be decided on. Not all goddesses of beauty would agree. The idea of the inverted goddess of beauty I mentioned earlier - a goddess of ugly - was precisely that beauty was subjective. But if you can't also be a goddess of ugly, then certainly you aren't a goddess that says beauty is subjective. The Greeks certainly didn't feel beauty was subjective. They would have defined beauty as the thing that inspires eros - the desire to possess it - and would have mostly believed that it was a universal attribute. Certainly the Poruqe as you describe them don't seem to be the sorts that think beauty is subjective. Rather the opposite, they seem to believe that beauty is the ideal - an external Platonic reality to strive to - and that ugly, far from being a mere perception existing only in the mind, is a real flaw in reality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Need help designing a deity that isn't a total ripoff of Dibella from Elder Scrolls
Top