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="System Ufera" data-source="post: 6287313" data-attributes="member: 6671268"><p>Well, these are all good points...</p><p></p><p>As far as the anachronism issue goes, I admit that it is happening, but is it really a problem? It's a fictional setting, after all, and there's no requirement that it must reflect any given thing that came before it.</p><p></p><p>As far as the different kinds of love goes, I didn't even realize it at first, but Im-Tinar is more and more resembling what little I know of the concept of Starfire from the Teen Titans comics (I could be wrong, since most of what I "know" about it is pieced together from various Cracked.com articles and my own assumptions about what DC was <em>trying </em>to do with the concept). Basically, Im-Tinar is kind of an "outsider," who is confused by what she sees as arbitrary and nonsensical values in society.</p><p></p><p>To clarify, I'll take back what I said earlier about there being few restrictions on what sort of love is okay, since it's kind of a misspoken statement with inaccurate implications. When I said that earlier statement, I was using the word "love" as shorthand for not only itself, but also the expressions of love, and the actions in which it manifests; while convenient, it's not exactly accurate.</p><p></p><p>Basically, her definition of "love" is that it is passionate attraction (like Eros) that is tempered by the requirement that there must be greater care for the interests and well-being recipient of the attraction's than for oneself (like Olaf). To Im-Tinar, a feeling merely being passionate attraction is not enough for said feeling to be love (more like selfish lust), and caring more for another than for oneself without being passionately attracted to the other is just really good friendship. To Im-Tinar, love, in and of itself, is no less, and no more, than that.</p><p></p><p>That said, building a relationship on love would be its own concept; it would require the presence of love, of course, but it would be recognized that more conditions would be necessary for there to be a relationship, and even more for the relationship to function well. That's where mutuality, consent and honesty (and other concepts that I don't haven't taken the right courses in college to understand) come into play. At that point, I guess it's safe to say that Im-Tinar's domain of love covers not only love itself, but also the relationships it builds.</p><p></p><p> There are ways in which love is expressed, such as sex, but the connection is unnecessary and more symbolic than anything else. Because there is still a symbolic connection recognized by most of society, Im-Tinar recognizes that some couples would be offended by sex outside the couple's union, but it's not the act of having sex so much as the betrayal of the terms of the union that Im-Tinar has a problem with. If a couple came together with the terms that neither would eat a certain type of food (arbitrary and strange though that may be), if that type of food were eaten by one of the members of the couple, the terms would be betrayed, and Im-Tinar would not be happy. In other words, to Im-Tinar, to betray love has little to do with what action is performed.</p><p></p><p>So, at that point, sex itself would probably be categorized as part of a larger domain separate from love, perhaps "pleasure." I dunno. My head's been hurting for a couple days now, and I kind of want to rest after writing, rewriting, rethinking, and correcting all of the things I just said. I'll discuss beauty later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="System Ufera, post: 6287313, member: 6671268"] Well, these are all good points... As far as the anachronism issue goes, I admit that it is happening, but is it really a problem? It's a fictional setting, after all, and there's no requirement that it must reflect any given thing that came before it. As far as the different kinds of love goes, I didn't even realize it at first, but Im-Tinar is more and more resembling what little I know of the concept of Starfire from the Teen Titans comics (I could be wrong, since most of what I "know" about it is pieced together from various Cracked.com articles and my own assumptions about what DC was [I]trying [/I]to do with the concept). Basically, Im-Tinar is kind of an "outsider," who is confused by what she sees as arbitrary and nonsensical values in society. To clarify, I'll take back what I said earlier about there being few restrictions on what sort of love is okay, since it's kind of a misspoken statement with inaccurate implications. When I said that earlier statement, I was using the word "love" as shorthand for not only itself, but also the expressions of love, and the actions in which it manifests; while convenient, it's not exactly accurate. Basically, her definition of "love" is that it is passionate attraction (like Eros) that is tempered by the requirement that there must be greater care for the interests and well-being recipient of the attraction's than for oneself (like Olaf). To Im-Tinar, a feeling merely being passionate attraction is not enough for said feeling to be love (more like selfish lust), and caring more for another than for oneself without being passionately attracted to the other is just really good friendship. To Im-Tinar, love, in and of itself, is no less, and no more, than that. That said, building a relationship on love would be its own concept; it would require the presence of love, of course, but it would be recognized that more conditions would be necessary for there to be a relationship, and even more for the relationship to function well. That's where mutuality, consent and honesty (and other concepts that I don't haven't taken the right courses in college to understand) come into play. At that point, I guess it's safe to say that Im-Tinar's domain of love covers not only love itself, but also the relationships it builds. There are ways in which love is expressed, such as sex, but the connection is unnecessary and more symbolic than anything else. Because there is still a symbolic connection recognized by most of society, Im-Tinar recognizes that some couples would be offended by sex outside the couple's union, but it's not the act of having sex so much as the betrayal of the terms of the union that Im-Tinar has a problem with. If a couple came together with the terms that neither would eat a certain type of food (arbitrary and strange though that may be), if that type of food were eaten by one of the members of the couple, the terms would be betrayed, and Im-Tinar would not be happy. In other words, to Im-Tinar, to betray love has little to do with what action is performed. So, at that point, sex itself would probably be categorized as part of a larger domain separate from love, perhaps "pleasure." I dunno. My head's been hurting for a couple days now, and I kind of want to rest after writing, rewriting, rethinking, and correcting all of the things I just said. I'll discuss beauty later. [/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