Sex and Sexuality in D&D. . .

[Geron Raveneye]

I tend to avoid sexual issues when I run games, though. If PCs did insist on frequenting brothels they may eventually find themselves with a new alignment, however.

As long as they know your alignment interpretations cover that, and how, that's perfectly valid.

I'd add a few interesting STDs, though.

Actually, that would be an interesting adventure hook...a character who frequently visits brothels ending up with a STD that can't simply be cured with a wave of a wand because the goddess of chastity (or marital fidelity, or whatever) has put a curse on all brothels that the diseases they transfer are not easily healed, and it requires a little bit of diplomatic tap-dancing with the local temple of that goddess to get the disease removed again.

 

[Pagan priest]

I see it as a Good/Evil issue. "Lawful" vs. "Chaotic", in the 9-part alignment system anyway, is more about methodology. But I consider sexual behavior as a moral object. And so I would put chastity, marital fidelity and fecundity on the side of Good, and promiscuous and sterile behavior on the side of Evil (though I think that people with Neutral or even Good alignments sometimes, or even habitually, commit objectively Evil acts... it's just that there are mitigating factors). I know that opinion might irritate some folks, but since you've taken the lead here I feel safe in responding with my own estimation. My estimation, while linked to a real world body of theology, is also something I consider to be rooted in "natural law" and so should apply to fantasy worlds just as well as to the real world.

However, as with all alignment issues, I think the particulars of it kind of have to vary with the individual DM. Alignments are so open to interpretation that you get wide variance and there's no way around it: I have seen some DMs who think that slaying helpless captives who happen to be Evil is a Good act; even one who thought that slaying baby Hobgoblins was Lawful Good. Myself, I find those acts entirely Evil. However, a player has to sort of "go with the flow" when it comes to alignment adjudications... you can still have your character abstain from behavior you don't like but that the DM thinks is Good and still play a Good character (I should think).

I tend to avoid sexual issues when I run games, though. If PCs did insist on frequenting brothels they may eventually find themselves with a new alignment, however.

Okay, why? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but why do you think that promiscuity is in any way a "not good" behaviour? You mentioned natural law, but how does that apply here? I am aware that numersous real world religions consider casual sex un-good, but how does that translate into D&D, when (as I mentioned) so much of that really seems to translate to the lawful/chaos axis?

 

[Samnell]

And so I would put chastity, marital fidelity and fecundity on the side of Good, and promiscuous and sterile behavior on the side of Evil

Why? I have trouble seeing how the amount of consensual sex one has is of any moral dimension whatsoever. Furthermore, your definition of the sexual good is self-refuting. If chastity is good, and you mean by it electing not to have sex, then it is the opposite of fecundity, which does involve sex. Furthermore, chastity sounds like a pretty sterile behavior to me, and fecundity is easily abetted by promiscuity. I might grand marital fidelity as a good, but if all parties involved are agreed I wouldn't see open marriages as a bad.

 

[Mardoc Redcloak]

Wait, is there consent given, or not.

It's not so simple, morally.

Someone's drowning in a river. I can save him easily... but I tell him that I will only do so under the condition that he become my slave for life. He agrees.

Is that "consensual"? In a very weak, non-substantive sense, maybe. Is it morally acceptable? Not at all.

With plenty of clerics and paladins sticking their noses into every pimp's business,

If we assume such a great number of powerful good-aligned individuals involved in regulating brothels, might there not also be powerful evil-aligned hirelings protecting them?

If a person is consenting, freely consenting, then why would prostitution be a moral problem?

It would not be. But the standard of genuinely free consent requires a whole lot more than is often supposed. There are many means of compulsion that do not fall so neatly into "outright force" (or, in the D&D universe, mind control.)

In general, I see wedlock and fidelity in general as issues of law/chaos rather than good/evil.

Adhering to traditional, stable, rule-bound, static relationships is lawful.

Non-traditional, fluid relationships (or nothing worthy of the term "relationship") are chaotic.

Cheating requires a certain dishonesty and neglect for the feelings of others, and is thus evil (though obviously not as much as, say, murder.) Of course, in relationships between (or among) chaotic characters what constitutes "cheating" may be quite flexible.

Married and cheating? Chaotic. For this, I would consider something to be cheating if any erson involved does not know and consent tot he activities of another, so a man with two wives who also sees a mistress is cheating.

I can't see a chaotic good character doing that. Indeed, for the chaotic good character I would suppose that the important moral elements in a decent relationship would precisely be knowledge and consent... to whatever arrangement the participants prefer, regardless of social tradition.

Of course, if a man with a wife who says "I'm sick tonight, why don't you go get a prostitute?" is NOT cheating, under this framework.

No, but certainly, insofar as "traditional" relationships prohibit sexual contacts with non-participants, this is chaotic behavior.

 

[Korgoth]

Okay, why? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but why do you think that promiscuity is in any way a "not good" behaviour? You mentioned natural law, but how does that apply here? I am aware that numersous real world religions consider casual sex un-good, but how does that translate into D&D, when (as I mentioned) so much of that really seems to translate to the lawful/chaos axis?

OK, I'll take a stab at it. I'll try to frame it in a way such that it can be abstracted from specifically Hebraic affiliations.

Anything attains its excellence insofar as it imitates the eternal (and if it is already immortal, then insofar as it imitates the most purely eternal). This is the basis for the cycle of life, evolution and weal. Each different kind of thing is relatively more or less capable of such imitation (a dog moreso than a daisy, etc.). The basic proper orientation of life (according to the view I am representing to you) is to preserve and produce life. The basic mechanism for the production of life is sexual procreation.

A person does not have to be procreating all the time (time must be spent preserving life, and for human beings there are also other things to be done, as I will explain in a moment). But when one does engage in sexual activity, it would be contrary to our natural excellence to deliberately frustrate the act's capacity for fecundity. The end of the act is procreation. That it can be enjoyed is secondary and a result of the passions (but enjoying it is not bad, when it is done under the right circumstances). Of course with human beings, who are rational, there's a further and in fact more perfect way of imitating the eternal: contemplation of the truth. There is even a 'procreative' aspect to this when the truth is conveyed in conversation. And the highest form of life is the contemplation of the highest truths. However, this does not mean that the other activities, including sexual procreation, are to be discarded in the pursuit of the most perfect life. On the contrary, these activities are related to the superior activity of contemplation as subordinates, just like horse grooming, bridle-making and cavalry tactics are subordinates of generalship (though each and every subordinate activity is not necessary to produce the superior; however, when a subordinate activity is undertaken it must be undertaken in a rational way or else it will undermine the imitation of the purely eternal).

See especially the speech of Socrates (really, of Diotima) in Plato's Symposium, and Aristotle's books Physics (especially Book Two), On the Soul and Nicomachean Ethics. The Stoics are also helpful in this regard.

This is not an issue of Law and Chaos in my view because those (in the 9-part system) are methodologies. A Good character who is strict, disciplined and a disciplinarian is Lawful; a Good character who is easygoing, undisciplined and "mushy" is Chaotic. Lawful tries to instill goodness with a ruler to the knuckles and a rigorous regimen; Chaotic tries to instill the same morality with group hugs and homemade cookies. Lawful tries to bring about change by "working within the system"; Chaotic tries to bring about change by "bucking the system".

I should note that as primarily a Classic and OD&D guy, I tend toward the 3-part alignment system, which has no alignments for "Good" or "Evil" (nothing codified, anyway).

Now to consider the specific issues of chastity and promiscuity: I consider chastity good because it is fully in accord with the rational (procreative) nature of the sexual act. Nothing says that you have to procreate, though you are bound to imitate the eternal in some way, so if you cannot or will not do so sexually then you ought to channel that energy into the rational form of imitation, i.e. contemplation and rational activity; this shows how abstinence can actually fuel your pursuit of the pure as a subordinate act. Now, what I would say about sterile promiscuity is surely obvious. But what about fecund promiscuity? I consider this contrary to reason because it erodes the family life, confuses children, and presents a barrier to the complete gift of spouse to spouse... that is, a spouse is required to give himself or herself over to his or her spouse in a unique and central way which is prevented if sexual activity were being practiced outside of the marital dyad.

 

[Samnell]

Anything attains its excellence insofar as it imitates the eternal (and if it is already immortal, then insofar as it imitates the most purely eternal).

Why is that?

I'm sorry. That's a bad response. It sounds like a first grader being irritating. But I can't come up with much else that wouldn't dive right into religion or politics. Guess that's it for me here. I do appreciate that you were willing to respond, though.

 

[phindar]

I think being free with one's affection is Good, and repression is Evil. (Well, I don't get into the whole GvE that much, but it seems like sexual repression is more common in serial killers than promiscuity.)

It seems like putting Alignment restrictions on morality that would differ from religion to religion would be somewhat problematic. Tyr might frown on sex outside of wedlock, but Sune might encourage it. Sexual attitudes seem to be more defined by cultural traditions than anything else.

 

[Pagan priest]

OK, I'll take a stab at it. I'll try to frame it in a way such that it can be abstracted from specifically Hebraic affiliations.

Anything attains its excellence insofar as it imitates the eternal (and if it is already immortal, then insofar as it imitates the most purely eternal).

This is where I start to disagree with you. For an ephermial being, imitating the eternal is a path to unhappiness. Or rather, to blindly imitate the eternal is a path to unhappiness. "Excellence" can only be defined by looking at what something is, and what it can become. To be eternal is to be static, to be static is to never grow, an ephermial that never grows remains a baby.

This is the basis for the cycle of life, evolution and weal. Each different kind of thing is relatively more or less capable of such imitation (a dog moreso than a daisy, etc.). The basic proper orientation of life (according to the view I am representing to you) is to preserve and produce life. The basic mechanism for the production of life is sexual procreation.

A person does not have to be procreating all the time (time must be spent preserving life, and for human beings there are also other things to be done, as I will explain in a moment). But when one does engage in sexual activity, it would be contrary to our natural excellence to deliberately frustrate the act's capacity for fecundity. The end of the act is procreation. That it can be enjoyed is secondary and a result of the passions (but enjoying it is not bad, when it is done under the right circumstances).

But for humans, and preseumably other humanoids as well, most acts of sex are NOT about procreation, but are about pleasure. It is hard-wired into the system, thus you are going against that which lies at the very core of human-ness. Instead, the pleasure is about creating a bond, and in the context of that bond, new life can be nurtured to maturity.

Of course with human beings, who are rational, there's a further and in fact more perfect way of imitating the eternal: contemplation of the truth. There is even a 'procreative' aspect to this when the truth is conveyed in conversation. And the highest form of life is the contemplation of the highest truths.

Having a few naval-gazers may be okay for a society, but if you are claiming that it is the highest good, then you are claiming that everyone should be doing that, and society immediately goes into the toilet, because there is o one left to cook supper, or dig a new outhouse. Running away from reality is never a good thing.

However, this does not mean that the other activities, including sexual procreation, are to be discarded in the pursuit of the most perfect life. On the contrary, these activities are related to the superior activity of contemplation as subordinates, just like horse grooming, bridle-making and cavalry tactics are subordinates of generalship (though each and every subordinate activity is not necessary to produce the superior; however, when a subordinate activity is undertaken it must be undertaken in a rational way or else it will undermine the imitation of the purely eternal).

See especially the speech of Socrates (really, of Diotima) in Plato's Symposium, and Aristotle's books Physics (especially Book Two), On the Soul and Nicomachean Ethics. The Stoics are also helpful in this regard.

This is not an issue of Law and Chaos in my view because those (in the 9-part system) are methodologies. A Good character who is strict, disciplined and a disciplinarian is Lawful; a Good character who is easygoing, undisciplined and "mushy" is Chaotic. Lawful tries to instill goodness with a ruler to the knuckles and a rigorous regimen; Chaotic tries to instill the same morality with group hugs and homemade cookies. Lawful tries to bring about change by "working within the system"; Chaotic tries to bring about change by "bucking the system".

I should note that as primarily a Classic and OD&D guy, I tend toward the 3-part alignment system, which has no alignments for "Good" or "Evil" (nothing codified, anyway).

Now to consider the specific issues of chastity and promiscuity: I consider chastity good because it is fully in accord with the rational (procreative) nature of the sexual act.

"Good", as per the PHB, relates to altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of others. Chastity is not inherantly any of these.

Nothing says that you have to procreate, though you are bound to imitate the eternal in some way, so if you cannot or will not do so sexually then you ought to channel that energy into the rational form of imitation, i.e. contemplation and rational activity; this shows how abstinence can actually fuel your pursuit of the pure as a subordinate act. Now, what I would say about sterile promiscuity is surely obvious.

Promiscuity at least shares pleasure, and thus fits into good as an altuistic act.

But what about fecund promiscuity? I consider this contrary to reason because it erodes the family life, confuses children, and presents a barrier to the complete gift of spouse to spouse... that is, a spouse is required to give himself or herself over to his or her spouse in a unique and central way which is prevented if sexual activity were being practiced outside of the marital dyad.

Fecund promiscuity erodes family life or confuses children only to the extent that there is an expectation of chastity. In other words, back to the law/chaos point again. If a child is raised in a society that considers it to be the norm for women to get pregnant by an unknown man while celebrating the coming of Spring, there will be NO confusion... that is what is normal.

You end with the assumption that a marital dyad is harmed by non-fidelity. What of the marital triad? What of a marital dyad that accepts that one or both partners will occassionaly seek outside pleasures, but the dyad is a constant amongst these ephermial pleasures? It is certainly possible to define a marital dyad that allows for a unique and central gift of one spouse to another, while still having room for outside sexual relationships that never touch on this.