D&D General Can There Be Non-Problematic Fertility Deities?

[Indagare Nogitsune]

So, this sort of thing has been on my mind a while. In real life Fertility Deities are practically everywhere. For D&D, I don't think there's ever been a Fertility Domain. I am aware that such a domain could quickly go into problematic territory, which is why the topic is a question.

The related (and possibly less problematic domain) could be Abundance. Making sure of plentiful crops, that animals stay well and healthy, that food stores are ample, and related topics that aren't necessarily related to having babies.

Thoughts on this?

 

[spacedarwin]

Quite frankly I don't see how a Fertility deity would be problematic unless you ran it as evil in its alignment.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

So, this sort of thing has been on my mind a while. In real life Fertility Deities are practically everywhere. For D&D, I don't think there's ever been a Fertility Domain. I am aware that such a domain could quickly go into problematic territory, which is why the topic is a question.

The related (and possibly less problematic domain) could be Abundance. Making sure of plentiful crops, that animals stay well and healthy, that food stores are ample, and related topics that aren't necessarily related to having babies.

Thoughts on this?

While they're stepping away from using real life deities in D&D, they have been in D&D before with domains given. They are also deities from settings such as Forgotten Realms who could be considered Fertility Deities too.

They've generally been given the Life Domain as Clerics, some have been given the Nature Domain (which hasn't been converted to 5.5e yet)

 

[Silam]

Using vanilla rules, I would think that either a Life Cleric or a Druid (though not sure which subclass is best) would be fine ways to build a worshipper of a fertility cult or deity. Could be a multi-class of these two also, though usually that's frowned upon from an optimization perspective. There are existing homebrew takes on that concept also, though I don't know if they appeal to you (I haven't looked at them myself, so don't have any opinion).

 

[Reynard]

I am aware that such a domain could quickly go into problematic territory, which is why the topic is a question.

I'm not. What do you think would be likely problematic about it?

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Papa Nurgle remains an unproblematic fav.

Not all fertility gods gotta be BBWs of Willendorf. Sometimes the fertility they represent is rot, decay and rebirth.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not. What do you think would be likely problematic about it?

My guess is fertility is tied to Secks. But you could probably avoid that if you focused on agriculture, animal husbandry, family, children and marriage rather love or passion. Hesta is a lot less problematic than Aphrodite.

 

[Remathilis]

So, this sort of thing has been on my mind a while. In real life Fertility Deities are practically everywhere. For D&D, I don't think there's ever been a Fertility Domain. I am aware that such a domain could quickly go into problematic territory, which is why the topic is a question.

The related (and possibly less problematic domain) could be Abundance. Making sure of plentiful crops, that animals stay well and healthy, that food stores are ample, and related topics that aren't necessarily related to having babies.

Thoughts on this?

3e had a feast domain that was more about harvest and hearth. You would probably mix things like heroes feast, create food and water and good berry when spells that improve crops (plant growth) or animals (charm animal).

 

[Reynard]

My guess is fertility is tied to Secks. But you could probably avoid that if you focused on agriculture, animal husbandry, family, children and marriage rather love or passion. Hesta is a lot less problematic than Aphrodite.

The idea that procreative, consensual sex is somehow inherently problematic is just plain nonsense.

 

[prabe]

The idea that procreative, consensual sex is somehow inherently problematic is just plain nonsense.

That's often (usually, even) not where the problem is, though.